Case: Heyer v. United States Bureau of Prisons

5:11-ct-03118 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina

Filed Date: June 20, 2011

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On June 20, 2011, two deaf prisoners filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina against the federal Bureau of Prisons. Represented by private counsel and the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, the plaintiffs filed their lawsuit under Bivens and claimed violations of the Rehabilitation Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In addition, the plaintiffs alleged violations of their Fifth Amendment due process rights, First …

On June 20, 2011, two deaf prisoners filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina against the federal Bureau of Prisons. Represented by private counsel and the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, the plaintiffs filed their lawsuit under Bivens and claimed violations of the Rehabilitation Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In addition, the plaintiffs alleged violations of their Fifth Amendment due process rights, First Amendment Freedom of Speech, and First Amendment Free Exercise of Religion. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants refused to provide them with effective communication and auxiliary aids necessary to accommodate their disability. The discriminatory conduct deprived the plaintiffs of their ability to receive adequate and informed medical treatment, participate in institutional disciplinary proceedings, effectively take part in any rehabilitative, educational, or religious programs, or communicate with those within and outside the institution. The plaintiffs requested declaratory and injunctive relief.

On April 11, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On June 22, 2011, the case was transferred to Judge James C. Dever, with a revised case number of 5:11-ct-3118. The defendants then filed a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. The plaintiffs also filed for summary judgment on count two of their amended complaint.

On March 11, 2013, Judge Dever denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on count two, granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss, and denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Judge Dever dismissed count one under the Rehabilitation Act for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Judge Dever dismissed count five under the Fifth Amendment for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Eight claims of the plaintiffs' claims survived. 2013 WL 943406 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 11, 2013).

Discovery was contested and the plaintiffs filed a motion to compel the production of documents. On September 12, 2014, the district court issued an ordering denying the plaintiffs' motion to compel the production of documents from the defendants. 2014 WL 4545946 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 12, 2014).

On March 31, 2015, the Court granted in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, and dismissed as moot the remaining counts of the amended complaint. 2015 WL 1470877 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 31, 2015). The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on May 27, 2015. The case went to the Fourth Circuit as Appeal No. 15-6826.

On November 5, 2015, after the plaintiffs submitted their appellate brief and while the defendants’ response brief was pending, Plaintiff Boyd filed a notice notifying the Fourth Circuit that he had “some limited ability to hear and understand speech in certain contexts.” See Notice, Appeal No. 15-6826, at Doc. 31. On this date, Boyd also filed a motion for voluntary dismissal of his appeal, and proposed that each party bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. The U.S. opposed this proposal. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal because Boyd was not determined to be deaf. 849 F.3d 202 n.1. On January 4, 2016, the district court dismissed Boyd's motion for a voluntary dismissal because the court lacked jurisdiction.

On February 23, 2017, the Fourth Circuit ruled on the appeal of the District Court's grant of summary judgment, affirming it in part, vacating it in part, and remanding for further judgment. 849 F.3d 202. The Court of Appeals found that the defendant was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's medical needs by failing to provide him with an ASL interpreter for medical appointments, particularly when he was suffering from seizures as a result of inadequate medical care. The Fourth Circuit found that the plaintiff had adequately shown substantial risk of serious harm resulting from the defendant's actions. The court also reversed the summary judgment on plaintiff's First Amendment claims, finding that defendant's security complaints regarding the requested videophone were exaggerated, and that defendant substantially interfered with plaintiff's ability to communicate outside of the prison walls. The Fourth Circuit also found that the supplies given to the plaintiff to alert him of emergencies were inadequate.

The court referred the case to Magistrate Judge James E. Gates for a court-hosted settlement conference on May 18, 2017. Defendants moved for dismissal due to lack of jurisdiction, or in the alternative, judgment on the pleadings, on September 29, 2017. After reaching a partial settlement, the parties moved jointly to dismiss the case in part with prejudice on November 2, 2017. Under this partial settlement, the defendants agreed to provide the plaintiff with several accommodations, including in-person ASL interpreter services and calls through video relay service that facilitates communication with non-ASL speakers. The court granted this motion on November 3. This limited the litigation to the plaintiff's First Amendment claim regarding access to a videophone for communication.

A bench trial was held before Judge Dever from November 6-7, 2017. Judge Dever denied the defendant's motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and for judgment on the pleadings on September 12, 2018. On February 12, 2019, the court entered judgment in favor of the defendant, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove that the BOP's failure to install and provide the requested videophone equipment violated the First Amendment.

The plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration on March 12, 2019, requesting that the court alter the judgment. The court subsequently denied this motion on June 21, 2019. The plaintiff then appealed both orders to the Fourth Circuit.

