Free Statement - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

TERRY GODDARD Attorney General CATHERINE M. BOHLAND Assistant Attorney General Bar No. 022124 1275 W. Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2997 Phone: (602) 542-4951 Fax: (602) 542-7670 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Mark E. Hampton, Plaintiff, v. Charles Ryan, et al., Defendants. No: CV03-1706-PHX-NVW (VAM) DEFENDANTS' STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants1 by and through undersigned counsel, submit the following Statement of Facts in support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment: 1. Plaintiff, Mark E. Hampton, #037486, is an inmate currently in the custody (Hampton's Redacted Arizona

of the Arizona Department of Corrections ("ADC").

Inmate Management System ["AIMS"] Report, available for this Court's in camera inspection.) The ADC currently houses Hampton in Arizona State Prison Complex

("ASPC") ­ Eyman, Special Management Unit ("SMU") II in Florence, Arizona. (Id.)
1

Charles Ryan, Conrad Luna and Barbara Shearer.

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 60

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 1 of 34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

2.

On September 3, 2003, Hampton filed his initial Complaint against Acting

Director Charles Ryan, Deputy Warden Conrad Luna and Corrections Officer Barbara Shearer alleging violations of his: (1) due process rights as to conditions of confinement (Count I); (2) Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment due to his conditions of confinement (i.e. exercise, lighting, diet, socialization, etc...) (Count II); and, (3) Eighth Amendment right to be free from retaliation and excessive use of force (Count III). (Dkt. 1.) On December 14, 2004, the Court dismissed Count III for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Dkt. 22.) 3. On September 30, 2005, Hampton filed his First Amended Complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Defendants identified in his original Complaint. (Dkt. 49.) The Complaint alleges multiple violations by Defendants to include denial of due process and Eighth Amendment violations. Hampton's due process claim alleges that Defendants: (1) validated him as a Security Threat Group ("STG") member without proper due process; (2) continue to confine him in SMU II without proper due process; (3) confine him in conditions that violate his substantive due process rights; and, (4) refuse to consider him for parole when he is statutorily eligible. (Dkt. 49 at pp. 6-7.) His Eighth Amendment claim alleges that Defendants: (1) failed to provide him with medical

treatment for various ailments; and, (2) confined him his conditions that constitute cruel and unusual punishment (i.e. virtually complete isolation; constant lighting; limited exercise opportunities; denial of food; educational and vocational programs; hygiene, recreational activities; and, humiliating treatment). (Id. at pp. 4-5.) He requests: (1) declaratory relief; (2) injunctive relief; (3) an order for release from SMU II confinement and for reasonable medical care; (4) general and special damages; (5) pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and, (5) attorney fees and costs. (Id. at pp. 8-9.)
4. The ADC employs Todd Gerrish as the Supervisor of the STG Unit. (¶ 2,

Declaration of Todd Gerrish ("Gerrish Declaration"), attached hereto as Exhibit A.)

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 60

2

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 2 of 34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

5.

The ADC employs Stacy Crabtree as the Classification Manager.

(¶ 1,

Declaration of Stacy Crabtree ("Crabtree Declaration"), attached hereto as Exhibit B.) 6. The ADC employs Carson McWilliams as the Warden of ASPC-Florence. (¶ 1,

Declaration of Carson McWilliams ("McWilliams Declaration", attached hereto as Exhibit C.) Prior to his current position, McWilliams served as the Deputy Warden of the SMU II. (Id. ¶ 2.) 7.

Gerald Katafiasz is Vice President of LSW Engineers Arizona, Inc.

("LSW"). (¶ 1, Declaration of Gerald E. Katafiasz ("Katafiasz Declaration"), attached hereto as Exhibit D.)
8.

The ADC employs Susan Kaye as a Time Computation Program Specialist

for the Central Office, Offender Services/Time Computation Unit. (¶ 1, Affidavit of Susan
Kaye ("Kaye Affidavit"), attached hereto as Exhibit E.) 9. The ADC employs Dr. Jeffrey Sharp as a physician to provide medical services

to ADC inmates. (¶ 1, Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey Sharp, M.D. ("Sharp Declaration"), attached hereto as Exhibit F.) Parole Eligibility:

10.

On July 16, 1986 Hampton was sentenced to: Count I, Murder in the First

Degree and received life without a possibility of parole or any other release until twentyfive calendar years are served; Count II, Attempted Armed Robbery and received twenty years concurrent to Count I; and, Count III Aggravated Assault and received twenty years concurrent to Count I. (Kaye Affidavit ¶ 3.) Hampton must serve twenty-five calendar years to be eligible for parole consideration. (Kaye Affidavit ¶ 4.) A calendar year is actual time served without benefit of release, suspension, or commutation of sentence, probation, pardon or parole, work furlough or release from confinement on any basis. (Kaye Affidavit ¶ 5.) Hampton's parole eligibility date is August 6, 2010. (Id.) 11. Due to seven disciplinary actions occurring between 1991 and 1996,

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 60

3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 3 of 34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Hampton was in a non-eligible parole Class III for a total of 240 days at which time he did not earn release credits. (Kaye Affidavit ¶ 6.) His parole eligibility date advanced one day for each day after placement in a non-eligible parole class III and thus to April 3, 2011. (Id.) 12. Due to his disciplinary violations, the Director forfeited 830 days of release

credits earned, however subsequently restored 180 days of forfeited release credits and rescinded 400 days of non-eligible parole Class III time. (Kaye Affidavit ¶ 7.) 13. Hampton's validation as a STG member does not result in a forfeiture of

release credits earned nor place him in a non-earning class III. (Kaye Affidavit ¶ 8.) However, because he refuses to renounce his membership he will not be eligible for a rescission of Class III time nor a restoration of forfeited time credits. (Id.) 14. Hampton's eligibility for parole or administrative release consideration is not

affected by his validation as a STG member. (Kaye Affidavit ¶ 9.)
Classification:

15.

Prior to October 25, 2005, Department Order ("DO") 801 governed

classification policy. (Crabtree Declaration ¶ 4.) The purpose of this policy is to outline the ADC's classification system and procedures for "initial classification and subsequent reclassification action addressing security and programming needs." (Id.)2 16. The Correctional Classification Profile ("CCP") consists of 10 factors for

evaluation: (1) Public Risk Score (P); (2) Institutional Risk Score (I); (3) Medical and Health Care Needs Score (M); (4) Mental Health Care Needs Score (MH); (5) Education Needs Score (E); (6) Vocational Training Needs Score (V); (7) Work Skill Needs Score
Effective October 25, 2005, the new DO 801 policy does not classify inmates according to Public and Institutional scores, but rather an inmate is classified according to four custody levels (i.e. maximum custody, close custody, medium custody and minimum custody). (See DO 801.01, 1.6, attached hereto as Attachment 2.) The new policy affords inmates assigned to maximum custody a review after the first 60 and 180 days of their initial placement into maximum custody. However, if the inmate is deemed appropriately placed after the 180 review, they will then receive annual reviews. (Id. at 801.06, 1.3.) Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW Document 60 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 4 of 34
2

