Free Other Notice - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

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

Terry Goddard Attorney General Susanna C. Pineda, Bar No. 011293 Assistant Attorney General 1275 W. Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2997 Phone: (602) 542-4951 Fax: (602) 542-7670 E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Christian Diaz, Plaintiff, v. Dora B. Schriro, et al., Defendants. Defendants Schriro and McWilliams hereby provide the Court with answers to questions posed during the October 17, 2005 status conference. 1. Is it feasible, given possible security concerns, to transport and secure STG inmates Mullins, Diaz, and Baptisto for a joint trial in the federal district court? 2. If the trial is set for December 12, 2005, will it interfere with the inmates' ability to order and obtain their December store purchases? Undersigned counsel has spoken at length to Deputy Warden Carson McWilliams regarding the questions posed by the Court. In response the security questions, Deputy Warden McWilliams indicates that these inmates are associated with the following security threat groups: Mullins-Aryan Brotherhood, Diaz-Sorenos, and Baptisto-Warrior Society.

No. CV 03-1498 PHX SRB (MS) NOTICE RE: POSSIBLE TRIAL DATES

Case 2:03-cv-01498-SRB

Document 83

Filed 10/24/2005

Page 1 of 4

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

Currently, neither of these particular security threat groups has issues that would prevent them from interacting with one another. Additionally, Deputy Warden McWilliams has reviewed each individual inmate's Do Not House With list and has found no listing that would prohibit the inmates from trying their cases together. There does not to appear to be a security risk. With regard to transportation, there is no security threat posed by transporting these inmates to court. Deputy Warden McWilliams further indicated that ADC will assure that an appropriate number of officers are available to secure the inmates during the course of the trial. Finally, with respect to the question of store purchases, Deputy Warden McWilliams has provided the following information. Although validated STG inmates housed in SMU II are generally prohibited from purchasing food products, an exception has historically been made during the month of December. During December, these inmates are allowed to purchase food products from the inmate store once a week for a period of four weeks. Inmate store is generally delivered at 6 p.m. Assuming the inmate is out to court and will not return to his cell until after that hour, Deputy Warden McWilliams has indicated that their store purchases will be held for them and delivered upon their return to the unit. Given these answers, it appears that a December 12, 2005, trial date can be accommodated.1 Setting the trial for December will also provide some time to get Inmate Bautisto's case ready for trial, including the preparation of the proposed joint pretrial statement. Undersigned counsel advises the Court that she currently has two other matters set for trial

1

Undersigned counsel is scheduled to be out of the office from December 16, 2005 to January 2, 2005. 2
Document 83 Filed 10/24/2005 Page 2 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-01498-SRB

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

in November: Gonzalez v. ADOC, et al., CIV No. CV 05-0316 TUC EHC2, scheduled for jury trial November 8-November 10, 2005, and raising three claims of action, including denial of equal protection, deliberate indifference to safety, and deliberate indifference to medical care, and Seneca v. Arizona, CIV 03-1350 PHX SRB (ECV), scheduled for a bench trial before this Court on November 29, 2005. Additionally, a trial date no earlier than December 2005, will give Defendants the opportunity to find witnesses who will be able to provide the court with the history of SMU II recreation time and cell lighting conditions. Assistant Attorney General Catherine Bohland advised undersigned that this Court indicated during the October 17, 2005, status hearing that it anticipated that there would be substantial testimony about the history of the amount of outdoor recreation and lighting conditions at SMU II. Specifically, this Court has asked what changes have taken place over the years, if any, and what justified thos changes. Due to the nature of the issues which remain in this case, i.e., does three hours of outdoor recreation per week and lighting that is dimmed for periods during the night violate the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, Defendants had not contemplated needed any historical evidence. Given that the current conditions of confinement have been in existence since the Defendant officials took office, it will be necessary to locate witnesses who can place these conditions in the historical context desired by the court.

2

Renumbered from CIV01-2545-PCT-ECH when transferred to Tucson. 3
Document 83 Filed 10/24/2005 Page 3 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-01498-SRB

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4
Case 2:03-cv-01498-SRB Document 83 Filed 10/24/2005 Page 4 of 4

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 24th day of October, 2005. Terry Goddard Attorney General

Original e-filed this 24th day of October, 2005, with: Clerk of the Court United States District Court District of Arizona 401 West Washington Street, SPC 1 Phoenix, AZ 85003-2118 Copy mailed the same date to: Christian Diaz, #132778 ASPC - Eyman - SMU II P.O. Box 3400 Florence, Arizona 85233 s/ Colleen S. Jordan Secretary to: Susanna C. Pineda IDS04-0087/RSK:G04-20134 #931133 _

s/ Susanna C. Pineda Susanna C. Pineda Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants