Human-rights cases against United States

constitutional violations that we found to exist in the Jail, including the legal framework applied, the unacceptable conditions identified, and the deficient practices that led to the problems. We end by identifying changes that ASGDC needs to implement to fix the violations. 1 BACKGROUND I. The Jail A. Description of the Facility ASGDC is in Columbia, South Carolina. It serves as the intake and detention center for unsentenced individuals charged with misdemeanors and felonies, as well as an incarceration facility for sentenced individuals. Columbia is the state capital and county seat of Richland County, a county with a population of more than 400,000 that includes the University of South Carolina and the U.S. Army base at Fort Jackson. Richland County is governed by a County Council of eleven members elected to four-year terms. Unlike most jails in South Carolina, which are operated by county sheriff’s departments, ASGDC is under the authority of the County Council, which provides funding and oversight for the Jail. Director Crayman Harvey is responsible for daily operations, under the management of County Administrator Leonardo Brown. While the Richland County Sheriff’s Department plays no role in the operation of the Jail, it is responsible for criminal investigations of alleged criminal activity at the Jail. The current facility was constructed in five phases between 1994 and 2005. As of December 2024, the total rated capacity of the facility was 1,120 people. When DOJ visited the Jail in December 2024, the total population in custody was 965. Adults are housed in 15 units, including intake and transfer units. Each housing unit has a bed capacity of 56. Two units are high custody restrictive housing units (a third is currently closed for renovations). Four units house higher security level men, four house medium security level men, and one houses older men. ASGDC has one unit for women. There is also a mental health unit and a medical unit. On December 8, 2023, ASGDC reopened the Behavior Modification Unit (BMU), formerly the Special Housing Unit, after renovations. The BMU is used for disciplinary and administrative holds, as well as protective custody. As of December 2024, ASGDC was in the process of renovating five units, four of which they plan to use as housing units. ASGDC uses a separate building to house youths, with three eight-bed dormitory wings and two observation cells in the front of the building. Following an announcement by Richland County in June 2024 that it intended to close the juvenile facility, ASGDC transferred all youths to the custody of the South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice, with the exception of youths charged as adults who remain at ASGDC. The Jail was designed to operate on a direct supervision management system. Under this model, security personnel should be posted inside the unit and not separated from the incarcerated population by barriers that prevent direct interaction. The system requires officers to be present in the housing units and to provide frequent, non- scheduled observation of and personal interactions with the incarcerated population. 2 B. Violence Persists Despite Recent Efforts to Address Conditions in the Jail While we commend the County for recent efforts to improve Jail conditions, people incarcerated at ASGDC continue to face an unreasonable risk of serious harm. County officials and ASGDC administration have been on notice for several years of systemic deficiencies in the operations and physical condition of the Jail, many of which have contributed to violence in the facility.1 The South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDOC) conducted annual inspections of the Jail from 2018 to 2023. SCDOC found severe staffing shortages and ongoing issues with key control, malfunctioning doors and locks, inappropriate housing, insufficient supervision, and deteriorating physical conditions that creat

our findings and attempt to work with the Commonwealth to remedy those violations. In our many years of civil rights enforcement, the good faith efforts of State, County, and local 1 jurisdictions to work with us have routinely enabled us to resolve our claims without resort to contested litigation. Our Special Litigation Section and attorneys from United States Attorney's Offices for the Eastern and Western Districts of Kentucky will be handling this investigation. They will contact your office to discuss the next steps. Steven H. Rosenbaum, the Chief of the Special Litigation Section, may be reached at (202) 616-3244. Assistant Attorney General cc: Russell Coleman Attorney General Kentucky Travis Mayo General Counsel Office of the Kentucky Governor Randy White Commissioner Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice Tonya Burton Superintendent Adair Regional Juvenile Detention Center Adair Youth Development Center Hope Smith Superintendent Boyd Regional Juvenile Detention Center Jason Little Superintendent Breathitt Regional Juvenile Detention Center Tom Milburn Superintendent Campbell Regional Juvenile Detention Center 2 Joe Caskey Superintendent Fayette Regional Juvenile Detention Center Donty Lear Superintendent Jefferson Regional Juvenile Detention Center Felicia Weatherspoon-Howe Superintendent McCracken Regional Juvenile Detention Center Kevin Foster Superintendent Warren Regional Juvenile Detention Center Paul McCaffrey First Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorney’s Office Eastern District of Kentucky Michael Bennett United States Attorney United States Attorney’s Office Western District of Kentucky 3

FINDINGS The United States provides notice of the following conditions in Georgia’s prisons: • Protection from Violence and Harm: The State fails to protect incarcerated people from violence and harm by other incarcerated people in violation of the Eighth Amendment. • Protection from Sexual Harm: The State fails to protect incarcerated people from harm caused by sexual violence in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The State also fails to adequately protect people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) from a substantial risk of serious harm from sexual violence and abuse by staff and other incarcerated people. The State is deliberately indifferent to these unsafe conditions. The constitutional violations are exacerbated by serious deficiencies in staffing and supervision, physical condition and security of the facilities, classification and housing, management of gangs and other security threat groups, control of weapons and other contraband, and incident reporting, response, and investigations. The State has known about the unsafe conditions for years and has failed to take reasonable measures to address them. 3

FINDINGS The United States provides notice of the following identified conditions: • Protection from harm: Children in TJJD’s secure facilities are often exposed to excessive physical and chemical force. Children also spend prolonged periods of time in isolation, under stark conditions and without access to adequate mental health and educational services. And children endure sexual abuse by both staff and other children. These conditions cause children serious harm and violate the Constitution. • Mental health care: Children in TJJD’s secure facilities do not receive adequate mental health assessments, treatment planning, and counseling services. TJJD also fails to provide adequate substance use disorder treatment and treatment for children who engage in self-harm or have suicidal thoughts. TJJD’s response to children’s behavior exposes children to excessive force and isolation. These deficiencies in mental health services violate the Constitution. • Special education: Children with disabilities in TJJD’s secure facilities do not receive a free appropriate public education. Special education services are not individualized to meet learning needs; fail to include specially designed instruction, behavioral supports, related services, and transition services; and are based on outdated information about children’s needs. Without appropriate services, children with disabilities cannot access the 1 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400–1482. 2 42 U.S.C. § 12132. 3 Id. § 1997 et seq. As discussed below, DOJ conducted this investigation by its authority under both CRIPA and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 34 U.S.C. § 12601. 4 general education curriculum, preventing meaningful progress. Each of these failures violates the IDEA. • Discriminating against children with disabilities: Children with disabilities in TJJD’s secure facilities do not receive reasonable modifications to complete programs required for their release. Instead, children are expelled from programming due to disability-related behavior and required to repeat it, prolonging their time in TJJD’s custody or resulting in their transfer to prison. TJJD also denies children with disabilities an equal opportunity to benefit from education. Both practices violate the ADA. The negative impact of these violations is mutually exacerbating. Children in TJJD’s secure facilities are exposed to conditions that cause serious and lasting physical, mental, and emotional harm. At the same time, they are denied treatment and services they need to cope with their environment, earn release, return to their communities, and become productive citizens. This harmful environment undermines any rehabilitative purpose in their commitment. 5 Gainesville Ron Jackson 8 Mart 8 Giddings 8 BACKGROUND TJJD is a centralized statewide agency that includes five secure facilities subject to our investigation: (1) E vins Regional Juvenile Center in Edinburg, Texas; (2) Gainesville State School in Gainesville, Texas; (3) Giddings State School in Giddings, Texas; (4) McLennan County State Juvenile Correctional Facility (Mart) in Mart, Texas; and (5) Ron Jackson State Juvenile Correctional Complex in Brownwood, Texas.4 TJJD’s administration conducts oversight, provides resources, and sets systemwide policies for secure care. Children are often moved between the facilities to access specialized treatment programs housed in specific facilities.5 TJJD leadership also shifts services from one facility to another.6 Figure 1: Map of Texas showing the locations of TJJD’s five secure facilities Hundreds of children are confined in TJJD’s secure facilities every year. These facilities house children ages ten to nineteen. A Texas county juvenile court commits 4 Aside from the five secure facilities, TJJD operates four halfway houses and a probat

Juvenile Justice CRIPA matter — J.B.H. v. Knox County, Illinois. Status: Statement of Interest.

our findings and attempt to work with the State to remedy those violations. In our many years of civil rights enforcement, the good faith efforts of jurisdictions to work with us have routinely enabled us to resolve our claims without resorting to contested litigation. 1 Our Special Litigation Section and attorneys from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Tennessee will be handling this investigation. They will contact your office to discuss the next steps. Steven H. Rosenbaum, the Chief of the Special Litigation Section, may be reached at (202) 616-3244. Sincerely, Kristen Clarke Assistant Attorney General cc: Jonathan Skrmetti Attorney General Tennessee Erin Merrick Chief Legal Counsel Governor’s Office Frank Strada Commissioner Tennessee Department of Correction Vince Vantrell Warden Trousdale Turner Correctional Center 2

Juvenile Justice CRIPA matter — Community Legal Aid Society, Inc. v. Adult & Prison Education Resources Workgroup, Delaware. Status: Statement of Interest.

findings report details the supporting facts giving rise to those violations and the minimum remedial measures that we believe may remedy those alleged conditions. After carefully reviewing the evidence, we conclude that there is reasonable cause to believe that conditions in the Fulton County Jail violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United State Constitution, the ADA, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482. These violations are pursuant to a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of rights protected by the Constitution and federal law. Specifically, we find that Fulton County and the Fulton County Sheriff's Office fail to protect people incarcerated at the Fulton County Jail from violence and harm by other incarcerated people in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. We also find that Fulton County Jail deputies and detention officers use force against incarcerated people without adequate justification, in U niteo States Attorney Northern District of Georgia violation ofthe Fourteenth Amendment. We find that the living conditions in the Fulton County Jail are constitutionally inadequate and violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. We further find that inadequate medical and mental health care in the Fulton County Jail exposes people to a substantial risk of serious harm in violation ofthe Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Moreover, we find that restrictive housing conditions in the Jail pose a substantial risk of serious harm, including acute mental illness and self-injury, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. We find that the Jail's restrictive housing practices discriminate against people with mental health disabilities in violation ofthe ADA, and that the Jail does not provide due process protections when imposing restrictive housing in violation ofthe Fourteenth Amendment. Finally, we find that the Jail fails to provide special education services to 17-year­ old boys and girls who are entitled to such services, in violation of the IDEA. The attached report details the supporting facts giving rise to the violations and the minimum remedial measures that we believe may remedy the alleged conditions. We hope to resolve this matter through a cooperative approach and look forward to working with Fulton County and the Fulton County Sheriffs Office to address the violations of law we have identified. The lawyers assigned to this investigation will contact counsel for the County and Sheriffs Office for such discussions. Please note that in the event we are unable to reach a resolution regarding our findings, CRIP A authorizes the Attorney General to initiate a lawsuit 49 days after issua~ce of this notice letter to correct the alleged conditions we have identified. 42 U.S.C. § 1997b(a)(l). Please also note that this notice letter and accompanying report are public documents. They will be posted on the Civil Rights Division's website. If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact Regan Rush, Acting Chief of the Special Litigation at (202) 532-5675. Sincerely, Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division cc: Y. Soo Jo County Attorney 2 Colonel Jarrett Gorlin Chief Jail er Attachment: Report oflnvestigation of the Fulton County Jail 3

Juvenile Justice CRIPA matter — Smith v. Edwards, Louisiana. Status: Statement of Interest.

