Joint Appendix — Goodman v. Georgia

Supreme Court brief2005

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

ourt,

FILED

JUL 2 9 2005

Nos. 04-1203 and 04-1236 OFFICE OF THE CLERK

In the Supreme Court of the United States

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER

Vv.

STATE OF GEORGIA, ET AL.

TONY GOODMAN , PETITIONER

STATE OF GEORGIA, ET AL.

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JOINT APPENDIX

PAUL D. CLEMENT DAVID E. LANGFORD

Solicitor General Assistant Attorney General

Department of Justice Georgia Department of Law

Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 40 Capitol Square

(202) 514-2217 Atlanta, GA 30334-1300

(404) 463-8850

Counsel of Record

for Petitioner United States Counsel of Record

of America for Respondents

Drew S. Days, ll

Morrison & Ferster LLP

2000 Pennsylva via Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

(202) 887-1500

Counsel of Record

for Petitioner Goodman

PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI FILED: MAR. 9, 2005

CERTIORARI GRANTED: MAY 16, 2005

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Court of appeals docket entries

District court docket entries

Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation

(filed Feb. 2000)

District court order (filed Mar. 6, 2000)

Complaint (filed Jan. 6, 1999)

Emergency motion for temporary restraining order

(filed May 17, 1999)

Plaintiff's metion to amend his emergency motion

for temporary restraining order (filed May 24,

Plaintiff’s affidavit in support of motion for summary

judgment (filed May 24, 1999) [Exh. A] .............0+

Declaration of Tracy Miller in support of plaintiff’s

motion for a temporary restraining order (filed

May 24, 1999) [Exh. C]

Declaration in support of plaintiff’s motion for a

temporary restraining order (filed June 7, 1999) ...

Answer of defendants State of Georgia and Georgia

Department of Corrections (filed Aug. 16, 1999) ...

Plaintiff’s statement of undisputed facts in support

of motion for summary judgment (filed Oct. 21,

1999)

Plaintiff's affidavit in support of motion for summary

judgment (filed Oct. 21, 1999) [Exh. E}] ..............000

Administrative review lock-up order (dated June 18,

1996) [Exh. P-1 to Pitf. Mot. for S. J’ment)...............

Letter from Robert F. Proctor, M.D., Staff Physi-

cian/Internal Medicine Georgia State Prison to

Tony Goodman (dated Sept. 10, 1997) (filed Oct.

21, 1999) [Exh. P-2 to Pitf. Mot. for S. J’ment) .......

(I)

Table of Contents—Continued: Page

Letter from Carolyn A. Mailloux, MD, Medical

Director of Georgia State Prison to Tony

Goodman (dated Sept. 8, 1997) (filed Oct. 21, 1999)

[Exh. P-3 to Pitf. Mot. for S. J’ment]

Defendant's response to plaintiff's statement of

material facts (dated Nov. 18, 1999)

Defendant's statement of material facts (filed

Nov. 18, 1999)

Affidavit of plaintiff Tony Goodman (filed Dec. 2,

1999) [Exh. P-1 to Pitf. Resp. to Def. Mot. for

S. J’ment]

Medical Clinic Form (filed Dec. 2, 1999) [Exh. P-9 to

Pitf. Resp. to Def. Mot. for S. J’ment] 100

Declaration in support of plaintiff’s opposition to

defendant's motion for summary judgment

(filed Dec. 2, 1999) [Exh. P-12] 101

Affidavit of Tony Goodman (filed Feb. 25, 2000) ........... 105

Plaintiff's declaration in support of his opposition

to defendant's motion for summary judgment

(filed Nov. 1, 2001) [Exh. L-4] 107

NOTICE

The following documents have been omitted in the

printing of this Joint Appendix. They may be found

in the Appendix to the United States’ petition for a

writ of certiorari, No. 04-1203, at the following pages:

Opinion of court of appeals for the Eleventh

Circuit (filed Sept. 16, 2004) la-22a

District court order granting defendant’s motion

for summary judgment (filed Dec. 20, __

2001) 23a-27a

District court judgment dismissing action

(filed Dec. 20, 2001) 28a

2 &® & B®

Ill

Table of Contents—Continued: Page

Order of the court of appeals for the Eleventh

Circuit denying rehearing and rehearing en

banc (filed Dec. 9, 2004) 29a-30a

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-10168-GG

TONY GOODMAN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

v~.

O.T. RAY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS

DATE PROCEEDINGS

1/16/2002 Probable Jurisdiction Noted: Appel-

lant-Goodman, Tony (Pro Se)

*_ *+ &* * *&

3/18/2002 Appellant’s Motion for Leave to Pro-

ceed is GRANTED. Appellant’s Motion

for Appointment of Counsel is

GRANTED. Appellant’s Motion for

Transcripts at Govt. Expense is

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to

such motion being made by Appointed

Counsel. (SFB)

*> *+ * & *

5/31/2002 ENTRY OF DISMISSAL: Pursuant to

the provisions of 11th Cir. R. 42, this

appeal is hereby dismissed for want of

prosecution because the appellant has

failed to file the record excerpts

(1) :

DATE PROCEEDINGS

within the time fixed by the rules,

effective this date.

* *+ * *& *

5/28/2002 Appellant’s Brief Filed: Appellant-

Goodman, Tony A. (Atty: Lawrence J.

Bracken, I1)

* * * & *

6/11/2002 Motion to Reinstate Appeal: Appel-

lant-Goodman, Tony A. (Atty: Law-

rence J. Bracken, I1)

* *+ * & *

7/1/2002 Appellant’s motion to reinstate this is

appeal is GRANTED. GBT/SFB/j

* *+ * * *

7/1/2002 Record Excerpts

8/01/2002 Appellees Brief Filed: Appellees-State

of Georgia (Atty: David E. Langford)

* * *&* *&* *

9/11/2002 Reply Brief Filed: Appellant-Good-

man, Tony A. (Atty: Lawrence J.

Bracken, II)

* + *&* *& &

11/13/2002 Oral Argument Scheduled: 11/13/02

DATE

PROCEEDINGS

11/15/2002

5/14/2003

6/27/2003

7/03/2003

6/07/2004

W. Christopher Arbery argued for

Appellant, David E. Langford argued

for Appellee

* *+ *&*+ * *&

Amicus Curiae Brief: (Atty: Sarah E.

Harrington)

* * *+ * &

The motion of Appellees to file a reply

brief to Appellant’s response brief, is

GRANTED. (EEC)

* *+ + *& *

Reply Brief to Appellant’s Response

Brief to Amici Curiae: (Atty: David E

.Langford)

Letter issued to the parties in this

appeal and in 02-10360 advising that

the Court will withhold decision in

these two cases until the USSC issues

its decision in Lane (SC #02-1667)

The motion for supplemental briefing,

filed by amicus curiae USA, is

GRANTED. The parties and the

United States are directed to file sup-

plemental briefs of no more than thirty

DATE

PROCEEDINGS

6/25/2004

6/28/2004

7/01/2004

7/9/2004

7/20/2004

(30) pages. . . . by June 25, 2004. (see

file for complete text) EEC

* * * *

Supplemental Appellate Brief: (Atty:

Lawrence J. Bracken, II)

E-Brief Tendered: Intervenor by

Sarah E. Harrington for United States

of America

Supplemental Appellee Brief:m 6/30

pt’d color (Atty: David E. Langford)

Supplemental Amicus Brief: (Atty:

Sarah E. Harrington)

Notice of Intervention filed by United

States

2 fa ©

Appeal, No. 02-13348, scheduled for

oral argument on July 20, 2004, raises

issues similar, if not identical . . .

this appeal is hereby TRANS-

FERRED and this Court ORDERS

that this appeal be scheduled for re-

argument on 7/20/04 . . . EEC/JCH/

FARRIS/SEE TEXT

*_* &* *& &

Oral Argument Scheduled: 07/20/04

——

DATE

PROCEEDINGS

7/23/200..

9/16/2004

10/15/2004

10/19/2004

11/1/2004

Sarah E. Harrington argued for Inter-

venor; W. Christopher Arbery argued

for Appellant; David E. Langford

argued for Appellee

* * *&* & *

Judgment Entered

OPIN1 (Notice of issuance of opinion)

issued. ec: Arbery, W. Christopher; c:

Bracken, Lawrence J., II; ¢: Charou-

his, William Nicholas; c; Colombo,

Sherril M.; c: Graham, James E.; ec:

Harrington, Sarah E.; c:Langford,

David E.

Opinion Issued - VACATED, RE-

VERSED, and REMANDED, in part;

AFFIRMED, in part.

* * * *& *

Mandate Issued

a= =

Mandate Recalled

Petition for Rehearing En Banc: (Atty:

Sarah E. Harrington)

DATE

PROCEEDINGS

12/09/2004

12/20/2004

3/14/2005

5/23/2005

The Petition(s) for Rehearing are

DENIED and no Judge in regular

active service on the Court having

requested that the Court be polled on

rehearing en banc, the Petition(s) for

..ehearing En Banc are DENIED.

CASE CLOSED-Mandate Issued

* * * & *

Notice of Filing Certiorari: sc# 04-

1203

* * *&* * *

Certiorari Granted: sc# 04-1203

Certiorari Granted: sc# 04-1236

SC consolidated 04-1203 & 04-1236.

Oral argument not yet scheduled.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF GEORGIA (STATESBORO)

Civil Docket No. 6:99-cv-00012-JEG

TONY GOODMAN, PLAINTIFF

Vv.

O.T. RAY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS

DOCKET ENTRIES

DOCKET

DATE NUMBER PROCEEDINGS

01/06/1999 1 ORDER granting leave to Pro-

ceed in Forma Pauperis, subject

to PLRA; pla required to fur-

nish Prisoner Trust Acct Stmt

and Consent to Collection of

Fees w/in 30 days, setting No-

tice of Compliance deadline to

02/12/99. (signed by Magistrate

Judge James E. Graham);

copies served. (ddc) (Entered:

01/06/1999)

01/06/1999 2 COMPLAINT (Filed Nunc Pro

Time 01/04/99) (ddc) (Entered:

01/06/1999)

___DATE

DOCKET

NUMBER PROCEEDINGS

——__.

05/17/1999

06/07/1999

06/15/1999

MOTION by Tony Goodman for

Temporary Restraining Order

and/or for Preliminary Injunc-

tion with brief in support. (dde)

(Entered: 05/17/1999) 7

* * * *

MOTION by Tony Goodman for

Temporary Restraining Order,

for Protective Order with brief

in support. (dks) (Entered:

06/11/1999)

* * * *

REPORT AND RECOMMENDA-

TIONS of Magistrate Judge

James E. Graham recommend-

ing pla’s claims ag/defs Ray,

Garner, Thomas, Sikes, Brady,

Patterson, Whimbly and King

be dismissed; pla’s civil rights

claims ag/Georgia Dept of Cor-

rections should also be dis-

missed. Objections to R and R

due by 7/6/99 (dde) (Entered:

06/15/1999)

* * & * *

DOCKET

DATE NUMBER PROCEEDINGS

6/15/1999 13

08/16/1999 19

08/20/1999 20

REPORT AND RECOMMENDA-

TIONS for Magistrate Judge

James E. Graham Re: [8-1]

motion for Temporary Re-

straining Order, [8-2] motion for

Protective Order recom-

mending motion be denied; Mo-

tion no longer referred; copies

served. Objections to R and R

due by 7/6/99 (ddc) (Entered:

06/15/1999)

* *+ * *

ANSWER to Complaint by

State of Georgia and GA Dept

of Corr (Attorney Stephen E.

Curry),; jury demand (ssl)

Modified on 07/13/2001 (En-

tered: 08/17/1999)

ORDER adopting [11-1] report

ing pla claims against dft’s Ray,

Garner, Thomas, Sikes, Brady,

Patterson, Whimbly, King and

Ga. Dept. of Corrections, the

mly remaining claims is pla al-

egations of violations of the

Americans With Disabilities

Act. (signed by Judge B. Avant

DOCKET

DATE NUMBER PROCEEDINGS

08/20/1999 21

08/20/1999 22

Edenfield); [EOD Date 8/20/99

copies served. (jgb) (Entered:

08/20/1999)

JUDGMENT adopting R/R and

dismissing pla claims against

Ray, Garner, Thomas, Sikes,

Brady, Patterson, Whimby,

King and Ga Dept of Correc-

tions; [EOD Date 8/20/99 copies

served. PLRA Notice mailed.

(jgb) (Entered: 08/20/1999)

ORDER denying [8-1] motion

for Temporary Restraining Or-

der, [8-2] motion for Prelimi-

nary Injunction, denying [6-1]

motion to Amend [5-1] motion

for Temporary Restraining Or-

der by Tony Goodman, denying

[5-2] motion for Preliminary

Injunction by Tony Goodman,

denying [5-1] for Temporary

Restraining Order (signed by

Judge B. Avant Edenfield);

[EOD Date 8/20/99 copies ser-

ved. ss/ Modified on 09/29/1999

(Entered: 08/20/1999)

* * &£& * *

DATE

DOCKET

NUMBER PROCEEDINGS

10/21/1999

11/18/1999

02/10/2000

MOTION by Tony Goodman for

Summary Judgment with brief

in support. (sit) (Entered:

10/21/1999)

*_ * *& *

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL

FACTS by defendant O.T. Ray,

defendant J. Wayne Garner, de-

fendant A. G. Thomas, defen-

dant Johnny Sikes, defendant J.

Brady, defendant Margaret

Patterson in support of [28-1]

motion for Summary Judgment

by State of Georgia (dks) (En-

tered: 11/23/1999)

RESPONSE by Tony Goodman

[28-1] motion for Summary

Judgment by State of Georgia

(sit) (Entered: 12/02/1999)

* * * *

REPORT AND RECOMMENDA-

TIONS of Magistrate Judge

James E. Graham Re: [28-1]

motion for Summary Judgment,

[25-1] motion for Summary

Judgment recommending that

both motions be denied; copies

served. Objections to R and R

DATE

DOCKET

NUMBER PROCEEDINGS

02/14/2000

02/25/2000

due by 2/28/00 (dde) (Entered:

02/10/2000)

* * * *

MOTION by Tony Goodman to

require Georgia State Prison to

comply with Americans with

Disabilities Act with brief in

support. (Titled “Motion for As-

sistance and Change of Address

of Plaintiff.”) (slt) (Entered:

02/14/2000)

* *+ * *

MOTION by Tony Goodman for

emergency injunctive relif with

brief in support. (sit) (Entered:

02/25/2000)

* * * *

AFFIDAVIT by Tony Goodman

Re: [41-1] motion for emergency

injunctive relief by Tony Good-

man ‘slt) (Entered: 02/25/2000)

ORDER denying [28-1] motion

for Summary Judgment, deny-

ing [25-1] motion for Summary

Judgment (signed by Judge B.

Avant Edenfield); [EOD Date

3/6/00 copies served. (ssl) (En-

tered: 03/06/2000)

NUMBER PROCEEDINGS

DOCKET

DATE

03/14/2000 44

04/06/2000 46

6/14/2001 62

10/22/2001 88

ORDER denying [41-1] motion

for emergency injunctive relief,

denying [39-1] motion to require

Georgia State Prison to comply

with Americans with Disabili-

ties Act (signed by Judge B.