The Fourth Circuit (Circuit Judges Henry F. Floyd, Motz, Diana Gribbon Motz, and Barbara Milano Keenan) agreed with the plaintiff and reversed the district court’s judgment on January 13, 2021. 984 F.3d 347. It remanded the case to the district court for judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Though the Fourth Circuit agreed with the defendants that the ban on videophone for communication bore a rational connection to the defendant's interests in prison safety, rehabilitation of the plaintiff, and protection of the public, it found that other factors weighed in the plaintiff’s favor. First, the plaintiff lacked alternative means to communicate with other deaf individuals. The Fourth Circuit found that the district court erroneously concluded that video relay service was an alternative means because video relay service only permitted communication with non-deaf individuals. Here, the plaintiff was asserting an interest in communicating with the deaf community—an interest video relay service couldn’t fulfill. Second, the Fourth Circuit found that the district court overlooked the substantial evidence that the defendants already have resource-efficient means of managing the risks of videophone calls in evaluating the hypothetical risks of these calls. Finally, the Fourth Circuit found that the district court did not explain why existing safeguards for videophone calls did not mitigate the risks of the calls to a de minimis level. It noted that the district court improperly focused on the nature of the risks of videophones rather than the likelihood of the risks materializing.

After the plaintiff's victory in the Fourth Circuit, the parties returned to litigation before a DOJ administrative law judge (ALJ). This litigation centered around the issue of whether, and to what extent, the plaintiff was entitled to point-to-point video technology to communicate outside of prison walls. Plaintiff argued that he was entitled to videophone access in particular, while defendants argued that the Fourth Circuit’s decision did not explicitly find that the First Amendment required the plaintiff to have videophone access, and that it explicitly stated that his First Amendment rights did not provide a justification for allowing videophone calls to his hearing brother. 

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in April 2021, and a motion in the alternative to stay proceedings, arguing that the plaintiff already enjoyed legally sufficient access to the phone program that was comparable to that enjoyed by hearing inmates/detainees. Meanwhile, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the defendants’ denial of access to point-to-point videophone calls violated his First Amendment rights, and that this holding “necessitate[d]” a finding here that the BOP also violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. ALJ Teresa Wallbaum agreed with the plaintiff, denying defendants’ motion to dismiss and granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on May 21, 2021. She found there were no material facts in dispute that might preclude a decision on summary judgment, as the relevant facts had been “extensively litigated” in the Fourth Circuit. She also held that defendants could not avoid liability by establishing that providing the plaintiff with point-to-point videophone access would constitute a fundamental alteration to the phone program and/or create undue burdens.

The ALJ issued her Recommended Decision in the case on July 20, 2021, which recommended an order that defendants, within thirty days of the date of final Agency action, ensure that a fully operational videophone or its functional equivalent was available for use by the plaintiff at the detention facility. She added a caveat that nothing in the order “shall be interpreted to limit or abridge the authority of BOP to implement reasonable security measure[s] or to limit access to the videophone in the same manner that access of all inmates may be limited under the inmate telephone program.”

On August 4, 2021, defendants submitted exceptions to the Recommended Decision, arguing that the DOJ should ignore the facts drawn from the Fourth Circuit and either order the record to be supplemented or remand the case to the ALJ for further development of the record. Defendants argued that stronger facts needed to be proven regarding how skilled the plaintiff’s brother was in communicating in ASL, and also that the record did not support the ALJ’s finding that complainant “ha[d] deaf friends or family with which he wishe[d] to communicate.” Defendants also argued that the ALJ erred in her conclusions of law regarding denial of a stay, issue preclusion, the summary judgment analysis standard, and the determination that defendants violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The plaintiffs filed a reply contesting these arguments, and the case went to a Complaint Adjudication Officer

In a Final Decision written by Complaint Adjudication Officer C. Douglas Kern on February 25, 2022, the DOJ found the ALJ’s recommendation reasonable. It found that plaintiff established a prima facie case under Section 504, and defendants did not establish an affirmative defense. However, the DOJ provided some adjustments and clarifications to the ruling. First, the DOJ agreed with the ALJ that defendants must provide the plaintiff with point-to-point videophone access, but that defendants could also provide a functionally equivalent accommodation. However, any form of mediated telecommunication that prevented the plaintiff and another ASL user from communicating directly in ASL would not be a functional equivalent. Second, it was unclear what the ALJ determined as to whether the plaintiff should be allowed to make videophone calls to his brother in ASL. Defendants argued that it would thus be reasonable to limit this right to members of the Deaf community, not his hearing brother. However, nothing in the record provided a basis for requiring the plaintiff to communicate with his brother through a less effective method simply because his brother was not deaf. The decision additionally noted that nothing in the decision interfered with the defendants’ ability to exercise its sound correctional judgment in determining whether to allow the plaintiff to call any particular individual, including his brother – but those determinations should be made under the same bases that defendants use to decide whether to allow hearing inmates/detainees to call any particular person on any device.   