Our findings use the median, rather than the average, number of days by which people were overdetained by LDOC. This is because the average number of days by which people were overdetained is skewed due to outliers. 1 • LDOC’s failure to implement adequate policies and procedures ca uses systemic overdetentions. LDOC has failed to implement policies and procedures to ensure the timely release of individuals in its custody. LDOC does not have a uniform system fo r receiving necessary sentencing documents from the Clerks of Court and Sheriff’s offices. Nor does it establish a standard timeline for the delivery of those documents. LDOC maintains a time-consuming process for calculating release dates, which includes both manual calculations and automated processes using an antiquated data management system. And it lacks a standardized training or accountability process to ensure its staff have the ability to make sentencing computations accurately. These systemic deficiencies predictably result in delays and errors. Furthermore, LDOC effectively prevents itself from addressing these problems in an informed manner by failing to track overdetention-related data. LDOC’s failure to remedy these d eficiencies is the direct cause of its pervasive failure to release individuals from its custody on time. • LDOC is deliberately indifferent to the systemic overdetention of people in its custody. For more than ten years, LDOC has been on notice of its overdetention problem and has failed to take adequate measures to ensure timely releases of incarcerated individuals from its custody. A 2012 Six Sigma report as well as Legislative Audits conducted in 2017 and 2019 revealed severe, systemic delays in the processing of the necessary records from courts and local facilities, inefficient data management, poorly defined procedures, and a lack of training and oversight that have all contributed to a consistent pattern of overdetention. In addition, LDOC and its officials have faced numerous private lawsuits alerting them to on-going deficiencies in their processes. Still, LDOC has never implemented the reform that constitutional violations of this magnitude requires. The reform it has pursued has been too narrow to correct the system- wide causes of overdetention, and some undertakings have failed entirely, as in LDOC’s effort to implement a new Offender Management System in 2015. As a result of the systemic deficiencies identified in our investigation, thousands of individuals annually suffer the significant harm of having their freedom unconstitutionally denied by their overdetention i n LDOC’s custody. The COVID-19 pandemic drastically increased the h arms associated with overdetention, as the correctional environment carries an elevated risk of contracting COVID-19 and because of the general inability to maintain social distancing in such settings. Overdetention likewise carries numerous collateral harms to both incarcerated individuals and their families, including missed important family milestones, lost opportunities to say farewell to dying loved ones, lost or missed job opportunities, and diminished opportunities to fully re-integrate into society. 3 3 Alexander C. Tsai, MD, et al., Association Between Prison Crowding and COVID-19 Incidence Rates in Massachusetts Prisons, April 2020-January 2021, JAMA Internal Medicine (Aug. 9, 2021) (finding that there was a six times higher risk of contracting COVID-19 in the Massachusetts prisons as compared to the risk to the general public). 2 Consistent with CRIPA’s statutory requirements, this Findings Report and accompanying cover letter provide notice of the conditions that violate the constitutional rights of individua

Findings Report only addresses Parchman. Our investigation of three other Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) facilities (Southern Mississippi Correctional Institute, Central Mississippi Correctional Facility, and Wilkinson County Correctional Facility) remains ongoing. 2 including those with serious medical and mental health needs—to segregation in restrictive housing for months and even years under egregious environmental conditions that pose a substantial risk of serious harm from psychological deterioration. Of the twelve Parchman suicides in the last three years, all of them occurred in restrictive housing. The problems at Parchman are severe, systemic, and exacerbated by serious deficiencies in staffing and supervision. MDOC has been on notice of these deficiencies for years and failed to take reasonable measures to address the violations, due in part to non-functional accountability or quality assurance measures. Years of MDOC’s deliberate indifference has resulted in serious harm and a substantial risk of serious harm to persons confined at Parchman. For example, on December 31, 2019, just hours before midnight, a fight in Parchman’s Unit 29 sparked what would become a prison riot lasting several weeks. In the months leading up to the riot, there had been widespread reports about unlivable and unsanitary conditions throughout Parchman; violent murders and suicides on the rise; staffing plummeting to dangerous levels; and mounting concerns that gangs were filling the void left by inadequate staff presence and gaining increasing control of Parchman through extortion and violence. Despite notice of these structural and administrative crises, MDOC’s records show a staff that was caught off guard, utterly overwhelmed, and ultimately unable to adequately and quickly respond to fighting and significant injuries in multiple buildings. Speaking to a reporter by phone during the riot, a person incarcerated at Parchman said, “They ran the [correctional officers] out of the building last night . . . . I don’t know what they’re going to do. They’re short on staff.” The Commander and his staff shot “impact weapons” and also threw what was described as a “hand grenade” into the fighting area, to little effect. Over 100 officers were pulled from the Mississippi Highway Patrol and several local sheriff’s offices, who arrived at Parchman to assist in quelling the violence. Incarcerated persons set fires. Parchman was placed on total lockdown. When the smoke began to clear, five individuals incarcerated at Parchman had been murdered, and three others committed suicide during the month of January 2020 alone. Consistent with CRIPA’s statutory requirements, we submit this Findings Report to notify the State of Mississippi of the Department’s conclusions with respect to these constitutional violations, the facts supporting those conclusions, and the minimum remedial measures necessary to address the identified deficiencies. II. INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS In February 2020, the Department opened a CRIPA investigation into the conditions at four MDOC facilities: Parchman, Southern Mississippi Correctional Institute, Central Mississippi Correctional Facility, and Wilkinson County Correctional Facility. The Special Litigation Section of the Department’s Civil Rights Division and the United States Attorney’s 3 Offices for the Northern and Southern Districts of Mississippi have been conducting the investigation. Our investigation of Parchman focuses on whether MDOC adequately protects incarcerated persons from physical harm at the hands of other incarcerated persons, as well as whether

findings of fact and conclusions of law under the ADA. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131−12134; 28 C.F.R. § 35.172(c). We also notify you of the minimum remedial measures that we believe may remedy the alleged violations. After carefully reviewing the evidence, we conclude that there is reasonable cause to believe that Alameda County and the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office violate the ADA and engage in a pattern or practice of constitutional violations in the conditions at the Santa Rita Jail, and that Alameda County violates the ADA as interpreted by Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581, 607 (1999). Specifically, we have reasonable cause to believe that: (1) Alameda County violates the ADA by failing to provide services to qualified individuals with mental health disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs by unnecessarily institutionalizing them at John George Psychiatric Hospital and sub-acute facilities; (2) Santa Rita Jail fails to provide constitutionally adequate mental health care to prisoners with serious mental health needs, including those at risk of suicide; (3) Santa Rita Jail’s use of prolonged restrictive housing under current conditions violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of prisoners with serious mental illness; and (4) Santa Rita Jail violates the ADA by denying prisoners with mental health disabilities access to services, programs, and activities because of their disabilities.1 We thank Alameda County, Alameda Health System, and the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office for accommodating our investigation and providing access to facilities, staff, documents, and data. We are obligated to advise you that 49 days after issuance of this Notice, the Attorney General may initiate a lawsuit under CRIPA to correct the alleged conditions we have identified if Alameda County officials have not satisfactorily addressed them. 42 U.S.C. § 1997b(a)(1). CRIPA also authorizes the Department to move to intervene in a related private suit 15 days after issuing the Notice. 42 U.S.C. § 1997c(b)(1). We hope, however, to resolve this matter through a cooperative approach and look forward to working with Alameda County leadership and staff to address the violations of law we have identified. The lawyers assigned to this investigation will, therefore, contact Alameda County to discuss options for resolving this matter amicably. Please also note that this Notice is a public document. It will be posted on the Civil Rights Division’s website. 1 The Department of Justice (Department) opened this investigation to examine five issues: (1) whether the County’s reliance on psychiatric institutions to provide mental health services to adults with mental health disabilities violates the ADA; (2) whether the conditions of confinement and practices at Santa Rita Jail deprive persons with serious mental illness of their constitutional rights; (3) whether the conditions at Santa Rita Jail violate the rights of persons with mental health disabilities under the ADA; (4) whether the practices at John George Psychiatric Hospital violate the rights of persons with mental health disabilities under the ADA to receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs; and (5) whether the conditions at John George Psychiatric Hospital deprive persons with serious mental illness of their constitutional rights. This Notice Letter applies to the first four issues. With regard to the remaining issue, the Department did not reach a conclusion as to whether there are systemic unconstitutional conditions at John George Psychiatric hospital and is closing its investigation. 2 3 If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please call Steven H. Rosenbaum, Chief of the Special Litigation Section, at