Avant Edenfield); [EOD Date

3/14/00 copies served. (ssi) (En-

tered: 03/14/2000)

DEMAND for jury trial by Tony

Goodman (dks) (Entered:

04/07/2000)

ORDER granting consent to

trial by Magistrate (signed by

Judge B. Avant Edenfield);

[EOD Date 6/14/01] copies

served. (bew) (Entered:

6/14/2001)

MOTION by State of Georgia

for Summary Judgment with

brief in support. (wwl) (En-

tered: 10/22/2001)

DOCKET

DATE NUMBER PROCEEDINGS

10/22/2001 90 MEMORANDUM by State of

Georgia in support of [88-1]

motion for Summary Judgment

by State of Georgia (wwl) (En-

tered: 10/22/2001)

11/01/2001 Ss 91 RESPONSE by Tony Goodman

to [88-1] motion for Summary

Judgment by State of Georgia

(sit) (Entered: 11/01/2001)

* *+ & & &

12/20/2001 94 ORDER granting [88-1] motion

for Summary Judgment. Plain-

tiffs claim for injunctive relief

has been rendered moot by his

transfer from Georgia State

Prison (signed by Magistrate

Judge James E. Graham); [EOD

Date 12/20/01] copies served.

(nys) (Entered: 12/20/2001)

12/20/2001 95 JUDGMENT entered DISMISS-

ING this action in accordance

with the Court’s Order of

12/20/01 granting Defendant’s

motion for summary judgment;

{EOD Date 12/20/01] copies

served. PLRA Notice mailed.

(nys) (Entered: 12/20/2001)

DOCKET

DATE NUMBER PROCEEDINGS

01/07/2002 96 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Tony

Goodman; copies served. [95-1]

judgment order, [94-1] order

(jsr) (Entered: 01/07/2002)

01/09/2002 USCA Case Number Re: [96-1]

appeal by Tony Goodman USCA

NUMBER: 02-10168G (kts)

(Entered: 01/15/2002)

*_ * &¢+ & *

10/18/2004 114 JUDGMENT OF USCA VACAT-

ING, REVERSING, and RE-

MANDING, in part AFFIRMED,

in part (certified copy) Re: [96-

1} appeal by Tony Goodman

| (USCA recalled the mandate

and directed the Clerk of dis-

trict court to return the opinion

and judgment issued as mand-

ate due to a clerical error.) (nys)

Modified on 10/25/2004 (En-

tered: 10/19/2004)

12/22/2004 118 JUDGMENT OF USCA (certi-

fied copy) Re: [96-1] appeal by

Tony Goodman Vacated, Re-

versed and Remanded in part

and Affirmed in part. (bew)

(Entered: 12/27/2004)

DOCKET

DATE NUMBER PROCEEDINGS

* *+ * & &

12/27/2004 = 120 Case reopened (bew) (Entered:

12/27/2004)

* * *&£* * *

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

STATESBORO DIVISION

Civil Docket No. CV-699-012

TONY GOODMAN, PLAINTIFF

THE STATE OF GEORGIA AND

THE GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

DEFENDANT

‘A78) ' ENL : LION

(Filed: Feb. 10, 2000)

Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at Macon

State Prison in Oglethorpe, Georgia, filed this action

alleging that Defendants violated his rights under the

Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101,

while he was an inmate at Georgia State Prison (GSP)

in Reidsville, Georgia. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Sum-

mary Judgment with a brief in support. Defendants

filed a Response and a Cross-Motion for-Summary

Judgment.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff claims that the State of Georgia and the

Georgia Department of Corrections violated the Ameri-

cans With Disabilities Act (ADA) by not providing him

with reasonable accommodations regarding his disabil-

ity and confinement to a wheelchair. (Pl.’s Compl., ¢ 1-

3.) Plaintiff states that he has been confined to a

wheelchair since 1992 because of a back injury suffered

in a car accident. (PI.’s Aff. Supp. Mot. Summ. J., Ex.

E.) Plaintiff complains that he was transferred from a

medical prison that was equipped to deal with this dis-

ability to GSP, and while incarcerated there, Defen-

dants allegedly failed to provide him with integrated

services. (Pl’s Compl., 44 3,6.) Plaintiff asserts that he

was confined to administrative segregation at GSP and

was denied accessibility to programs and services

offered to similarly situated inmates. (Statement of

Undisputed Facts in Supp. of P1..’s Mot. Summ. J., 44 4,

14.) Plaintiff complains that the cell he was confined to

lacked facilities for the disabled “for hygiene, drinking,

and performing body excretion functions.” (/d. at 4 22.)

Also, Plaintiff points out a lack of wheelchair accessibil-

ity to the prison law library, church, and gymnasium.

(Pl.’s Aff. Supp. Mot. Summ. J.; Miller Aff., Ex. P-11;

Newsome Aff., Ex. P-12.) Plaintiff asserts that bath-

rooms, shower stalls, sinks, and entrances to buildings

at GSP are not wheelchair accessible. As a result,

Plaintiff allegedly lacked access to services and activi-

ties offered by GSP including counseling, education,

vocational training, and recreation. (Statement of

Undisputed Facts Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J., 44 14, 15.)

Additionally, Plaintiff claims that he requested, but

did not receive, assistance from correctional officers in

moving from his wheelchair to the toilet, shower and

bed. (Decl. Support Pl.’s Opp’n. To Defs.’ Mot. Summ.

J., 9 15.) Plaintiff states that this lack of assistance

caused him to have to sit in his own waste, to sleep in

his wheelchair for long periods of time and to injure

himself. In particular, Plaintiff states that he was

injured when “hurling” himself from the toilet to his

wheelchair on August 26, 1998. Plaintiff said that he

also hurt himself on April 8, 1998 when he fell from a

seat in the shower stall that was not designed for

handicapped individuals. (/d. at 74 16, 18; Pl.’s Compl.

44 36, 37.) Since filing his complaint, Plaintiff has been

transferred from GSP to Lee Arrendale State Prison.

He is now incarcerated at Macon State Prison, where

he claims his disability is still not being reasonably

accommodated by Defendants. Plaintiff is requesting

injunctive and declaratory relief. In addition, Plaintiff

seeks $600,000 in compensatory damages for mental

suffering and $600,000 in punitive damages.

In their response, Defendants state that Plaintiff was

assigned to segregated housing while at GSP because of

his “disruptive conduct” and because of the “special

requirements associated with his being wheelchair

bound.” (Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J.) Defendants contend

that Plaintiff is not a person subject to the Americans

With Disabilities Act (ADA). Defendants also contend

that the ADA cannot be applied to state prisons. (/d.)

Finally, Defendants assert that Plaintiff's grievances

concerning the alleged lack of reasonable accommo-

dation of his disability were not substantiated when

investigated by prison medical personnel. (Canady Aff.,

Ex. A.)

STANDARD OF DET. "MINATION

Summary judgment should be granted only if “there

is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the

moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of

law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The procedure for dis-

posing of a summary judgment motion is well-estab-

lished. The Court may grant summary judgment to a

party when after a reasonable time for discovery, the

evidence demonstrates that the non-movant has failed

to establish an essential element of his case. The party

moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden

of meeting this exacting standard. Adickes v. S.H.

Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157, 90 S. Ct. 1598, 1608, 26

L. Ed. 2d 142 (1970). In applying this standard, the

Adickes Court explained that a court should view the

evidence and all factual inferences in the light most

favorable to the party opposing the motion. All reason-

able doubts regarding the facts should be resolved in

favor of the non-movant. Adickes, 398 U.S. at 157, 90 S.

Ct. at 1608.

Once the moving party has met this initial burden,

the burden shifts to the opposing party to show that a

genuine issue of material fact exists. Celotex Corp. v.

Catrell, 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L.

Ed. 2d 265 (1986). The opposing party may not simply

rest upon mere allegations or denials of the pleadings.

Rather, the nonmoving party must make a sufficient

showing of facts to establish the existence of an essen-

tial element to his case on which he will bear the burden

of proof at trial. /d.; Barfield v. Brierton, 883 F.2d 923,

933 (11th Cir. 1989). To oppose the motion sufficiently

after the movant has met his initial burden, the

nonmoving party must point to evidence in the record

or present additional evidence in the form of affidavits

or as otherwise provided in Rule 56 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. Riley v. Newton, 94 F 3d 632,

639 (11th Cir. 1996). If the record presents factual

issues, the Court must deny the motion and proceed to

trial. Environmental Defense Fund v. Marsh, 651 F.2d

983, 991 (5th Cir. Unit A 1981).' Summary judgment is

also inappropriate where the parties agree on the basic

facts, but disagree about the inferences that should be

' In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.

1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit edopted as binding precedent

all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to

October 1, 1981.

drawn from these facts. Lighting Fixture & Elec.

Supply Co. v. Continental Ins. Co., 420 F.2d 1211, 1213

(5th Cir. 1969).

DISCUSSION AND CITATION OF AUTHORITY

Plaintiff claims that GSP does not provide reasonable

accommodation of his needs as a handicapped individual

and that he was denied access to programs and services

because he is disabled, a violation of the ADA. Defen-

dants present several responses. First, Defendants

claim that they are immune from suit under the

Eleventh Amendment because the ADA is not a valid

exercise of the Enforcement Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment. Secondly, Defendants claim that Plaintiff

is not a person subject to the ADA. Additionally,

Defendants contend that Plaintiff's claim is foreclosed

by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Finally, Defen-

dants claim that Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive

relief because the relief he seeks, transfer to a medical

prison, has been obtained and the issue is moot. The

court will deal with each argument in turn.

I. States Are Not Immune to Suits Brought Under the

ADA; However, There Is an Issue of Fact as to

Whether Defendants Reasonably Accommodated

Plaintiff's Disability

“It has long been recognized that each state is a sov-

ereign entity in our federa! system and is not amend-

able to suit by an individual without its consent.”

Garrett v. University of Ala. at Birmingham Bd. of

Trustees, 193 F.3d 1214, 1218 (11th Cir. 1999). See

Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 54, 116 S.

Ct. 1114, 1122, 134 L. Ed. 2d 252 (1996). However, Con-

gress can pass laws giving citizens the right to a cause

of action in federal court against an unconsenting state

when it has “unequivocally expressed its intent to abro-

gate the immunity,” and when it has acted “pursuant to

a valid exercise of power.” Seminole, 517 U.S. at 55,

116 S. Ct. at 1123.

The ADA includes a clear statement of intent to

abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity: “A State

shall not be immune under the eleventh amendment to

the Constitution of the United States from an action in

Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction for a

violation of (the ADA).” Garrett, 193 F.3d at 1218

(quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12202). In addition to Congress’s

expressed intent to abrogate immunity, the Eleventh

Circuit Court of Appeals has held that Congress’s adop-

tion of the ADA was a valid exercise of power under

the Enforcement Clause of the Fourteenth Amend-

ment, Kimel v. State Bd. of Regents, 139 F.3d 1426, 1433

(11th Cir. 1998), rev'd on other grounds, _ U.S. __, 119

S. Ct 901, 902, 142 L. Ed. 2d 901; See also Garrett, 193

F 3a at 1218.

Defendants cannot claim Eleventh Amendment im-

munity from suit by Plaintiff because this circuit has

held that the language of the ADA expresses Con-

gress’s intent to abrogate immunity and the Act can be

enforced against the states under the Fourteenth

Amendment. However, there is an issue of fact as to

whether Defendants have reasonably accommodated

Plaintiffs disability. Plaintiff states that Defendants

discriminated against him by assigning him to a cell and

prison that do not comply with the ADA. Plaintiff

states that his cell at GSP was too small to accommo-

date his wheelchair. Plaintiff claims that correctional

officers would not assist him in moving from his wheel-

chair to the toilet, bed, and shower. As a result, Plain-

tiff claims that he fell and injured himself. Specifically,

Plaintiff states that he injured himself when he fell

while “hurling” himself from the toilet to his wheel-

chair. Plaintiff states that he also injured himself when

he fell from a shower stall seat that was not designed to

accommodate disabled people. Furthermore, Plaintiff

assets that he was segregated and denied access to the

law library, church, gym and other services and activi-

ties because he is wheelchair bound.

Defendants claim that Plaintiff was segregated be-

cause of his “disruptive conduct” and because of the

“special requirements associated with his being wheel-

chair bound.” In addition, Defendants claim that the

medical personnel at GSP investigated Plaintiff’s griev-

ances relating to his accommodations and found that

“no harm” occurred to Plaintiff.

Il. There Is an Issue of Facts as to Whether Plaintiff's a

“Qualified Individual” Under the ADA.

Defendants claim that Plaintiff is not a “qualified

individual” under the ADA. The ADA confers rights on

“qualified individuals with a disability” who are ex-

cluded from participation in or the benefits of “services,

programs, or activities” provided by a public entity. 42

U.S.C. § 12132 (1990). A “qualified individual” is a per-

son who “meets the eligibility requirements for the

receipt of services or the participation in programs or

activities provided by a public entity.” 42 U.S.C. §

12131(2)(1990). “The statute defines the term to include

anyone with a disability.” Pennsylvania Dept. of Cor-

rections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, , 118 S. Ct. 1952,

1955, 141 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1998). Plaintiff states he is

disabled, the result of a spinal injury sustained in a car

wreck. Plaintiff has presented evidence he is a

“qualified individual” under the ADA.

Ill. There Is an Issue of Fact as to Whether Plaintiff's

Claim for Mental Suffering Is Foreclosed by The Pri-

son Litigation Reform Act.

Defendants contend that Plaintiff cannot bring a

lawsuit under section 1997e(e) of the Prison Litigation

Reform Act without showing a serious injury. Defen-

dants rely on the Court’s decision in Harris v. Garner,

190 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 1999) rehearing en banc 197

F.3d 1059 (11th Cir. 1999), which has been vacated. The

physical injury requirement does not apply to Plain-

tiff’s claims for injunctive or declaratory relief. Harper

v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 719 (5th Cir. 1999). However,

the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a physical

injury before a Plaintiff can recover compensatory dam-

ages for mental suffering. /d. (quoting section

1997e(e)), which states: “No federal civil action may be

brought by a prisoner . . . for mental or emotional

injury suifered while in custody without a prior

showing of physical injury.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). The

physical injury required by § 1997e(e) “must be more

than de minimus, but need not be significant.” Jd.

(quoting Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir.

1997)). In his complaint, Plaintiff claims that he was

injured when he fell while transferring himself from his

wheelchair to the toilet and when he was trying to

move from his wheelchair to a seat in the shower stall.

Defendants deny Plaintiff incurred a serious injury.

This creates a genuine issue of material fact.

IV. Plaintiff’s Demand for Injunctive Relief Is Not Moot

Defendants claim that Plaintiff is not entitled to

injunctive relief because he has been transferred from

GSP to Macon State Prison and the issue is moot. “It is

well settled that at the time a plaintiff brings his suit,

he must have standing to prosecute his claim: he must

have a ‘personal stake’ in the outcome of the litigation.

Tucker v. Phyfer, 819 F.2d 1030, 1033 (11th Cir. 1987).

Plaintiff requested a transfer from GSP to a medical

prison that could meet his needs as a disabled indivi-

dual. Plaintiff claims that Macon State Prison, which is

within the Georgia Prison System is not a medical

prison. Plaintiff also states that he is suffering from the

same lack of accessibility at Macon State Prison as he

did while incarcerated at GSP; therefore, his claim for

injunctive relief is not moot.