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

(W); (8) Alcohol/Drug Abuse Treatment Needs Score (A/D); (9) Sex Offense Treatment Needs Score (S); and, (10) Proximity to Residence Needs Score (R). (Id. at 801.01, 1.1.) Each factor contains particular elements classification staff examine. (Id. at 801.01, 1.2 to 1.11.) (Crabtree Declaration ¶ 5.) 17. A Public Risk Score ("P") lists eight elements that are considered: (1)

Severity of Current Offense; (2) Extent of Violence in Current Offense; (3) Weapon Use in Current Offense; (4) Escape History; (5) History of Violence; (6) Confinement History; (7) Estimated Length of Confinement; and, (8) Detainer Status. (Id. at 801.01, 1.2.) (Crabtree Declaration ¶ 6.) 18. An Institutional Risk Score ("I") lists eight elements that are considered: (1)

Prior Institutional Adjustment; (2) Community Stability; (3) Inmate Adjustment During Initial Classification; (4) Probation/Parole Adjustment; (5) Mental Health Adjustment; (6) Current Age; (7) Security Threat Group ("STG") Affiliation; and, (8) Substance Abuse History. (Id. at 801.01, 1.3.) (Crabtree Declaration ¶ 7.) 19. The Institutional Classification Committee ("ICC") examines the inmate's

records, hears from the inmate, and makes a recommendation as whether to change or maintain the inmate's classification scores. (Crabtree Declaration ¶ 8.) 20. The inmate has the right to appeal the final classification decision by the

Central Classification Office to the Offender Services Bureau Administrator. (Crabtree Declaration ¶ 9.) Classification update hearings are held any time the inmate is convicted of a new offense (i.e., newly adjudicated charges or disciplinary violations.) (Id.) STG Classification: 21. If the inmate does not renounce his STG membership his P and I scores

remain unchanged. (Crabtree Declaration ¶ 10.) However, all other factors are evaluated

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 60

5

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 5 of 34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

and subject to change.3 (Id.) 22. STG validated inmates (with no CCP changes) who choose to renounce,

successfully debrief, and pass a polygraph test, are re-classified and ordinarily placed in SMU-I and then subsequently stepped down and relocated into placement in a Level 4 protective segregation yard with similar rights as inmates in any general population Level 4 yard. (Crabtree Declaration ¶ 11.) 23. In addition, the ADC reviews the inmate's case approximately every 180

days and the institutional classification staff rates the inmate on each one of the ten factors listed in ADC DO 801.01, 1.1 based on an assessment of the elements listed in section 801.01, 1.2 through 1.11. (Crabtree Declaration ¶ 12.) Each factor is scored from one to five and listed on the Reclassification Score Sheet ("RSS"). (Id.) The classification staff also uses the Correctional Classification Profile (CCP) to determine the most appropriate institutional assignment for each inmate reclassified. (Id.) Thereafter, the ICC and

Warden or Deputy Warden review the RSS and concurs or modifies the recommended scores, make any necessary corrections, and forward it to the Central Office. (Id.) 24. Absent security concerns, every inmate is allowed to be present, make a

statement, and present information to the ICC at classification hearings, with the exception of a Type 89 review. (Crabtree Declaration ¶ 13.) A Type 89 review is a quick paperless review of an inmate's record that does not affect his/her P/I score. An inmate is not necessarily required to be present at a Type 89 review. (Id.) 25. If there is a security concern, the inmate's right to appear, make a statement,

and present information is waived. (Crabtree Declaration ¶ 14.) An inmate may also waive appearance at the ICC classification hearing if no change is expected in the inmate's institutional placement. (Id.) An inmate with a waived right to appear may still submit a
Effective March 15, 2006, inmates can earn their release from SMU II custody if they successfully complete the Step-Down Program as outlined in the Declaration of Todd Gerrish (Exhibit A of this document.)
3

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 60

6

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 6 of 34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

written statement for consideration. (Id.) 26. Mark E. Hampton ("Hampton"), ADC #037486, has received a classification

review approximately every 180 days since his placement in Arizona State Prison Complex ("ASPC")­Eyman, Special Management Unit ("SMU") II. (Crabtree

Declaration ¶ 15; See p. 63, lines 7-19, Deposition of Mark Hampton, attached hereto as Exhibit G.) Officials have periodically served Hampton with classification referral notices and these notices informed him of upcoming ICC classification hearings. (Crabtree

Declaration ¶ 16; Exhibit G p. 63, lines 7-19.) Each notice gave Hampton an opportunity to appear at the hearing and call relevant witnesses, remain silent, receive a finalized copy of the ICC's findings, and appeal classification errors or overrides to the Administrator for Offender Services Bureau. (Id.) Of these reviews, Hampton received approximately three (3) Type 89 reviews, which were paperless and did not require his presence. (Crabtree Declaration ¶ 17.) 27. Since his initial validation, the classification committee has made no changes

in Hampton's P-5/I-5 scores and has recommended continued placement in SMU-II. (Crabtree Declaration ¶ 18.) 28. Aside from the Type 89 reviews, Hampton was given the opportunity to be

present, make a statement, and present information to the ICC, at all of his classification hearings. (Crabtree Declaration ¶ 19.) However, Hampton admits that he has refused to attend a reclassification hearing and his opportunity to be heard because he believed it was an exercise in futility. (Exhibit G at p. 64, lines 2-13.)
STG Policy: 29. Department Order ("DO") 806, effective September 2, 1997, governs STG

policy. (Gerrish Declaration ¶ 3.) The purpose of this policy is to minimize the threat posed by inmate gang or gang-like activity to the safe, secure, and efficient operations of the Arizona prison system. (Id.) DO 806 provides for the identification, validation, and re-classification

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 60

7

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 7 of 34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

of inmates determined to be members of an STG. (Id.) 30. ADC policy defines a STG as: "[a]ny organization, club, association or group of

individuals, either formal or informal (including traditional prison gangs), that may have a common name or identifying sign or symbol, and whose members engage in activities that include, but are not limited to the following: planning, organizing, threatening, financing, soliciting, committing or attempting to commit unlawful acts or acts that would violate the ADC's written instructions, which detract from the safe and orderly operation of prisons. (Gerrish Declaration ¶ 4.) These activities may include interaction with non-inmates, such as family members, other relatives, former inmates, and other `street' associates." (Id.) 31.

On August 31, 1995, the ADC gave notice to all inmates that the Aryan

Brotherhood was designated as a STG and thirty days from that date any inmate exhibiting activity or identification with the Aryan Brotherhood was subject to sanctions. (Gerrish
Declaration ¶ 5.) 32.

When staff suspects an inmate of being an STG member, officials conduct an

investigation using a specified scoring system. (Gerrish Declaration ¶ 6.) Points are given for categories of indicators such as gang-specific tattoos, possession of gang-related literature, self-admissions, and voluntary association with other gang members, including group photographs. (Id.) When the inmate meets the validation criteria, they are given a validation hearing whereby the STG Hearing Committee prepares and reviews a validation packet. (Id.)
33.

The validation packet is composed of 14 different elements: (1) STG

Validation Summary; (2) STG Identifying Questionnaire; (3) STG Worksheets (1-5); (4) STG Criteria (A-N); (5) STG Hearing Notification; (6) STG Hearing Postponement Request; (7) STG Witness Request/Response; (8) STG Suspect Defense; (9) STG Hearing Results; (10) STG Debriefing Request/Report; (11) STG Appeal; (12) Wardens-STG Packet Review; (13) STG Classification Notification; and, (14) Addenda--including STG

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 60

8

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 8 of 34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

packet remanded for further evidence, past STG validation summary, STG notification, and STG results. (Gerrish Declaration ¶ 7.)
34.