conditions of confinement for children (i.e., youth under the age of 18) at Manson, pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et seq. (CRIPA), and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 34 U.S.C. § 12601 (Section 12601). The investigation focused on three issues: (1) whether Manson’s isolation practices violate the constitutional rights of children; (2) whether Manson’s mental health services for children are constitutionally inadequate; and (3) whether Manson violates the IDEA rights of children with disabilities. The Department conducted an onsite tour of Manson in January 2020. During this tour, Department attorneys and expert consultants conducted dozens of interviews of administrators and staff members, including security staff, counselors, mental health clinicians, teachers, administrators, as well as children confined at the facility. Additionally, Department attorneys and expert consultants reviewed over 31,000 pages of documents, including incident and use of force reports, policies and regulations, training materials, mental health records, education records, meeting minutes, lesson plans, shift rosters, unit logs, and investigative files. 1 Following the January 2020 tour, and throughout the pandemic, we continued to receive and review additional and updated documents and records from Manson. In February 2021, we conducted several additional interviews via videoconference. We appreciate the State’s cooperation and professionalism throughout the course of this investigation. Facility administrators and staff provided relevant documents and materials before, during and after our visit and facilitated our on-site visit as well as a number of videoconferences. III. BACKGROUND Manson is a State correctional facility operated by the Connecticut Department of Correction (DOC) which houses approximately 200 to 300 male youth under the age of 22 years, including children under the age of 18 (“children”) who have been transferred from juvenile court to the adult criminal court system.1 Our investigation focuses exclusively on the children at Manson. During our investigation, Manson housed between 30 and 51 children. The majority of the children (approximately 75 to 80 percent) were being held pending trial and, therefore, had not been tried for (or convicted of) the crimes with which they were charged. Almost all of the children at Manson have at least one mental health diagnosis. Almost two-thirds have also been identified as eligible for special education services. The majority of children at Manson (approximately 75 to 85 percent) are identified as Black or Latinx. Manson’s under-eighteen population is housed separately from the older youth on two units, Units I and J. One wing within the J unit is used as an isolation unit. The individual cells on the isolation unit contain beds, and a sink/toilet. Children assigned to this unit are not permitted to keep personal possessions in their cells. IV. CONDITIONS IDENTIFIED We find that Connecticut is violating the constitutional and federal rights of children in three areas. First, Manson’s isolation practices harm children. Second, the State does not provide adequate mental health care to children. Third, qualified children with disabilities are not receiving the special education services to which they are entitled. 1 Under Connecticut law, children under the age of 18 who are charged with certain felonies are automatically transferred from juvenile court to the adult criminal court if the child was at least 15 years old when the alleged offense occurred. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-127. Prosecutors may also petition t

conditions of confinement at the Cumberland County Jail (the “Jail”), conducted under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997. We thank Warden Smith and the Cumberland County Jail staff for accommodating our investigation and providing access to the Jail’s facilities, staff, documents, data, and prisoners. Consistent with CRIPA’s statutory requirements, we provide this written notice of the conditions that we have reasonable cause to believe violate the Constitution of the United States. See id. § 1997b(a). This letter and the attached report serve to notify you of the supporting facts giving rise to, and the minimum remedial measures that we believe may remedy, those alleged unconstitutional conditions of confinement. After carefully reviewing the evidence, we conclude that there is reasonable cause to believe that conditions at the Cumberland County Jail violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Specifically, we have reasonable cause to believe that the Jail violates the constitutional rights of inmates by failing to take constitutionally adequate measures to prevent inmate suicides and provide adequate mental health care. These alleged violations are found in the failure to: (1) adequately address the heightened risk of self- harm and suicide for inmates experiencing unmedicated opiate withdrawal; (2) provide sufficient screening to identify inmates at risk of self-harm or in need of mental health care for a serious mental health condition; and (3) provide sufficient mental health care to inmates with a clear need for care. Although the CCJ is currently providing Medicated Assisted Treatment (MAT) Commissioner Director Derella January 14, 2021 Page 2 for inmates experiencing opiate withdrawal, its funding for future MAT services remains uncertain. We are obligated to advise you that 49 days after issuance of this Notice, the Attorney General may initiate a lawsuit under CRIPA to correct the alleged conditions we have identified if Jail officials have not satisfactorily addressed them. 42 U.S.C. § 1997b(a)(l). We hope, however, to resolve this matter through a more cooperative approach and look forward to working with the County to address the violations of law we have identified. The lawyers assigned to this investigation will therefore contact Cumberland County Counsel to discuss options for resolving this matter amicably. Please also note that this letter and the attached Findings Report are public documents. They will be posted on the Civil Rights Division’s website. If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please call Steven H. Rosenbaum, Chief of the Special Litigation Section, at (202) 616-3244 or Michael E. Campion, Chief, Civil Rights Unit at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the District of New Jersey, at (973) 645-3141. Sincerely, /s/ John B. Daukas___ John B. Daukas Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division /s/ Rachael A. Honig__ Rachael A. Honig Acting United States Attorney cc: Richard T. Smith Warden, Cumberland County Jail John G. Carr, Esq. Cumberland County Counsel Encl: Report of Investigation of the Cumberland County Jail

conditions of confinement at the San Luis Obispo County Jail (the Jail), conducted under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12132. We thank Jail leadership, administrators, and staff for accommodating our investigation and providing access to the Jail’s facilities, staff, documents, data, and prisoners. After carefully reviewing the evidence, we conclude that there is reasonable cause to believe that conditions at the San Luis Obispo County Jail violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Specifically, we have reasonable cause to believe that the Jail violates the constitutional and statutory rights of prisoners by its: (1) failure to provide constitutionally adequate medical care to prisoners; (2) failure to provide constitutionally adequate mental health care to prisoners; (3) use of prolonged restrictive housing under conditions that violate the constitutional rights of prisoners with serious mental illness; (4) failure to prevent, detect, or correct use of excessive force that violates the constitutional rights of prisoners; and (5) denial of equal access to prisoners with disabilities in violation of the ADA. We are obligated to advise you that 49 days after issuance of this letter and the enclosed Report of Investigation, the Attorney General may initiate a lawsuit under CRIPA to correct the alleged conditions we have identified if Jail officials have not satisfactorily addressed them. 42 U.S.C. § 1997b(a)(l). We hope, however, to resolve this matter through a more cooperative approach and look forward to working with the County to address the violations of law we have identified. The lawyers assigned to this investigation will therefore contact San Luis Obispo County Counsel to discuss options for resolving this matter amicably. Please also note that this letter and the Report of Investigation are public documents. They will be posted on the Civil Rights Division’s website. If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please call Steven H. Rosenbaum, Chief of the Special Litigation Section, at (202) 616-3244 or Karen Ruckert, Chief, Civil Rights Section, Civil Division, at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Central District of California, at (213) 894-2879. Sincerely, /s/ Kristen Clarke Kristen Clarke Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division /s/ Tracy L. Wilkison Tracy L. Wilkison Acting United States Attorney cc: Rita L. Neal, Esq. San Luis Obispo County Counsel Encl: Report of Investigation of the San Luis Obispo County Jail 2 INVESTIGATION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY JAIL (SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA) United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division United States Attorney’s Office Central District of California August 31, 2021

Juvenile Justice CRIPA matter — Charles H. v. D.C., District of Columbia. Status: Statement of Interest.

conditions of confinement at the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women (Edna Mahan), the women’s prison located in Clinton, New Jersey, pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997. Consistent with the statutory requirements of CRIPA, we provide this Notice of the conditions that we have reasonable cause to believe violate the Constitution. We also notify you of the supporting facts giving rise to, and the minimum remedial measures that we believe may remedy, those alleged conditions. After carefully reviewing the evidence, we conclude that there is reasonable cause to believe that conditions at Edna Mahan violate the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution and that these violations are pursuant to a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of rights protected by the Eighth Amendment. Specifically, we have reasonable cause to believe that New Jersey fails to keep women prisoners at Edna Mahan reasonably safe from staff sexual abuse. These violations are exacerbated by systemic deficiencies that discourage prisoners from reporting sexual abuse and allow sexual abuse at Edna Mahan to occur undetected and undeterred. We are obligated to advise you that 49 days after issuance of this Notice, the Attorney General may initiate a lawsuit under CRIPA to correct the alleged conditions we have identified if New Jersey officials have not satisfactorily addressed them. 42 U.S.C. § 1997b(a)(l ). The Attorney General may also move to intervene in related private suits 15 days after issuance of this letter. 42 U.S.C. § 1997c(b)(l)(A). We hope, however, to resolve this matter through a more cooperative approach and look forward to working with you to address the alleged violations of law we have identified. The lawyers assigned to this investigation will be contacting the State’s private counsel to discuss this matter in further detail. Please also note that this Notice is a public document. It will be posted on the Civil Rights Division’s website. If you have any questions, please call Steven H. Rosenbaum, Chief of the Civil Rights Division’s Special Litigation Section, at (202) 616-3244 or Michael E. Campion, Chief of the Civil Rights Unit at the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey at (973) 645-3141. Sincerely, s/Eric S. Dreiband Eric S. Dreiband Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division s/Craig Carpenito Craig Carpenito United States Attorney District of New Jersey United States Department of Justice cc: Gurbir S. Grewal New Jersey Attorney General Marcus O. Hicks Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Corrections Sarah Davis, Administrator, Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women A. Matthew Boxer, Esq. Rachel Moseson, Esq. Lowenstein Sandler LLP

findings and legal conclusions binding on, or admissible in, any court, and nothing in this Notice should be construed as such. Accordingly, this Notice is not intended to be admissible evidence and does not create any legal rights or obligations. II. Investigation On September 27, 2017, the Department of Justice notified South Carolina of its intent to conduct this investigation. The Department conducted three onsite tours of BRRC and visited DJJ offices around the State. Department attorneys and expert consultants conducted interviews of dozens of staff members including both line staff and DJJ management. Department attorneys and consultants also interviewed youth confined or previously confined at BRRC, and their family members. Further, the Department inspected BRRC to learn about the physical plant. In addition to inspections and interviews, the Department reviewed thousands of documents. Finally, the Department reviewed video, to the extent it was available, related to allegations of abuse. We appreciate DJJ’s cooperation during the course of the investigation. Staff facilitated the visits and made themselves available for interviews. The agency also provided relevant 1 documents and materials before, during and after our visits. Recently, DJJ provided information about initial steps it is taking to respond to concerns that the Department raised on site. We look forward to working with DJJ to remedy the violations of law described below. III. Background DJJ is responsible for the “care and rehabilitation of children who are incarcerated” in the state. Indeed, the DJJ’s stated mission is therapeutic: to “protect the public and reclaim juveniles through prevention, community programs, education, and rehabilitation services in the least restrictive environment.” DJJ’s rehabilitative services division operates five residential programs including the BRRC, a pretrial detention center, and three pre-disposition secure evaluation centers. A. The BRRC Campus The BRRC is located on a 540-acre sprawling campus in Columbia, South Carolina. On the grounds, there are three male dorms, an honor dorm, an isolation unit, an intensive treatment unit, and one female dorm. The three primary male dorms are identical: Each dorm has a central outdoor courtyard with three pods, or living areas, which extend from the courtyard. Each pod is a large room with bolted down chairs and tables in the middle, and 10 bed areas around the perimeter -- cinderblock cubicles that contain a bed and a nightstand. The female dorm is built to resemble a home with a kitchen, a living room with couches, and bedrooms shared by two female youths. There are two housing units for youth who display behavior and safety issues: the crisis management unit (CMU or isolation) and the intensive treatment unit (ITU). The crisis management unit is BRRC’s isolation unit, and it is intended to be used for youth who need to be temporarily removed from the general population if they violated the most serious level of behavioral standards and they are an immediate safety threat to either other young people, staff, or themselves, or are in danger of being harmed by staff, or young people. The CMU consists of three wings of concrete and steel cells. Each cell is 8 feet long by 8 feet wide and has no furniture except a cement bed and a thin mattress. The cells are dark: The only light comes from a solid metal door with a narrow slot at waist level and a small window that is painted over to prevent interaction with staff and youth outside. While confined, youth are completely isolated from the general population and confined to their cells for 23 hours a day. Youth in the CMU do not attend school, or participate in recreation or other programs with youth in the general populat

