Roberts v. Mahoning County (495 F. Supp. 2d 719, 2007)

CONSENT JUDGMENT ENTRY WITH A STIPULATED POPULATION ORDER

PER CURIAM.

1. This action was commenced on November 14, 2003 by Nathaniel Roberts, James Joseph Mancini, Joshua Baird, Kevin Whitacker, Mike Hamad, Rodney Gray, Leland Scott and Maurice Barnes as named Plaintiffs on behalf of all persons who are or who will be confined at the Mahoning County Justice Center.

■ 2. Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that conditions at the Justice Center violated the United States Constitution, the Ohio Constitution, Statutory Laws of the State of Ohio, and rules and regulations promulgated by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Plaintiffs sought Declaratory and Injunctive Relief on behalf of the class. This action was brought against the County of Mahoning, acting through the Mahoning County Board of Commissioners and Randall A. Wellington, acting in his official capacity as the duly elected Mahoning County Sheriff. Upon imposition of this Three Judge Court the City of Youngstown intervened. Hereinafter Plaintiffs, Defendants, and Interve-nor are collectively referred to as “Parties”.

3. The Mahoning County Justice Center consists of two buildings, with close to 800 inmates being housed at the time of trial. The main facility is located at 110 Fifth Avenue, Youngstown, Ohio (“Justice Center”). The second building is called the Minimum Security Mahoning County Jail located at 360 W. Commerce Street, Youngstown, Ohio (“MSJ”). This building housed over 100 inmates and was closed in the spring of 2005. Its reopening is addressed later in this order. ■ For purposes of this order the Justice Center and MSJ will be collectively referred to as “County Jail Facilities.”

CLASS CERTIFICATION

4. The Plaintiffs in their Complaint moved this Court to certify this as a Class Action pursuant to Civil Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2). The Parties hereto stipulate and agree to the following:

A. This action was certified as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Fed. R. Civ.P on March 5, 2004.

B. That there are questions of law and fact common to the class. The Parties agree that: The named Plaintiffs claim and allege that Defendants have engaged in a common course of conduct toward them, and have instituted a pattern or practice of conduct, or effectuated policy and procedure all of which affect the entire class as a whole. The factual allegations made by the named Plaintiffs, by their very nature, are the type of allegations and claims which are common to other inmates at the Mahoning County Jail, past, present, and/or future. Common questions of law arise from these facts.

C. The ' claims of the representative Parties are typical of the claims of the class. The claims are typical since they arise from the same event or practice or course of conduct which gives rise to the claims of other class members. The claims of the named representatives are based on the same legal theories as those of the entire class. Due to the fact that there is a commonality and typicality between the claims of the named Plaintiffs and the class, declaratory and injunctive relief is appropriate for the entire class.

D. The representative Parties have fairly and adequately protected the interest of the class. The interests of the named Plaintiffs are not and have never been antagonistic to those of the class. Counsel for the named Plaintiffs, Robert P. Armbruster and Thomas Kelley, have demonstrated their competence to vigorously prosecute the interest of the class and are experienced in the handling of cases of this type.

E. On March 5, 2004, the Court certified the following class:

All persons in the care or custody of the Mahoning County Sheriff and incarcerated on or after November 12, 2003 at the Mahoning County Justice Center, 110 Fifth Avenue, Youngstown, Ohio, (“Justice Center”), and also all persons in the care or custody of the Mahoning County Sheriff and incarcerated on or after November 12, 2003 at the Mahoning County Minimum Security Jail, 360 W. Commerce Street, Youngstown, Ohio (“MSJ”).

F. The Plaintiff class has made no claims for damages.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. The Court has jurisdiction over the Parties and subject matter of this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(3). Venue is properly before this Court.

6. On December 13 through 15, 2004, the above captioned matter was tried to this Court. The named Plaintiffs, both pre-trial detainees and convicted prisoners being held in the custody of the Defendant Sheriff at the Justice Center, alleged the facilities were understaffed and overcrowded, creating unsafe and dangerous conditions for the inmates. Plaintiffs alleged that the lack of staff resulted in (1) the frequent lockdown of inmates for lengthy periods of time, (2) the inability to provide programs and services to the inmates, including but not limited to, recreation, visitation, religion, and inmate counseling programs, and (3) an inability to safely and securely house inmates. The inmates further alleged that the staff was not properly trained. Plaintiffs also alleged that the facilities were poorly maintained, creating unhealthy and dangerous conditions for the inmates. They also asserted that inmates were locked down in cells with toilets that accumulate human waste because they could not be flushed. They alleged that intercoms in cells did not work, prohibiting the inmates from contacting staff during periods of lockdown. Plaintiffs also claimed that the jail does not provide adequate legal resources or a legal access program, thus violating their constitutionally guaranteed right of access to the courts.