The STG Hearing Committee examines the underlying facts for each

category in the STG Criteria. (Gerrish Declaration ¶ 8.) The STG criteria is documented on a 806-3P form and composed of 14 categories: (A) Self-Proclamation; (B) Tattoos; (C) Symbolism; (D) Documents; (E) Publication; (F) Authorship; (G) Court Records; (H) Group Photos; (I) Association; (J) Contacts; (K) Confidential Informant Information; (L) Membership, (M) Media; and, (N) Other Agency Information. (Id.) 35. When the inmate receives notice of the validation hearing he may appear and

present a defense. (Gerrish Declaration ¶ 9.) If the inmate is validated as an STG member, he may renounce the STG membership, accept the validation, or appeal the decision of the Hearing Committee to the STG Validation Committee. (Gerrish Declaration ¶ 10.) The inmate is required to notify the Hearing Committee of his decision to appeal validation within five business days. (Id.) 36. All validated STG members are housed in Special Management Unit
(Gerrish

("SMU") II for the safety and protection of ADC staff and other inmates.

Declaration ¶ 11; McWilliams Declaration ¶ 5.) SMU II is a high security facility for

inmates with high risk needs, such as validated STG members. (Id.) 37. STG members are reviewed by the Institution Classification Committee

("ICC") every 180 days in accordance with Departmental Order ("DO") 801.4 (Gerrish
Declaration ¶ 12.)

38.

Because validated STG members are considered an ongoing threat to prison

security, validated STG members released from ADC custody retain their STG status

DO 806, effective September 2, 1997, was superceded by DO 806 effective November 1, 1999. However, the policy was not changed as to ICC review every 180 days. As such, Defendants will not attach a copy of the D0 806 that was in force between November 1, 1999 and March 15, 2006. Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW Document 60 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 9 of 34

4

9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

indefinitely. (Gerrish Declaration ¶ 13.) If a released inmate returns to the custody of the ADC, he shall retain the STG status held at the time of release. (Id.) 39. A validated STG member may be released from SMU II if he renounces his

STG membership, successfully debriefs, and passes a polygraph test. (Gerrish Declaration
¶ 14; McWilliams Declaration ¶ 8.) The purpose of a debriefing is not to obtain

incriminating criminal information or evidence against the member. (Gerrish Declaration ¶
15.) Rather, the primary objective is to learn enough about the member and the STG to:

(1) convince the Department that the inmate has dropped out of the STG; (2) provide additional information regarding the STG's structure, activity and membership that would adversely impact the STG and assist in management of the STG population; and, (3) provide sufficient information to determine if the inmate may require protection from other STG members or suspects. (Id.) Debriefing enables the ADC to manage the STG

population and to determine if the inmate needs protection from other STG members. (Id.) 40. A validated inmate may also secure his release from SMU II through a Step(Gerrish

Down Program as outlined in revised DO 806, effective March 15, 2006.

Declaration ¶ 16; McWilliams Declaration ¶ 9.) The revised DO 806 permits active inmates,

who have been validated as STG members, to remove themselves from STG activity and demonstrate to Department staff that they are no longer involved with STG activity. (Id.) 41. The Step-Down Program prepares inmates for their eventual return into

society. (Gerrish Declaration ¶ 17.) It is a system of incentives designed to encourage inmates to behave in a more civil, less-violent manner, and to take full responsibility for their actions. (Id.) Inmates are not eligible to participate in the Step-Down Program until they complete 48 months as a validated STG member. (Id.) To initiate the Step-Down process, the inmate must notify the Department staff, in writing, of his desire to participate in the program and complete a 24 month period where he has not participated in any gang activity nor incidents of assaults, extortion, or threats against staff or other inmates. (Id.)

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 60

10

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 10 of 34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

The STG Unit staff completes a comprehensive investigation of each validated STG inmate who requests to participation in the Step-Down Program. (Gerrish Declaration ¶
18.) The inmate is also required to successfully complete a polygraph examination specific

to the inmate's intent in participating in the program. The STG Unit staff conducts a comprehensive investigation of each validated STG inmate who requests to participate in the Step-Down Program. (Gerrish Declaration ¶ 17.) 42. The Step-Down Program takes 18 months to complete. (Gerrish Declaration

¶ 19.) During this time, the inmate must: (1) not participate in any significant STG

activity; (2) complete certain programs such as anger management; (3) attend counseling as necessary; (4) participate in peer support group activities; (5) refrain from disciplinary behavior that changes his classification or housing assignment; and (6) not be allowed unrestrained movement until Department Psychology staff and the Staff Inmate Reintegration Team ("SIRT") have completed an evaluation. (Id.) 43. The Step-Down program is divided into six phases and each phase is 90 days

in duration. (Gerrish Declaration ¶ 20.) Inmates are evaluated by SIRT in several areas and must successfully complete each phase before advancing to the next phase. (Id.) Upon successful completion, the inmate may earn release from SMU II or remain within the Step-Down Program. (Id.) A new group of ten inmates start the program every 90 days with a minimum of two inmates on stand-by in the event one of the primary ten inmates is unable to start the program. (Gerrish Declaration ¶ 21.) 44. The initial ten inmates started the Step-Down program in May of 2006.

Hampton was not chosen at that time to start the Step-Down Program. (Gerrish Declaration
¶ 22.) There are four STG inmates who are on stand-by in case any of the initial STG

inmates fail the program. (Id.) The inmates selected to participate in the program were moved to, and reside in, Baker Pod 6. (Id.) At this time, the only difference in conditions of confinement from SMU II Baker Pod 6 and SMU II is that an inmate's movement is not

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 60

11

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 11 of 34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

restrained when he attends outdoor exercise or uses the shower. (Id.) 45. Hampton was given notice of his suspected STG membership and impending

STG validation hearing on October 23, 1998, five days prior to his validation hearing on October 28, 1998. (Gerrish Declaration ¶ 23; Exhibit G at pp. 39-40.) The notice advised Hampton of his right to appear at the hearing, request witnesses, and present a defense. (Id.) Hampton appeared at his validation hearing, presented a defense, and requested three witnesses who did respond. (Id. ¶¶ 23, 27; Exhibit G at pp. 40-42.) 46. On October 28, 1998, the STG Hearing Committee validated Hampton as a

member of the Aryan Brotherhood STG. (Gerrish Declaration ¶ 24; Exhibit G at p. 39, line
19.) According to ADC records, the STG Hearing Committee relied on the following

evidence to validate him: (1) a photo taken at ASPC-Florence/Central Unit, Athletic Field, which includes at least five suspected or validated members of the Aryan Brotherhood along with Hampton; (2) an ADC report documenting Hampton's association with three validated members and one suspected member of the Aryan Brotherhood; (3) an ADC report documenting observations of Hampton associating with two validated members and one suspected member of the Aryan Brotherhood; (4) a membership list recovered from a validated Aryan Brotherhood member which included Hampton's name and ADC number among the numerous names and ADC numbers of other suspected and validated members of the Aryan Brotherhood; (5) a membership list recovered from another validated Aryan Brotherhood member which included Hampton's name and ADC number among the numerous names and ADC numbers of other suspected and validated member of the Aryan Brotherhood. (Gerrish Declaration ¶ 24; Exhibit G at pp. 45-50.) 47. On November 1, 1998, Hampton appealed his validation and on December 5,
(Gerrish Declaration ¶ 25;

1998, the STG Validation Committee rejected his appeal.
Exhibit G at p. 50, lines 17-20.)