Regarding the remedy, the DOJ found that it had received no dispositive evidence that defendants had provided the plaintiff with point-to-point videophone access to date. Thus, within thirty days of the Final Decision, the defendants were ordered to provide the plaintiff with fully operational videophone access that allowed him to make direct, point-to-point videophone calls to other ASL users from the facility in which he was housed, and the defendants must provide the Complaint Adjudication Office with a report on the status of the remedy within sixty days of its receipt of the Final Decision.     

This case is ongoing. 

Summary Authors

Jessica Kincaid (4/22/2016)

Elizabeth Heise (11/4/2018)

Alex Moody (5/20/2020)

Emily Kempa (4/1/2021)

Zoe Goldstein (4/10/2022)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4303467/parties/heyer-v-united-states-bureau-of-prisons/


Judge(s)

Dever, James C. III (North Carolina)

Floyd, Henry Franklin (South Carolina)

Gates, James E. (North Carolina)

Keenan, Barbara Milano (Virginia)

Motz, Diana Jane Gribbon (Maryland)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Bergman, Daniel B. (District of Columbia)

Fornaci, Phillip Jerome (District of Columbia)

Gardner, Elizabeth [Elaine] Elaine (District of Columbia)

Golden, Deborah Maxine (District of Columbia)

Hoffman, Ian S. (District of Columbia)

Judge(s)

Dever, James C. III (North Carolina)

Floyd, Henry Franklin (South Carolina)

Gates, James E. (North Carolina)

Keenan, Barbara Milano (Virginia)

Motz, Diana Jane Gribbon (Maryland)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Bergman, Daniel B. (District of Columbia)

Fornaci, Phillip Jerome (District of Columbia)

Gardner, Elizabeth [Elaine] Elaine (District of Columbia)

Golden, Deborah Maxine (District of Columbia)

Hoffman, Ian S. (District of Columbia)

Nath, Snayha M. (District of Columbia)

Pearce, Carolyn A. (California)

Riemann, Neil A. (North Carolina)

Williamson, Tara L. (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Acker, G Norman III (North Carolina)

Bredenberg, Michael D. (North Carolina)

Dannels, Jennifer D. (North Carolina)

Dodson, Robert J. (North Carolina)

Fesak, Matthew Lee (North Carolina)

Higdon, Robert Jr. (North Carolina)

Kelley, Christina A. (North Carolina)

Renfer, R. A. Jr. (North Carolina)

Wood, Seth Morgan (North Carolina)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket [PACER]

March 8, 2021 Docket
1

Complaint

June 20, 2011 Complaint
24

Verified First Amended Complaint

April 11, 2012 Complaint
46

Order

2013 WL 943406

March 11, 2013 Order/Opinion
118

Order

2014 WL 4545946

Sept. 12, 2014 Order/Opinion
142

Order

2015 WL 1470877

March 31, 2015 Order/Opinion
151

Order

Jan. 4, 2016 Order/Opinion
67

Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

849 F.3d 202

Feb. 23, 2017 Order/Opinion
181-1

Partial Settlement Agreement

Nov. 2, 2017 Settlement Agreement
205

Order

Feb. 12, 2019 Order/Opinion

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4303467/heyer-v-united-states-bureau-of-prisons/

Last updated May 12, 2022, 8 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link
1

COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 0417-1653669.), filed by Thomas Heyer, Robert Paul Boyd. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet with attachment, # 2 summons for issuance, # 3 ummons for issuance, # 4 ummons for issuance, # 5 ummons for issuance, # 6 ummons for issuance) (Riemann, Neil) (Entered: 06/20/2011)

1 Civil Cover Sheet with attachment

View on PACER

2 summons for issuance

View on PACER

3 ummons for issuance

View on PACER

4 ummons for issuance

View on PACER

5 ummons for issuance

View on PACER

6 ummons for issuance

View on PACER

June 20, 2011 PACER
2

NOTICE of Appearance by Philip J. Fornaci on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Fornaci, Philip) (Entered: 06/21/2011)

June 21, 2011 RECAP

Notice of Correction

June 22, 2011 PACER
3

ORDER REASSIGNING CASE - All future pleadings should reflect the revised case number of: 5:11-CT-3118-D. Signed by Julie Richards, Chief Deputy Clerk for Dennis P. Iavarone, Clerk of Court on 6/22/11. (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/22/2011)

June 22, 2011 PACER
4

NOTICE of Appearance by Ian S. Hoffman on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Hoffman, Ian) (Entered: 07/29/2011)

July 29, 2011 PACER
5

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO CONTINUE MANAGEMENT OF CASE - Plaintiff's claims are not clearly frivolous. Accordingly, the clerk is DIRECTED to continue management of the action. Signed by US District Judge James C. Dever III on 8/3/2011. (Taylor, B.) (Entered: 08/03/2011)

Aug. 3, 2011 PACER
6

Summons Issued as to: Ike Eichenlaub, Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R Kane, Sara M. Revell, and United States Bureau of Prisons. (Taylor, B.) (Entered: 08/04/2011)