findings and legal conclusions binding on, or admissible in, any court, and nothing in this Notice of Investigative Conclusions (Notice) should be construed as such. Accordingly, this Notice is not intended to be admissible evidence and does not create any legal rights or obligations. Specifically, the United States provides notice that the State of Florida, through the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC), fails to keep prisoners at Lowell safe from sexual abuse by staff. FDOC has documented and been aware of a pattern or practice of staff sexual abuse of Lowell prisoners since at least 2006. Despite being on notice of this sexual abuse, FDOC and Lowell failed to take timely action to remedy the systemic problems that have enabled corrections officers and other staff to continue to sexually abuse Lowell prisoners. As documented in this Notice, Lowell prisoners have suffered harm from sexual abuse and are at substantial risk of serious harm because existing systems discourage prisoners from reporting sexual abuse and fail to effectively detect and deter sexual abuse. Between 2017 and the present, Lowell sergeants, corrections officers, and other staff have committed notorious acts of sexual abuse, including rape, against prisoners. For example, in July 2020, a sergeant was arrested and charged with sexual misconduct after he admitted to engaging in oral sex with a prisoner in the maintenance room of a prisoner dormitory as recently as April 2020. That same sergeant had been accused in 2017 of sexually abusing a different prisoner, causing lesions on the prisoner’s throat from oral sex, and then retaliating against the prisoner when she refused his sexual advances. Even though FDOC verified the prisoner’s injuries, FDOC never completed the investigation for the 2017 incident, and the officer remained employed until his arrest in July 2020. This recent staff arrest is not an isolated incident. The Department identified evidence that Lowell has a long-standing pattern of criminal charges, discipline, and documented allegations of staff sexual abuse. In 2018, another sergeant allegedly raped a prisoner in a storage area, “pull[ing] [her] pants down and forc[ing] his penis in anally.” Extensive photographic evidence documented the prisoner’s injuries. Another officer allegedly took a prisoner to an outdoor area between two buildings, pushed her down, and forced his penis into her mouth. Prisoners repeatedly told the Department of officers making harassing, sexually explicit comments to them. One prisoner alleged in 2018 that an officer boasted to her that he had a large penis, and made graphic comments suggesting he wanted to perform oral sex on a Black woman. It is common for officers to grope prisoners, including their buttocks and breasts; bribe prisoners with contraband including drugs, cigarettes, food, and makeup in exchange for 1 sex; comment on prisoners’ bodies using crude sexual language and names; compel prisoners into ongoing abusive sexual “relationships;” watch prisoners as they use the toilet or shower, and when changing clothes, without justification; and threaten prisoners with solitary confinement if they report sexual abuse. Consistent with the statutory requirements of CRIPA, the Department writes this Notice to notify the State of Florida of our conclusions with respect to these constitutional violations, the facts supporting those conclusions, and the minimum remedial measures necessary to address the identified deficiencies. II. INVESTIGATION On April 17, 2018, the Department notified the State of Florida of our intent to conduct an investigation of Lowell pursuant to CRIPA. Our investigation focused on wheth

findings and legal conclusions binding on, or admissible in, any court, and nothing in this Notice should be construed as such. Accordingly, this Notice is not intended to be admissible evidence and does not create any legal rights or obligations. Consistent with the statutory requirements of CRIPA, this Notice identifies the Department’s conclusions with respect to multiple constitutional violations, the facts supporting those conclusions, and the minimum remedial measures necessary to address the identified deficiencies. Specifically, the Department provides notice of the following identified conditions: • MDOC fails to provide constitutionally adequate supervision to prisoners in mental health crisis. MDOC prisoners on mental health (or suicide) watch face substantial risk of serious harm because MDOC staff fail to remove instruments they use to commit acts of self-harm. In part, these harms occur because MDOC lacks clear and uniform policies that contribute to inadequate supervision of prisoners in mental health crisis. This is further compounded by MDOC’s failure to provide appropriate training to security staff on how to supervise and protect prisoners from engaging in self-harm. Despite being on notice of the substantial risks of harm facing prisoners in crisis, MDOC is not adequately supervising prisoners to prevent current and future harm. • MDOC fails to provide adequate mental health care to prisoners in mental health crisis. During a time when prisoners are most in need of treatment, MDOC fails to properly treat suicidal prisoners and prisoners who self-harm. And when treatment must entail more than segregation, MDOC instead places prisoners in segregated restrictive housing.1 • MDOC’s use of prolonged mental health watch under restrictive housing conditions, including its failure to provide adequate mental health care, violates the constitutional rights of prisoners in mental health crisis. MDOC’s mental health watch involves restrictive, isolating, and unnecessarily harsh conditions. It is restrictive housing. MDOC subjects prisoners who are in mental health crisis to restrictive housing Restrictive housing, sometimes referred to as solitary confinement, segregation, or isolation, is any type of detentio 1 n that involves three basic elements: removal from the general prisoner population, whether voluntary or involuntary; placement in a locked room or cell, whether alone or with another prisoner; and inability to leave the room or cell for the vast majority of the day, typically 22 hours or more. Porter v. Clarke, 290 F. Supp. 2d 518, 528 (E.D. Va. 2018) (citing U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Report and Recommendations Concerning the Use of Restrictive Housing 3 (Jan. 2016)). See Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257, 135 S. Ct. 2187, 2208 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (referring to the “usual pattern” of solitary confinement as being housed in “a windowless cell no larger than a typical parking spot for 23 hours a day; and in the one hour when [a prisoner] leaves it, he is allowed little or no opportunity for conversation or interaction with anyone”); Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 214, 223-24 (2005) (describing restrictive housing as limiting h uman contact for 23 hours per day). 1 for prolonged periods of time, which places them at a substantial risk of serious harm. For instance, during a 13-month period between July 2018 and August 2019, MDOC held 106 prisoners experiencing a mental health crisis on mental health watch for 14 consecutive days or longer. Because mental health watch is so restrictive and isolating, MDOC policy states that prisoners should only be on mental health watch for a maximum of four days. Contrary to this standard, 51 of those prisoners remained on menta

Juvenile Justice CRIPA matter — Protection and Advocacy for People with Disabilities, Inc. v. Cannon, South Carolina. Status: Statement of Interest.

findings and legal conclusions binding on, or admissible in, any court, and nothing in this Notice Letter (“Notice”) should be construed as such. Accordingly, this Notice is not intended to be admissible evidence and does not create any legal rights or obligations. Consistent with the statutory requirements of CRIPA, we write this Notice to notify Alabama of the Department’s conclusions with respect to numerous constitutional violations, the facts supporting those conclusions, and the minimum remedial measures necessary to address the identified deficiencies.2 There is reasonable cause to believe that the Alabama Department of Corrections (“ADOC”) has violated and is continuing to violate the Eighth Amendment rights of prisoners housed in men’s prisons by failing to protect them from prisoner-on-prisoner violence, prisoner- on-prisoner sexual abuse, and by failing to provide safe conditions, and that such violations are pursuant to a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of rights secured by the Eighth Amendment. The violations are severe, systemic, and exacerbated by serious deficiencies in staffing and supervision; overcrowding; ineffective housing and classification protocols; inadequate incident reporting; inability to control the flow of contraband into and within the prisons, including illegal drugs and weapons; ineffective prison management and training; 1 At present, there are 13 such correctional facilities: Bibb Correctional Facility; Bullock Correctional Facility; Donaldson Correctional Facility; Easterling Correctional Facility; Elmore Correctional Facility; Fountain Correctional Facility; Hamilton Aged & Infirmed; Holman Correctional Facility; Kilby Correctional Facility; Limestone Correctional Facility; St. Clair Correctional Facility; Staton Correctional Facility; and Ventress Correctional Facility. We also investigated the conditions at Draper Correctional Facility; however, in late 2017, the Alabama Department of Corrections (“ADOC”) closed that facility. We did not review the conditions in other ADOC facilities, such as work release facilities or the Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women. 2 The Department’s investigation of Alabama’s prisons was opened to investigate three issues: (1) whether ADOC is protecting prisoners from physical and sexual violence at the hand of other prisoners; (2) whether ADOC is providing safe and sanitary living conditions; and (3) whether ADOC is protecting prisoners from excessive force and sexual abuse from staff. This Notice applies to the first two issues. The Department’s investigation into third issue is ongoing because the Department’s petition to enforce its subpoena for documents relevant to that issue is pending with the court. 2 insufficient maintenance and cleaning of facilities; the use of segregation and solitary confinement to both punish and protect victims of violence and/or sexual abuse; and a high level of violence that is too common, cruel, of an unusual nature, and pervasive. Our investigation revealed that an excessive amount of violence, sexual abuse, and prisoner deaths occur within Alabama’s prisons on a regular basis. Indeed, a review of a single week in Alabama’s prisons—a week in September 2017—provides a window into a broken system that too often disregards prisoners’ safety. The “Hot Bay” at Bibb3 was a housing unit populated exclusively with prisoners with disciplinary infractions. It had limited supervision and no programming. On a Friday in September 2017, three days before the Department of Justice arrived at Bibb for the first full facility tour of our investigation, two prisoners stood guard at the doors of the Hot Bay, an open dormitory housing men in bunkbeds multiple rows deep, watching for rarely-seen correctional officers. At the back of the dormitory and not visible from the front door, two other prisoners started stabbing their intended victim. The victim screamed for help. Anot