48.

Hampton was transferred to SMU II on February 8, 1998.

(Gerrish

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 60

12

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 12 of 34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Declaration ¶ 26.) 49.

Hampton is eligible for release from SMU II and a P/I score reduction if he

agrees to and successfully debriefs or successfully completes the Step-Down Program.
(Gerrish Declaration ¶ 28.) Hampton is aware that he can debrief at anytime, however,

Hampton chooses not to debrief (Exhibit G at p. 66, lines 1-4; Gerrish Declaration ¶ 29) and
he has not yet been selected for participation in the Step-Down Program. The next set of

inmates will enter the program in late August. (Gerrish Declaration ¶ 30.) The ADC has not selected those inmates as of this date. (Id.) Conditions of Confinement in SMU II:
50.

SMU II opened for operation in 1996 and was designed to provide an

environment where maximum custody and control of the inmate population is accomplished. (McWilliams Declaration ¶ 6.) It is a high-security facility for inmates with high-risk needs and consists of the following categories: (1) Validated Security Threat Group ("STG") members; (2) Death row inmates; (3) Inmates under investigation for protective custody; and, (4) Inmates with high classification scores.
(McWilliams

Declaration ¶ 7.) SMU II operates within established penological standards and ADC

guidelines to ensure the safety of both inmate and staff and ensure that ADC policies and procedures are maintained. (McWilliams Declaration ¶ 6.) 51. There are two correctional officers per pod (ten inmates) on day shift to

address all aspects of daily prison life. (McWilliams Declaration ¶ 10.) One officer is stationed in the control room and controls all the doors in the pod. (Id.) The second officer attends to all the daily activities such as: taking inmates to outdoor exercise and the shower; laundry; distributing meals; delivering and collecting mail; conducting welfare and security checks; and, facilitating health, mental and dental visits. (Id.) 52. Inmates in SMU II can talk to staff several times during the day.

(McWilliams Declaration ¶ 11.) Counselors are available to talk to inmates five days a

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 60

13

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 13 of 34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

week and answer questions face to face. (Id.) 53. Inmates in SMU II have access to a library, which contains reading and legal

materials. (McWilliams Declaration ¶ 13.) Inmates may check out available legal materials several times a week and can also obtain reading, education, and other materials through the mail including magazines, books, and music tapes. (Id.; Exhibit G at pp. 92-93.) 54. Validated STG members can send and receive correspondence. (McWilliams

Declaration ¶ 14.) Hampton admits that he writes letters to people. (Exhibit G at p. 81, lines 11-12.)

55.

Inmates in SMU II may have certain property in their cells including a

walkman radio-cassette player and a 13-inch television. (McWilliams Declaration ¶ 15.;
Exhibit G at p. 92, lines 17-18.)

56.

Inmates in SMU II are not permitted to pass notes or share legal documents

with other inmates. (McWilliams Declaration ¶ 16.) However, they can communicate with the other inmates in their pod from cell to cell, but not face to face.
(McWilliams

Declaration ¶ 17.) Hampton admits that he communicates with other inmates in his pod. (Exhibit G at p. 94, lines 9-23.)

57.

Validated STG members wear either a jumpsuit or "sweats" purchased from

the inmate store. (McWilliams Declaration ¶ 18.) Their sheets and clothes are laundered once-a-week. (Id.; Exhibit G at pp. 84-85.) 58. Validated STG members receive three showers a week, which corresponds

with the three exercise days. (McWilliams Declaration ¶ 19; Exhibit G at p. 85, lines 16-17.) There are two showers for each pod, so the inmates must shower in shifts. (McWilliams
Declaration ¶ 19.) Inmates also have a sink and water in their cell to wash up on non-

outdoor exercise days, as well as a toilet and bed. (Id.; Exhibit G at p. 85, lines 21-22.) 59. Validated STG members are allowed one non-contact visit a week for a

maximum of two hours. (McWilliams Declaration ¶ 20.) The inmate may have up to four

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 60

14

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 14 of 34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

visitors present at one time. (Id.) During a visit, the inmate sits behind a glass partition and may not have any physical contact with his visitors. (Id.) Hampton admits that he is permitted a two hour visit once a week per policy, however, he only has three or four visits per year which are from his sister. (Exhibit G at p. 81, lines 4-11, 20-21.) 60. Validated STG members receive one five-minute phone call per week.

(McWilliams Declaration ¶ 21.) Hampton admits to using his one phone call per week to contact his family. (Exhibit G at p. 81, lines 14-19.)

61.

Validated STG members receive a 2800 calorie diet which is consistent with

their less-active lifestyle. (McWilliams Declaration ¶ 22.) The 2800 calorie diet is 100 to 300 calories less than what inmates receive in general population. (Id.) Inmates are given three meals a day from Monday to Friday and two larger meals (i.e. brunch and dinner) on Saturdays and Sundays. (Id.) 62. A typical breakfast is two biscuits, gravy, potatoes, and orange and milk or

Kool-Aid. (Exhibit G at p. 79, lines 4-6.) A typical lunch is four pieces of bread, baggie of turkey, cheese, a bag of chips, and cookies. (Id., lines 8-15.) A typical dinner consists of two pieces of pizza, noodles, an orange and broccoli. (Id. at p. 80, lines 1-5.) On the weekends inmates receive a slightly larger breakfast and dinner because they do not receive lunch. (Id., lines 8-22.) The inmates are given a condiment bag at the beginning of the day which includes others drinks as coffee, tea and Kook-Aid. (Id. at p. 79, lines 19-24.) 63. Validated STG members do not have commissary privileges, except for

clothing and hygiene items. (McWilliams Declaration ¶ 23.) However, during the month of December, validated STG members may also purchase food items from the inmate store to include dried beans, tortillas, Christmas cookies, Pop Tarts, a variety of pastries, and candy. (Id.; Exhibit G at pp. 97-98.) 64. Validated STG members are eligible for limited in-cell programs.

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 60

15

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 15 of 34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

(McWilliams Declaration ¶ 24.) They can participate in the Kentucky GED program, as

well as educational correspondence courses, however, they are not allowed to engage in work, group recreation, or vocational programs. (Id.) Educational programs are also available to inmates with special education needs. (Id.) Hampton has completed courses in anger management, drug rehabilitation, Hazelton's Design for Living, and alcohol education while housed in SMU II. (Exhibit G at p. 93, lines 15-25.) Cell Lighting: 65. Each building within SMU II contains twelve clusters.
(McWilliams

Declaration ¶ 25.) Each cluster contains six pods and each pod contains ten cells; five on

the lower level and five on the upper level. (Id.) There are skylights located in the ceiling of each cluster. (McWilliams Declaration ¶ 26.) 66. Each cell front and cell door in the SMU II is made of a solid sheet of metal

with perforations measuring less than one inch in diameter. (McWilliams Declaration ¶ 27.) The cell door also contains a solid trap which is used for various purposes including passing food and other items into the cell, as well as securing inmates before they are removed from the cell. (Id.) 67. Upon entering the cell, there is a bed against the far wall. (McWilliams

Declaration ¶ 28.) Against the left wall is a sink, a toilet and a surface for writing. (Id.)