CONCLUSION

There are genuine issues of material fact concerning

the following: (1) whether Plaintiff’s disability has been

reasonably accommodated by Defendants; (2) whether

Plaintiff is a “qualified individual” under the ADA; and

(3) whether Plaintiff’s injury was serious enough to

recover damages for mental suffering. Accordingly, it

is my RECOMMENDATION that Plaintiff’s Motion for

Summary Judgment be and the Defendants’

Motion for Summary Judgment be DENIED.

SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED, this 10th day

of Feb. 2000.

/s/ JAMES E. GRAHAM

JAMES E. GRAHAM

UNITED STATES

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

STATESBORO DIVISION

[Caption omitted in printing]

ORDER

(Filed: Mar. 6, 2000)

After a careful review of the file, the Court concurs

with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommen-

dation, to which objections have been filed. Accord-

ingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magis-

trate Judge is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

The Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff

and Defendants are DENIED.

SO ORDERED, this 6th day of Mar., 2000.

/s/ B. AVANT EDENFIELD

B. AVANT EDENFIELD, JUDGE

United States District Court

Southern District of Georgia

a lila a aaa

FORM TO BE USED BY PRISONERS IN FILING

. ACOMPLAINT UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT,

42 U.S.C. § 1983 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT

OF GEORGIA

(Filed: Jan. 6, 1999, nune pro tunc Jan. 4, 1999)

Tony Geodman _

(Enter above full name of plaintiff or plaintiffs)

(Enter above full name of defendant or defendants)

I. Previous lawsuits

A. Have you begun other lawsuits in state or

federal court dealing with the same facts

involved in this action? Yes No

If your answer to A is yes, describe each

lawsuit in the space below. (If there is more

than one lawsuit, describe the additional law-

suits on another piece of paper, using, the

same outline.)

1. Parties to the previous lawsuit:

Plaintiffs: _

Defendants:

2. Court (if federal court, name the district;

if state court, name the country):

3. Docket number:

4. Name of judge assigned to case:

5. Disposition

(for example, was the case dismissed?

appealed? is it still pending”):

6. Approximate date of filing lawsuit: ee:

7. Approximate date of disposition: ___

8. Were you allowed to proceed in forma

pauperi (without prepayment of fees)?

Yes No

. While incarcerated or detained in any facility,

have you brought any lawsuits in federal court

which deal with facts other than those in-

volved in this action? Yes No

If your answer to B is yes, describe each

lawsuit in the space below. (If there is more

than one lawsuit, describe the additional law-

suits on another piece of paper, using the

same outline.)

1. Parties to previous lawsuit:

4. Name of judge assigned to case:

5. Disposition

(for example, was the case dismissed?

appealed? is it still pending?):

6. Approximate date of filing lawsuit: __

Approximate date of disposition

8. Were you allowed to proceed in forma

pauperis (without prepayment of fees)?

Yes No

C. As to any lawsuit filed in federal court where

you were allowed to proceed im forma pau-

peris, was any suit dismissed on the ground

that it was frivolous, malicious, or failed to

state a claim? a

1. If your answer to C is yes, name the court

and docket number for each case:

Il. Place of present confinement: G.S.P.

A. Is there a prisoner grievance procedure in this

institution? Yes_@No_

B. Did you present the facts relating to your

complaint to the appropriate grievance

committee: Yes_@ No_

C. If your answer to B is yes:

1. What steps did you take? Please see

grievances #517-97-2290, 517-97-0297, 517-

2. What was the result: DENIED

3. Did you appeal any adverse decision to

the highest level possible in the admini-

strative procedure? YesX No

If yes, what was the result: DENIED _

D. If you did not utilize the prison grievance

procedure, explain why not:

IV. Parties

(In Item A below, list your name as plaintiff and

current address. Provide the name and address of

any additional plaintiffs on an attached sheet).

A. Name of plaintiff: Tony Goodman —

Address: GS.P.

100 GA. Hwy, 147 __

Reidsville. GA. 30499-9701

(In Item B below, list the defendant’s full name,

position, place of employment, and current ad-

dress. Provide the same information for any addi-

tional defendants in Item C below.)

B. Name of defendant: Johnny Sikes - ET. AL.

Position: Warden

Place of employment: G.S.P. See Page #18

Current Address: 100 GA. Hwy, 147

Reidsville, GA. 30499

9701

C. Additional defendants:

Statement of Claim

State here as briefly as possible the FACTS in

your case. Describe how each defendant is per-

sonally involved in the depriving you of your

rights. You must include relevant times, dates,

places, and names of witnesses. DO NOT GIVE

LEGAL ARGUMENTS OR CITE ANY CASES OR

STATUTES. If you intend to allege a number of

related claims, number and set forth each claim in

a separate paragraph. (Use as much space as you

need. Attach extra sheets if necessary.)

Please see Pages 1-18 - Attachments _

VI. Relief

State briefly exactly what you want the

court to do for you. Make no legal argu-

ment. Cite no cases or statutes.

Please See Pages 1-18

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing

is true and correct.

Signed this 28th day of Dec. 1998

Prisoner No. 276619 /s/

(Signature of Plaintiff)

1. Plaintiff Tony Goodman, a black male, brought

this race discrimination action under Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§

2000e, - 2000e 17. The Equal protection clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States consti-

tution, as enforced by 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The due

process clause, deliberate indifference and reckless dis-

regard, cruel and unusual confinement and punishments

which involve the unnecessary and wanton infliction of

pain, This aspect of the Eighth Amendment is involved

in this case. Plaintiff also brought action under the

Americans with Disabilities Act, Title I] of the A.D.A.,

42 U.S.C. §12132., 42 U.S.C. § 12131 (1)(B). 42 U.S.C.

§$ 12101 et seg, ADA 42 U.S.C. $1997 et seg., the Civil

Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act. Also, 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000 e 2 (m), 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Title VII, This

Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343. Plaintiff

invokes the pendent jurisdiction of this court.

2. The Plaintiff, a handicapped Patient who was

transffered [sic] away from a medical handicapped

prison, To a non medical non handicapped prison, Plain-

tiff was denied and refused admission because of his

medical history of hypertension Phychological [sic]

problems and deterioration and also his handicap.

Plaintiff sued Defendants Ga. Dept. of Corrections, J.

Wayne Garner, A.G. Thomas, J. Sikes, 0.T. Ray, J.

Brady and C.O. I] Whimbly C.O. 1l1—Margaret,

Patterson,

alieging that the exclusion violated the Americans with

Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) Title II of which Pro-

hibits “Public entity” from discriminating against the

Plaintiff.

3. The above named Defendants have discrimi-

nated against the Plaintiff because of race and Disabili-

ties when they transffered [sic] him away from the

medical prison and refused and/or denied and/or ex-

cluded him from participation in MH/MR services,

programs, and activities of the Prison (G.S.P.).

4. The Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive

relief, Prospective equitable relief, Reinstatement Back

to the Medical Prison.

5. In this action Plaintiff are also alleging disparate

treatment.

6. The Plaintiff also challeng [sic] his continued

confinement in segregated environment, on the grounds

of unlawful disability-based discrimination. Defendants

have confined Plaintiff to (G.S.P.) where that Plaintiff

could be appropriately treated in more integrated com-

munity setting. See Attorney General’s consistent

interpretation of regulation prohibiting State from

providing services to individuals with disabilities in un-

necessarily segregated setting was entitled to sub-

stantial deference. Americans with Disabilities Act of

1990, § 202, 42 U.S.C.A. §12132; 28 C.F.R. $35.130(d).

7. The Defendant’s failure to live up to its duty to

provide a reasonable accommodation is unlawful dis-

ability-based discrimination under §35.130(d); the fail-

ure to provide the most integrated services appropriate

to the needs of disabled persons constitutes unlawful

disabiliy [sic]-based discrimination. Here the

Defendants has violated the core principle underlying

the A.D.A.’s integration mandate.

8. Each Defendant is being sued individually and in

their official capacity.

9. Defendants are ultimately responsible for the

training and supervision of this Prison (G.S.P.).

10. Plaintiff states the conduct, acts and omissions as

complained of herein committed by the named defen-

dants individually, jointly and in concert did deprive

and deny Plaintiff of rights, benefits, privileges and

immunities secured and guaranteed by the United

States constition [sic] and law thereof.

11. Plaintiff states each named defendant herein this

cause of action were at all material time acting over

and/or under color of state law.

DISCRIMINATION

12. Plaintiff belongs to a protected class and was

qualified for the position held; Plaintiff was discharged

away from the medical prison despite his qualifications;

and was replaced by a person outside of the protected

class or was discharged while a person outside of the

class with equal or lesser qualifications was retained.

13. The Plaintiff is black and is a member of a group

protected by the anti-discrimination laws at issue in

this case. Addition [sic], the Defendants housed a white

person to fill the Plaintiff’s position. The Plaintiff was

at least as qualified as the white person to be housed in

the medical prison at the men’s C.I.,

14. Defendants A.G. Thomas and J. Wayne Garner

degraded the Plaintiff by equating state prisons with

slave auctions, by impliedly threatening the Plaintiff

with references to the Klu Klux Klan, and by essen-

tially telling the Plaintiff that he was worthless because

of his race.

15. The above Defendants and their agents has

separate housing units for black patients based on race.

There is racial discrimination by the above named

defendants and their agents in the assignment to the

prison INF. cells and also to the assignment to prison

segregation and s/c units. Patients of color has been

refused-and denied of the better living area & cells

because of their race or given only the menial cells

while caucasian prisoners are assigned to the higher

status and better living areas. The above named defen-

dants and their agents are discriminating against black

patients, Black patients are being discriminated against

and denied of the INF. cells, Evidence showes [sic] that

black patients are disproportionately overrepresented

in punitive segregation units and that they are the

overwhelming majority punished.

16. The above named defendants and their agents

have a racially stereotypic and demeaning attitude

toward the Plaintiff and other patients of color, e.g.,

“blacks are more aggressive than caucasians” and/or

“blacks are afraid of a bath and are very low life’s,

disgusting and nasty.

17. 95 percent of the patients assigned to punitive

segregation over the past year are patients of color

when they represent only (5) percent of the prison

population.

18. Plaintiff have found that the classification pro-

cedures of the penitentiary (G.S.P.) are inadequate,

This results in overclassification of a substantial num-

ber of prisoner, such that these prisoners and the Plain-

tiff are placed in maximum custody, when lesser

degrees of custody would suffice. The principal reasons

for this are that there are insufficient staff members to

give adequate time to each case, and staff members are

inadequately trained.

19. The above acts was did in retaliation & dis-

crimination and has deprived the Plaintiff and other

patients of color of an interest or right which has been

granted to them, Pursuant to a rule, statute, or regu-

lation promulgated by the State and such interest do

require procedural due process.

CELLS TEMPERATURE

20. Plaintiff are being confined in a cold cell with no

clothes or shoes, and with a plastic-covered mattress,

filth on the cell's floor and walls, deprivation of running

water, and the earlier occupancy of the cell by an

inmate afflicted with an H/V virus. The temperature

was as low as 45 degrees, that it was “ice cold”, that

Plaintiff slept in his wheel chair. Plaintiff was confined

in a cell where his w/c, was initially the Plaintiff’s bed.

A mattress was furnished at a later date, it was so cold

that the Plaintiff tore open the mattress and nestled

inside.

21. The Plaintiff are being confined in a cell without

clothing or shoes, where sleep are impossible and that

he are being forced to set |sic] in his w/c, 24 hr. per,

day. These conditions, too violated his Eighth

Amendment rights in the absence of mental

derangement. Plaintiff states that the heat in his cell

was maintained at an unreasonably low temperature

and that there’s this big large, loud, noisy, powerful

roaring machinery on the out side of the window of the

cell which blows air into the cell, this machin [sic] blows

hot air into the cell during the summertime, and blows

cold air into the cell during the winter time, and roars

24-hr. per day which inflicts pain without Penological

justification. The lack of heat as well as the lack of

ventilation was “severe enough to produce physical

discomfort.”

22. The Plaintiff have been diagnosed with a medical

history of headaches, heartaches, and spine problems

and pain, Includes asthma and bronchitis which re-

quires the use of ventolin. He have confined to a w/c for

more then (7) years, and he is being kemped [sic] in a

very small cell [K-1-cell#8] (12-feet long and 3-feet

wide) which he can not ture [sic] his w/c around in side

[sic] of this cell. Also, during the summertime there’s

very little ventilation in side of this cell, He have a very

hard time trying to breath inside of this cell. The temp

inside of this cell are very high and there are also very

high % of humidity inside of this cell, which caused him

very bad pains at chest with shortness of breath and

blackouts.

23. The Defendants can not simply allow the prison

cells to become an ice box in the winter and sauna in the

summer, also, heating and ventilation and A.C. which is

excessive for some areas and inadequate for others is

one of a totality of conditions that violate the Constitu-

tion.

- #517-

24. Plaintiff that the [K-1 unit] cells lacks facilities

for the disabled “for hygiene, drinking and performing

body excretion functions.”

25. Defendants and agents have in various ways

retaliated against Plaintiff for filing lawsuits, for

instance, whereas before this and other lawsuit Plaintiff

was assisted in using the toilet, and bed, now he is

given no assistance at all and has fallen off the toilet

and suffered injuries from the fall.

26. On 2/6/98, the date of the hearing in the cases

Goodman v. J. Wayne Garner, et al., - CV-#697-107 and

CV - #697-65. one (1) of my two (2) approved rings was

confiscated by Defendants and their agents, This was

did in retation [sic] for utilizing the 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Procedures. This was did to punish the plaintiff by the

Defendants, for engaging in constitutionally protected

activity. On 2/13/98, Plaintiff filed grievance against

defendants and their agents see—grievance #517-98-

0466. On 3/11/98, defendant Sikes’ responded to the

grievance stating: The ring will be returned to you. On

3/18/98, at approx. 2:00 p.m. C.O. II Mr. C. Durrence

returned plaintiff ring back to him, But one (1) of the

stones (sets) were missing from the ring. On 3/18/98,

plaintiff file his appeal to the Division Director. On

3/24/98, Investigator Mr. John Cook from the Division

Director's office came down to his cell to talk with him

concerning the above named ring, On 3/24/98, Investi-

gator John Cook ordered C.O. II Ms. Mary G. Ceasar to

confiscate plaintiff's ring. As of this date plaintiff have

not received a response from the Division Director

office.

27. Pursuant to Georgia statewide Grievance Proce-

dure Reference #B05-0001. Effective Date: 1/1/96,

states as follows: The Warden’s/Superintendent has

thirty (30) day to respond to the grievance. However,

the Warden can place a ten (10) day extension on the

grievance in order to review and/or conduct the

investigation, the Warden can only request a ten (10)

day extension which would be a total of forty (40) days

to respond to the grievance. The inmate then has four

(4) calendar days to appeal the Warden’s response. The

next step is to appeal the grievance to the Division

Director who has ninety (90) days to respond to the

grievance, see grievance #517-97-1551, the Division

Director can not request any extensions he has only

(90) days to respond which ends the grievance within a

total of one hundred and thirty (130) days which would

also exhaust plaintiff's administrative remedies.

28. Georgia Dept of Correction & the George State

Prison are refusing to make timely responses to the

inmate grievance forms. The Georgia Dept. of Cor-

rection are not in compliances with their own rules &

regulations, and it takes them more than a year to make

a final response to the inmate Grievance forms.