findings and legal conclusions, and nothing in this Notice should be construed as a factual finding or legal conclusion. Accordingly, this Notice is not intended to be admissible evidence and does not create any legal rights or obligations. Specifically, we provide notice of the following alleged conditions: • Correctional officers routinely use excessive force when they use chemical agents such as pepper spray or electronic control devices, and when they place prisoners in the restraint chair. • Boyd County violates the constitutional rights of bodily privacy of prisoners by restraining nearly naked prisoners in full view of both prisoners and staff of the opposite gender. Prisoners identified as a suicide risk and non-suicidal prisoners being punished, are stripped of their clothing and placed in suicide smocks with no undergarments, and strapped with their legs apart to the restraint chair in an open hallway, their genitals exposed to passers-by. II. INVESTIGATION On November 1, 2016, DOJ notified Boyd County officials of our intent to conduct an investigation of the Boyd County Detention Center (Jail) pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997 (CRIPA). As we stated in our notice letter, the focus of our investigation was whether the Jail: (1) adequately protects its prisoners from harm due to excessive force; (2) violates prisoners’ rights to bodily privacy; and (3) places prisoners in restrictive housing without due process of law. The Special Litigation Section of DOJ’s Civil Rights Division conducted the investigation with the assistance of a correctional security consultant. On November 14-17, 2016, our correctional security consultant accompanied us on an onsite inspection of the Jail. During our onsite inspection, we observed facility processes, interviewed current and former staff and prisoners, met with county officials, and reviewed facility records. Before, during, and after our onsite inspection, we reviewed an array of documents, including policies and procedures, organizational charts, incident reports, prisoner grievances, medical and mental 2 health records, and other materials. After our visit, we also conducted additional interviews with former prisoners and correctional officers. At the close of our onsite inspection, we conveyed our preliminary assessment to Jail and county officials. We thank Jail staff for their cooperation throughout the course of the investigation and appreciate their receptiveness to our consultant’s recommendations. III. BACKGROUND The Boyd County Detention Center is located in Catlettsburg, Kentucky. Originally opened in 1991 with a capacity of 93 beds, the Jail expanded in 2006 to its current capacity of 206 beds. The Jail often holds more prisoners than its rated capacity, holding 238 prisoners during our visit in November 2016 and holding 292 prisoners in August 2017. The Jail houses both prisoners who have been convicted of a crime and pre-trial detainees who have been arrested or charged with a crime. Historically, approximately one-third of all prisoners in the Jail were sentenced and sponsored by the state of Kentucky. The Jail houses both men and women. Women prisoners make up about 30% of the Jail’s overall population. Most prisoners are housed in dorm-style cells. The Jail is currently overseen by Chief Jailer William Hensley. Jailer Hensley took office in January 2019. The Jail is funded by the Boyd County Fiscal Court, which consists of a county judge executive and three county commissioners. During our visit, medical services at the Jail were provided through a contract with Advanced Correctional Healthcare. A Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) was onsite at the Jail from 8:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. three days per week, and then from 8:00 a.m. until 1:30 a.m. one day per week. A physician’s assistant and physician was on call between 1:30 a.m. and 8:00 a.

findings and legal conclusions binding on, or admissible in, any court, and nothing in this Notice should be construed as such. Accordingly, this Notice is not intended to be admissible evidence and does not create any legal rights or obligations. Specifically, the United States provides notice of the following identified conditions: • The Jail fails to provide constitutionally adequate medical care to prisoners. Many prisoners at the Jail have serious medical needs requiring treatment, and these prisoners are placed at a substantial risk of serious harm when they do not receive adequate treatment. The Jail fails to provide adequate intake, discharge planning, sick call, chronic care, and emergency care such that prisoners are subjected to an unacceptable risk of harm due to delays or lack of treatment. • The Jail fails to provide constitutionally adequate mental health care to prisoners. The Jail’s mental health program lacks many of the hallmarks of a constitutionally adequate system. Specifically, the Jail’s current program fails to: properly screen prisoners for mental illness; provide adequate treatment planning; adequately administer medications and psychotherapy; and properly treat and supervise suicidal prisoners. • The Jail’s use of prolonged restrictive housing under current conditions, including the failure to provide adequate medical and mental health care, violates the constitutional rights of prisoners with serious mental illness. The Jail subjects prisoners with serious mental illness to prolonged periods of restrictive housing under conditions that place them at a substantial risk of serious harm. During the first six months of 2017, an average of 70 prisoners with serious mental illness were held in restrictive housing on any given day. Of the almost 500 prisoners the Jail identified as having serious mental illness between July 2016 and July 2017, more than 175 of them spent at least 30 consecutive days in restrictive housing. More than 60 prisoners with serious mental illness spent three consecutive months or more in restrictive housing. The majority of “suicide threat” and “self-inflicted injury” incidents occur in the Jail’s restrictive housing cells. Though only 15% of the Jail’s population is housed in restrictive housing, between 2014 and August 2017, 60% of both the approximately 400 suicide threat incidents and the nearly 300 self-inflicted injury incidents occurred in a restrictive housing cell. Also, of the 300 transfers from the Jail to a state-run psychiatric 2 hospital between 2016 and August 2017, 60% had been housed in restrictive housing immediately prior to being transferred to the state hospital. Eighty-seven of those transfers occurred after a prisoner had spent 30 consecutive days or more in restrictive housing. • The Jail’s restrictive housing practices discriminate against prisoners with mental health disabilities in violation of the ADA. The Jail places prisoners with mental health disabilities in restrictive housing on administrative status specifically because they are “mentally deficient,” with no disciplinary or other reason given. By placing these prisoners in restrictive housing because of their disability and denying them the benefits of the Jail’s services, programs, and activities when they would otherwise be qualified to access these benefits in non-restrictive housing, the Jail violates the ADA. II. INVESTIGATION On December 12, 2016, the Department of Justice notified the Hampton Roads Regional Jail of our intent to conduct an investigation of the Jail pursuant to CRIPA and the ADA. Our investigation focused on whether there is reasonable cause to believe the Jail (1) violates prisoners’ rights to adequate medical and mental health care, (2) violates the constitutional rights of prisoners who have mental illness by secluding them in restrictive housing for prolonged time periods under current conditions, and (3) v

Corrections CRIPA matter — Hacker v. Cain, Louisiana. Status: Statement of Interest.

our findings, the facts supporting those findings, and the minimum remedial steps necessary to address the identified deficiencies. We conclude that Hinds County ("County") violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution by (1) failing to provide conditions of confinement that offer prisoners reasonable safety and protection from vio.lence, and (2) holding prisoners in the Jail beyond their court-ordered release dates.3 Our investigation included both the Hinds County Adult Detention Center in Raymond, Mississippi, and the Jackson City Detention Center in Jackson, Mississippi. 2 CRIPA authorizes the U.S. Department of Justice to seek equitable relief where conditions violate the constitutional rights of prisoners in state or local correctional facilities. 3 For purposes of this letter, the term "prisoner" refers to all individuals housed at the Jail. We understand that various categories of individuals are held in the Jail, including pretrial detainees, people who have been convicted of crimes, people awaiting transfer to another jurisdiction, and people who are being held for nonpayment of child support. 2 As you are aware, over the last three years, a series of incidents have caused serious physical harm and posed an ongoing risk of serious harm to individuals in the Jail. These incidents include at least three major riots, two alleged homicides, and numerous assaults on prisoners and staff members. They required closing entire housing units and transferring prisoners to other jurisdictions, where they were difficult to locate by defense attorneys and court officials. Attorney access to clients was interrupted. Tactical teams have been repeatedly called in to restore order to the facility. The situation has been of such concern that in September 2013, the County Circuit Court entered a series of orders directing the grand jury to review Jail conditions with the assistance of an appointed monitoring team. Grand jury consultants and the monitoring team identified a host of serious systemic issues such as inadequate staffing, physical plant deficiencies, and unsound security procedures. As discussed further in this letter, we confirmed many of the same findings during our inspection. In response to the emergency situation, County officials have tried to take remedial action to address reported Jail deficiencies. The Sheriff and County Board have expended funds to make physical plant repairs, contracted with experienced managers to oversee Jail reforms, and started planning other improvements. However, these actions have not remedied the Jail’s fundamental problems. As we detail below, the Jail needs additional qualified staff, an effective classification system, and systemic improvements to the maintenance of physical security features. Harsh practices, such as long-term lockdowns and the confinement of prisoners in unsanitary cells, must cease. Policies and procedures for processing prisoners must be more reliable and efficient, to prevent unnecessary detention. Until the County implements systemic remedies, piecemeal reforms are insufficient. Thus, despite the County’s recent efforts to address systemic deficiencies, we find that longstanding problems with Jail safety and security persist. Many of these problems were described by local grand jury investigations, news reports, and the facility’s own incident reports. They continue to pose an unacceptable risk to prisoners in violation of the Constitution. I. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Constitutional deficiencies at the Jail violate prisoners’ Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Specifically:  The Jail does not provide prisoners with reasonable safety and minimum levels of protection from violence by other prisoners and staff members. The Jail lacks sufficient numbers of trained staff to supervise prisoners and to deal with emergencies. The Jail’s physical plant poses seri

our findings, the facts SUppoliing tl1em, and the minimum remedial steps necessary to address the identified deficiencies. We conclude that the State of Alabama violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution by failing to protect women plisoners at Tutwiler from ham1 due to sexual abuse and harassment from correctional staff. Tutwiler has a history of unabated staff-on-prisoner sexual abuse and harassment. The women at Tutwiler universally fear for their safety. They live in a sexualized envirolunent with repeated and open sexual behavior, including: abusive sexual contact between staff and prisoners; sexualized activity, including a strip show condoned by staff; profane and unprofessional sexualized language and harassment; and deliberate cross-gender viewing of prisoners showering, urinating, and defecating. The inappropriate sexual behavior, including sexual abuse, continues, and is grossly undelTepOlied, due to insufficient staffing and supervision, inadequate policies and procedures, a heightened fear of retaliation, and an inadequate investigative process. Officials at the Alabama Department of Con·ections ("ADOC") and Tutwiler have failed to remedy the myriad systemic causes ofhann to the women prisoners at Tutwiler despite repeated notification of the problems. ADOC and Tutwiler have demonstrated a clear deliberate indifference to the hann and substantial risk ofhann to women prisoners. They have failed to take reasonable steps to protect people in their custody from the known and readily apparent threat of sexual abuse and sexual harassment. Officials have been on notice for over eighteen years of the risks to women prisoners and, for over eighteen years, have chosen to ignore them. - 2 - During the course of our investigation, we reviewed information suggesting that the systemic deficiencies at Tutwiler that facilitated staff sexual misconduct may also lead to excessive use of force, constitutionally inadequate conditions of confinement, constitutionally inadequate medical and mental health care, and discriminatory treatment based on national origin, sexual orientation, and gender identity. Therefore, in addition to informing you of our findings, this letter serves as notice of our intent to expand our investigation into these areas.1 Alabama Department of Corrections Commissioner Kim T. Thomas, Warden Bobby Barret, and Warden II Karla Jones have fully cooperated with our investigation. We recognize that Warden Barret has recently assumed the position, and was not present at the Facility when much of the alleged misconduct took place. We commend ADOC and Tutwiler leadership for recognizing the need for reform at Tutwiler, and appreciate their receptiveness to our suggestions for change thus far. We look forward to continuing to work cooperatively with all interested parties. I. Summary of Findings We have made the following factual determinations:  For nearly two decades, Tutwiler staff have harmed women in their care with impunity by sexually abusing and sexually harassing them.2 Staff have raped, 1 Because our expanded investigation will evaluate Tutwiler’s overall provision of medical and mental health care, we do not issue findings at this time with regard to our investigation into whether women who have alleged that they are subject to sexual abuse receive adequate medical and mental health care. This is, in part, due to the fact that the inquiries and remedies will overlap to such an extent that it will be more efficient to issue them all at once so that the state can implement broad based remedies in a coordinated fashion. In addition, our investigation of the medical and mental health system with regard to sexual abuse victims could not be completed satisfactorily because we were prevented from interviewing prisoners outside of the presence of