Bolted above the sink is a mirror made of polished metal. (Id.) 68. Several inches above the mirror is the cell's sole lighting fixture, which is a

rectangular box approximately two feet long by ten inches wide. (McWilliams Declaration
¶ 29.) That fixture is covered in a high-impact resistant plastic. (Id.) Within that lighting

fixture are four lights, one of which is a security light that remains illuminated for 24 hours per day. (McWilliams Declaration ¶ 30.) The security light consists of a seven watt fluorescent bulb; the other three lights are each forty watts. (Id.) The three non-security lights are directional; that is, one bulb points up and two point down. (Id.)

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 60

16

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 16 of 34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

69.

The brightness of the security light is equivalent to that of a child's

nightlight. (McWilliams Declaration ¶ 31.) 70. The non-security lights are turned off between 10 p.m. and 4 a.m. on

weekdays, and 12 p.m. and 4 a.m. on weekends. (McWilliams Declaration ¶ 32; Exhibit G
at p. 73, lines 13-25.) Inmates are permitted to continue sleeping after all of the lights are

turned on, but they must be awake by 7 a.m. (McWilliams Declaration ¶ 41.) 71. During the hours that the non-security lights are off, there is minimal light

entering each cell from outside. (McWilliams Declaration ¶ 33.) At the end of the five-cell hallway in each pod, there is also a fluorescent light fixture that remains on at all times. (Id.) There is also some light from the security tower that can be seen through the skylight. (Id.) 72. The security light serves the penological purpose of enabling officers to

perform health and bed-welfare checks every hour. (McWilliams Declaration ¶ 34.) During a bed-welfare check, an officer observes the inmate, including the rise and fall of his chest to ensure the inmate is breathing. (Id.) The inmates are not permitted to cover their entire face however, they may cover their eyes. (McWilliams Declaration ¶ 35.) Hampton admits
to sleeping with a towel over his head and that it blocks out most of the light. (Exhibit G at p. 76, lines 3-6.) The dim lights allow the inmate to sleep while simultaneously enabling the

staff to conduct regular checks on the inmate during the night. (McWilliams Declaration ¶
34.)

73.

Two officers are required to perform the hourly checks.

(McWilliams

Declaration ¶ 36.) The first officer is the one actually walking through the pod and

performing the checks. (Id.) The second officer remains in the center of the cluster area on the second level and provides visual backup. (Id.) 74. The security light is essential for the safety and security of corrections

officers who are required to perform the hourly checks. (McWilliams Declaration ¶ 37.)

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 60

17

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 17 of 34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

The perforated cell fronts do not provide the best form of visibility for an approaching officer. (Id.) The security light provides the approaching officer with a sense of depth perception so that he knows were the inmate is located in the cell. (Id.) 75. The origins of the security light in the SMU II can be traced back to SMU I,

which was constructed prior to SMU II. (McWilliams Declaration ¶ 38.) Before SMU II was built, the ADC collected feedback from the officers working in the SMU and learned that the officers believed improvements could be made with the lighting. (Id.) 76. The use of flashlights in lieu of security lights is highly disruptive to the

inmates' ability to sleep. (McWilliams Declaration ¶ 39.) While a security light provides a low, constant level of light, an officer performing a health and bed-welfare check with a flashlight is required to shine it in the faces of sleeping inmates to determine whether they are present and alive. (Id.) If flashlights were used in place of security lights, there would be blind spots in the cells as the officer performing the checks approached. (McWilliams
Declaration ¶ 40.) These blind spots would be particularly problematic in light of the

history of assaults by the SMU II inmates against officers, sometimes through the use of metal darts shot through the perforated holes that make up the front of the cell. (Id.) Even with dimmed lighting, inmates in the SMU II are able to create weapons and other contraband in their cells. (McWilliams Declaration ¶ 43.) Keeping all of the individual cell lights off for several hours, creating complete cell darkness, would severely hamper the ability of the ADC to maintain a safe environment in the SMU II. (Id.) 77. Gerald Katafiasz was hired by the Arizona Department of Corrections to

measure the lighting in the Arizona State Prison Complex ­ Eyman, Special Management Unit ("SMU II") cells. (Katafiasz Declaration ¶ 4.) He use a calibrated light meter to measure the lighting and recorded all of his findings in a report titled, "ASPC Florence Eyman SMU II Light Level Survey Of A Typical Cell." (Katafiasz Declaration ¶ 5.) 78. The unit of measurement that the light meter employs is the "foot candle."

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 60

18

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 18 of 34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

(Katafiasz Declaration ¶ 6.) A "foot candle" is the amount of light that a candle emits in an approximately one square foot area around the candle flame. (Id.) 79. On two occasions--December 2 and December 15, 2005--Katafiasz visited

the SMU II to conduct a light level survey of the SMU II's King Cluster, Pod 6. (Katafiasz Declaration ¶ 7.) The first visit occurred during the daytime when he arrived

approximately at 2:15 p.m. and he left one hour later. (Id.) The second visit was at night when he arrived at approximately 9:45 p.m. and left at 10:45 p.m. (Id.) On both

occasions, he took light readings from within various cells and from outside cells but within the pod. (Katafiasz Declaration ¶ 8.) 80. He initially took light readings from the lower level of the pod directly

beneath the skylights. (Katafiasz Declaration ¶ 9.) During the day, the light measurement was eighty-eight foot candles. (Id.) At night, he took two readings from that location: the first reading, with the day-use lights on, the light measured eight foot candles; and the second reading, with the day-use lights off but the fluorescent light at the end of the hall on, the light measurement was .6 foot candles. (Id.) 81. During the day, he took two additional readings from outside the cells, but

within the pod. (Katafiasz Declaration ¶ 10.) On the second level in front of a cell door, the light reading measured fourteen foot candles. (Id.) On the second level near the hand rail (farther away from the cell door), the light reading measured sixty-two foot candles. (Id.) 82. On both visits, Katafiasz took light readings from within four cells, two on

the lower tier and two on the upper tier. (Katafiasz Declaration ¶ 11.) During the daytime, the average amount of light at the writing surface was thirty-five foot candles; the average amount of light at the sink was seventy-two foot candles; and, the average amount of light at the cell bed was two foot candles. (Id.) During the night, with the cell door open, and only the security light on, the average light readings were .85 foot candles at the writing

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 60

19

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 19 of 34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

surface, 1 foot candle at the sink area, and .25 foot candles at the cell bed. (Id.) 83. The sink area is brighter because the lighting fixture is centered directly over

it. (Katafiasz Declaration ¶ 12.) 84. The light reading for the bed area varies depending on the section of the bed

and its distance from the light fixture. (Katafiasz Declaration ¶ 13.) One end of the bed touches the wall to which the light fixture is attached; the other end of the bed touches the opposite wall and is consequently darker at night. (Id.) The average light reading for the end of the bed that is farthest from the light is .21 foot candles. (Id.) 85. The light readings for all four of the cells were very similar. (Katafiasz