Aug. 4, 2011 PACER
7

NOTICE of Appearance by Carolyn A. Pearce on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Pearce, Carolyn) (Entered: 09/28/2011)

Sept. 28, 2011 PACER
8

AFFIDAVIT of Service for summons and complaint served on all defendants on various dates, filed by Robert Paul Boyd, Thomas Heyer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Proof for Eichenlaub, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Proof for BoP and Kane, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Proof for Johns, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Proof for Revell, # 5 Exhibit 5 - Proof for AG, # 6 Exhibit 6 - Proof for US Atty) (Riemann, Neil) (Entered: 10/17/2011)

Oct. 17, 2011 PACER
9

AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons and Complaint served on Ike Eichenlaub, Thomas Kane, U.S. Bureau of Prisons on October 18, 2011 and October 20, 2011, filed by Robert Paul Boyd and Thomas Heyer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Proof for Ike Eichenlaub, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Proof for Bureau of Prisons, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Proof for Thomas Kane) (Pearce, Carolyn) (Entered: 10/25/2011)

Oct. 25, 2011 PACER
10

NOTICE of Change of Address by Neil A. Riemann (Riemann, Neil) (Entered: 11/09/2011)

Nov. 9, 2011 PACER
11

NOTICE of Appearance by Seth Morgan Wood on behalf of Ike Eichenlaub, Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R Kane, Sara M. Revell and United States Bureau of Prisons. (Wood, Seth) (Entered: 12/12/2011)

Dec. 12, 2011 PACER
12

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1 Complaint, by Ike Eichenlaub, Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R Kane, Sara M. Revell and United States Bureau of Prisons. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Wood, Seth) (Entered: 12/12/2011)

Dec. 12, 2011 PACER
13

ORDER granting 12 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 1 Complaint; Responses due by 1/11/2012. Signed by Dennis P. Iavarone, Clerk of Court on 12/13/2011. Copy mailed to plaintiff. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 12/13/2011)

Dec. 13, 2011 PACER
14

MOTION to Dismiss by Ike Eichenlaub, Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R Kane, Sara M. Revell, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Wood, Seth) (Entered: 01/11/2012)

Jan. 11, 2012 PACER
15

Memorandum in Support re 14 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Ike Eichenlaub, Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R Kane, Sara M. Revell, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit (A) Declaration of Lynnell Cox with Attachments 1 through 5, # 2 Exhibit (B) Declaration of Mina Raskin, # 3 Exhibit (C) Declaration of Nicole C. Weaver) (Wood, Seth) (Entered: 01/11/2012)

Jan. 11, 2012 PACER
16

Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 14 MOTION to Dismiss by Robert Paul Boyd, Thomas Heyer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Hoffman, Ian) (Entered: 01/30/2012)

Jan. 30, 2012 PACER
17

ORDER - GRANTING 16 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 14 MOTION to Dismiss. Plaintiff's response due by 3/7/2012. Signed by Dennis P. Iavarone, Clerk of Court on 2/1/2012. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 02/01/2012)

Feb. 1, 2012 PACER
18

Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 14 MOTION to Dismiss by Robert Paul Boyd, Thomas Heyer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Hoffman, Ian) (Entered: 02/20/2012)

Feb. 20, 2012 PACER
19

ORDER - GRANTING 18 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 14 MOTION to Dismiss. Plaintiff's response due by 3/28/2012. Signed by Dennis P. Iavarone, Clerk of Court on 2/21/2012. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 02/21/2012)

Feb. 21, 2012 PACER
20

Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 14 MOTION to Dismiss by Robert Paul Boyd, Thomas Heyer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Hoffman, Ian) (Entered: 03/23/2012)

March 23, 2012 PACER
21

ORDER - GRANTING 20 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 14 MOTION to Dismiss. Plaintiffs' response due by 4/11/2012. Signed by Julie A. Richards, Clerk of Court on 3/26/2012. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 03/26/2012)

March 26, 2012 PACER

Notice of Deficiency

April 4, 2012 PACER
22

MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Complaint by Robert Paul Boyd, Thomas Heyer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A -- Proposed First Amended Complaint, # 2 Text of Proposed Order) (Hoffman, Ian) (Entered: 04/04/2012)

April 4, 2012 PACER

Motion Submitted

April 6, 2012 PACER
23

ORDER - GRANTING 22 Motion for Leave to File and directs plaintiffs to file their proposed amended complaint on or before April 17, 2012, and to present summonses to the Clerk for issuance. DENYING as moot 14 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 4/10/2012. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 04/10/2012)

April 10, 2012 PACER
24

***REFER TO DE # 25 FOR CORRECTED SUMMONS AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Thomas Heyer, Robert Paul Boyd. (Attachments: # 1 Summons for Issuance) (Hoffman, Ian) (Entered: 04/11/2012)

