Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
— '^"V^^fet'srrxoi^
'>^AvO/^eJf^-^ C^OiL^'p^xC
f>v
•Q^aSS elivv\^v\e. ~ Vlp>\/<uZ.lu, \i Q ,^3b^ 1 f^Oc^ Ao^ -Vav-'S.
'Ve.VAo-^ v^:>^>ocPvH(^ QiJlV \i^
XAd'vW i:'V^)^SX^\^<2V\^
Cilc-^tV-- r\<^ W-W Ab Cg\v>^\u\ xM ]
V. ORDER
It appears to the court that plaintiff has complied with the requirements of28 U.S.C.
ORDERED
as follows:
(1) The action is conditionally filed as a prisoner civil rights action, pending satisfaction of
the requirement set forth herein. Plaintiff is advised that the court will not adjudicate
legal and factual matters discussed in either a pleading or motion in this conditionally
filed action until plaintiff cures the deficiencies noted in this Order. Accordingly,
plaintiff is encouraged to first resolve the noted deficiencies before filing motions or
pleadings.
(2) Plaintiff has been assessed fees of$400.00 in this case, which includes a $50.00
administrative fee. The $400.00 must be paid before a civil action can proceed unless
(3) Plaintiff is hereby directed to execute the enclosed consent to withholding offees form in
§ 1915(b), which allows plaintiffto pay the $350.00 filing fee in installments. If plaintiff
is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. plaintiff will not be required to pay the
or t Gs-s'oAdAAV.-
S is Scb3.."V PeV.V.o^,
-Vo 4+^^ C«v.(0-V^
And 0.ACUO
Pe,7ji.A®N A ^ i^cAof^ S^bydnnV.nt po.r^- o-/?
O.S.C, '2.- C, -Vo dHe c'A.A^S oCcoiiPsd ' li
ofAirs-.oA^ 3--3
9)eQ>Aas4e<4 Pxzt ■^Vr X>dV,^''^ •
3
Case 2:20-cv-00250-RAJ-DEM Document 1 Filed 05/18/20 Page 5 of 19 PageID# 5
H
Case 2:20-cv-00250-RAJ-DEM Document 1 Filed 05/18/20 Page 6 of 19 PageID# 6
o
V -nomc-ol Pvei^jAclo^^r 4-o be
Oil^eS^Jij^ ^13 iPvoV 'pNP)c<2- o^ Aav^ ^{^'Sca^^ io c-<^l(
V(«s e.i«,^.eecf ciLoHiv/^j
a P^c/wrv'.A <^0a-Pi Ae^ci- V/V P) C€_Vv v-Mv-VW e^^y-iTifX^d €.^<!'cl-V2^o3 I
X o,L )'V^ W i t Vvfpj- C/9o(X^d Oie
\W"V,i' ^ ^ S,;eo-P.c -t-o p-2.-^ sV^oclC,,
-Vjoe. CQ.-k^^' -( o , I
^1 1 I-
■e\ebiZ-.Ctx);c?/' 01^ Pr
^ ^ .
ui;44, (!ize
l> o>xci-»xi^ /
^ !• -I1-" ;-s>-"-.'''-' "'" f»<"~'<! «- '•'"
QiA«.d V
^ -0«uA^
1"""' '-"''"I ,,_,^,.a b^ e.«i
P'-"-"
Sit !.< \-><J^
N4\A0 e%^O^e<^ -^ • ^ ^ 4tie/V7r-^lue.j
CeUT t'-f Sts.bo>Zc(,no)cr
siv « >'-■•-
P PeiL» A Ci -^I^o m ^
W...
^'5 V -> , . t
^J c ivc/v-^r
, Lh^ L >J^e AboJ^ ■?,e.s,rbbv<ifl/tVr
^ tA (• I-
^ oC-s^-tOai-^ rilloW :Wi.«3/i 7^
SV....u^s 3 w- ^>^oJd .^bJ- ^\:3 o
4
Case 2:20-cv-00250-RAJ-DEM Document 1 Filed 05/18/20 Page 8 of 19 PageID# 8
"7
Case 2:20-cv-00250-RAJ-DEM Document 1 Filed 05/18/20 Page 9 of 19 PageID# 9
-fe,!, MU50 e/ia Wv- of
h. I kjiUlqm
r'P-.fx^V
r rr^^irxoh
a. X
^ )^7?7^3V
XO t±- CT^ T-
US1
Pc„^V N.->^C' j Ao-g X'-''?'^ X'o =■ ^trm"".