29. Pursuant to, a court order dated Jun. 25, 1998,

from Magistrate James E. Graham, and District Judge

William T. Moore of the Southern District of Ga. in the

case of Tony Goodman v. J. Wayne Garner et. el, Civil

Action No. CV-697-107, states as follows: “Quote”

Georgia State Prison’s Local operating procedure 503.1

Provides the proper procedure that an inmate must

follow to file a grievance. The inmate is required to file

a grievance with his counselor, and if the grievance is

denied, the inmate may appeal the outcome to the

Division Director. only after the Division Director

denies an inmate’s appeal has the inmate exhausted his

administrative remedies, “unquote” [.]

30. If the Plaintiff does not receive a response from

the administrative grievance program within the two

years statute of limitations, and if cause of action

accrued two (2) years before the statute of limitation

ended, and Plaintiff did not file complaint because the

prison administrative grievance program refused to file

a response to Plaintiff's grievance within the two (2)

years of statute of limitation, would Plaintiff's claim be

barred?

31. The above named Defendants have denied Plain-

tiff of adequate access to the law Library because

simply providing Plaintiff with a copy of pages from a

book in his cell, if he requests them, gives the Plaintiff

no meaningful change [sic] to explore the legal

remedies that he might have. Legal research often

requires browsing through various materials in search

of inspiration; tentative theories may have to be

abandoned in the course of research in the face of

unfamiliar adverse precedent. New theories may occur

as a result of a chance discovery of an obscure or

forgotten case. Certainly plaintiff unversed in the law

and the methods of legal research will need more time

or more assistance than the trained lawyer exploring

his case. It is unrealistic to expect the Plaintiff to know

in advance exactly what materials he needs to consult.

60-80 SQUARE FEET

32. Overcrowding necessarily involves excess limita-

tion of general movement as well as physical and

mental injury from long exposure. The finding that 60

square feet of living space was the minimum amount of

square footage which the Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments require that the defendants provide to

the Plaintiff, a necessary corollary to this ruling is that

the defendants must provide within such living space

reasonably adequate ventilation, sanitation, bedding,

hygienic materials, and utilities (i.e. hot and cold water,

light heat, + plumbing). In short, the defendants must

provide to the Plaintiff shelter which does not cause his

degeneration or threaten his mental ahd physical well

being, But the Plaintiff are being denied of that shelter.

Plaintiff are not considered member of the general

prison population since he is locked in his cell on aver-

age of 23-24 hours a day. This cell do not provide him

the 60 square feet of space required. Plaintiff note that

there is a wide-spread deficiency in living space aside

from the deficiency in cell size, the building where the

Plaintiff live is in a serious state of disrepair and fail to

meet minimal health and safety needs of the Plaintiff.

For example, the existing heating and ventilation sys-

tems are incapable of providing adequate temperature

control and ventilation in the cellhouses used by the

Plaintiff. Defendants has allowed the prison cells to

become an “ice box” in the winter and a sauna in the

summer, also, heating and ventilation which is exces-

sive for some areas and inadequate for others is one of a

totality of conditions that violate the constitution. In

adequate [sic] ventilation, especially in the cells and

shower areas, results in excessive odors, heat, and

humidity with the effect of creating stagnant air as well

as excessive mold and fungus growth, thereby, facilitat-

ing personal discomfort along with health and sanita-

tion problems. For the last (10) months Plaintiff have

been forced to sit in his own waste, denied of catheter,

denied of rehabilitative exercises, denied of assistance

in being transferred from his w/c, to the bed all of which

resulted, among other things, in the Plaintiff not get-

ting a bath or a shower for (10) months. The bedding in

Plaintiff's cell was heavily stained and soiled, and was

not cleaned or changed when he was assigned to the cell

without doubt the defendant's inability to meet minimal

shelter and sanitation standards contributes immeasur-

ably in making the main living areas unfit for human

habitation, unquestionably, the small cells in which

Plaintiff are confined, along with the deteriorating and

unsanitary conditions in the main living area, have a

direct detrimental impact on the health and well being

of the Plaintiff. The conditions in which the Plaintiff

are confined at (G.S.P.) are “grossly inadequate and

constitutionally impermissible.

Plaintiff appeal all adverse decision to the highest

level possible in the administrative procedure, see the

below grievances:

517-97-2297 517-YS8-1524

517-97 ANZ9T 517-98-0818

517-9s-0080 517-98-2190

517-97-1623 517-9744 1

517-98-1762 517-97-1997

517-96- 1080 517-036-2478

51 7-98-0766 51 7-97-0589

517-98-2347 517-977-2459

517-98-2128 517-9S8-079

5917-98-08 17 517-96-2252

317-98-4466 517-96- 1589

517-98-1157 517-98- 1084

517-98-1678 517-97-1372

517-98- 1083 517-97-1815

517-97-1551 517-98-0766

517-97 A235 517-97-0938

517-97-2481 517-998-1357

517-97 A234 517-98-1904

517-97-1031 517-98-2127

517-97-1422 517-98-2347

517-97-1050 517-98-2128

517-97-2289

517-98-0819

517-96-2191 -

517-998-1356

517-96-1081

PHYSICAL PLANT

35. The Plaintiff found that the Physical Plant at the

penitentiary was old, dilapidated, and ill-maintained,

“These conditions were found to have serious health

implications for Plaintiff, inmates and staff.” More

specifically the Plaintiff found: 1.) overcrowding posed

an increased threat of the transmission of communi-

cable diseases. Cell sizes as prescribed by the (A.C.A.)

were required. (2.) Lighting was substandard. This

caused Plaintiff eye strain and fatigue and hindered

attempts to ensure that basic sanitation was being

maintained. (3) Plumbing was unsatisfactory and

presented a threat of waste water contamination of

drinking water. (4.) Fire prevention was substandard,

creating danger of fire in most living areas. (5.) Food

service did not meet public health standards. Problems

included temperatures at which food is stored, rodents,

and unsanitary conditions. (6.) There are evidence of

vermin infestation throughout the prison. (7.) The

prison lacked an effective preventive maintenance pro -

gram . (8) Ventilatiori are inadequate and air is gener-

ally dank. (9.) There are serious safety hazards in

occupation and living areas. (10) Cell cleaning supplies

were inadequate and often unavailable. The Plaintiff

concludes that “the general condition of the Peniten-

tiary’s Physical Facilities when considered in their

totality . . . Falls below minimum standards of

decency and conditions of confinement and violates

Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights.

FOOD SERVICE

34. The above named defendants and their agents

are in violations, the health department standards and

codes, in determining whether the conditions in the

food service area violate constitutional standards. As

Plaintiff noted earlier, the State and the above named

defendants must provide Plaintiff with a “healthy

habilitative environment.” This includes providing

nutritionally adequate food that is prepared and served

under conditions which do not present an immediate

danger to the health and well being of the Plaintiff who

consume it. Inmate and Staff workers are not given

basic instruction on food protection and food service

sanitation. Food when it is being served to Plaintiff, is

kept at substandard temperatures due to the improper

use of the available equipment. Plaintiff will uphold his

findings and conclusion that the conditions in the food

services areas at (G.S.P.) “are grossly inadequate and

constitutionally impermissible.” See-Grievances #517-

YS-1357, 517-9S8-1524, T7813, 81290, 517-98-1356, 517-97-

1623, 517-98-1157, 517-98-0818, 517-98-1084 & 517-98-

OS1S.

35. The Georgia Dept. of Corrections and the

(G.S.P.) are using nonhandicapped vehicles which are

not insured by their insurance company to transfer

handicapped patients from one place to another.

36. On 5/5/98, at approx. 5:30 a.m. The Defendants

and their agents transffered |sic| Plaintiff from the

Georgia State Prison in Reidsville, Ga. To the federal

court-house in Atlanta, GA. The vehicle was not

equipped for handicapped passengers/Plaintiff. The

above named agents picked Plaintiff up and out of his

w/e by his arms and legs and put him inside of the

vehicle and the seat which he was seated in was not

stabilized or secure, the above named agents fail to

stabilize and secure Plaintiff in the seat where he was

seated caused him to suffer injuries and pains at head,

neck, back, stomach and legs. Plaintiff was forced to

ride handcuffed and shackled in the back of a van

without seatbelts or restraints. As a result, he fell to

the floor and lost consciousness several times. Upon,

Plaintiff's arrival back here at (G.S.P.) which was at

approx. 5:00 p.m. Plaintiff made request to C.O. II

Hays and C.O. II B. Smith, to see someone from medi-

cal, Mr. Hays called the medical dept. but medical failed

to prescribe pain medication or proper bedding, medical

also refused to see or exam the Plaintiff.

36. On 8/26/98, at approx. 9:00 p.m. I was trying to

transfer from the toilet to my wheel chair, with the fact

that the toilet set [sic] which is over his toilet is not

stabilized or secure and this cell is much to small,

Plaintiff had to literaily hurl himself from his w/c onto

the toilet, when he attempted to return to his w/c, the

Plaintiff slipped and fell onto the floor causing an

epileptic seizure, and leg + foot injurey [sic]. Plaintiff

fell to the floor broke his right toe and crushed his right

knee. J. Sikes, J.W. Garner, A.G. Thomas, J. Brady,

O.T. Ray, Dr. Lowry, DC Mailloux, Barbara Werth, L.

Waters, J. Bradford, J. Paris and Lynn D. Smith had

knowledge and notice that he was not secured, safe or

stabilized in this cell, Despite the above named agents

knowledge of his precarious and perilous placement

within the prison/cell the above named agents pro-

ceeded to house him in a prison cell which was in total

disregard of his health, safety and well-being.

37. On 4/8/98 at approx. 1:00 p.m. C.O. Il Whimbly

took a toilet set [sic] into the shower for the Plaintiff to

sit on while showering but the toilet seat is not accessi-

ble, Plaintiff was trying to transfer from his w/c to the

toilet chair but the toilet seat turned over and he fell to

the floor and was hurt at the head, neck left arm, nurse

make came down to the unit (K-1) and took his b/p and

then walked away. Plaintiff was denied x-rays, or any

other medical care.

ACOUSTICAL WALL COVERINGS

38. Plaintiff request the above named defendants to

install, inter alia, sound-absorbing wall coverings in the

K-l-unit, because the level of noise in the K-1 unit

inflicts pain without penological justification. There’s

this big large, loud, noisy, powerful roaring machinery

on the outside of the window of the cell which blows air

into the cell, this machin [sic] blows hot air into the cell

during the summer time, and blows cold air into the cell

during the wintertime, and roars 24-per day which

inflicts pain without penological justification.

_ LIGHTING

39. In Plaintiff’s inspection of G.S.P. he found that

lighting throughout housing units was substantially less

than that considered necessary for reading, writing and

the maintenance of proper personal hygiene. While

stating that a minimum of 30 foot candles is considered

necessary, the lighting in many cell was measured at

less than 10 foot candles. Indeed, of the (14) readings

taken in G.S.P. K-1 unit not one met or exceeded the

30-foot candle minimum standard. The lighting level in

some cell was as low as 8-foot candles. Also, the near

exclusive reliance upon artificial light can in and of

itself have a deleterious effect upon the Plaintiff.

40. On 4/28/98, at approx. 9:30 am C.O. II Margaret

Pattterson and two (2) other C.O.’s John Doe’s came

over to the window of Plaintiff’s cell during the time he

was putting his catheter on and connecting it to the

drainage unit. from approx 9:30 am until 9:35 a.m. agent

M. Patterson allowec herself to view his body, at close

range and for extended periods of time, at approx. 9:35

a.m. agent Patterson walked back to her post. At

approx. 9:50 a.m. Ms. Patterson again came over to the

window of his cell and allowed herself views of his body

at close range and for extended periods of time. At

approx. 9:55 a.m. Ms. Patterson walked back to her

post. This have resulted in retaliatiatory [sic] sur-

veillance of his cell activities by Ms. Patterson for

purposes of harassment and humiliation. The Policy

and practice of according female prison guards full and

unrestricted access to all areas of the housing unit of

the prison allows the female guards to view him

performing necessary bodily functions in his cell and

also to view his naked body in the cell area. Plaintiff

finds this Policy and practice humiliating and degrading

and that it violates several of his constitutional rights:

Plaintiff First amendment right to practice his religious

beliefs (to observe the “Fundamental Christian tenet of

modesty”), his limited fourth amendment right to

privacy, and his eighth amendment right to be free

from cruel and unusual punishment. Female prison

guards allowed themselves unrestricted views of his

naked body in cell, at close range and for extended

periods of time, to retaliate against, punish and harass

him for asserting his right to privacy.

POLYURETHANE FOAM

In the view of the Plaintiff, the most startling “Fire

safety deficiency at G.S.P. is the prison’s continual

extensive use of pillows and mattresses made of

Polyurethane foam. That material has been known for

years to emit deadly fumes when burned, and G.D.O.C.

Policy has for several years prohibited its use.

Although Warden J. Sikes states that all Polyurethane

mattresses and pillows has been replaced I'v [sic]

discovered otherwise. of the 17 G.S.P. INF. cells that

I'v [sic] checked there were 10 Polyurethane mat-

tresses and 4 Polyurethane pillows in use, also I'v [sic]

discovered otherwise of the 11 G.S.P.-K-1 unit cells that

I'v [sic] checked there are 2 Polyurethane mattresses in

use. Also, the cells in K-1 has no key-locks, the only

way the cell doors can be open or closed is through an

electric control box, there are no key-locks on any of the

cell doors, if it were a fire are [sic] some other kind of

emergency there would be no way out without further

injures [sic], because there’s only one way to un-lock

the cell doors. Fire escape Plans must be communi-

cated to the Plaintiff and prominently displayed in his

cell at all times, which the defendants has fail to do.

Noting that safety from fire is an aspect of shelter, and

as such is properly an area of Eighth Amendment

concern. Plaintiff further complain that even where

such exits exist, they are ineffective because of the

defendants’ lack of a fire evacuation plan and failure to

prepare for a fire by conducting fire drills. See Grie-

vances #517962191 and 517-98-0819 and 517-98-1084.

42. The Plaintiff have been here at (G.S.P.) for more

than two (2) years, and have never had, not one fire

drill. The defendants are allowing officers and inmates

too [sic] smoke inside of the unit, and the smoke alarms

repeatedly go’s [sic] off. Plaintiff is being exposed to

fumes from Tobacco smoke, which has caused him pain

and sickness of stomach and chest, with the fact that

there is no or very little ventilation inside of these cell.

) Vv ‘ ,

The Plaintiff request for a “steam table” to be put in

the K-1 unit, If other units here at (G.S.P.) can have a

steam table, the patients of the K-1 unit can also have a

steam table.

CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL MAII

43. On 7/20/98, at approx. 2:00 p.m. the defendants

and their agents gave Plaintiff personal & confidential

legal mail to another inmate, and this is not the only’s

[sic] time this have happen. This is a deprivation of his

constitional [sic] rights, as well as Prison Policy. This

will also cause Plaintiff to suffer irreparable injury if he

don’t get this legal correspondence soon. Such conduct

by prison officials is a clear violation of the Eighth

Amendment. Plaintiff also, have reason to believe that

the officers who delivers the mail are not trained mail

officers, and they can not read or write. The above acts

was did in retaliation for the exercise of constitionally

[sic] protected rights against prison officers. Also, on

11/11/98, Defendants and their agents intentionally,

understandingly [sic], willfully and maliciously deprived

and denied Plaintiff of access to the courts and to

possess his legal papers to pursue his cases pending at

bar of the courts. The deprivation of his legal materials

clearly violates the constitution, and also constitutes

irreparable injury. Every day the prison officials retain

the materials he is delayed in filing his challenge to his

cases, and every day increases the risk that the officials

will lose or destroy the materials.

