Monroe et al v. Rauner et al

Filing 773

ORDER: The appointment of Dr. Amanda Harris as first Co-Monitor shall continue. This appointment will be reviewed again in another six months. Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 4/16/2024. (beb)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS JANIAH MONROE, et al., individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, Case No. 3:18-CV-00156-NJR v. STEVEN BOWMAN, MELVIN HINTON, and LATOYA HUGHES, Defendants. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge: This matter is before the Court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626(f)(5) for the fourth sixmonth review of the appointment of first Co-Monitor Amanda L. Harris, M.D. (Doc. 418; see also Doc. 653). Harris was charged with monitoring Defendants’ compliance with the courtordered injunctive relief regarding hormone therapy, regular blood work, and appropriate titration of doses and/or additional testing/treatment; gender affirming surgery evaluation, scheduling, and pre- and post-operative care (including monitoring the CQI 1 program and IDOC medical providers’ compliance with WPATH 2 training and continuing education); and transfers of class members to achieve medically necessary social transition. (Doc. 370, pp. 711; Doc. 384). This has involved review of voluminous medical records for approximately 195 class members, as well as assisting Defendants to compile an accurate list of inmates who 1 2 Continuing Quality Improvement. World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Page 1 of 3 are in the class, extensive communication with IDOC medical and mental health staff as well as outside providers, review of records on transfer requests and outcomes, participation in several status conferences and evidentiary hearings with the Court and parties, and consultation with Defendants regarding revisions to the Administrative Directives on transgender prisoners. (Doc. 439, pp. 1-2, 12; Doc. 674; Doc. 714). Since her appointment on April 5, 2022, Dr. Harris has submitted reports to the Court and parties regarding the above matters and reported to the Court on the meetings between the parties and the Co-Monitors (Docs. 439, 502, 592, 674). Dr. Harris has reported improvements in the delivery and monitoring of hormone therapy, and continues to receive regular updates from Defendants regarding endocrinology consults, PRISM enrollment, census lists, lab values, surgical consults, and transfer decisions, to enable her to continue to monitor these matters. Monitoring of these issues continues to be necessary in order to determine whether Defendants are moving toward compliance with the Court’s Orders. It is anticipated that Dr. Harris will coordinate and consult with the person that Defendants plan to hire as an in-house patient navigator (See Docs. 766, 769). Based on the above, the Court concludes that the appointment of Dr. Harris as first Co-Monitor shall continue. This matter is still in the remedial phase. Dr. Harris’s expertise continues to be necessary to advise and assist the Court in monitoring Defendants’ compliance with the Court’s directives in this case, as well as to advise the parties on policies and procedures that will achieve compliance with constitutional standards of care and conditions of confinement. This appointment will be reviewed again in another six months. As previously noted, the hourly compensation rate for both Co-Monitors (special masters) is the rate established under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A for payment of court appointed Page 2 of 3 counsel. (Doc. 423, pp. 5-6; Doc. 561). This hourly rate is currently $172.00; thus CoMonitor Harris will be compensated from the Court’s appropriated funds at this rate plus costs reasonably incurred by the Co-monitor. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: April 16, 2024 _s/ Nancy J. Rosenstengel____ NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL Chief U.S. District Judge Page 3 of 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?