lOQCoqZ-l
VA;.^A .-.i.-.A-.c- JTO'^
(4) Plaintiff shall notify the court in writing immediately upon plaintiffs transfer or release
and shall provide a new address. FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE COURT OF SUCH A
(5) Plaintiffis advised that a prisoner may not bring a civil action without complete
prepayment ofthe appropriate filing fee and, as of May 1,2013, a $50.00 administrative
fee ifthe prisoner has brought on three or more occasions, an action or appeal in a federal
court that was dismissed as fnvolous, as malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is in imminent danger ofserious physical
injury. S^ 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff is advised that if plaintiff has had prior cases
dismissed for any ofthe above-stated reasons, these prior dismissals may limit plaintiffs
ability to file new cases without prepaying the full $400.00 in filing costs. If plaintiff
believes that this case, or any other pending case, may be dismissed as fnvolous, as
malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, plaintiff may
file a motion for voluntary dismissal ofsuch case(s) pursuant to Rule 41(a)of the Federal
(6) Pursuant to a Standing Order of Court, all non-dispositive matters in this case will be
(7) Plaintiff must include the above referenced case number in any document plaintiff
submits to the court related to this action. Plaintiffs submissions should be legible,
written on one side of the paper only, with at least one-inch ofclear space on all sides of
the page. In any document plaintiff submits to the court, pursuant to General Rule 8 of
the Local Rules ofthe United States District Court for the Westem District of Virginia,
Case 2:20-cv-00250-RAJ-DEM Document 1 Filed 05/18/20 Page 13 of 19 PageID# 13
vO° (T\\t-A^i=vx'^
55Cip*Vt--vi.Kc,Ve Cc-c^cL "A . "^mA^;5^Vb
5>2jp-\ op coa<^'L*a^vO(\^'
\ SlVi^^e 'Pe^'^cA
'^0,So(L,At^.C.3 AM4iMr nAcAs':^^ v,^ Ki Oejixie
'\^\cX'vv\orv<i xi rx 1 \Li i^vj O-i? 11 P\ f
Case 2:20-cv-00250-RAJ-DEM Document 1 Filed 05/18/20 Page 14 of 19 PageID# 14
Filer:
Document Number: 9
Docket Text:
Order entered Conditionally Filing this action pursuant to 42 USC Section 1983; Deferring all
action in this case; Advising inmate to comply within the allotted time and to notify of changes in
address or risk dismissal Responses due by 4/8/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert S.
Ballou on 3/15/2019.(sit)
1^ iT)At^XX-K( g.\ a\
\ X_C/ b_ i,?. S
5
Helling. 113 S. Ct. at 2481. Such inmates are not required to endure the horrific suffering of a serious mental
illness or major exacerbation of an existing mental illness before [*1266] obtaining relief. Id. at 2480-81.
I211&I
r**4071 We are acutely aware that defendants are entitled to substantial deference with respect to their
management of the SHU. However, subjecting individuals to conditions that are "very likely" to render them
psychotic or otherwise inflict a serious mental illness or seriously exacerbate an existing mental illness can not
be squared with evolving standards of humanity or decency, especially when certain aspects of those
conditions appear to bear little relation to security concerns. A risk this grave -- this shocking and indecent --
simply has no place in civilized society. It is surely not one "today's society [would] choose[] to tolerate." Id.
at 2482. Indeed, it is inconceivable that any representative portion of our society would put its imprimatur on
a plan to subject the mentally ill and other inmates described above to the SHU, knowing that severe
psychological consequences will most probably befall those inmates. Thus, with respect to this limited
population of the inmate class, plaintiffs have established that continued confinement in the SHU, as it is
currently constituted, deprives inmates of a minimal civilized level of one of life's necessities.
The above conclusions do not end our inquiry. In addition to demonstrating an injury that is "sufficiently
serious" to violate objective Eiohth Amendment standards, plaintiffs must also satisfy the subjective
component of the Eighth Amendment. Specifically, they must show that the alleged injury is attributable to
defendants' "wanton" state of mind, and can therefore be fairly characterized as a form of cruel and unusual
punishment. Wilson. 501 U.S. at 299. 1.1.1 S. Ct at 2324.