44. The Plaintiff sensed that Defendants and their

agents harbored some resentment against the Plaintiff

because of the racial allegations and claims lodged

against Defendants and their agents in this litigation, as

well as other litigation. This resentment have very-

well lead to an antagonistic relationship between defen-

dants their agents’ and the Plaintiff. Moreover, Defen-

dants and their agents have developed even more

hostility toward the Plaintiff. Defendants and their

agents Ms. Lisa Waters, Carolyn A. Mailoux, Barbara

Werth and McLowery have made death threats against

Plaintiff's life.

¥ .ES * {SIC O Ws:

A. Plaintiff request that the court appoint amicus

curiae, and for the order to provide that the Depart-

ment of Justice and the United States Attorney “in-

vestigate fully the facts alleged in the complaints, . . .

participate in the case with the full rights of parties,

and . . . advise the court on the public interest(s) at

issue.” The district court has broad discretion to

appoint “amici curiae”.

B. The Plaintiff respectfully request that he be

given access to a copy service, which would give him

the opportunity to file the above named grievances.

C. To order the State/Defendants to comply with

the A.D.A. and the A.C.A.’s standards relating to the

housing of prisoners in segregation, ISO, and protective

custody. This creates an extreme hazard to the

physical and mental well-being of the prisoner and that

the use of these segregation cell is an unnecessary and

wanton infliction of pain, without penological justifica-

tion. Plaintiff are subjected to intolerable, inhumane,

and unconstutional [sic] conditions. The level of vio-

lence was caused by overcrowding, idleness, deteriorat-

ing physical plant, inadequate medical and psychologi-

cal care, and “other condition”. The prisoners were suf-

fering from psychological deterioration, which created

an atmosphere of fear, anger, and frustration in the

prison. There is a pattern and practice of brutality and

harassment by the prison guards. Noneless [sic], guard

brutality was the norm. It was encouraged by peer

pressure among the guards and facilitated by indiffer-

ence on the part of the administration. Guard brutality

included arbitrary shake downs, theft, destruction of

the private of inmates assault on the inmates.

D. The long periods of deprivation of basic ameni-

ties, with Plaintiff locked in his cell without showers,

baths, adequate ventilation or heating, recreation,

work, medical and MH/MR care, laundry service, clean-

ing service, and phone service, render the lock down

unconstitutional.

E. There is evidence that defendants and their

agents have retaliated against Plaintiff for his involve-

ment in lawsuits and grievances. This retaliation has

consisted of verbal harassment, threats, and transfers

to other institutions. Plaintiff have the right to petition

the courts for redress of his grievances, harassment,

threats, and transfers by prison officials that interfere

with or penalize the exercise of that right violate the

constitution.

F. Grant Plaintiff all attorney fees.

G. Grant Plaintiff prospective injunctive relief.

H. Grant Plaintiff at least $600,000.00 for punitive

damages from each individual named Defendant.

I. Grant Plaintiff at least $600,000.00 for pain and

suffering from each individual named Defendant.

J. Grant Plaintiff at least $600,000.00 for mental

suffering from each individual named Defendant.

K. Grant Plaintiff an Declaratory Judgment and

injunctive relief.

L. Grant Plaintiff any further relief as this court

may deem appropriate.

M. Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all

triable issues before this court.

N. Plaintiff hereby move, inter alia, for the appoint-

ment of counsel.

{Service list omitted in printing]

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing

is true and correct.

Date: 12/28/98

/s) TONY GOODMAN

TONY GOODMAN

G.S.P.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

STATESBORO DIVISION

No. CV699-0012

(formerly MC299-01)

TONY GOODMAN, PLAINTIFF

O.T. RAY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS

(Filed: May 17, 1999)

*> *+ *+ * *

On 8/26/98, 12/17/98, 3/16/99, 3/18/99, and 4/11/99,

Plaintiff was trying to transfer to or from the toilet, to

or from his wheel chair he fell to the floor broke his

right toe and crushed right knee. Plaintiff is also

suffering from cellulitis to the feet.

On 8/26/98, at approx. 9:00 p.m. Plaintiff was trying to

transfer from the toilet to his w/e. The toilet set [sic]

which is over his toilet is not stabiled [sic] or secure,

and his cell is much too small. Plaintiff had to literally

hur! himself from his w/c, onto the toilet, when he

attempted to return to his w/c, he slipped and fell onto

the floor causing an epileptic seizure, and leg, hip, toe

Defendants and their agents has and had knowledge

and notice that Plaintiff was not secured, safe or

stabilized in this cell. Despite the above named agents

knowledge of his precarious and perilous placement

within the prison/cell the above named “Defendants and

agents proceeded to house him in a prison cell which

was in total disregard of his health, safety and well-

being.

*_ *+ &* *& *

Plaintiff states that “the totality of circumstances in

his injures can be held to be unconstitutional” because

the evidence clearly shows that his injures [sic] “has

not improved over the last few year”, that his injures

[sic] has increased significantly under the directorship

of defendants and their agents’ deliberate indifference

and/or reckless disregard to Plaintiff's safety and well

being as well as his medical needs.

Plaintiff can not stand or walk and have been

confined to a w/c, for (7) years or more. He’s suffering

from intense legs, arm, back, neck, chest, head, stomach

and eye pains with cramps and weakness,—Plaintiff do

not have any controll |sic] over his B/M or urine.

On 5/12/99, at approx. 11:00 a.m. Plaintiff had a B/M

and urine, on himself, He requested to the S.M.U. Capt.

Mr. Brown, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Hall for cleaning sup-

plies, laundry service and assistin [sic] in cleaning his

w/c, and cell, but they all refused to do so. He was

forced to live in a cell where the floor was smeared with

defecation and urine. Despite his requests to the above

named agents for cleaning supplies and assistin [s/c], he

was required to live and sit in his own body waste. The

above named Defendants and agents has observed

Plaintiff in pain and the holing | sic) of his head stomach

and leg and ignored repeated indications of worsening

condition. Even though prison physicians state that

care currently provided to prisoner is adequate, court

rules that treatment prescribed by outside physicians

must be provided to paraplegic prisoner; among the

treatment described by prison physicians as adequate

was treatment that provided no special toilet facilities

for the prisoner, but instead required him to lie in his

own waste, failure to change or clean catheter, failure

to provide rehabilitative exercises, and failure to

provide any assistance in preventing dangerous bed-

sores. See Lee v. McManus, 543 F. Supp. 386, 389-93

(D. Kan. 1982).

On 11/3/98, Plaintiff made request to Counselor L.

Smith for MH/MR services. Mr. Smith told him that he

would make him an appointment with mental health,

but no appointment was ever made.

On 12/3/98, Plaintiff made a request to MH/MR

Counselor Mr. Shryock for mental health services, he

told the Plaintiff that he would make him an appoint-

ment with Dr. Ann Chistie, as of this date Plaintiff have

not been seen by anyone from mental health.

On 5/7/99, at approx. 10:00 a.m. Plaintiff made

to Counselor Seago for MH/MR services and

she said she would make him an appointment with

mental health, as of this date Plaintiff have not been

seen by anyone from mental health, he have been

denied of those services.

Plaintiff is being discriminated against | of his

disabilities, and this type of transfer was made to

punish the Plaintiff for engaging in constitionally [sic]

protected activity. Defendants and their agents has

impended danger against Plaintiff's life this was did in

retation [sic] for utilizing the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pro-

cedures against the State of GA.

Argument and Citation of Authority

F.R.C.P. authorizes the trial court to “make any

order which justice requires to protect a party or per-

son from pain and suffering, reckless disregard and

deliberate indifference. The Plaintiff is presently being

held by the GA. Dept. of Corrections and has a history

of medical problems and is presently suffering from

those problems which is causing disastrous effects on

the mental and physical health of the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff respectfullys [sic] request that this court

grant his motion for a Protective Order.

This 14th day of May 1999

GSP.

/si/ TONY GOODMAN

Tony GOODMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

STATESBORO DIVISION

[Caption omitted in printing]

Plaintiff's Motion to Amend His Emergency Motion for

T.B.O. and/or P.L.

(Filed: May 24, 1999)

On 5/14/99, at approx. 6:00 a.m., Plaintiff Goodman

was in need of a B/M, he was trying to transfer to the

toilet, from the w/c, but he fell to the floor broke his left

foot and crushed his left knee, he then had a B/M on

himself, on his w/c, and on the floor, at approx. 6:15 a.m.

Captain Brown, came over to Plaintiffs cell and ob-

served him on the floor in pain, at that time Captain

Brown, ordered Plaintiff to clean his cell, Plaintiff told

him that he could not stand or walk and that he could

not clean the cell because he is not able to do so.

Plaintiff Goodman then sought help with Captain

Brown for medical care and treatment but Plaintiff’s

request for medical care and treatment was denied and

ignored by Captain Brown.

Because Plaintiff Goodman is not able to clean his cell

Captain Brown removed all legal materials and other

property from Plaintiff's cell. Plaintiff is being denied

of all privileges and rights that other similar security

inmates have access to.

As of to date Plaintiff are being denied of access to

his legal materials and, to the law library, which is in

retaliation. Pursuant to F.R.C.P. (41); and local Rule

15.1. If, Plaintiff does not press these cases forward,

the courts may dismiss them for want of prosecution. I

do not want my cases dismissed.

It is furthermore a fact and reality defendants and

their agents have intentionally, understandingly, will-

fully and maliciously deprived and denied Plaintiff

Goodman of access and/or possess his legal papers to

pursue his cases pending at bar of the courts. Plaintiff.

Goodman would be grateful if the court would consider

a motion pursuant to Rule 65, FRCP) for a T.R.O.

and/or P.1., or a protective order. Plaintiff has at-

tempted by letter to Defendants and their agents in

order to end these problems, but it have did no gooa.

Warden Hilton Hall and the S.M.U. Manager Mr. V.

Smith, has—and-had knowledge of Captain Brown’s

activities but fail to take corrective measures amounted

to deliberate indifference and reckless indifference.

1.) No, Plaintiff do not have access to the windows of

his cell because he can not stand.

2.) No, Plaintiff do not have access to the wall plugs

of his cell because he can not stand.

3.) No, Plaintiff do not have access to the bed of his

cell because he can not stand and have been forsed [sic]

to sleep in his w/c, for more than two (2) years.

4.) No, Plaintiff can not turn his w/c, around inside of

his cell or the shower because the cell ana also, the

shower are much too small, and Plaintiff have not had a

shower for more than two (2) years.

5.) Yes, able-bodied inmates have access to the above

location, but the Plaintiff do not have access to the

above location, because the location are not accessible

from his w/c.

*_ *+ & *& &

As of this moment I am in great pain & am in need

for emergency help, I am being housed & treated as if I

am a isolation inmaie being hidden with no rights at all.

As a matter of law, the continuing deprivation of

constitional [sic] rights, constitutes irreparable harm.

See Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373, 96 S. Ct. 2673

(1976).

The Plaintiff is threatened with irreparable/harm

because of the nature of his injury, with loss of move-

ment and function. If he does not receive proper treat-

ment at the proper time, he may never walk normally

again. He is also sufering [sic] from anxiety and

depression.

This is a Declaration In Support of Plaintiff's Motion

for a T.R.O. and/or Restratning [sic]

Order/Preliminary Injunction.

Pursuant to 28 USC § 1746, I certify under penalty of

perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Exe-

cuted on this 16th day of May, 1999.

G.S.P.

/s/) TONY GOODMAN

TONY GOODMAN

*_ + * * *&

[Service list omitted in printing]

{EXHIBIT A]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

STATESBORO DIVISION

|Caption omitted in printing]

PLAINTIFF'S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Filed: May 24, 1999)

1, Tony Goodman do declare under the penalty of

perjury the information set forth herein below are true

and corect [sic].

1.) I am the Plaintiff named in the above-styled

case.

2.) I file this cause of action in good faith.

3.) I verily believe I am entitled to the redress

herein. I do not enter and file this cause of action for

any type of harassment and undue hardship and

burdensome upon defendants.

4.) I state the named actions by defendants “set

forth herein this cause of action and intelligently,

understandingly, knowingly and voluntarily deprived

and denied me certain rights, benefits, privileges and

immunities secured and guaranteed to me by the

United States Constitution and law thereof.

5.) The (P.H.S.) (D.0.C.) and (G.S.P.) are responsible

for providing all doctors, nurses, physician assistants,

therapists’, physician and other medical staff at State

prisons, probation detention centers, halfway houses,

and prison boot camps.

—

6.) The Delaware company that landed a five-year

$300 million medical contract to care for state inmates

during October-1995, were fined $260,000 for staffing

shortages at two prison in isolated areas of the state,

documents show.

7.) The Dept. of Corrections also has notified Prison

Health Services Inc. that it could he fined another

$10,000 a day for unacceptable staffing shortages at

four other prisons.

8.) In the first month of the contract, which began

Oct. 1, 1995, PHS failed to provide enough medical

personnel at the Georgia State Prison at Reidsville and

the Telfair Correctional Institution at Helena, trig-

gering the $260,000 fine.

9.) This company is also financially responsible for

medical tests, specialized treatment and emergency

care for almost 40,000 men and women in Department

of Corrections custody. The detailed contract—the

largest of its kind in the nation—spelled out how many

health care professionals must work at eacn facility,

how long doctors must spend with inmates and how

quickly they must report test results which (P.H.S.)

(D.O.C.) and (G.S.P.) has failed to do so. Pursuant to the

contract, Regulation and (S.O.P.’s) and also to the

safety and well being of myself as well as other patients

here at the (G.S.P.). The above named Defendants are

in violation of their own contract, Regulation, and

(S.0.P.’s}—AS OF TO DATE, there’s only one (1) Doctor

here at (G.S.P.). (PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT “B”)

10.) The above named defendants and their agents

must/but has refused to meet the medical needs of

disabled plaintiff and furnish the assistance that he

require in order to live a minimally decent life in prison.

The defendants must/but have refused to take plaintiff

as they find him and provide facilities compatible with

his physical condition that meat [sic] civilized standards

of decency, as follows: A) The space allowance and

reach ranges for wheel chair person’s inside of the

bathrooms at the library, gym, church and other area of

this prison (G.S.P.) do not comply with (A.D.A.) standars

[sic].

11.) This building (G.S.P.) Reidsville, GA., is not

wheel chair accessible. -

12.) The bathroom and buildings at this prison

(G.S.P.) do not have accessible routes or (EXIT).

13.) The (G.S.P.) Reidsville, GA. Do not have accessi-

ble wheel chair ramps, doors, entrances, drinking foun-

tains and/or water coolers, toilet stalls, shower stalls,

toilet rooms, sinks, or alarms.

14.) The above named defendants and their agents

have knowingly assigned plaintiff to a prison that would

aggravate serious medical ailment, and force bodily

harm upon him, and further injury to his serious medi-

cal ailments is unnecessary and wanton infliction of

pain.