Declaration ¶ 14.) For example, the light measurements taken at night for the portion of the bed farthest from the light fixture were, respectively, .22, .20, .21, and .21. (Id.) The measurements for the portion of the bed closer to the light fixture were, respectively, .33, .27, .29, and .29. (Id.) 86. The socket that the seven watt security bulb occupies could not tolerate a a

higher watt bulb. (Katafiasz Declaration ¶ 15.) Outdoor Exercise: 87. As of December 29, 2005, all Level 5 inmates, including STG inmates,

receive two hours of outdoor exercise, three days a week in an enclosed outdoor exercise area. (McWilliams Declaration ¶ 44.) Prior to December 29, 2005, STG inmates received one hour of outdoor exercise three days per week. (Id.) When the limitation for outdoor exercise was three hours, Hampton admitted that he did not use all of his exercise opportunities, stating he may go out once a week or sometimes not for weeks. (Exhibit G at pp. 76-77.) He states this is due to the pain caused by his hernias. (Id. at p. 76, lines 1721.) When Hampton does use the outdoor exercise area he walks, plays handball, and if physically able to does pushups and sit-ups. (Id. at pp. 77-78.) 88. ADC policy also permits STG inmates to exercise in their cells.

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 60

20

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 20 of 34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

(McWilliams Declaration ¶ 44.) Hampton admits that he exercises in his cell by doing cardio exercises or yoga and if able he will do pushups. (Exhibit G at pp. 78, 99-100.) 89. Attached to each pod is an area used for outdoor exercise. (McWilliams

Declaration ¶ 45.) Each area is twenty-three feet long and eleven feet wide, with eighteen foot walls. (Id.) The walls and floor are concrete and the ceiling is made of steel fencing, which allows fresh air and sunlight into the area. (Id.) No exercise equipment is stored in the enclosure, but the inmates may request the use of a handball during their outdoor exercise sessions. (Id.) 90. Inmates are informed of their scheduled outdoor exercise time by a monthly

SMU II newsletter that is distributed to all the SMU II inmates. (McWilliams Declaration ¶ 46.) Scheduled outdoor exercise times vary on a day-to-day basis. (Id.) Inmates are aware of their scheduled outdoor exercise time at least one week in advance. (Id.) Inmates may wear either prison-issued clothing or sweats purchased from the commissary. (Id.) 91. On any given day, half of a pod (five cells) will have the option of outdoor (McWilliams Declaration ¶ 47.) Each outdoor exercise area has the

exercise time.

potential to be occupied for ten hours per day. (Id.) 92. The constant rotation of the outdoor exercise time exists to ensure equal

exposure to the sun. (McWilliams Declaration ¶ 48.) When it is extremely hot in the summer, direct exposure to the sunlight may be undesirable in the middle of the afternoon. (Id.) At that time of the year, an early morning outdoor exercise time, when the

temperature remains under 100 degrees is preferable to some inmates. (Id.) Conversely, during the winter, the temperature in the early morning tends to be lower, making the afternoon outdoor exercise time more desirable. (Id.) Hampton admits that natural light comes into the outdoor exercise pen. (Exhibit G at p. 77, lines 16-17.) 93. At certain times of the day and at certain times of the year, the sun is not

directly visible from the outdoor exercise areas. (McWilliams Declaration ¶ 49.) During

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 60

21

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 21 of 34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

the winter months, it is difficult for particular outdoor exercise areas to have long periods of time where the sun hits the concrete floor. (Id.) However, during the summer, those conditions would be drastically different. (Id.)
Medical Issues:

94.

Inmates in SMU II have access to the same medical, dental and mental health

services as general population inmates. Health services are obtained by submitting a written request for services on a form provided by the ADC. (McWilliam's Declaration at ¶ 12.) Inmate access to the ADC health care system [non-emergency] is initiated by submitting a written request for services on a Health Needs Request ("HNR") which contains a brief description of the inmate's complaint. (Sharp Declaration ¶ .) The HNR is processed by the health care staff and an appointment is scheduled for the inmate or other appropriate action is taken if an appointment is not necessary. (Id.) Health Needs Requests are maintained in the inmate's medical records. (Id.) 95. Hampton submitted multiple HNR's for treatment and admits that he was

seen for hernias, Hepatitis C, and back problems, as well as received medication and a abdominal binder for these issues. (Exhibit G at p. 88, lines 3-18.) He states that he receives "no treatment whatsoever hardly." (Id. at p. 89, line 2.) 96. Hampton has access to dental services and admits to receiving dental

treatment. (Id. at 89-90.) 97. Hampton has access to mental health services and requested mental health

care one time while housed in SMU II. (Id. at p. 92, lines 1-4.) While he states that he was never seen, he admits that he never submitted another request, never talked to a Corrections Officer about the mental health care, and denies having any mental problems. (Id. at p. 92, lines 5-13.) 98. All contact between ADC health professionals and patients (inmates) is

documented in the inmate's continuous progress notes in the SOAP format. SOAP is the

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 60

22

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 22 of 34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

abbreviation for: S - Subjective - refers to the inmate's complaint or explanation of the presenting situation; O - Objective - refers to the health professional's pertinent findings after examining the inmate and the circumstances which created the need for the assessment and evaluation; A - Assessment - refers to the health professional's evaluation and opinion of the inmate's general condition and mental status, and; P - Plan - refers to the medical treatment provided and specific directions provided to the inmate and others directly involving the inmate's medical care and treatment (i.e., plan of action). (Sharp Declaration ¶ 4.) 99. Dr. Jeffrey Sharp reviewed Hampton's medical file only to the issues

complained of in his Amended Complaint to include: thoracic/ lumbar pain; hernia, and; abdominal pain with weight loss from the time period of September 2001 to the present.5 (Sharp Declaration ¶ 6.) Review Period From September, 2001 to September 2003. 100. A summary of medical treatment provided to inmate Hampton from

September, 2001, through September, 2003, is presented because much of his medical treatment is based on diagnostic procedures performed prior to 2001.6 (Sharp Declaration ¶ 7.) For example, in 1998 alone, Hampton received outside consultations on 17 separate occasions. (Id.) All results for the numerous x-ray's, ultrasounds, radiology tests and consults were normal, unremarkable and no need for further action. (Id.) Specific to his hernia, no surgical intervention was recommended during this time. (Id.)
Inmate Hampton has been in the custody of ADC since 1977 and housed in a number of locations within the ADC prison complex system culminating with his transfer to the Special Management Unit ("SMU") II in November, 1999. Inmate Hampton's medical records consist of multiple medical issues and are contained in five (5) volumes each about 3 to 4 inches thick. As such, Defendants are not attaching relevant medical documents but they will be made available upon the Court's request. By review of inmate Hampton's medical care from October, 2003 through present is presented in detail in this Declaration to provide a more pertinent perspective of the medical care provided.
6
5

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 60

23

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 23 of 34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

101.