Corrections CRIPA matter — Ball v. LeBlanc, Louisiana. Status: Statement of Interest.

findings of the Civil Rights Division's investigation of conditions of confinement at the St. Tammany Parish Jail ("St. Tammany" or "Jail"), conducted pursuant to the Civil Rights ofInstitutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997 ("CRIPA"). During our investigation, we assessed St. Tammany's compliance with the Constitution, which requires the Jail to provide prisoners with humane conditions of confinement, including adequate mental health care. Consistent with the statutory requirements of CRIPA, we now write to inform you of our findings that St. Tammany fails to comply with the Constitution and of the steps St. Tammany needs to take to meet its obligations under the law. As described more fully below, we conclude that conditions of confinement at St. Tammany violate the constitutional rights of prisoners. In particular, we find that prisoners confined at St. Tammany do not receive adequate mental health care, including proper suicide prevention. As we were conducting our investigation, St. Tammany reported to us that it had begun to make necessary changes to its mental health care program. Many of these changes are consistent with or responsive to our critique and suggestions at the end of our onsite visit to the Jail. In October 2011, Jail officials submitted a letter detailing purported changes in policies, practices, and procedures including in the areas of mental health and substance abuse screening and assessment; the implementation of a suicide database and suicide watch log; increased psychiatric staffing, including hiring a masters-level social worker; abandoning its use of booking cages for housing prisoners with suicidal ideation; constructing five suicide-resistant cells, including one outfitted for physical restraints; eliminating its policy that allowed prisoners to self-administer medications; redrafting the mental health sections of its policies and -2- procedures; and expanding its quality improvement program. More recently, St. Tammany has provided information that will be of use to us in verifying the claimed structural and operational changes at the Jail. In our opinion, these purported changes are both significant and long overdue. St. Tammany has been cooperative throughout our investigation and receptive to our preliminary findings and initial recommendations. We commend St. Tammany’s stated efforts in enhancing mental health care at the facility. The changes described in the October 2011 letter, however, are a small part of the comprehensive reform necessary to ensure that St. Tammany provides treatment to prisoners in a manner that comports with the Constitution. Many of the changes described are either in the planning stages or too newly-initiated to allow for close assessment. Other announced changes have encountered barriers in implementation, and some of our concerns remain unaddressed. Institutional reform can only occur after deficient, broken systems are repaired, and we are encouraged that the Jail is taking some necessary steps to repair its deficient, broken mental health care system. St. Tammany is an integral part of the community’s public safety system. The constitutional treatment of prisoners in St. Tammany is not only an important legal obligation, but will have a direct effect of the success of prisoners on release and on public safety. As a result, we believe that a court enforceable agreement will be necessary to ensure sustainable reform. We look forward to beginning discussions with the Parish in the coming months to find an appropriate resolution. I. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS We have concluded that St. Tammany is deliberately indifferently to the mental health care needs of its prisoners. St. Tammany fails to provide minimally adequate mental health care to prisoners at St. Tammany in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. This failure has led to the unneces

Findings Regarding Department of Justice Investigation of Lauderdale County Youth Courts Meridian Police Department, and Mississippi Division of Youth Services Dear All: We write regarding the United States Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) investigation of allegations that the Lauderdale County Youth Court (“Youth Court”), the Meridian Police Department (“MPD”), and the Mississippi Division of Youth Services (“DYS”) are violating the - 2- constitutional rights of juveniles in Meridian who are referred for law enforcement action by public schools. On December 1, 2011, we notified the City of Meridian and Lauderdale County of our intent to conduct an investigation of MPD and the Youth Court pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141 (“Section 14141”), and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d (“Title VI”). On June 29, 2012, we notified the State of Mississippi of the expansion of our investigation to include DYS. This letter provides notice that, unless there are meaningful negotiations to resolve the alleged constitutional violations in the administration of juvenile justice, we will not delay in filing for relief in federal court. We find reasonable cause to believe that these agencies’ administration of juvenile justice violates the constitutional rights of children in the City of Meridian and the County of Lauderdale under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.1 Based on the serious and longstanding nature of the violations, as well as these agencies’ refusal to cooperate with our investigation and provide reasonable access to information, we believe a federal lawsuit against the government entities and agents responsible for administering juvenile justice is necessary to vindicate the rights of the children in Meridian and Lauderdale County. Our preferred course of action would be to avoid contested litigation through your cooperation in our ongoing investigation and joint efforts to remedy constitutional deficiencies. SUMMARY OF VIOLATIONS This letter provides notice that, unless there are meaningful negotiations, DOJ, on behalf of the United States, will file a complaint in federal district court within 60 days. The suit would be filed against the City of Meridian, the County of Lauderdale, Lauderdale County Youth Court, Youth Court Judges Frank Coleman and Veldore Young in their official capacities, the State of Mississippi, the Mississippi Department of Human Services, and the Mississippi Division of Youth Services (collectively referred to as “the entities”). It would allege the following causes of action: (1) The City of Meridian Violates the Fourth Amendment by Arresting Children Without Assessing Probable Cause; (2) Lauderdale County and the Youth Court Judges Violate the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments by Failing to Provide Children Procedural Due Process in the Youth Court Process; (3) Lauderdale County, the Youth Court Judges, and the Mississippi Division of Youth Services Violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments by Failing to Provide Children Procedural Due Process Rights in the Probationary Process; and 1 We have not yet reached a conclusion regarding whether any of the entities are violating the equal protection rights of children, or children's rights under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Our investigation of these issues is ongoing. - 3- (4) The City of Meridian, Lauderdale County, the Youth Court Judges, and the Mississippi Division of Youth Services Violate Children’s Right to Substantive Due Process Under the Fourteenth Amendment. While the basis for each allegation is described more fully below, in sum, the entities named above help to operate a school-to-prison pipeline, whereby, following referral of students who attend school in the Meridian Public School District (“District”) to law enforcement, the MPD, Youth Court, and DYS administer juvenile justice without regard

our findings. On April 2, 2008, we notified officials of Miami-Dade Calmty ("County") of our intent to investigate the MDCR corrections facilities pursuant to the Civil Rights oflnstitutionalized Persons Act ("CRIPA"), 42 U.S.C.§ 1997. CRIP A gives the Department of Justice authority to seek a remedy for a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the constihltional rights of prisoners in adult detention and corrections facilities. CRIP A requires that we advise you of the findings of our investigation, the facts supporting them, and the minimum remedial steps that are necessary to address the de-£iciencies we have identified. 42 U.S.C. § 1997b. I. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS We conclude that that there is a pattern and practice of constitutional violations in the correctional facilities operated by MDCR, and as a result of the unconstitutional operation of the Jail, prisoners suffer grievous harm, including death. As described more fully below, our specific findings include: • MDCR is deliberately indifferent to the suicide risks and serious mental health needs of its prisoners. At least eight prisoners have committed suicide since 2007, and thousands of prisoners have suffered from inadequate mental health crisis services. • MDCR fails to provide adequate acute care, chronic care, outpatient treatment, and - 2 ­ discharge services to prisoners with mental illness. Instead, MDCR inappropriately relies on medication management that fails to consistently incorporate diagnoses or treatment plans, even for prisoners with the most serious mental illnesses. • MDCR is deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of prisoners including access to care for acute medical needs, management of chronic health problems, and record keeping and quality assurance. Prisoners wait weeks and even months to receive consultations for care from HIV, cardiology, and neurology specialists. • MDCR fails to provide adequate intake screening, initial health assessments and acute care for newly incarcerated prisoners. Since 2008, at least five prisoners have died from MDCR's failure to identify and treat prisoners withdrawing from drugs or alcohol. • MDCR is engaged in a pattern or practice ofusing excessive force against prisoners. MDCR corrections officers openly engage in abusive and retaliatory conduct, which frequently causes injuries to prisoners. • MDCR is deliberately indifferent to the serious risk ofharm to prisoners posed by fellow prisoners. Corrections officers fail to supervise prisoners, particularly prisoners known to be violent, resulting in ongoing harm and serious risk ofharm. There is significant evidence to be concerned that the Jail fails to take reasonable steps to protect prisoners from sexual assault. • The conditions of confinement within the Jail expose prisoners to an umeasonable risk of hann from inadequate fire and life safety systems and environmental health and sanitation deficiencies, including umeasonable risk of infection from overcrowding and inadequate laundry, housekeeping, and pest controL II. INVESTIGATION On June 9-13, 2008, June 16-20,2008, and April 7-8,2009, we inspected the facility together with consultants in the fields of corrections, custodial medical and mental health care, suicide prevention, and environmental health and sanitation. We interviewed administrative and corrections staff, medical and mental health care providers, prisoners, and members of the Miami-Dade community. Our investigation also included the review of policies and procedures, incident reports, grievances, medical records, and use of force records and investigations, including documents provided by the County subsequent to our on-site visits. In keeping with our pledge of transparency and providing technical assistance where appropriate, our consultants conveyed their preliminary impressions and concerns to County officials and the MDCR command staff at the conclusio