1 Summons for Issuance

View on PACER

April 11, 2012 Clearinghouse

Notice of Deficiency

April 12, 2012 PACER
25

***CORRECTED SUMMONS - AMENDED DOCUMENT by Robert Paul Boyd, Thomas Heyer. Summons for Issuance. (Hoffman, Ian) (Entered: 04/12/2012)

April 12, 2012 PACER
26

Summons Issued as to Eric H. Holder, Jr, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General. (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 04/12/2012)

April 12, 2012 PACER
27

NOTICE of Appearance by Seth Morgan Wood on behalf of Ike Eichenlaub, Eric H. Holder, Jr., Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R Kane, Sara M. Revell, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Wood, Seth) (Entered: 04/23/2012)

April 23, 2012 PACER
28

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 24 Amended Complaint by Ike Eichenlaub, Eric H. Holder, Jr, Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R Kane, Sara M. Revell, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Wood, Seth) (Entered: 04/23/2012)

April 23, 2012 PACER
29

ORDER - GRANTING 28 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint up to and including 6/11/2012. Signed by Julie A. Richards, Clerk of Court on 4/24/2012. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 04/24/2012)

April 24, 2012 PACER
30

Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Response as to 24 Amended Complaint (Unopposed) by Ike Eichenlaub, Eric H. Holder, Jr., Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R Kane, Sara M. Revell, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Wood, Seth) (Entered: 06/06/2012)

June 6, 2012 PACER
31

ORDER - GRANTING 30 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response as to 24 Amended Complaint (Unopposed). Responses due by 6/25/2012. Signed by Julie A. Richards, Clerk of Court on 6/7/2012. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 06/07/2012)

June 7, 2012 PACER
32

MOTION to Dismiss, MOTION for Summary Judgment by Ike Eichenlaub, Eric H. Holder, Jr, Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R Kane, Sara M. Revell, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Wood, Seth) (Entered: 06/25/2012)

June 25, 2012 PACER
33

Memorandum in Support regarding 32 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Ike Eichenlaub, Eric H. Holder, Jr., Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R Kane, Sara M. Revell, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List, # 2 Exhibit (A) Filed Separately Under Declaration, # 3 Exhibit (B) Declaration of Mina Raskin, # 4 Exhibit (C) Declaration of Kenneth McKoy, # 5 Exhibit (D) Declaration of Karen L. Steinour, # 6 Exhibit (E) Declaration of Amy Jacobs, # 7 Exhibit (E) Declaration of Jordan May) (Wood, Seth) (Entered: 06/25/2012)

June 25, 2012 PACER
34

Declaration regarding 33 Memorandum in Support, (Declaration of Cornelia J. Coll) by Sara M. Revell, United States Bureau of Prisons, Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R Kane, Eric H. Holder, Jr., Ike Eichenlaub filed by Sara M. Revell, United States Bureau of Prisons, Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R Kane, Eric H. Holder, Jr., Ike Eichenlaub. (Wood, Seth) (Entered: 06/25/2012)

June 25, 2012 PACER
35

RESPONSE in Opposition regarding 32 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Robert Paul Boyd, Thomas Heyer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Heyer Order ) (Hoffman, Ian) Modified on 7/20/2012 to correct description of order. (Fogle, L.) (Entered: 07/19/2012)

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

July 19, 2012 RECAP
36

MOTION Pursuant to Rule 56(d) for Denial of or, in the Alternative, for Continuance to Respond to Defendants' Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment by Robert Paul Boyd, Thomas Heyer. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Ian S. Hoffman) (Hoffman, Ian) (Entered: 07/19/2012)

1 Declaration of Ian S. Hoffman

View on RECAP

July 19, 2012 RECAP
37

MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Count II of the First Amended Complaint by Robert Paul Boyd, Thomas Heyer. (Hoffman, Ian) (Entered: 07/19/2012)

July 19, 2012 RECAP
38

Memorandum in Support regarding 37 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Count II of the First Amended Complaint filed by Robert Paul Boyd, Thomas Heyer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Heyer Order) (Hoffman, Ian) Modified on 7/20/2012 to correct description of order. (Fogle, L.) (Entered: 07/19/2012)

1 Exhibit A

View on RECAP

July 19, 2012 RECAP

Notice of Correction

July 20, 2012 PACER
39

RESPONSE regarding 35 Response in Opposition to Motion, (Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Or, In The Alternative, For Summary Judgment) filed by Ike Eichenlaub, Eric H. Holder, Jr, Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R Kane, Sara M. Revell, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law) (Wood, Seth) (Entered: 08/02/2012)

Aug. 2, 2012 PACER
40

RESPONSE in Opposition regarding 36 MOTION Pursuant to Rule 56(d) for Denial of or, in the Alternative, for Continuance to Respond to Defendants' Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Ike Eichenlaub, Eric H. Holder, Jr, Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R Kane, Sara M. Revell, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Wood, Seth) (Entered: 08/09/2012)