7. The Parties agree that the Plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative remedies prior to filing this lawsuit as a proposed class action.

FINDINGS

8. As a result of the trial, the Court made extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law based on the testimony of inmates, experts, staff members and administrators who work at the jail. Said findings of fact and conclusions of law are contained in the Memorandum Opinion issued by this Court dated March 10, 2005. (Doc. No. 93), 2005 WL 5569487, 495 F.Supp.2d 670. That Memorandum Opinion is adopted as if it was fully rewritten here.

PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT COMPLIANCE

9. The Court, in compliance with 18 U.S.C. § 3626(f)(2)(A), (B), and (C), appointed a Special Master (Doc. No. 108), 2005 WL 5569488, 495 F.Supp.2d 693. Upon the recommendation of the Special Master, the District Court directed the Defendants to create a Criminal Justice Working Group to develop a remedial plan consistent with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996). The District Court’s Order constituted an order for less intrusive relief in compliance with 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1) of the PLRA (Doc. No. 193), 2006 WL 4606651, 495 F.Supp.2d 694. On May 1, 2006, the Criminal Justice Working Group issued its final report (Doc. No. 191) but was unable to arrive at a solution that would solve the unconstitutional conditions at the jail created by overcrowding.

10. The District Court has previously entered orders in this case that have failed to remedy the deprivation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Defendants have had a reasonable amount of time to comply with the previous court orders. Thus, the prerequisites for convening a three-judge court as set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3626(a)(3)(A) have been satisfied.

11. In accordance with the District Court’s May 25, 2006 Order (Doc. No. 193), this Three Judge Court was empaneled on June 8, 2006. (Doc. No. 194), 2006 WL 4606652, 495 F.Supp.2d 708.

12. On July 27, 2006, the City of Youngstown moved to intervene (Doc. No. 207) and was granted intervention (Doc. No. 209), 2006 WL 4606650, 495 F.Supp.2d 712. Subsequently this Court set the matter for trial on May 16, 2007 (Doc. No. 224), 2006 WL 4606656, 495 F.Supp.2d 713.

13. The Three Judge Court appointed Special Master Vince Nathan as the Court’s expert for this phase of the litigation (Doc. No. 191). Mr. Nathan was charged with the task of collecting data and preparing an expert report of his findings and his opinion with respect to (1) whether crowding at the jail is the cause of constitutional violations, and, if so, (2) whether there is any other viable form of relief, short of a prisoner release order, that could remedy the violations. ■ Pursuant to this Court’s Order, Mr. Nathan investigated the issues, and on December 3, 2006, filed a report containing his findings and his conclusions with this Court (Doc. No. 229). The findings and conclusions set forth by this Court’s expert demonstrate that the jail is overcrowded resulting in violence to inmates and staff, that crowding is therefore the root cause of a constitutional violation and that there is no other viable remedy to cure the constitutional violation. (Doc. No. 229).

14. As a result of Mr. Nathan’s report, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Immediate In-junctive Relief on December 18, 2006 (Doc. No. 232). This Court set the matter for an emergency hearing to be held on December 28, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. (Doc. No. 234). The City of Youngstown filed a Response to Motion for Immediate Injunctive Relief (Doc. No. 237), and Mahoning County Defendants filed a Brief in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Immediate Injunctive Relief (Doc. No. 239).

15. At the hearing, Mr. Nathan authenticated his own expert report and this Court adopted his report and made it part of the record. Mr. Nathan answered preliminary questions from the panel and counsel for the Parties. In addition, all Parties agreed and stipulated that based on current staffing and population as highlighted in Mr. Nathan’s Expert Report the conditions of the Jail are unconstitutional. After consideration of the briefs and arguments at the hearing, the panel confirmed that it would take the matter of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Immediate Injunctive Relief under advisement (Doc. No. 245), 2006 WL 4606655, 495 F.Supp.2d 718. In the interim, the Court directed Judge Polster to engage in mediation. Judge • Polster met with the Parties on January 3, 2007 at which time a tentative agreement was reached.

16. On February 28, 2007 the Three Judge Panel issued an Interim Stipulated Population Order (Doc. No. 251). Said order was issued with the purpose of immediately addressing overcrowding in the facility.

PARTIES

All Parties agreé that:

17. The provisions of this Consent Order shall apply and be binding upon the Parties to this action, their agents, officers, employees, assigns, successors in interest and any persons acting in concert or privity with any of the Parties.

18. This Order shall in no way limit the Parties’ claims or defenses in other actions, and shall not be interpreted as an admission to the validity of any other claims filed by members of the inmate class.