Between September, 2001 and September, 2003, inmate Hampton submitted

fifty-three (53) Health Needs Requests ("HNR") related to back pain, abdominal pain, hernia pain and weight loss. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 8.) A. HNR's submitted for back pain: 1/13/02; 3/19/02; 3/26/02; 4/1/02;

7/2/02; 7/18/02; 8/20/02; 8/21/02/ 10/18/02/ 11/1/02; 12/29/02. B. C. HNR's submitted for abdominal pain: 1/22/02; 2/4/02. HNR's submitted for a combination of back and abdominal pain:

3/10/03; 3/13/03; 3/22/03; 3/27/03; 3/31/03; 4/19/03; 5/1/03; 5/8/03; 5/19/03; 5/25/03; 5/23/03; 5/28/03; 6/5/03; 6/20/03; 6/21/03; 6/22/03; 7/2/03; 7/6/03; 7/9/03. D. HNR's submitted for hernias: 1/22/02; 2/20/02; 3/29/02; 3/26/02;

4/11/02; 6/7/02/ 7/2/02; 7/18/02; 7/9/03; 9/3/03; 9/14/03; 9/18/03; 10/2/03. E. HNR's for weight loss: 4/3/03; 4/27/03; 5/8/03; 5/19/03; 5/19/03;

5/29/03; 6/23/03; 7/9/03. 102. Each HNR submitted by inmate Hampton was reviewed by the Health Care

Provider and he was either scheduled for an appointment with his Health Care Provider or his request was addressed by other medical staff. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 9.) 103. During this period of time, inmate Hampton was seen no less than twenty-

five (25) times by nursing staff and no less than twenty-two (22) times by his treating Health Care Provider. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 10.) A. Nursing staff:

9/18/01; 12/25/01; 1/22/02; 1/27/02; 2/14/02; 5/15/02; 7/19/02; 8/14//02; 8/20/02; 1/2/03; 1/4/03; 3/3/03; 3/25/03; 4/10/03; 4/10/03; 4/17/03; 4/20/03; 5/3/03; 5/9/03; 5/24/03; 6/23/03; 7/10/03; 9/5/03; 9/11/03; and, 9/16/03; . B. Health Care Provider: 9/27/01; 10/28/01; 1/27/02; 2/12/02; 2/22/02;

3/20/02; 4/1/02; 4/9/02; 4/13/02; 5/15/02; 5/28/02; 7/10/02; 7/19/02; 8/11/02; 8/16/02; 8/25/02; 5/29/03; 6/3/03; 6/24/03; 7/7/03; 7/11/03; and, 7/31/03.

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 60

24

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 24 of 34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

104.

During this time inmate Hampton's Health Care Provider evaluated him and

determined that he had a small sliding hernia which was reducible.7 (Sharp Declaration ¶ 11.) Surgical intervention was not indicated. (Id.) The Health Care Provider determined that an abdominal binder and hernia belt were appropriate and they prescribed and subsequently issued to inmate Hampton. (Id.) 105. On December 5, 2001, inmate Hampton was tested, diagnosed and treated

for Hepatitis C. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 12.) He completed the treatment in February of 2003. Treatment for Hepatitis C may sometimes cause weight loss. (Id.) 106. During this period inmate Hampton also complained of symptoms related to

IBS (Irritable Bowel Syndrome) which could account for his complaints of weight loss, nausea and vomiting. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 13.) 107. Based on his complaints of stomach pain, Hampton received outside

consultations on January 29, 2001 and April 23, 2003. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 14.) Both abdominal ultrasounds were normal and unremarkable. (Radiology) (Id.) 108. Hampton refused to be seen by medical staff for a five pound weight loss on

May 5, 2003. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 15.) 109. On August 19, 2003, Hampton was told by medical staff that he would not

start treatment for Hepatitis C for an additional six months to allow his abdominal and back pain to subside. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 16.) However, treatment was started on August 29, 2003, after Hampton submitted HNR's on August 24, 2003 and August 27, 2003, stating that his pain had lessened. (Id.) Review Period From October, 2003 to Present. 110. On October 9, 2003, inmate Hampton was seen in the Nurse Line for a

complaint of back and hip pain. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 17.) 111.
7

Based on his October 9, 2003, Nurse Line evaluation, a three (3) month

Reducible means that the hernia can be pushed in with the thumb and put back into place. Document 60 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 25 of 34

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

supply of pain medication was ordered by inmate Hampton's Health Care Provider on October 10, 2003. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 18.) 112. On October 16, 2003, inmate Hampton received a new abdominal binder for

his hernia. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 19.) 113. On December 10, 2003, inmate Hampton was seen by his Health Care

Provider for a hernia evaluation. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 20.) Hernia determined to be reducible and his abdominal binder order was changed to a smaller size.8 (Id.) 114. On December 16, 2003, inmate Hampton was seen in the Nurse Line for

medication refills related to his complaints of back and hernia pain. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 21.) 115. Inmate Hampton was seen by his Health Care Provider on January 5, 2004,

for medications for Gastro Esophageal Reflux Disease ("GERD"), and stomach pain. Inmate Hampton was also issued a bed wedge for back pain at this time. Declaration ¶ 22.) 116. In response to inmate Hampton's January 5, 2004, evaluation, his Health (Sharp

Care Provider prescribed medications for stomach acid/pain and added an abdominal binder support for his ventral hernia on January 14, 2004. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 23.) 117. On January 26, 2004, his Health Care Provider reviewed previous laboratory

results and medical chart re: stomach pain. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 24.) Considered kidney stone for possible source of pain and ordered ultrasound test for further evaluation. (Id.) 118. Inmate Hampton was again seen in the Nurse Line for GERD and heartburn

on January 31, 2004. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 25.) At that time, inmate Hampton requested that his medication be changed and advised medical staff that the kidney problem has resolved and that he did not require further testing. (Id.) 119.
8

On March 22, 2004, inmate Hampton was seen by his Health Care Provider

Reducible means that the hernia can be pushed in with the thumb and put back into place. Document 60 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 26 of 34

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

26

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

having completed his Interferon medication treatments with a negative Hepatitis C viral load. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 26.) His Health Care Provider also increased the Pepcid prescription related to his complaints of stomach acid. (Id.) 120. Inmate Hampton was seen in the Nurse Line on March 30, 2004, for seasonal

allergies at which time he was prescribed antihistamine. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 27.) 121. Inmate Hampton was seen in the Nurse Line on April 21, 2004, for overuse

muscle pain and headaches. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 28.) He was prescribed medications commensurate with his complaints. (Id.) 122. On May 6, 2004, his Health Care Provider renewed inmate Hampton's

Pepcid prescription for six (6) months. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 29.) 123. On June 15, 2004, inmate Hampton was seen by his Health Care Provider

pursuant to a chronic care appointment for hypertension. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 30.) At that time his medications were renewed and laboratory tests were ordered for H. Pylori, Cardiac Enzyme Profile and Complete Blood Count ("CBC").9 (Id.) 124. On June 28, 2004, inmate Hampton was seen by his Health Care Provider to

evaluate issue of constipation and the use of Colace. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 31.) 125. Inmate Hampton was again seen on July 19, 2004, for seasonal allergies.