15.) | am suffering from multiple level spinal in-

volvement with injuries to all levels of the spine secon-

dary to a motor vehicle accident. I am also suffering

from bilateral cervical pain in the nuchal [sic] and

occipital regions with bilateral trapezius involvement,

and symptoms have worsened over the past several

months. Finally, the medical treatment given to me by

Dr. Jacobs was so bad that it is the same as, or worse

than, no treatment at all. From 6/18/96, to date, I have

made request after request through (P.H.S.), (D.O.C.),

(G.S.P.) and their members and/or agents concerning

physical therapy and/or surgery, and my requests has ~

been repeatedly denied. (Please See Exhibit “D”).

16.) 1 can not stand or walk and have been confined

to a w/c for four (4) years or more, I am suffering from

intense legs, arm, back, neck, chest, stomach, head and

eyes, pains with cramps and weakness. I can not bend

my neck downwords [sic] without intense neck and

back pains, also, I do not have any control over my B/M,

and it’s very hard for me to discharge my urine. I have

been diagnosed as having bulging disc at the C6-7 level. .

An anterior wedge fracture of T6 vertebral body, and

an herniated dise at the L5-S1 level toward the left

side.

17.) From 6/18/96 TO DATE, I have requested to the

above named Defendants for cleaning supplies, laundry

service and assistin jsic] in cleaning my cell, but the

defendants and their agents has refused to do so. I am

being forced to live in a cell where the walls and floors

are smeared with human defecation, Despite my

requests to (defendants) for cleaning supplies. I am

required to live and sit in my own feces and other body

waste. This was did in retaliation.

18.) Because of my disabilities I’m being denied of all

“privileges and rights” which other similar security

inmates have access to, such as: counseling services,

educational servicess [sic], college program, vocational

training, recreation activities, freedom of-movement

in the unit and institution, television, phone calls,

entertainment—and religious rights.

19.) I am being denied of needed corrective surgery,

and other medical care & treatment which has caused

my condition to worsened, this has taken the form of

punishment and I have been confined to solitary

confinement cell.

20.) I think it is unconstitutional a Georgia statute

which allowed the “transfer and housing of the plaintiff

to a prison which is not “equipped” for handicapped

patients (such myself). Because the loss of liberty

produced by an involuntary commitment is more than a

loss of freedom from confinement, such transfers re-

quire the protections of procedural due process, includ-

ing notice and a hearing of which the prisoners is

provided qualified and independent assistance, which

plaintiff Goodman have been denied of. Also, Pursuant

to the (A.D.A.) states prisoners with disabilities or

handicaps are protected both by the Constitution and

by federal statutes under the Constitution, prison

officials must meet the medical needs of disabled

prisoners and furnish the assistance that plaintiff Good-

man, required in order to live a minimally decent life in

‘hich t} aller tn Son bentnee daniel of

21.) 1 certify under penalty of perjury that the

foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 13th

day of May, 1999.

G.S.P.

/s/) TONY GOODMAN

TONY GOODMAN

{EXHIBIT C]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

STATESBORO DIVISION

{Caption omitted in printing]

DECLARATION [OF TRACY MILLER] IN SUPPORT OF

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A T.R.O. AND/OR P.I.

(Filed: May 24, 1999)

1.) The Plaintiff is being kemped [sic] in a very

small cell [K-1-cell #8] which is about 12-feet long and 3-

feet wide) in which he can not ture [sic] his W/C, around

inside of the small cell, Also, there’s very little ventila-

tion and a lot of humidity/heat inside of his cell, temp.,

—(F) inside of his cell are very high and there are very

bad %’s of humidity inside of his cell. Plaintiff have

been deliberately exposed to bitterly hot temperatures

for a long time, his solitary confinement cell is ex-

tremely hot. The lack of adequate “a/c & ventilation”

inside of his cell with the fact that he’s rarely.or never

allowed out of his cell has caused a problem condition.

Prison officials have simply allowed the prison cells to

become an ice-box in the winter and a sauna in the

summer.

2.) The shower is much too small for the Plaintiff to

turn his w/c around inside, and there is insufficient

ventilation inside of the shower, which undermines the

health of the Plaintiff and the sanitation of the istitution

[sic] itself.

3.) Pursuant to (G.D.0.C.’s) policy; onse [sic] an

inmate serve (14) days in solitary confinement and

awaiting additional s/c, time, the inmate/Plaintiff should

come off of s/c for one (1) day. However, (G.S.P.) have

made their own policy, and Plaintiff Goodman are being

required to serve 42 days in s/c. The Disciplinary

Committee,: Gregg Steward, R.D. Callens, R. King, J.

Sikes, O.T. Ray, J. Brady, A.G. Thomas, W. Garner, and

Z. Miller have deprived Plaintiff of an interest or right

which has been granted to him, pursuant to a rule,

statute, or regulation promulgated by the state and

such interest do require procedural due process.

4.) The classification procedures of the Penitentiary

(G.S.P.) are inadequate. This results in overclassi-

fication of a substantial number of prisoners, such that

there prisoners/Plaintiff are placed in maximum cus-

tody when lesser degrees of custody would suffice.

5.) The above named Defendants are discriminating

against Black/Patients, and Black Patients are being

denied of the Inf.,-cells, because of their race or given

only the menial cells while Caucasian prisoners are

assigned to the higher status and better living areas.

Evidence showes [sic] that black patients are dispro-

portionately overrepresented in punitive segregation

units and that they are the overwhelming majority

punished.

6.) The most startling fire safety deficien [sic] at

(G.S.P.) is the prison’s continual extensive use of pillows

and mattresses made of polyurethane foam. That

material has been known for years to emit deadly fumes

when burned. Also, the cells in unit k-1, has no key-

locks, The only way the cell doors can be open or closed

is through an electric control box, there are no key-

locks on any of the cell doors, if it was a fire are [sic]

some other kind of emergency there would be no way

out without further injures [sic], because there’s only

one way to unlock the cell doors.

I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing

is true and correct. Executed on this 13th day of May,

1999.

/s/ TRACY MILLER

TRACY MILLER

EF #241919-264-71-4614

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

STATESBORO DIVISION

|Caption omitted in printing]

(Filed: June 7, 1999)

1. Defendants and their agents are making death

threats against Plaintiff's life.

2. Plaintiff suffers from hypertension and his

hypertension inhibits his use of the yard and also of his

cell (k-1 cell #8)

3. Plaintiff is being retalted [sic] against by defen-

dants agents for engaging in constitutionally protected

activity.

4. The Defendants are allowing the prison cells to

become an ice box in the winter and a sauna in the

summer, which caused Plaintiff to head pain & blackout.

5. Plaintiff is being made to go out to the yard

without clothing or shoes which caused him very bad

pains at head, eyes, chest with shortness of breath and

blackouts. As-of-6/2/99 up until to date

6. Defendants and their agents are being deliberate

indifference and/or reckless disregard to Plaintiff's

safety and well being and also to his medical needs.

7. Plaintiff is repeatedly injured when he attempts

to use the toilet and bathroom facilities, bed and shower

because those facilities are not equipped for handi-

capped persons such as himself. As of 6/2/99, to date.

8. Plaintiff is being made to live in a very small cell

[k-1 cell #8] (12-foot long and 3-feet wide) which he can

not ture [sic] his w/c around in side of this cell.

9. The Temp inside of this cell are very high and

there are also very high % of humidity inside of this cell

which caused him pains and shortness of breath and

blackouts. As of to date.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty

of perjury that the foregoing is true ané correct.

/s) TONY GOODMAN

Tony GOODMAN

6/8/99

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

STATESBORO DIVISION

{Caption omitted in printing]

|Filed: Aug. 16, 1999})

ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS STATE OF GEORGIA AND

GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Come now Defendants, State of Georgia and Georgia

Department of Corrections, by and through their

counsel, THURBERT E. BAKER, Attorney General, and

show the following as their Defenses and Response to

the Plaintiff's Complaint:

FIRST DEFENSE

The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted. The Plaintiff contends he was sub-

jected to unlawful conditions at Georgia State Prison

where the Plaintiff has not been incarcerated since June

15, 1999. Consequently, the Plaintiff's claim for injunc-

tive relief is rendered moot and the Defendants enjoy

immunity from the Plaintiff's claims for monetary

damages.

SECOND DEFENSE

The Complaint fails to state a claim within the

subject matter jurisdiction of this Court. The Defen-

dants show on inférmation and belief that there has

been insufficiency of service of process and the Court

presently lacks jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's Com-

plaint.

THIRD DEFENSE

The Defendants deny that the Plaintiff has been

deprived of any rights, privileges, or immunities se-

cured by the Constitution of the United States or the

State of Georgia or under the Americans With Dis-

abilities Act.

FOURTH DEFENSE

The Defendants deny that the Plaintiff has been

deprived of any rights, privileges, or immunities se-

FIFTH DEFENSE

The Complaint fails to establish that these Defen-

dants have breached any duties which they owed to the

SIXTH DEFENSE

The named Defendants are cloaked witn a qualified

immunity from suit.

SEVENTH DEFENSE

Since this suit is a suit against the State of Georgia,

the named Defendants assert the defense of sovereign

: ity.

The Defendants show that the application of the

Americans with Disabilities Act is an unconstitutional

exercise of Congressional authority over state prisons.

NINTH DEFENSE

The Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants are

barred by the Eleventh Amendment of the United

States Constitution.

TENTH DEFENSE

The Defendants show on information and belief that

the Plaintiff has not exhausted administrative proce-

dures which are prerequisite to bringing his claim

under the ADA.

ELEVENTH DEFENSE

The Defendants respond to the specific allegations of

the Plaintiff's Original Complaint as follows:

1. The Defendants lack information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth of the averments in

paragraph one (1) of the Complaint, but are aware

the Plaintiff has filed numerous other prison

lawsuits during his several incarcerations.

2. The Defendants admit the allegations of para-

graph two (II) that he was confined at Georgia

State Prison at the time of filing this lawsuit and

that GSP has a grievance procedure. The Defen-

dants lack information sufficient to form a belief

at that time as to whether the Plaintiff has ex-

hausted his grievance remedies by filing a

grievance against each of the named Defendants

as to each of the claims set forth herein.

3. The Plaintiff's Complaint has no paragraph III.

The Defendants admit the Plaintiff has identified

himself and those parties he desires to sue in

paragraph IV. Process has been allowed to issue

only as to the State of Georgia and the Georgia

Department of Corrections.

. Statement of Claim: The Plaintiff has attached a

handwritten statement of claims which he identi-

fies by page and paragraph numbers. These

responses correspond to the Plaintiff's paragraph

numbering system.

1. The allegations of paragraph one (1) are

denied. The Plaintiff is not entitled to the

relief described.

2-3. The allegations of paragraphs two and

three are denied.

4. It is denied the Plaintiff is entitled to the

relief described in paragraph four (4).

5. It is denied the Plaintiff has been the ob-

ject of unlawful disparate treatment as de-

scribed in this paragraph.

6-7. The allegations of paragraphs six and

seven are denied.

8. The Plaintiff has stated his contended

basis for his claim in paragraph eight.

The Defendants show on information and belief

that they have immunity under the Eleventh

Amendment to his claims for monetary

damages.

9 & 11. The allegations of paragraphs nine (9)

and eleven (11) are admitted.

10&12. The allegations of ten (10) and

twelve (12) are denied.

13. So much of the allegations of paragraph

thirteen (13) as show the Plaintiff is black are

admitted. All other allegations of the para-

graph are denied.

14. The persons named in paragraph fourteen

(14) are not defendants and the allegations as

to them are denied on information and belief.

15-16, 18-21. The allegations of paragraphs

fifteen (15), sixteen (16), eighteen (18), nineteen

(19), twenty (20), and twenty-one (21) are

denied.

17. The Defendants lack information suffi-

cient to form a belief as to the truth of the

averments in paragraph seventeen (17).

Therefore, they are denied.

22. The Defendants lack information as to the

present diagnosis of the Plaintiff, but show on

information and belief he is not a disabled

person as contemplated by the ADA or other-

wise. All other allegations of paragraph

twenty-two (22) are denied.

23. The allegations of paragraph twenty-

three (23) are denied.

24. The allegations of paragraph twenty-four

(24) are denied. The Defendants show on

information and belief that the Plaintiff is not

disabled.

25. The allegations of paragraph twenty-five

(25) are denied.

26. The allegations of paragraph twenty-six

(26) are denied as drawn.

27. The Defendants admit that Georgia State

Prison has a prison grievance procedure. Ref-

erence is made to the relevant Standard Op-

erating Procedure (SOP) for a more accurate

account of its contents and requirements.

28. On information and belief, the allegations

of paragraph twenty-eight (28) are denied.

29. On information and belief the allegations

of paragraph twenty-nine (29) are admitted.

30. The Defendants lack information and

belief as to the truth of the averments in

paragraph thirty (30), but show that Plaintiff is

not faced with this issue.

31-32. The allegations of paragraph thirty-one

(31) and thirty-two (32) are denied. There

appear to be two paragraphs thirty-two, one of

which carriers the page designation of “pg. 9-

A”. The Plaintiff lists some 47 grievances he

indicates he has appealed. The Defendants

currently lack information sufficient to form a

belief as to whether these grievances were

filed against these Defendants on the subject

matter of this lawsuit or whether he has

exhausted his grievances by awaiting a final

disposition before filing this lawsuit.

33-35. The allegations of paragraphs thirty-

three (33), thirty-four (34) and thirty-five (35)

are denied.

36. On information and belief, the allegations

of paragraph thirty-six (36) are denied.

37. On information and belief, the allegation

of paragraph thirty-seven (37) are denied.

38. The allegations of paragraph thirty-eight

(38), are denied. The inmate is not entitled to

acoustical sound absorbing wall coverings.

39. The allegations of paragraph thirty-nine

(38) are denied.

40. The Defendants lack information as to the

events of 4/28/98. The remaining allegations of

this paragraph are denied on information and

belief.

41. The Defendants deny violation of fire

safety codes or standards. The remaining alle-

gations of paragraph forty-one (41) are denied.

42. The allegations of paragraph forty-two

(42) are denied as drawn. Applicable fire

safety precautions~are taken in light of the

security needs of the prison and its inmates.

Access to an inmate steam table is not an issue

under the ADA.

43. The Defendants lack information suffi-

cient to form a belief as to the 7/20/98 events.

The remaining allegations are denied.

44. The allegations of paragraph forty-four

(44) are denied.

6. The Defendants deny each and every allegation of

the Plaintiff’s Complaint and Amended not heretofore

specifically admitted.

WHEREFORE, the Defendants pray the Court:

a. that Judgment issue for the Defendants and

that the Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with

costs assessed against the Plaintiff:

b. that all relief requested in the Plaintiff's

Complaint be denied.

c. that the Defendants have trial by jury as to

all issues; and

d. that the Court afford such other and further

relief as it deems necessary and proper.

This 16th day of August, 1999.

Respectfully submitted,

THURBERTE.BAKER 033887

Attorney General

KATHLEEN M. PACIOUS 558555

Deputy Attorney General

JOHN C. JONES 401250

Senior Assistant Attorney General

/s/ STEPHEN E.CURRY

STEPHEN E. CURRY 202500

Special Assistant Attorney General

Augusta Riverfront Center

Suite 410, 1 Tenth Street

Augusta, Georgia 30901-1134

(706) 724-0022

[Service list omitted in printing]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

STATESBORO DIVISION

No. CV699-0012

TONY GOODMAN AND, PLAINTIFF

JOHNNY SIKES, A-G. THOMAS, J. WAYNE GARNER, AND

ET AL., DEFENDANTS, THE STATE OF GEORGIA

(Filed: Oct. 21, 1999)

[PLAINTIFF'S] STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

COMES NOW Tony Goodman, Plaintiff named in the

above-styled case, through and by themsefs [sic], file

this statement of undisputed facts pursuant to the local

Rule of this Court.