Aug. 9, 2012 PACER
41

RESPONSE in Opposition regarding 37 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Count II of the First Amended Complaint filed by Ike Eichenlaub, Eric H. Holder, Jr, Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R Kane, Sara M. Revell, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Attachments: # 1 (A) Supplemental Declaration of Karen L. Steinour) (Wood, Seth) (Entered: 08/09/2012)

Aug. 9, 2012 PACER
42

REPLY to Response to Motion regarding 36 MOTION Pursuant to Rule 56(d) for Denial of or, in the Alternative, for Continuance to Respond to Defendants' Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Robert Paul Boyd, Thomas Heyer. (Hoffman, Ian) (Entered: 08/23/2012)

Aug. 23, 2012 RECAP
43

REPLY to Response to Motion regarding 37 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Count II of the First Amended Complaint filed by Robert Paul Boyd, Thomas Heyer. (Hoffman, Ian) (Entered: 08/23/2012)

Aug. 23, 2012 RECAP

Motion Submitted

Aug. 24, 2012 PACER
44

NOTICE by Ike Eichenlaub, Eric H. Holder, Jr., Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R. Kane, Sara M. Revell, United States Bureau of Prisons regarding 33 Memorandum in Support, 32 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION for Summary Judgment. (Supplement to Defendants' Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment) (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Justin F. Andrews) (Wood, Seth) (Entered: 10/15/2012)

1

View on PACER

Oct. 15, 2012 PACER
45

RESPONSE regarding 44 Notice-(other), filed by Robert Paul Boyd, Thomas Heyer. (Pearce, Carolyn) (Entered: 10/26/2012)

Oct. 26, 2012 PACER
46

ORDER - Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on count two 37 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and defendants' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment 32 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Count one under the Rehabilitation Act is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under 28 C.F.R. § 39.170. Count five under the Fifth Amendment is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Counts two, three, four, six, seven, eight, nine, and ten survive. Plaintiffs' Ru1e 56(d) motion 36 is GRANTED IN PART as to the remaining claims, and defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED without prejudice as to the remaining claims. The parties shall confer and file a proposed scheduling order (or separate proposed orders, if the parties cannot agree) no later than March 28, 2013. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 3/11/2013. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 03/11/2013)

March 11, 2013 Clearinghouse
47

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 24 Amended Complaint by Ike Eichenlaub, Eric H. Holder, Jr, Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R Kane, Sara M. Revell, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Wood, Seth) (Entered: 03/25/2013)

March 25, 2013 PACER
48

ORDER - GRANTING 47 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer regarding plaintiff's amended complaint. Responses due by 4/8/2013. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 3/26/2013. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 03/26/2013)

March 26, 2013 PACER
49

REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Ike Eichenlaub, Eric H. Holder, Jr., Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R. Kane, Sara M. Revell, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Wood, Seth) (Entered: 03/28/2013)

March 28, 2013 PACER
50

Rule 26(f) Report (individual) by Robert Paul Boyd, Thomas Heyer. (Hoffman, Ian) (Entered: 03/28/2013)

March 28, 2013 PACER
51

ANSWER to 24 Amended Complaint (Plaintiff's Verifed First Amended Complaint) by Ike Eichenlaub, Eric H. Holder, Jr., Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R Kane, Sara M. Revell, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Wood, Seth) (Entered: 04/08/2013)

April 8, 2013 PACER
52

AMENDED ANSWER to 24 Amended Complaint by Ike Eichenlaub, Eric H. Holder, Jr, Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R Kane, Sara M. Revell, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Wood, Seth) (Entered: 04/22/2013)

April 22, 2013 PACER
53

Notice of Substitution of Counsel by Deborah M. Golden on behalf of Robert Paul Boyd, Thomas Heyer substituting for Philip J. Fornaci. (Golden, Deborah) (Entered: 05/01/2013)

May 1, 2013 PACER
54

SCHEDULING ORDER - Fact Discovery due by 9/27/2013 and all Expert Discovery due by 11/22/2013. Motions due by 12/20/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge James E. Gates on 5/31/2013. Counsel is reminded to read the entire order for critical dates and deadlines. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 05/31/2013)

May 31, 2013 Clearinghouse
55

MOTION for Extension of Time (to respond to plaintiffs' first requests for production of documents) by Ike Eichenlaub, Eric H. Holder, Jr, Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R Kane, Sara M. Revell, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Wood, Seth) (Entered: 06/18/2013)

June 18, 2013 PACER
56

MOTION for Extension of Time (refiled Motion to include Exhibit A) by Ike Eichenlaub, Eric H. Holder, Jr, Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R Kane, Sara M. Revell, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Plaintiffs' Requests for Production of Documents to Defendants (Set One)) (Wood, Seth) (Entered: 06/18/2013)

June 18, 2013 PACER
57

RESPONSE to Motion regarding 56 MOTION for Extension of Time (refiled Motion to include Exhibit A), 55 MOTION for Extension of Time (to respond to plaintiffs' first requests for production of documents) filed by Robert Paul Boyd, Thomas Heyer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit B -- Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production) (Hoffman, Ian) (Entered: 06/18/2013)