(Sharp Declaration ¶ 32.) 126. On August 3, 2004, inmate Hampton was provided Metamucil for

constipation. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 33.) 127. Inmate Hampton was seen in the Nurse Line on August 21, 2004, for a

complaint or low back pain for 2 weeks. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 34.) Ibuprophen ("IBU") prescribed and instructions on back care were provided at that time. (Id.) This visit was reviewed by his Health Care Provider on August 26, 2004. (Id.)
The CBC is used as a broad screening test to check for such disorders as anemia, infection, and many other diseases.
9

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 60

27

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 27 of 34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

128.

On September 23, 2004, his Health Care Provider conducted a complete

system review of inmate Hampton's medical conditions and his currently prescribed medications. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 35.) An abdominal binder replacement was also

ordered at this time. (Id.) 129. On October 7, 2004, inmate Hampton's Health Care Provider ordered tests

for occult blood. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 36.) Test results were negative. (Id.) 130. Inmate Hampton was seen by his Health Care Provider for evaluation

pursuant to a chronic care appointment for hypertension on December 7, 2004. Medications were renewed at this time. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 37.) 131. Inmate Hampton was seen in the Nurse Line on January 6, 2005, with a

complaint of GERD and heartburn. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 38.) Antacids were prescribed and education provided on diet and use of caffeine. (Id.) 132. Inmate Hampton's hernia was re-examined on February 7, 2005, by his

Health Care Provider. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 39.) Hampton was advised at this time to discontinue doing sit-ups. (Id.) 133. Inmate Hampton was again seen in the Nurse Line on February 15, 2005, for

seasonal allergies at which time he was prescribed antihistamine. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 40.) 134. On March 3, 2005, inmate Hampton's medications were renewed. (Sharp

Declaration ¶ 41.) 135. Inmate Hampton was again seen in the Nurse Line on March 4, 2005, for

seasonal allergies at which time he was prescribed antihistamine. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 42.) 136. Inmate Hampton's small sliding hernia was re-examined on March 7, 2005,

by his Health Care Provider. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 43.) 137. On April 26, 2005, inmate Hampton's Health Care Provider ordered a

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 60

28

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 28 of 34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

replacement abdominal binder and renewed his medications. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 44.) The new abdominal binder was delivered on May 12, 2005. (Id.) 138. Inmate Hampton was seen by his Health Care Provider for evaluation

pursuant to a chronic care appointment on June 1, 2005. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 45.) Medications were reviewed with inmate Hampton and renewed. (Id.) 139. Inmate Hampton was seen in the Nurse Line with a complaint of lower back (Sharp Declaration ¶ 46.) Ibuprofen was prescribed and

pain on June 11, 2005.

instructions on muscle strain were provided at that time. (Id.) 140. On June 20, 2005, inmate Hampton was seen by his Health Care Provider for

evaluation of his lower back pain. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 47.) Lumbar spine series of x-rays ordered for diagnosis. (Id.) Prescriptions were ordered for back pain. (Id.) 141. Inmate Hampton's prescription for back pain medications were re-ordered on

July 7, 2005. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 48.) 142. On August 2, 2005, inmate Hampton's Health Care Provider discontinues

Ultram (centrally acting analgesic). (Sharp Declaration ¶ 49.) 143. Necessary prescriptions were renewed by his Health Care Provider on

August 10, 2005. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 50.) 144. Inmate Hampton was again seen in the Nurse Line on August 23, 2005, for

seasonal allergies at which time he was prescribed antihistamine. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 51.) 145. On August 23, 2005, inmate Hampton was seen by his Health Care Provider

for evaluation of his complaint of back pain for possible degenerative joint disease ("DJD") and lumbar spine problems. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 52.) Issues referred for outside neurosurgical consultation to Medical Review Committee. (Id.) 146. Inmate Hampton was seen by his Health Care Provider for evaluation

pursuant to a chronic care appointment for hypertension on September 3, 2005. (Sharp

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 60

29

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 29 of 34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Declaration ¶ 53.) Medications were renewed at this time. (Id.) 147. On October 7, 2005, inmate Hampton's Health Care Provider conducted a

lengthy discussion with him related to low back pain, exercises, medications and complications associated with some medications. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 54.) Neurosurgical recommend resubmission. musculoskeletal. (Id.) 148. Inmate Hampton's medications were renewed on October 25, 2005. (Sharp (Id.) Inmate Hampton opines that back pain is

Declaration ¶ 55.) 149. On November 29, 2005, inmate Hampton was seen by his Health Care

Provider as a follow up to lower back pain and Gastro Esophageal Reflux Disease ("GERD"). (Sharp Declaration ¶ 56.) He was also seen for testicular hydrocele issue. (Id.) Consultation for neurosurgery evaluation was also resubmitted to the Medical

Review Committee. (Id.) 150. On December 2, 2005, inmate Hampton's Health Care Provider ordered

Guaic Cards laboratory tests for occult blood. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 57.) 151. On December 15, 2005, inmate Hampton's Health Care Provider conducted

a Gastrointestinal ("GI") telemed for GERD. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 58.) A consultation request for Esophagogastroduodenoscopy ("EGD") was submitted to the Medical Review Committee. (Id.) 152. MRI scan results on lumbar spine were received on January 24, 2006. No significant findings, neurosurgical consultation- no

(Sharp Declaration ¶ 59.)

neurosurgical role. (Id.) Health Care Provider ordered lumbar spine series of x-rays for flexion and extension to rule out Spondylolisthesis per neurosurgery recommendation. (Id.) 153. On February 7, 2006, inmate Hampton's Health Care Provider consulted

with him on his urinary symptoms, hypertension and back pain. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 60.)

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 60

30

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 30 of 34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

All three small hernias were examined. (Id.) Consultation submitted for general surgery related to repair of incisional hernia and ordered athletic supporter for epididymal pain. (Id.) Medications were also renewed. (Id.) 154. On February 9, 1006, inmate Hampton was seen by his Health Care Provider (Sharp Declaration ¶ 61.)

with a complaint of acute onset of lower back pain.

Examination conducted and Flexeril and Tylenol #3 prescribed. (Id.) 155. On February 14, 2006, the Medical Review Committed denied need for

incisional hernia repair. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 62.) 156. Inmate Hampton was again seen in the Nurse Line on February 15, 2006, for

seasonal allergies at which time he was prescribed antihistamine. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 63.) 157. An athletic supporter was issued to inmate Hampton on February 23, 2006

and the EGD was completed. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 64.) Awaiting EGD results. (Id.) 158. On April 12, 2006, inmate Hampton was seen by his Health Care Provider

for a consideration of Barrett's esophagitis. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 65.) 159. On May 3, 2006, inmate Hampton was seen by his Health Care Provider for

hypertension, evaluation of hernia and complaint of back pain. (Sharp Declaration ¶ 66.) Noted that inmate Hampton is 5"8" and weighs 187 pounds and increasing. (Id.) Noted heroin addiction on street and continues drug seeking behavior in prison. (Id.) Inmate displayed "inappropriate noises, grimaces without provocation". (Id.) Health Care

Provider ordered replacement abdominal binder and resubmitted surgical consult to the Medical Review Committee. (Id.) 160. Since 2001 inmate Hampton has received the following outside

consultations: A. January 29, 2001 - Abdominal ultrasound ­ results normal,

unremarkable. (Radiology)

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 60

31

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 31 o