(1). On 6/18/96, Plaintiff was transffered [sic] form

[sic] “Men’s C.I.” to (G.S.P.)—where he are

being confined to administrative segregation 23

hr. pre. [sic] day, and are being denied the “full

rang” |sic] of all privileges and rights that

other similar security inmates have access to,

which are being did in retaliation for the exer-

cise of constitutional rights.

(2). The above named Plaintiff are being discrimi-

nated against because of their disabilities.

(3).

(4).

(5).

(6).

(7).

(8).

(9).

(10).

(11).

Plaintiff’s transfer was made to punish him for

engaging in constitutionally protected activity. —

The State of Georgia (D.O.C., P.H.S, M.C.G.,

G.S.P., et al.,) are legal entity that may be sued

by the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff are being held by the (D.O.C., and

G.S.P., et al.,) and are protected by the Eighth

Amendment’s proscription of cruel and unusual

punishment, the Fourteenth Amendment, Due

Process Clause, itself, and the laws of the

states.

The Americans with Disabilities Act does

apply to prisons and does afford a right of relief

to Plaintiff for Defendants violation of that Act.

The Defendants have violated their owned

(S.0.P.’s), (Policies), (contracts) and (A.C.A.

standards).

The Plaintiff have disabilities which confind

[sic] them to wheel chairs.

Plaintiff can and have demonstrated clearly

established right and privileges that was and

are being violated by the conduct of all

Defendants.

Defendants are dening [sic] Plaintiff of medical

care and treatment and requiring the Plaintiff

to live in a prison which is not properly

equipped to secure and house handicapped

patients.

The Dr. wrote Plaintiff diagnosis and the direc-

tions concerning surgery and physical therapy

on a standard prison hospital referral form,

contrary to the Dr.’s direction,—we the Plain-

(12).

(13).

tiff have not been provided with surgery,

and/or a course of physical therapy despite

Plaintiff repeated requests.

On the following dates: (8/9/96, 8/20/96, 9/4/96,

9/7/96, and 9/13/96) Due to the fact that (G.S.P.

Reidsville, Ga. HC01) is not properly equipped

to secure and stabilize and also house handi-

capped patients including Plaintiff, Plaintiff

was trying to transfer from their wheelchairs

to the toilet and bed without the help of

handicap bars and fell to the floor and was

hurt.

Plaintiff have been housed in a prison (G.S.P.)

where the law library, church, gymnasium, and

yard has no accessible toilet stalls, drinking

fountain, sink, ramps or alarms, also the space

allowance and reach ranges for w/c persons

inside of the bathrooms and the gymnasium,

law library, church and yard is not w/c accessi-

ble.

(a). On the following dates: 6/22/96, 8/9/96,

8/20/96, 9/13/96, 11/23/96, 11/25/96, 7/31/97,

12/24/97, 6/28/97,—due to the fact that

(G.S.P. Reidsville, Ga. HC01) is not prop-

erly equipped to secure and stabilize and

also house handicapped patients including

Plaintiff Goodman, Plaintiff Goodman was

trying to transfér from his w/c, to the

toilet and bed without the help of handi-

cap bars and fell to the floor and was hurt.

(b). Plaintiff Goodman have made requests

after requests to Defendants and their

agents to repair his personal w/c, in Plain-

——-— - -- ~---~-~-~—-—~<—~S™:”

(14).

tiff’s requests he also relieved defendants

of any and all responsibility associated

with the repair or attempt to repair his

w/c/ Defendants and their agents refused

to repair the w/c.

(c). Plaintiff Goodman is being discriminated

against because of his disabitiles [stc], and

this type of transfer was made to punish

the Plaintiff, by the Defendants, for en-

gaging in censtitutionally protected activ-

ity, Defendants has impended danger

against Plaintiff’s life this was did in reta-

tion [sic] for utilizing the 42 U.S.C. $1983

procedures.

(d). Defendants should have known that their -

actions and policies could violate the

Eighth Amendment.

Considering all the evidence with all reason-

able inferences favoring Plaintiff, reasonable

persons could find that Defendants has respon-

sibilities and authority relating to care and

treatment of Goodman and that they acted

with deliberate indifference to Goodman’s seri-

ous medical needs. [Please see Exhibit “P”]

The above-named Plaintiff are being denied of

all “Privileges and Rights” which other similar

security inmates have access too, such as:

counseling services, educational services, col-

lege program, vocational training, recreation

activities, freedom of movement in the unit and

institution, television, phone calls, entertain-

ment, and religious rights, also we are being

denied of medical supervision and education,

(15).

(16).

(17).

(18).

concerning “DIABETES and HYPERTEN-

SION.”

The space allowance and reach ranges for

wheelchair persons inside of the bathrooms at

the (G.S.P.) do not comply with (A.D.A. stan-

der’s [sic]), this building the (G.S.P.) is not

wheelchair accessible, the bathrooms at the

(G.S.P.) do not have accessibl [sic] routes, the

(G.S.P.) do not have accessible wheelchair

ramps, doors, entrances, drinking fountains

and water coolers, toilet stalls, shower stalls,

toilet rooms, sinks, or alarms.

The above named defendants and their agents

have knowingly assigned Plaintiff to a prison

(G.S.P.) that would aggravate serious medical

ailment, and force bodily harm upon him, and

further injury to their serious medical ailments

is unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.

From 6/18/96 to date, Plaintiff has made

requests through the health services request

form and also through letters to defendants

Stuart Shapiro, Louise Cason, Jacobs, Padden,

Michael Spradlin, Johnny Sikes, Jerell Powell,

Derwin Cox, J. Wayne Garner and A. G.

Thomas, concerning their medical needs and

problems, but their request has been repeat-

edly denied and “no” treatment given.

Defendants and their agents have and are

refuse to allow Plaintiffs to see a or even

when they know Plaintiff was seriously ill, The

above named defendants denied and/or delayed

treatment that was needed quickly for a painful

health problem. Finally, the medical care given

(19).

(20).

(21.)

(22).

to the plaintiffs by the Defendants was so bad

that it is the same as, or worse than, no treat-

ment at all.

From 6/18/96 to date, the following name

medical staff/(Defendants) Ann Mobley, P. A.

Fraink, Louise Cason, Kersey, Jacobs,

Williams Benjamin, Ray, Padden, Anderson,

Delgatta, Kandrick, and Fountain, observed

Plaintiff in pain and the draging [s:c] of their

legs, the holing [sic] of the stomach and chest

and ignored repeated indications of worsening

condition and refused to do anything for them,

Plaintiff are at this time in need of medical care

and treatment, but are being denied of it by the

above named Defendants.

The following named officers/(Defendants):

Deloach, Griffin, J. Sikes, Bargeron, Boyette,

Collins, Pairreash, Hardwick, T. Moye, Lonnie

Heidey, Mulling, Anthony Byard, Wash,

ORouke, Jackson, Powell, Ruffin, Hughs, J.

Powell, D. Cox and J. Wayne Garner’s activi-

ties but fail to take corrective measures

amounted to deliberate indifference and/or

negligent.

Plaintiff do acquire a protected liberty interest

in remaining in the general population, to

which due process protection is attached. Also

Georgia regulations governing the admini-

stration of state prisons created such an inter-

est.

No state may “deprive any person of life, lib-

erty, or property, without due process of law”.

Liberty interests protected by the Fourteenth

(23).

(24).

(25).

Amendment may arise from two sources—the

due process clause itself and the laws of the

states.

Plaintiff Goodman have been deprived of that

interest without a hearing, governed by the

procedures mandated in Wolff v. McDonnell,

418 U.S. 539, 94 S. Ct. 2963, 41 L. Ed. 2d 935

(1974).

Plaintiff Goodman has a protected liberty in-

terest in continuing to reside in the general

prison population, at a medical prison.

Prison officials (Defendants) actions in con-

fining Plaintiff to administrative segregation

violated Plaintiff’s due process rights.

{EXHIBIT E}

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

STATESBORO DIVISION

{Caption omitted in printing]

(Filed: Oct. 21, 1999)

I, Tony Goodman, do declare under the penalty of

perjury the information set forth herein below are true

and corect [sic].

1.) I am the Plaintiff named in the above-styled

case.

2.) I file this cause of action in good faith.

3.) 1 verily believe I am entitled to the redress

herein.

4.) I do not enter and file this cause of action for any

type of harassment and/or undue hardship and bur-

densome upon defendants.

5.) I state the named actions by defendants “set

forth herein this cause of action did intelligently, under-

standingly, knowingly and voluntarily deprived and

denied me certain rights, benefits, privileges and im-

munities secured and guaranteed to me by the United

States Constitution and law thereof.

6.) I have been housed in a prison (G.S.P.) where the

law library, church, gymnasium, and yard has no

accessible toilet stalls, drinking fountain, sink, ramps or

alarms, also the space allowance and reach ranges for

w/c persons inside of the bathrooms at the gymnasium,

law library, church and yard is not w/c accessible.

7.) On the following dates: 6/22/96, 8/9/96, 8/20/96,

9/13/96, 11/23/96, 11/25/96, 7/31/97, 12/24/97, & 6/28/97,

Due to the fact that (G.S.P.) Reidsville, GA. HCO-1) is

not properly equipped to secure and stabilize and also

house handicapped patients including Plaintiff Good-

man, Plaintiff Geodman was trying to transfer from his

w/c to the toilet and bed without the help of handicap

bars and fell to the floor and was hurt.

&.) I have made requests after requests to Defen-

dants and their agents to repair my personal w/c, in my

requests I also relieved defendants of any and all

responsibility associated with the repair or attempt to

repair my w/c. Defendants and their agents refused to

repair the w/c, which has caused Plaintiff to suffer

physically, mentally and emotional pain.

9.) 1 am being discriminated against because of my

disabilities, and this type of transfer was made to

punish the Plaintiff, by the Defendants, for engaging in

constitutionally protected activity. Defendants has

impended danger against my life this was did in

retation [sic] for utilizing the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 proce-

dures.

* * * * &

12.) As a result of an automobile accident in 1992,

Plaintiff is classified as a paraplegic and has been

confined to a wheelchair due to a severe back injury.

13.) As a result of Defendants deliberate indifference

and/or reckless disregard in operating the prison and

Defendant’s failure to properly house, secure and

stabilize Plaintiff in a safe, manner, Plaintiff suffered

multiple injuries including, but not limited to his head,

neck, back stomach, groin area, arm, legs, eyes, and has

and continues to experience chronic headaches and

significant trauma.

14.) As a proximate result of Defendant’s acts, omis-

sions, and deliberate indifference, Plaintiff has sus-

tained, does sustain, and will continue to sustain per-

sonal injuries and mental and physical pain and suffer-

ing for which he entitled to be compensated.

I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing

is true and correct. Executed on this 20th day of Mar.,

1999.

/s/ TONY GOODMAN

TONY GOODMAN

EF #276619

> Case 6:99-cv-00012-JEG a OMAR

LOCK-UP

WARDEN

10M: DERWIN COX i

(NAME)

JBJECT: Inmate Name:GOopMAN, TONY N

ve Above Named Inmate:(check one)

(A) Is pending investigation relating to.

Detention (PHD)

(B) Is pending investigation of an incid:

(D) Is admitted for alleged protective ct

mxxxx _ (E) Other reason (specify):__ INF#8,

to GSP, per Mr. A.6. Thomas. Me

is this individual's decision based on all circumstance

ipulation poses a serious threat to life, property, sell,

“tution because (be specific): i

vis inmate's status will be reviewed daily by the Assis'

eekends_and holidays, the Administrative Duty Offica:

TIAL LOCK-UP APPROVED BY:

ate: 6/18/96

s: Original to inmate file

e- Unless authorized by the Warden or his designe

_ in Administrative Review. 7

uamnnenenteemet

documented security reason why said property

fe AUSAGH/21/1999 Page 210f30 spas

ROE

[ted Laine!

DATE: 6/18/96

CRIEF COUNSELOR

(TITLE)

.. EF276619 Unit/Celiblock: 1N6@8/ OTHER A&O

disciplinary report - Non Punitive Pre-Hearing

It not related to a disciplinary report (PI)

tody reasons (PC)

THER ASO, inmate is in wheel chatr, transferred

ial observation.

—

that this inmate's continued presence in the general

aff, other inmates, or to the security of the

nt Wardens of Security or Care and Treatment. On

J.H. Seckinger (Nathan copy) (2)

Administrative Assistant

Project Coordinator

, in writing, no inmate icay stay longer than 5 days

reir personal property unless there exists a

ould not be retained.

C Euzeor” 41"

{r-

- ——

—<

— _

— ——.

[EXHIBIT P-2]

Case 6 99-cv-00012-JEG Document 25 Filed 10/21/1999 Page 22 of 30

[EXHIBIT P-3]

Case 6'99-cv-00012-JEG Document25 Filed 10/21/1999 Page 23 of 30

Date September 8 r907

Name Tony Goodman EF276619 infirmary #8

Re Letter

| have read your letters of 8-8-97 and 9-3-97, and have again reviewed your

medcical record. | found that in mid May 1996 there were two physician orders for you to

receive physical therapy following an injury The first was for ten days and the latter for

seven days. | cannot find any order written for chronic therapy. However, in view of the

persistant problems you have been experiencing with muscie spasms and headaches, |

will write @ consult to physical therapy at ASMP to see if they fee! thet chronic physical

therapy would be of benefit to you | have also requested that the neurosurgeon address

the same question

While in your letter you indicate that you feel that your medica! needs are not

addressed, review of your medical record reveals that you have been seen on sick call on

average several urnes per week Review aiso reveaied that you have on a rerwler basis

refused medication and treatment for your elevated blood pressure. !t is difficult to -

provide treatment for your conditions when you refuse treatment Please work with us, as

| know you can, and together we can maximize your health and abilities.

De Maallout

i iijag 1 ae

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

STATESBORO DIVISION

Civil Action File: CV699-0012

TONY GOODMAN, PLAINTIFF

STATE OF GEORGIA AND GEORGIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, DEFENDANTS

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS

COMES NOW the Defendants, by and through

counsel, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General for the

State of Georgia, and show the following as their

response to Plaintiff’s Statement of Material Facts:

(1). Denied as written.

(2). Denied.

(3). Denied.

(4). Admitted.

(5). Admitted.

(6). Denied.

(7). Denied.

(8). Denied as written.

(9). Denied.

(10). Denied.

(11). Denied as written. Plaintiff has not provided

sufficient information so as to enable the Defendants to

determine when the event allegedly occurred.

(12). Denied as written.

(13). The factual statements contained in Paragraph

numbered thirteen (13) and sub-parts (A), (B), (C) and

(D) are denied as written.

(14). Denied.

(15). Denied as written.

(16). Denied.

(17). It is admitted that Plaintiff has submitted

numerous written requests and complaints to depart-

ment employees regarding his medical care. It is

denied that Plaintiff has been denied adequate medical

care.