findings of the Civil Rights Division's investigation of conditions at the Robertson County Detention Center ("RCDF" or "Jail"), conducted pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997 ("CRIP A"). The Civil Rights Division commenced its investigation at the request of the United States Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Tennessee, after that office received complaints from prisoners regarding RCDF's provision of nutrition and medical care. During our investigation, we assessed RCDF's compliance with the Constitution, which requires the Jail to provide detainees with humane conditions of confinement, including adequate medical and mental health care, food, clothing, and shelter. While we found RCDF's practices with respect to nutrition, medical care, and environmental health and safety adequate or minimally adequate to comply with the Constitution, we found a pattern or practice of constitutional violations in RCDF's provision of mental health care. Specifically, RCDF's mental health practices place prisoners at a substantial and unreasonable risk of serious harm. In the other areas we investigated, we have serious concerns that do not yet rise to the level of constitutional violations, including numerous medical practices that could result in constitutional violations if left unremedied. By implementing the remedies set forth below, the County will fulfill its duty to uphold the Constitution and protect the health and safety of those in its custody. In making these findings, we note that RCDF has been cooperative throughout our investigation and receptive to our preliminary findings and initial recommendations. We are thus I. -2- confident that RCDP will take appropriate measures to remedy the deficiencies we detail in this letter, and look forward to working cooperatively with RCDP as it does so. Summary of Findings and Conclusions We have concluded that Robertson County ("the County") fails to provide mental health care to prisoners at RCDP in violation of the Pourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Addressing these deficiencies should be RCDP's highest priority, as we believe that these lapses, if not corrected, have a strong likelihood of resulting in unnecessary injury and/or loss of life. Our specific findings of practices that do not comport with the requirements of the Constitution include: • RCDP fails to protect prisoners from harm by permitting Licensed Practical Nurses ("LPNs") - individuals with little or no mental health training - to independently manage suicide precautions. The Constitution requires the Jail to provide prisoners with mental health needs with access to medical personnel who are qualified to diagnose and treat mental illness. • RCDP fails to provide prisoners with serious mental illnesses with timely and competent mental health care. Specifically, (a) prisoners with chronic mental illnesses who are not capable of requesting mental health care are effectively denied treatment; (b) prisoners who request mental health care experience delays that violate constitutional standards; and (c) nurses are responsible for providing mental health care beyond their training and qualifications. While we do not find a current violation of the Constitution, we find that certain medical practices at RCDP may pose unreasonable risks to prisoners' safety and health and, ifleft mrremedied, may violate the Constitution. Additionally, we find that while the Jail's nutrition and sanitation meet minimum constitutional requirements, certain ofRCDP's practices in these areas are deficient or cause us concern. II. Investigation On July 13, 2010, we notified you that we were opening an investigation of conditions at RCDP pursuant to CRIP A. Based on the allegations and information we received from the United States Attorney's Office, the initial focus of our investigation was the nutritional adequacy of the diet provided to RC

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The youth confmed to LCJDC are subjected to conditions that violate their constitutional and federal statutory rights. Our investigation revealed systemic, egregious, and dangerous abuses perpetuated by a lack of accountability and controls. LCJDC fails to prevent unconstitutional harms, or minimize the risk of such harms, through undue use ofrestraints, arbitrary imposition ofpunishment, inadequate grievance procedures, failure to report and investigate abuse, inadequate classification systems, inadequate rehabilitative treatment, inadequate medical and mental health care, inadequate suicide risk protections, inadequate environmental safety, inadequate staffmg, and inadequate educational services. We found that: - 2 ­ • Youth are dangerously and routinely shackled to metal beds for discipline and punishment; • Staff have unfettered discretion to immediately administer punishment, and isolation is used excessively for punishment and control; • Suicidal youth are not assessed by mental health professionals despite known risks; • Internal investigations dismiss abuse complaints against staff as manipulative; and • No accoITunodations exist for children with learning disabilities. These systemic deficiencies exist because generally accepted juvenile justice standards are not followed. We found that LCJDC staff members do not receive minimally adequate training and that existing policies and procedures are inadequate to ensure constitutionally adequate care and custody ofthe youth confined to the facility. Staff members fail to report allegations of abuse to the State and appear to routinely violate youths' rights with impunity. The widespread and significant deficiencies at the facility are a result of significant departures from accepted juvenile justice standards and violate the Fourteenth Amendment's mandate that youth in custody be protected from harm. In this letter, we provide

findings of the Civil Rights Division's investigation of conditions of confinement at the Orleans Parish Prison ("OPP"). On February 12, 2008, we . notified you of our intent to conduct an investigation of conditions at OPP pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act ("CRIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1997. As we noted, CRIPA gives the Department of Justice authority to seek a remedy for a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the constitutional rights of inmates in adult detention and correctional facilities. On June 23-27,2008, August 18-20,2008, and November 17-20,2008, we conducted on-site inspections at OPP with expert consultants in corrections, use of force, custodial medical and mental health care, and sanitation. 1 We interviewed administrative staff, security staff, medical and mental health staff, facilities management staff, training staff, and inmates. Before, during, and after our visits, we reviewed an extensive number of documents, including policies and procedures, incident reports, use of force reports, investigative reports, inmate grievances, disciplinary reports, unit logs, orientation materials, medical records, and staff training materials. In keeping with our pledge of transparency and to provide technical assistance where appropriate, we conveyed our preliminary impressions to OPPofficials and legal counsel for the Sheriff s Office at the close of each of our site visits. 1 Our corrections expert was the only expert who accompanied us on the August on-site visit, and our medical health care expert was the only expert who accompanied us on the November on-site visit. - 2 - We remain sensitive to the fact that OPP is still recovering from the devastating effects of Hurricane Katrina and commend the Sheriff and his staff for their extraordinary efforts to structurally rebuild the facilities. We also note the tremendous strides and improvements that the Sheriff and his staff have made in light of the scope and depth of destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina. We commend the OPP staff for their helpful and professional conduct throughout the course of the investigation. We received complete cooperation with our investigation and appreciate the receptiveness to our consultants' on-site recommendations. Accordingly, we have every reason to believe that the Sheriff, his office, and the City are committed to remedying all known deficiencies at OPP. We hope to be able to work cooperatively to such a resolution. Prior to our investigation, many media reports, allegations, and even rumors Circulated regarding conditions at the Jail following the Hurricane. Our review of documents, investigative files, and interviews 9f staff and inmates has been to ascertain if the Constitution has been violated in a systemic manner. Again, commendably, we recognize the Sheriffs efforts in safely and efficiently evacuating the inmates and his efforts to secure the necessary funding to rebuild. Consistent with the statutory requirements of CRIP A, we now write to advise you of the findings of our investigation, the facts supporting them, and the minimum remedial steps that are necessary to address the defiCienCies we have identified. 42 § U.S.C. 1997b. As described more fully below, we conclude that certain conditions at OPP violate the constitutional rights of inmates. In particular, we find that inmates confined at OPP are not adequately protected from harm, including physical harm from excessive use of force by staff and inmate-on-inmate violence. In addition, we find that inmates do not receive adequate mental health care, including proper suicide prevention. While OPP meets constitutionally required standards of medical care in many areas; however, we found specific defiCiencies in medication management. OPP inmates also face serious risks posed by inadequate environmental and sanitation conditions. I. BACKGROUND Located in downtown New Orleans, OPP is one of the larg

Corrections CRIPA matter — Erie County Holding Center and Erie County Correctional Facility, New York. Status: Closed. See findings/documents at: https://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/Erie_findlet_redact_07-15-09.pdf

findings of our investigation and to recommend remedial measures to ensure that conditions at the Jail meet federal constitutional requirements. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997b. Si~ce we initiated this investigation, we have toured the Jail on several occasions, specifically, on May 28-30, June· 9-13, and August 27-29, 2003. Our most recent tour of the Jail was on April 25-27, 2007. 1 This letter reports on conditions identified on our most recent tour during which we inspected the Jail with consultants in the fields of correctional practices and standards, correctional health care, and environmental health and safety. While on-site, we interviewed administrative and 1 For a variety of reasons, several years elapsed between the two tours. Despite this opportunity to improve conditions at the Jail, however, we generally did not observe improved conditions at the time of the second tour. -2­ security staff, health care providers, and detainees. 2 Before, during, and after our on-site inspections, we received and reviewed a large number of documents, including policies and procedures, incident reports, medical and mental health records, and other materials. Consistent with our commitment to provide technical assistance and conduct a transparent investigation, we provided extensive debriefings at the conclusion of our inspections, during which our consultants provided their initial impressions and concerns. We appreciate greatly the cooperation we received from County and Jail officials throughout our investigation. We also wish to extend our appreciation to Sheriff John Whetsel, Major Bobby Carson,' and the staff and administration at the Jail for their professional conduct and timely responses to our requests. Having completed the fact-finding portion of our investigation, we conclude that certain conditions at the Jail viblate the constitutional rights of detainees confined there. As detailed below, we find that the Jail fails to provide for detainees': (1) reasonable protection from harm; (2) constitutionally-required mental health care services; (3) adequate housing, sanitation and environmental protections; and (4) protection from serious fire-safety risks. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE JAIL The main Jail facility, operated by the Sheriff's Office, was built in 1991 and is located in downtown Oklahoma City. It is thirteen stories tall a~d was originally designed to hold 1,250 detainees, but held 2,543 detainees at the time of our April 2007 tour. The Jail has a daily detainee/booking of approximately 125 deta~nees and an average annual detainee/booking of approximately 44,000 detainees. 3 The Jail Annex, also located in Oklahoma City, occupies the top three floors of the Oklahoma County Courthouse. The Annex is used as 2 The Jail houses mainly pre-trial detainees. However, the facility also houses some post-adjudication inmates. For the purpose of this letter, both groups will be referred to as detainees. 3 Administrative offices occupy part of the first floor. The medical ward is located on the thirteenth floor. A recreation yard sits atop the roof of the building. The recreation yard is the only open-ai~part of the Jail accessible by detainees. -3 ­ a short-term holding facility for detainees who are awaiting court appearances in the Courthouse. The Courthouse and Jail Annex were built in 1936. Detainees are held at the Annex for short periods of time, usually half a day, while awaiting their court appearances. The Jail contracts to house detainees from several jurisdictions, including the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, United states Marshals' Service, and the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. II.