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on RECAP

2 Exhibit B -- Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production

View on RECAP

June 18, 2013 RECAP

Motion Referred

June 19, 2013 PACER
58

NOTICE by Ike Eichenlaub, Eric H. Holder, Jr, Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R Kane, Sara M. Revell, United States Bureau of Prisons regarding 56 MOTION for Extension of Time. (refiled Motion to include Exhibit A) (Notice of Withdrawal of Defendant's Motion For Extension Of Time) (Wood, Seth) (Entered: 06/19/2013)

June 19, 2013 PACER
59

WITHDRAWAL of Motion by Ike Eichenlaub, Eric H. Holder, Jr, Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R Kane, Sara M. Revell, United States Bureau of Prisons. regarding 56 MOTION for Extension of Time (refiled Motion to include Exhibit A) filed by Thomas R Kane, Tracy W. Johns, Eric H. Holder, Jr., Sara M. Revell, United States Bureau of Prisons, Ike Eichenlaub . (Wood, Seth) (Entered: 06/19/2013)

June 19, 2013 PACER

Motion Referred

July 9, 2013 PACER
60

MOTION for Protective Order (Unopposed) by Ike Eichenlaub, Eric H. Holder, Jr, Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R Kane, Sara M. Revell, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Wood, Seth) (Entered: 07/09/2013)

July 9, 2013 PACER

Motion Referred

July 12, 2013 PACER
61

MOTION for Protective Order (Unopposed) by Ike Eichenlaub, Eric H. Holder, Jr, Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R Kane, Sara M. Revell, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Wood, Seth) (Entered: 07/12/2013)

July 12, 2013 PACER
62

PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge James E. Gates on 8/2/2013. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 08/05/2013)

Aug. 5, 2013 PACER
63

SECOND PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge James E. Gates on 8/2/2013. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 08/05/2013)

Aug. 5, 2013 PACER
64

MOTION to Stay Further Proceedings Pending Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies by Ike Eichenlaub, Eric H. Holder, Jr, Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R Kane, Sara M. Revell, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Wood, Seth) (Entered: 08/26/2013)

Aug. 26, 2013 PACER
65

Memorandum in Support regarding 64 MOTION to Stay Further Proceedings Pending Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies filed by Ike Eichenlaub, Eric H. Holder, Jr, Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R Kane, Sara M. Revell, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Letter to Richard Toscano, # 2 Exhibit B - Letter to Mina Raskin) (Wood, Seth) (Entered: 08/26/2013)

Aug. 26, 2013 PACER
66

MOTION to Expedite (Unopposed Motion for Expedited Considertaion of Motion to Stay Pending Proceedings) by Ike Eichenlaub, Eric H. Holder, Jr, Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R Kane, Sara M. Revell, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Wood, Seth) (Entered: 08/26/2013)

Aug. 26, 2013 PACER
67

ORDER - GRANTING 66 Motion to Expedite. Plaintiffs shall respond to Defendants' motion to stay on or before September 9, 2013. Defendants will not file a reply in support of their motion. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 8/26/2013. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 08/27/2013)

Aug. 27, 2013 Clearinghouse
68

RESPONSE in Opposition regarding 64 MOTION to Stay Further Proceedings Pending Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies filed by Robert Paul Boyd, Thomas Heyer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Bryant Order on Motion to Dismiss (July 11, 2011)) (Hoffman, Ian) (Entered: 09/09/2013)

Sept. 9, 2013 PACER

Motion Submitted

Sept. 10, 2013 PACER

Motion Submitted to Staff Counsel III as to: 64 MOTION to Stay Further Proceedings Pending Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies. (Indig, A.)

Sept. 10, 2013 PACER
69

Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Robert Paul Boyd, Thomas Heyer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Hoffman, Ian) (Entered: 09/16/2013)

Sept. 16, 2013 PACER

Motion Submitted

Sept. 17, 2013 PACER

Motion Submitted to Staff Counsel III as to: 69 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. (Indig, A.)

Sept. 17, 2013 PACER
70

ORDER - DENYING 64 Motion to Stay. GRANTING in PART 69 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Discovery due by 1/24/2014 and Motions due by 2/21/2014. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 9/23/2013. Counsel is reminded to read the entire order for critical dates and deadlines. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 09/23/2013)

Sept. 23, 2013 PACER
71

NOTICE of Appearance by Jennifer D. Dannels on behalf of All Defendants. (Dannels, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/26/2013)

Sept. 26, 2013 PACER
72

Notice of Substitution of Counsel by R. A. Renfer, Jr on behalf of Ike Eichenlaub, Eric H. Holder, Jr, Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R Kane, Sara M. Revell, United States Bureau of Prisons substituting for Seth M. Wood. (Renfer, R.) (Entered: 09/26/2013)

Sept. 26, 2013 PACER
73

MOTION to Compel the Production of Documents by Robert Paul Boyd, Thomas Heyer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Privilege Log), # 2 Text of Proposed Order) (Hoffman, Ian) (Entered: 09/30/2013)

Sept. 30, 2013 PACER
74

MOTION to Expedite (Motion for Expedited Consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel) by Robert Paul Boyd, Thomas Heyer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Hoffman, Ian) (Entered: 09/30/2013)

Sept. 30, 2013 PACER

Motion Submitted

Oct. 1, 2013 PACER

Motion Submitted to Staff Counsel III: 74 MOTION to Expedite (Motion for Expedited Consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel). (McDowell, G.)