19. This Order shall govern as an order addressing those findings made in the memorandum opinion of this Court, the findings and conclusions raised in Mr. Nathan’s Expert Report and those findings made in the Interim Stipulated Population Order. The Parties agree that this Order is narrowly drawn and intended to address only those factual findings and conclusions of law mentioned herein. The Parties agree and certify they are aware of no less intrusive way to address these findings and conclusions of law.

20. Now therefore, and upon consent of the Parties, based upon the need to address the above findings and conclusions of law, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS:

21. The Court has jurisdiction over the Parties and subject matter of this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(3) and 18 U.S.C. § 3626. Venue is properly before this Court.

22.The District Court has previously entered orders in this case that have failed to remedy the deprivation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights that are remedied with this Order. Defendants have had - a reasonable amount of time to comply with the previous court orders. Thus, the prerequisites for convening a three-judge court as set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3626(a)(3)(A) have been satisfied.

23. This Court finds that this relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal rights found violated, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct those violations of Federal rights. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). Moreover, this Court has considered and weighed any adverse impact on public safety and the effect on the operation of a criminal justice system in Mahoning County. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A).

24. This Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the terms of the Interim Stipulated Population Order strike a balance between the interest in public safety and the interest in maintaining a constitutional jail as it provides for the incarceration of all violent felons and for the reopening to maximum occupancy of all the jail facilities under the control of Mahoning County, while at the same time protecting the constitutional rights of inmates in the County Jail Facilities.

25. This Court finds by clear and convincing evidence based on the entire record that (1) crowding is the primary cause of the violation of a Federal right, and (2) no other relief will remedy the violation of the Federal right. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3)(E)(i) and (ii).

26. Thus, this Court finds that the factual predicate for imposition of a prisoner release order, as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3)(E), has been established.

AGREEMENT TO MEDIATE DIFFERENCES

27. It is anticipated that this Consent Order will be monitored by Plaintiffs’ counsel, or by any monitor subsequently named by the Court, according to terms outlined later in this Order. The Parties hereby agree that any alleged violations of this agreement found by the Parties, before being brought to the attention of this Court, shall be mediated. Such mediation shall consist of a meeting of Plaintiffs’ counsel and the appropriate Defendants and Intervenor. The complaining Party’s counsel shall state in writing any alleged violation necessitating a meeting and give Defendants and Intervenor notice to investigate and then meet with counsel. If, after the meeting, the Parties indicate that they cannot resolve by way of agreement the problem discussed, any Party shall have the right to bring the alleged violation to the attention of this Court to either enforce the provisions of this Order or seek relief from the provisions of this Order.

INMATE POPULATION/RELEASE ORDER

28. Now, therefore, upon stipulation of the Parties, based upon a need to address the population issue immediately, the Three Judge Panel orders that the Overcrowding Release Policy attached as Exhibit A in Doc. No. 251 be adopted to effectuate the following population limits and housing classifications designations.

POPULATION

29. Decisions on capacity are based on standards which include square footage of cells and square footage of day-areas with sufficient programming for inmates. The Defendants agree to abide by these housing capacities.

30. All inmates classified as Maximum Security shall be single celled. All other medium and minimum security inmates may be double celled.

31. The Sheriff has adopted the practice of using boats (temporary beds) and placing mattresses on cell floors to create additional capacity. The Parties hereby agree that all boats shall be removed from general housing and inmates should only be housed on bunks affixed in cell units with the exception of medical housing.

32. The Parties agree to the following population/housing plan for the Justice Center. Said plan is based on the Sheriff properly classifying inmates as provided in paragraph 43 below and placing inmates in housing pods that are consistent with the classification. Nothing in this order shall forbid the Parties from meeting at a later time to agree to changes in the classification of housing units in the Mahoning County Jail.