Corrections CRIPA matter — Grant County Detention Center, Kentucky. Status: Enforcement. See findings/documents at: https://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/grant_county_findlet_5-18-05.pdf

findings based on the tour of its experts, the County's response to the tour, and the additional information received. DOJ concluded that mental health care at the Jail violated the inmates' constitutional rights.      In its findings letter, DOJ detailed numerous alleged constitutional deficiencies with regard to mental health care, including inadequate (1) intake screening and evaluation, (2) diagnosis, (3) referral to mental health professionals, (4) treatment plans, (5) administration of medications, (6) suicide prevention, (7) tracking and medical record keeping, (8) staffing, (9) communication, and (10) quality assurance. The report also noted that the County had allegedly mistreated and abused mentally ill inmates, including using excessive force and improper restraint practices.      Since DOJ issued its findings letter, the parties have attempted to work cooperatively to resolve the concerns outlined in the letter. After its initial tour in June of 1996, DOJ has conducted several follow up investigatory inspections of the Jail and has continued to find inadequate mental health services.      The parties to this Memorandum of Agreement ("the Agreement") recognize the constitutional rights of inmates confined at the Jail. After discussions and negotiations, and in order to avoid potential litigation concerning the mental health services at the Jail, the parties have agreed to the provisions set forth in this Agreement. The parties have engaged in good-faith negotiations to reach this Agreement. The parties agree that the provisions of this Agreement will ensure that reasonable and adequate mental health care services are provided at the Jail.      Fulfillment of the terms of this Agreement, voluntarily negotiated and entered into by DOJ and Los Angeles County, is intended to resolve all remaining issues relating to mental health services at the Jail. II.  DEFINITIONS 1.  "The Parties" shall refer to the County and the United States of America. 2.  "The County" shall refer to Los Angeles County, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department; the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health, and the agents and employees of the Sheriff's Department and Department of Mental Health. 3.  The term inmate(s) shall refer to one or more individuals, male and/or female, sentenced to, incarcerated in, detained at, or otherwise confined at the Jail. 4.  "Qualified professional" shall refer to an individual qualified to render the requisite and appropriate care, treatment, judgment(s), training and service, based on credentials recognized in the specific field. 5.  "Competency-based training" means training deemed successfully completed by a staff member only when that staff member demonstrates to a trainer his or her ability or competency to perform a specified skill through an active hands-on demonstration of such skill. III.  GENERAL PROVISIONS 6.  The facilities that are at issue in this case are "institutions" as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. ｧ 1997(1). 7.  Los Angeles County owns and funds the operation of the Jail. In their official capacity, the Sheriff of Los Angeles County, and the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health are responsible for overseeing and/or providing mental health services to the inmates at the Jail. 8.  The County is responsible for assuring the fulfillment of the responsibilities and obligations imposed by this Agreement upon County employees, independent contractors, departments or other sub-units of the County government. IV.  SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS A.  Intake 1.  The County will maintain adequate twenty-four hour mental health screening of all inmates at the Inmate Reception Center ("IRC"). 2.  Each inmate entering IRC shall be individually and privately asked questions appropriate to determine whether the inmate has or had a mental illness, has attempted suicide, or has suicidal propensities. 3.  Intake screening at IRC shall be completed by an appropriately trained individual, and sha

Findings Letter Commonwealth Puerto Rico Findings Letter Share [image] The Honorable Pedro J. Rossello Governor Commonwealth of Puerto Rico La Fortaleza San Juan, Puerto Rico 00901 Re: Investigation of Juvenile Facilities in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Dear Governor Rossello: I am writing in reference to our ongoing investigation into conditions within juvenile facilities in Puerto Rico pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act ("CRIPA"), 42 U.S.C. §1997 et seq. As you know, we notified your predecessor in December 1992 of unconstitutional conditions in seven Commonwealth facilities -- the Juvenile Detention Center of San Juan in Hato Rey, the Industrial School of Mayaguez, the Juvenile Detention Center of Ponce (now a training center called "LaVictoria"), the Center for Social Treatment of Ponce, the Industrial School for Boys and Girls in Ponce, the Juvenile Detention Center in Humacao, and the Central Treatment Center in Guaynabo. We notified then Governor Hernandez-Colon of fire safety hazards in all of the above-mentioned facilities. In addition, we notified Governor Hernandez-Colon that in all facilities except the Central Treatment Center in Guaynabo, unconstitutional conditions included: lack of adequate medical care and mental health services; the presence of unsanitary and unsafe conditions throughout the facilities; the absence of sufficient beds and/or mattresses for juveniles to sleep on; the lack of proper mechanisms to identify, investigate, and implement remedial measures, if necessary, regarding abuse of juveniles and sufficient security measures to control institutional violence among juveniles; and the absence of constitutionally-required periods of exercise.   In May and June of this year, we re-toured all of the above-named facilities (except, of course, the facility in Hato Rey, which was closed in April 1994). In May and June, we also toured a detention center that did not exist when we conducted our earlier tours, the Cabo Rojo Detention Center, as well as the facility to which the Hato Rey juveniles were transferred, Centro Juvenil Metropolitano in Bayamon. Consistent with the requirements of CRIPA, we now write to advise you of our further findings, the facts supporting our determination of constitutional and legal violations, and the necessary remedial measures to correct these violations with respect to the Cabo Rojo Detention Center and additional problems at other facilities not covered by our previous letter which implicate the constitutional and legal rights of confined juveniles.   I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK   A. CRIPA   CRIPA gives the Department of Justice standing to bring actions against facilities such as Commonwealth juvenile facilities over "rights, privileges, or immunities protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States ..." CRIPA § 3, 42 U.S.C. § 1997a (emphasis added). Hence, CRIPA authorizes suit for violation of federal statutes and regulations as well as for constitutional violations.   B. Juvenile Detainee Constitutional Rights   1. Substantive Due Process Juveniles in custody have a constitutional right to adequate basic care, medical care, and protection from harm. Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982). Courts recognize that there are clear differences between the rights of juveniles held in custody and the rights of incarcerated adults. Conditions of confinement for youth in custody -- who have not been convicted of a crime -- are governed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and not the less protective Eighth Amendment. Santana v. Collazo, 714 F.2d 1172, 1179 (1st Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 974 (1984); see also Gary H. v. Hegstrom, 831 F.2d 1430, 1432 (9th Cir. 1987); H.C. by Hewett v. Jarrard, 786 F.2d 1080, 1084-85 (11th Cir. 1986); Milonas v. Williams, 691 F.2d 931, 942 & n.10 (10th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1069 (1983). (1) 2. Equal Protection Incarcerated juveniles do not lose their rights to equal protec

conditions of confinement at the Golden Grove Adult Correctional Facility, St. Croix, Virgin Islands, pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. 1997. 8. Following a~thorough investigation of conditions at Golden Grove, on January 23, 1986, the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights informed Governor Juan Luis of the :-e2sor.able cause to believe that inJ,2.~es confined to the Golden Grove Adult Correcti~nal Facility were being subjected to egregious or flagrant concitions that deprive them of their rights, privil~ges or im~unities sec~red by the Constitution. 9. The D~rties agree that the confinement of in~~tes at Golden Gt-ove iD.J?licate rights, privileges o~- ir:,:i\unities of these inmates whith are secured and protected by the Constitution of the United States. The parties enterina into this Decree recocniz~ these constitutional interests a.no for .' .. \ -3­ th~ pu~rose of avoidin0 protracted and adversarial liti~ation, agree to the provisions set forth herein. 10. In enterinq into this Consent Decree, Defendants do not ad~it any violation of law and this Consent Decree may not be used as evidence of liability in any other proceeding. 11. The provisions of this C6nsent Decree are a fair, appropriate and adeqJateresolution of this case. 12. This Consent Decree shall be applicable to and biriding ~pon all of the parties, th~ir officers, agents, employees, assigns and th~ir successors. I . Pu r r 0 s e sand 0 b j e c t i v e s The Virgin Islarlds and the United States stipulate and agree that the purpo~es and objectives of this Consent ~ecree are to establi~h as pro~ptly as practicable the following on5e r to e ilS:"; 1:e the t~oth ~)l-e tr i 21 ce t a i nees c: nc con\' i c:.ec inmates at the facility are not being deprived of rights, privileges or i;.~unities secured to them by the Constit~tion of the Unitec States., 1. 0efen·:::2"ts ·sh211 protect innates from unreasonable fire safety risks to their lives and safety. 2 . ;}e fen d.3 II t s s i', a11 p L- 0\' ide s u c h securi t y and s t e =f supervision to protect inmates frOD ~anton and reckless ph y sic a 1 v i 0 1c: n c e by 0 the L- innate s 0 r s t a f f . -, . , ( '.' .":, -. ,. ,-,.-I '''') -4­ 3. Defend~nts shall provide minimally adequate sanitation to prote~t 'inmates from unreasonable risks to their physical health. 4. Defendants sh~llprovide minimally adequate medical care for the serious medical needs of inmates. These purposes and objectives shall be achieved at the Golden Grove Adult Correctional Facility by implementing the requirements set forth in Part II and by developing and implementing the plans described in Part III of this Consent Decree. II. Conditions Requiring Immediate Correction In order to eliminate conditions which pose an immediate threat to life, health and safety of iniTiates at Golden Grove, the Virgin !slan~s ag~e2s to ~2e~ the follbwingreq~~~~~ents within 30 days after entry of this Consent Decree: 1. All fire .hazards will be removed from iniTia~e cells; 2. At all times, at least one guard will be on dDty and present in each inmate living unit; and 3. All living units will have adequate means to safely evacuate in~ates in case of emergency. I I 1. In order to ensure compliance with this Consen~ Decree, the Virgin Islands shall file with the Court no later than t\ 0 \' e Til be r 1, I 9 8 6 r its pIa n ( s) for imp I emen tin g t his C8 nsen t De C::-E8. Such plcn(s) shall sec forth: .:.. . ': .' ~., ~". ... ( . ,~. . . '-'z...... -5­ 1. The procedures to be used (a) to provide for the em~rgency evacuation of each building at Golden Grove that houses inmates or detainees, (b) to ensure that all emergency equipment is functional, (c) to ensure that all emergency exits are functional, and (d) to identify and correct conditions which are fire hazards. 2. The procedures and equipment to be

Corrections CRIPA matter — Maine Correctional Center, Maine. Status: Investigation.

Corrections CRIPA matter — Sheriff Al Cannon Detention Center, South Carolina. Status: Investigation.

Corrections CRIPA matter — Men in California Women's Prisons, California. Status: Investigation.

Juvenile Justice CRIPA matter — Publications, Virginia. Status: unknown.

Corrections CRIPA matter — California Women's Prisons, California. Status: Investigation.