Oct. 1, 2013 PACER
75

NOTICE of Appearance by Michael D. Bredenberg on behalf of Ike Eichenlaub, Eric H. Holder, Jr., Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R Kane, Sara M. Revell, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Bredenberg, Michael) (Entered: 10/02/2013)

Oct. 2, 2013 PACER
76

ORDER - GRANTING 74 Motion to Expedite. Defendants shall file a response to the motion to compel on or before October 10, 2013. Plaintiffs shall not file any reply. The court REFERS the motion to compel [D.E. 73] to Magistrate Judge James E. Gates. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 10/2/2013. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 10/02/2013)

Oct. 2, 2013 PACER
77

RESPONSE to Motion regarding 73 MOTION to Compel the Production of Documents filed by Ike Eichenlaub, Eric H. Holder, Jr, Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R Kane, Sara M. Revell, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Bredenberg, Michael) (Entered: 10/10/2013)

Oct. 10, 2013 PACER

Motion Referred

Oct. 10, 2013 PACER

MOTION REFERRED to US Magistrate Judge James E. Gates regarding 73 MOTION to Compel the Production of Documents. (Blankenship, T.)

Oct. 10, 2013 PACER
78

NOTICE of Appearance for non-district by Sean P Hennessy on behalf of all Plaintiffs. (Hennessy, Sean) (Entered: 10/22/2013)

Oct. 22, 2013 PACER
79

NOTICE of Appearance by Robert J Dodson on behalf of All Defendants. (Dodson, Robert) (Entered: 10/29/2013)

Oct. 29, 2013 PACER
80

MOTION for Extension of Time for Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs' Second Request for Interrogatories and Second Request for Production of Documents by Ike Eichenlaub, Eric H. Holder, Jr, Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R Kane, Sara M. Revell, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Dannels, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/25/2013)

Nov. 25, 2013 PACER
81

NOTICE of Appearance by G. Norman Acker, III on behalf of Ike Eichenlaub, Eric H. Holder, Jr, Tracy W. Johns, Thomas R Kane, Sara M. Revell, United States Bureau of Prisons (Acker, G.) (Entered: 11/26/2013)

Nov. 26, 2013 PACER
82

RESPONSE to Motion regarding 80 MOTION for Extension of Time for Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs' Second Request for Interrogatories and Second Request for Production of Documents and Cross-Motion for Leave to Complete Two Depositions Regarding Videophones filed by Robert Paul Boyd, Thomas Heyer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Rule 30(b)(6) Notice), # 2 Exhibit B (Subpoena to VDOC), # 3 Exhibit C (Subpoena to VDOC -- Clarke), # 4 Exhibit D (Subpoena to VDOC -- Marano), # 5 Text of Proposed Order) (Hoffman, Ian) (Entered: 11/27/2013)

Nov. 27, 2013 PACER
83

Cross MOTION for Extension of Time to CompleteTwo Depositions Regarding Videophones by Robert Paul Boyd, Thomas Heyer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Rule 30(b)(6) Notice), # 2 Exhibit B (Subpoena to VDOC), # 3 Exhibit C (Subpoena to VDOC -- Clarke), # 4 Exhibit D (Subpoena to VDOC -- Marano), # 5 Text of Proposed Order) (Hoffman, Ian) (Entered: 11/27/2013)

Nov. 27, 2013 PACER

State / Territory: North Carolina

Case Type(s):

Prison Conditions

Disability Rights/Public Accommodations

Special Collection(s):

Deaf or Blind in Jail/Prison

Key Dates

Filing Date: June 20, 2011

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Two deaf federal prisoners.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

Washington Lawyers' Committee

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

United States Bureau of Prisons, Federal

Defendant Type(s):

Corrections

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Religious Freedom Rest. Act/Religious Land Use and Inst. Persons Act (RFRA/RLUIPA)

Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens

Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Free Exercise Clause

Freedom of speech/association

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Voluntary Dismissal

Issues

General:

Informed consent/involuntary medication

Language access/needs

Rehabilitation

Religious programs / policies

TTY/Close Captioning/Videophone/etc.

Discrimination-basis:

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)

Language discrimination

Disability:

Hearing impairment

Language:

Other

Medical/Mental Health:

Medical care, general

Type of Facility:

Government-run