(18). Denied.

(19). Denied.

(20). Denied.

(21). Denied.

(22). Plaintiff states a legal argument and no re-

sponse is required. However, it is denied that Plaintiff

has been denied or deprived of any rights as guaran-

teed by State of Federai law.

(23). Plaintiff states a legal argument and no re-

sponse is required. However, it is denied that Plaintiff

has been denied or deprived of any rights as guaran-

teed by State or Federal law.

(24). Denied.

(25). Denied.

This 18th day of Nov., 1999.

Respectfully submitted,

THURBERT E. BAKER ~~ 033887

Attorney General

KATHLEEN M. PACIOUS 558555

Deputy Attorney General

JOHN C. JONES 401250

Senior Assistant Attorney General

/s/ STEPHEN E. CURRY

STEPHEN E. CURRY 202500

Special Assistant Attorney General

Augusta Riverfront Center

Suite 410, 1 Tenth Street

Augusta, Georgia 30901-1134

(706) 724-0022

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

STATESBORO DIVISION

[Caption omitted in printing]

DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS

(Filed: Nov. 18, 1999)

COME NOW the Defendants, by and through counsel,

Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General for the State of

Georgia, and submit the following Statement of Mate-

rial Facts to which no Genuine Issue Exists in support

of their Motion for Summary Judgment in the above-

styled case, as follows:

1. The Plaintiff, Tony Goodman, a felony inmate, is

currently incarcerated at Macon State Medical Prison.

At all times relevant to this lawsuit, he was assigned to

Georgia State Prison in Reidsville, Georgia. The

injunctive relief sought in the Plaintiff's Complaint was

from conditions at GSP.

2. At all times relevant to this lawsuit, Plaintiff was

in the care and custody of the Georgia Department of

Corrections.

3. Plaintiff alleges that his assignment at Georgia

State Prison was in violation of the Americans With

Disabilities Act. He has since been reassigned, as he

requested, to another prison.

4. Plaintiff was assigned to Georgia State Prison in

the Special Management Unit both because of his

continuous disruptive conduct and the special require-

ments associated with his being wheel chair bound.

5. Plaintiff is not a person subject to the Americans

Disabilities Act.

6. As a matter of law, the Americans Disabilities Act

does not apply to State correctional facilities.

7. Plaintiff has not experienced a serious injury as

contemplated by the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

8. The Plaintiff was subjected to no limitation or

condition at Georgia State Prison in violation of the

Americans With Disabilities Act.

This 15th day of Nov. 1999.

Respectfully submitted,

THURBERTE.BAKER 033887

Attorney General

KATHLEEN M. PACIOUS 558555

Deputy Attorney General

JOHN C. JONES 401250

Senior Assistant Attorney General

/s/ STEPHEN E. CURRY

ST£PHEN E. CURRY 202500

Special Assistant Attorney General

Augusta Riverfront Center

Suite 410, 1 Tenth Street

Augusta, Georgia 30901-1134

(706) 724-0022

{EXHIBIT P-1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

STATESBORO DIVISION

{Caption omitted in printing]

AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF TONY GOODMAN

(Filed: Dee. 2, 1999)

i.) Evidence in Plaintiff’s action under American

with Disabilities Act (ADA) established that any dis-

ability discrimination by defendants in excluding Plain-

tiff Goodman from certain prison programs and denying

him benefits of certain services was intentional; Plain-

tiff had requested several times that he have access to

programs and services, and defendants were aware

they were not providing Plaintiff full or any access,

knew that Plaintiff's disability was reason he was not

receiving full access and that he repeatedly requested

access, Defendants knew it had legal duty to provide

Plaintiff Goodman with reasonable access. See Love v.

McBride, N.D. Ind. 1995, 896 F. Supp. 808, affirmed 103

F.3d 558.

2.) Plaintiff whom are disabled, claim that defen-

dants did not provide him with readily accessible bath-

room and shower facilities. See applicable (ADA)

regulations. Also, see Sounders v. Horo, E.D. Pa. 1996,

959 F. Supp. 689.

3.) Plaintiff Goodman is being denied use of state

prison library, dining hall, education programs, gym,

and church by Defendants, which are “activities,” “pro-

grams and services,” under ADA section conferring

Oe) eet ePP 2G

rights on qualified disabled individuals/Plaintiffs who

are denied access to services, programs, or activities of

Public entity. See Crawford v. Indiana Dept. of

Corrections, C.A. 7 (Ind.) 1997, 115 F.3d 481.

* *£**e* &

10.) The above named Defendants have discrimi-

nated against the Plaintiff because of his disabilities

when they transffered [sic] him away from the medical

prison and refused and/or denied and/or excluded him

from participation in MH/MR services, P.T. services,

etc. services, programs, and activities of the prisons.

* ** * &

14.) Plaintiff have made requests after requests to

defendants for a copy of his prison medical records but,

his requests were denied because he is indigent and do’

not have the funds to cover the cost for the copies.

Plaintiffs is being deprived and denied access to the

courts

I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing

is true and correct.

Executed on this 25th day of Nov., 1999.

/s/ TONY GOODMAN

TONY GOODMAN

EF #276619

100

[EXHIBIT P-9}

{> "a

SIGNED: Uy p94

101

{EXHIBIT P-12]

UNITED STATES JISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

STATESBORO DIVISION

[Caption omitted in printing]

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, WHICH HE HAS NOT

RECEIVED

(Filed: Dec. 2, 1999)

1.) Iam the plaintiff in this case. I make this decla-

ration in support of my opposition to defendant's

Motion for SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

1A.) | have not received a copy of Defendants

Motion for Summary Judgment.

2.) Pursuant to, the Eight and fourteen Amend-

ments, and the safety and well being of the plaintiff,

From 7/1/96, up until 11/19/99, the above named defen-

dants and their agents has deliberate and intentionally

denied and interfered with treatment and medication

which has been prescribed by outside and inside

doctors. The above named defendants have denied and

refused to give the plaintiff his prescribed treatment

and medication which caused him infliction of unneces-

sary pain and suffering. And with the fact, that this jail

is not handicap excessble [sic], with regard to condi-

tions of confinement in prisons the conditions must not

inflict unrestricted and unnessary [sic] pain.

3.) The above named defendants and their agents

must/but has refused to meet the medical needs of

102

disabled plaintiff and furnish the assistance that he

require in order to live a minimally decent life in

prison/jail. The defendants must/but have refused to

take the plaintiff as they find him and provide facilities

compatible with his physical condition that meet

civilized standards of decency.

4.) The above named def. ‘ants and their agents

have confined Plaintiff to a jail with which conditions

has inflicted unrestricted and unnecessary pain, in

which punitive conditions has greatly exceed the seri-

ousness of the crime which brought on the imprison-

ment.

5.) The above named defendants and their agents

have knowingly assigned Plaintiff to a cell that would

aggravate serious medical ailment, and force bodily

harm upon him, and further injury to his serious medi-

cal ailments is unnecessary and wanton infliction of

pain.

6.) Plaintiff is being housed at a prison (of the

D.O.C.) this jail is extensive overcrowded, and it affects

environmental health and safety, food services, medical

and mental health care, and programming.

* * kk

8.) The space allowance and reach ranges for

wheelchair persons inside of the bathrooms at the

(prison) do not comply with (A.D.A. standers [sic]).

9.) The (prison) is not wheel chair accessible.

10.) The bathrooms at the (prison) do not have

accessible routes.

11.) The (prison) do not have accessible wheel chair

ramps, doors, entrances, drinking fountains and water

103

coolers, toilet stalls, shower stalls, toilet rooms, sinks or

alarms.

12.) The above named defendants and their agents

has deliberate and intentiontionally [sic] denied and

interfered with treatment and medication and also

appointments which has been prescribed by outside and

inside doctors.

13.) The above named defendants and their agents

has observed plaintiff in pain and the holing [sic] of his

neck and chest, and ignored repeated indications of

worsening condition.

14.) Plaintiff has been forced to om in his wheel

chair from 7/1/96, to 7/3/96 again from 3/23/98 to 5/29/98

which has caused his condition to worsen.

15.) Plaintiff made request after request to the above

named defendants and their agents for assistance

transferring from his wheel chair to the toilet, shower,

and bed but his requests was repeatedly denied.

16.) On 10/5/98, Plaintiff had B/M in his wheel chair

and on the floor inside of the cell and was required to sit

in his own waste, and denied of clean catheter, cleaning

supplies, laundry service, and assistance from 10/5/98 to

10/19/98.

17.) The D.O.C. jails is an unmitigated disgrace.

18.) On 7/1/98, at approx. 5:00 am Plaintiff was trying

to tranffer [sic] from his wheel chair to the toilet

without any help or handicap bars and [fail] [sic] to the

floor and was hurt at neck at right leg, and at the heard.

[sic]

* *+ * * *

104

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should Grant

Plaintiff’s motion in all respects. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

1746 I declare under penalty of perjury that the fore-

going is true and correct.

/s) TONY GOODMAN

TONY GOODMAN

276619

105

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

STATESBORO DIVISION

[Caption omitted in printing]

AFFIDAVIT OF TONY GOODMAN _

(Filed: Feb. 25, 2000)

I can not participate in work assignments, recrea-

tional activities, entertainment, library, vocational

training, dining hall, mental health services, congregate

religious services, and occasional movements to areas

other than a very confined area. These services and

activities are available to inmates who do not have dis-

abilities. Also, the cells in unit (k-1) are so narrow, I

can not turn my wheel chair around inside of the cells.

I am being subjected to improper institutional

segregation which is unlawful discrimination, Georgia

has violated the law by not providing me with com-

munity alternatives, which is causing me to sink deeper

into depression in the prison segregation unit, sitting

idly in lonely cell in the locked ward. However, inmates

with disabilities cannot participate in activities as

inmates without disabilities because of the inaccessibil-

ity of the prisons, then Title II of the Americans With

Disabilities Act is being violated.

Finally, windows are so high that inmates who use

wheel chairs cannot look out of them, while I am uncer-

tain what, if any, accommodation can assist an inmate to

see the outside (or, if looking out a window is part of the

adequate light required by standard operating pro-

cedure Reference No. II B09-0001 Section VI.E.1), this

lack emphasizes the need to have an opportunity for

106

inmates who use wheel chairs to attend exercise

sessions.

The medical administrator, Ms. L. Johnson/Waters,

has a racial disparity concerning black/white inmates.

She fills, [sic] that the INF cells are for white handi-

capped inmates, and the black handicapped inmates are

to be housed in (k-1). Also, her action shows racial dis-

crimination.

* * * *

I am a general population close security inmate, who

has disabilities and handicapped since 1992, and has

suffered periods of depression. From 6/18/96, To: [sic]

to date, I have been transferred to and from almost

every prison here in the State of Ga., and segregated

each time. This is a very shocking situation because, I

(Goodman) who use a wheel chair, are kept in my cell 24

hours each day because of the inaccessibility of the

prison.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing

statement made in this affidavit are true and correct.

Executed on 2/19/2000

/s/ TONY GOODMAN

TONY GOODMAN

G.S.P.

107

[EXHIBIT L-4]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

STATESBORO DIVISION

[Caption omitted in printing]

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF HIS

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S OUT-OF-TIME

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Filed: Nov. 1, 2001)

Tony Goodman, declares under penalty of perjury:

1. I am plaintiff in this case. The complaint alleges

and show a pattern of discrimination by the States

which violates the fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff

also, asserts these claims under the Americans with

Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. Because

Goodman has no assets. I submit this declaration in

support of my opposition to Defendant’s out-of-time

Motion for Summary judgment.

2. Plaintiff states that the State of Georgia, et al.,

violated the ADA by not providing him with reasonable

accommodations regarding his disability and confine-

ment to a wheelchair, Plaintiff states that he has been

confined to a wheel chair since—1992 because of a back

injury suffered in a accident. Plaintiff states that he

was transferred to G.S.P. and while incarcerated there,

Defendants failed to provide him with integrated

services. Plaintiff asserts that he was confined to admi-

nistrative segregation at G.S.P. and was denied acces-

sibility to programs and services offered to similarly

situated inmates.

108

5. Plaintiff states that the cell he was confined to

lacked facilities for the disabled “for hygiene, drinking,

and performing body excretion functions.” Also,

Plaintiff points out a lack of wheel chair accessibility to

the prison law library, church, and gymnasium.

4. Plaintiff states that bathrooms, shower stalls,

sinks, an entrances to building at GSP are not wheel-

chair accessible. As a result, plaintiff allegedly lacked

access to services and activities offered by G.S.P.

including counseling, education, vocational training, and

recreation.

5. Additionally, Plaintiff that he requested, but did

not receive, assistance from correctional officers in

moving from his wheelchair to the toilet, shower, and

bed. Plaintiff states that this lack of assistance caused

him to have to sit in his own waste, to sleep in his

wheelchair for long periods of time and to injure

himself. In particular, plaintiff states that he was

injured when “hurling” himself from the toilet to his

wheelchair on August 26, 1998.

6. On 8/26/98, Mr. Smith was the unit (O.1.C.) k-unit,

Mr. Harden was the unit officer (k-unit), Mr. S. Durden

was the (E.R.) nurse.

7. On 8/26/98, when hurling myself from the toilet to

my wheelchair fell to the floor was injured at knee, toe

and spine,—officers Harden and Smith pick me up off

the floor put me in my w/c, then officers Smith and

Durden transported me by w/c, the prison (E.R.) where

I was seen and exam, by Ms. Jackson, once I was seen

and exam, Mr. S. Durden transported me back to my

cell (k-1-8)—Please see Exhibit “A” attached hereto)

109

8. On 8/27/8, I was seen and exam by the (P.A.) an x-

rays was taken of my right toe and right knee. Please

see Exhibit—“B, C and D” attached hereto.

9. April 8, 1999. I fell when try to transfer from my

w/c, to seat in the shower stall that was not designed

for handicapped individuals, | was injured from the fall

and was seen by a nurse Ms. S. Moke (AK) at that time

I requested to be seen by a Dr. Ms. S. Moke refused to

allow me to be seen by a Dr., at that time the officers

put me back into my cell and lock the door.

9. On 6/15/99, transferred from GSP to Lee

Arrendale State Prison where I was see and exam by

D. J. Phillippe. Dr. Phillippe prescribed physical

therapy, hoyerlift, trapeze bar flood mattress, wheel

chair parts, lotions, soaps, and emoluments and hospital

bed—which G.S.P. refused to do.

10. On 10/26/99, transfered [sic] from Lee Arrendale

State Prison where I was see and exam. by Dr. Bassey.

Dr. Bassey, also, prescribed physical therapy, hoyerlift,

trapeze bar mattress, w/c parts, lotions, soaps, and

emoluments and hospital bed. There also was an x-ray

did of my t-spine, Dr. Bassey stated that the old frac-

ture had been refractured—The Defendant at G.S.?.

knew I needed the above named medical devices but

refused to prescribe it.

11. For the reasons stated in the Declaration sub-

mitted herein, these undisputed facts establish that

defendants violated the fourteenth Amendment and the

ADA 42 U.S.C. §. Accordingly, the foregoing factual

allegations create a genuine issue of material fact and

will, If proved at trial, entitle me to judgment, as

explained in the brief and in the declaration.

110

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty

of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

10/29/01

/s/ TONY GOODMAN

TONY GOODMAN

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.