HN29'^ Where, as here, the plaintiff contends that inhumane conditions are depriving inmates of their mentai
health, wantonness is established by proving that defendants have been deliberately indifferent to the risk of
harm. Farmer. 114 S. Ct. at 1977 ("In prison-conditions cases [the relevant] state of mind is one of
'deliberate indifference' to inmate health or safety ... ."); Hellina. 113 5. Ct. at 2480 ("Whether one
characterizes the treatment received by [the prisoner] as inhuman conditions of confinement, failure to attend
to his medical needs, or a combination of both, it is aoDrooriate [*"4091 to apply the deliberate indifference
standard articulated in Estelle")(internal quotations omitted).}212 Ai
[**4101 Based on the Court's findings of fact, and the evidence presented, we conclude that defendants had
actual subjective knowledge that the conditions in the SHU presented [*1267] a substantiai or excessive
risk of harm with respect to inmates who were mentally ill or otherwise particularly vulnerable to conditions of
extreme isolation and reduced environmental stimulation.(213^1 Yet defendants, in continued disregard for
this risk, took no action to either exciude such inmates from the SHU, ameliorate the offending conditions with
respect to these inmates, or otherwise seriously address the issue. This constitutes deliberate indifference.
Farmer. 114 S. Ct. at 1979. As found above, defendants have also been deliberately indifferent to the jack of
adequate mental health care provided to inmates at Pelican Bay, particularly in the SHU. See section II(A)(C)
(3), supra. This merely underscores defendants' callous lack of concern for the mental health of those inmates
that are particularly at risk in the SHU.
-J**4111 3. Conclusion
In sum, while the conditions in the SHU may press the outer bounds of what most humans can psychologically
tolerate, the record does not satisfactorily demonstrate that there is a sufficiently high risk to all inmates of
incurring a serious mental illness from exposure to conditions in the SHU to find that the conditions constitute
a perse deprivation of a basic necessity of life. We emphasize, of course, that this determination is based on
the current record and data before us. We can not begin to speculate on the impact that Pelican Bay SHU
conditions may have on inmates confined in the SHU for periods of 10 or 20 years or more; the inmates
studied in connection with this action had generaily been confined to the SHU for three years or iess. We do,
however, find, for the reasons stated above, that continued confinement in the SHU, under present conditions,
constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment for two categories of inmates:
those who are already mentally ill and those who, as identified above, are at an unreasonably high risk of
suffering serious mental illness as a result of present conditions in the SHU. Defendants, [**4121 of course,
are not precluded from segregating either category of inmates from the remainder of the prison population
where such segregation is otherwise justified; they simply can not segregate them under conditions as they
currently exist in the Pelican Bay SHU.
https://doc-advance.lexis.com/document/documentslider/?pdmfid=1512960&crid=2a36b91,.. 3/4/2019
Case 2:20-cv-00250-RAJ-DEM Document 1 Filed 05/18/20 Page 18 of 19 PageID# 18
H'cus't
i^S ^ V-i-v^V 3 \ix\ncA 3\AJjMe,^ j .P/^So.'l C^c.e-j.i-^
"sviT)
uvs&e\ VkiW-W
WfVvl'uA \^>4^r\ L''^
- O
0<^.
D<^^cA;C3V- VlR
W\<X.^G
6ac\o^o^ 'v^^vV^o^'' Wpsc\ "n^A A'lca«-\2_-
C^XJj-X^ 1 .
V^V\Al;.'\ Vv'o:s' OA 'R.^s^pc Adnrr^j
C'i^T-AAcA-^e^ C)A ^ejc:«.(ice f){lCL -eAcIc^^-^
\A'o^f^V-c^ A,'A ^ '-^Vt U
D¥,
^e,3p4,o4-/i'//y
"
MAY I I 2020
1
Case 2:20-cv-00250-RAJ-DEM Document 1-2 Filed 05/18/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 21
l'.-^ »•»>»
■"^ Cj' K" ■•^■' '2a
.IS #^JOV 2iad5!».PM .71
HOV t 8 2019
, mlBOOM
a^anaAn#W\u9-l^
Pved OnioB Siofe 9rtS0i^
?0 m 010
PowA
„/|„i,/,»,;//,;,i;m/,,fi;//!,„|,/f(,,///,;/,/,;;i/,f,;,,/;,
Case 2:20-cv-00250-RAJ-DEM Document 1-2 Filed 05/18/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID# 22
1
§ t'l CD
oi
^ W o5
'o Si^2 4 V
b ^ili S 5
; Ml 0 CO U7
P i . r-.^n
f/S >*'V
^
D
V* rt O
Ni O o J 0
] ?
^fi \U
g' \—
O /Vi
"fid
d -d
C\ nl
U rXiJ
IT
ii v/
—