SIXTH FLOOR

TOTAL BEDS CELLS AVAILABLE POD IN USE FOR USE CLASSIFICATION

R 36 52 Medium Male

S 36 52 All Medium Male or All Minimum Male

T 36 52 All Medium Male or All Minimum Male

U 36 52 Medium Male

Total beds available for use are subject to a 10% classification factor

FOURTH FLOOR

TOTAL BEDS CELLS AVAILABLE POD IN USE FOR USE CLASSIFICATION

P 36 36 Max Male

Q 36 36 Max Male

L 36 36 Max Male

N 18 18 Minimum/Medium Intake Classification

0 18 18 Disciplinary Male

Total beds available are subject to a 10% classification factor

Minimum/Medium-elassification range maximum stay is five days

SECOND FLOOR

TOTAL BEDS CELLS AVAILABLE POD IN USE FOR USE CLASSIFICATION

F 18 18 Max Female

G 18 28 Medium / Minimum Female

Total beds available are subject to a 10% classification factor

TOTAL BEDS CELLS AVAILABLE POD IN USE FOR USE CLASSIFICATION

H 30 48 Male Mental Health Special Needs

IS 6 Male Segregation

Total beds on H Pod are subject to a 10% classification factor

TOTAL BEDS CELLS AVAILABLE POD IN USE FOR USE CLASSIFICATION

J 6 6 Male Juvenile Bind over as Adults

K 30 30 Male Maximum

Total beds on K Pod are subject to a 10% classification factor

TOTAL BEDS CELLS AVAILABLE POD IN USE FOR USE CLASSIFICATION

D 30 48/54 Minimum Security Inmates/Male Inmate Workers

E 6 6 Male Administration Segregation

Total beds on D Pod are subject to a 10% classification factor

Defendants may choose to use D Pod to house one of two groups of inmates — either inmate workers or minimum security inmates

Minimum Security Facility (MSJ)

33. The Parties agree that a maximum of ninety-six (96) inmates can be housed in the MSJ. All are to be sentenced nonviolent misdemeanant inmates, or non-violent sentenced 4th and 5th degree felons.

34. The Parties acknowledge that the National Institute of Corrections has undertaken a study of the County Jail Facilities. The National Institute of Corrections has recommended that the facility be run at 90% of capacity to allow for proper classification of inmates.

35. The Parties agree that within the Justice Center, all units classified as minimum security pods shall house no more than 90% of the total usable beds allotted to that classification. The Parties agree that all medium security ranges shall house no more than 90% of the total usable beds allotted to that classification. The Parties have agreed that all maximum security pods shall house no more than 90% of total usable beds allotted to that classification.

36. When arrests are undertaken in such a manner that the Sheriff is unable to plan for an influx of inmates to protect the public, the Sheriff may fill each pod up to the total available beds for use not to exceed a period of 24 hours on weekdays, 48 hours on weekends and 72 hours on holiday weekends. However, in no event shall the population in any pod exceed the total number of usable beds. The Sheriff shall have 24/48/72 hours to reduce the population back to said figure 10% below the total beds available for use which allows for the proper classification.

37. When numbers exceed those set forth, the Sheriff shall implement the Overcrowding Release Policy approved by all Parties and this Court which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated as if fully written herein. The Overcrowding Release Policy shall not apply to City Prisoners held pursuant to the Boarding of Prisoners Agreement entered into by Defendants and Intervenor and attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated as if fully written herein. The granting or revoking of bail shall not be construed to prevent release under this Order. The Sheriff shall have a right and authority to release any and all prisoners regardless of any order from any other state or municipal court in order to maintain a population cap consistent with this Order except as provided in the Boarding of Prisoners Agreement attached as Exhibit B.

STAFFING

38. This Court, on March 10, 2005, found that staffing levels at the County Jail Facilities were insufficient. The Court went into an extended analysis of studies done at the jail and its history of staffing levels.

39. The Parties agree that these studies will be used as a basis for staffing at the County Jail Facilities. These studies broke staffing down according to posts at each facility. The Parties hereby agree to use a direct supervision model requiring that all posts identified throughout the County Jail Facilities to be staffed on a 24/7-hour basis. When fully open, the Sheriff shall employ 168 line officers to posts which include floats (147 for Justice Center and 21 for MS J).

40. It is also agreed when fully opened that the Defendants shall employ 18 supervisory staff.

41. It is finally agreed when fully opened the Defendants shall employ 23 jail clerical, support, administrative, and command staff.

42. It is the Parties’ intent that upon the opening of any new pods, that the Parties reach an agreement that there are sufficient staff to open those pods and properly staff each identified post. It shall be the Defendants’ responsibility to demonstrate that sufficient staff are employed and trained prior to filling all posts on a 24/7 basis prior to the opening of any additional housing areas. This includes posts for floats and supervisory staff as identified.

CLASSIFICATION

43. The Sheriff has developed and adopted a population/classification plan that will allow the Sheriff to comply with capacity standards specified herein and classification guidelines- recommended by the National Institute of Corrections. Said plan allows the facility to be operated in compliance with these standards. Said plan is attached here as Exhibit C. The Sheriff may find it necessary to change or amend said plan from time to time with the approval of Plaintiffs’ counsel.

TABLES

44. Defendants acknowledge that some pods do not have sufficient table space for all inmates to sit at meal time. Sufficient tables shall be added to day rooms to allow all inmates to sit at meal time.

TRAINING

45. The Court made findings that staff training was'deficient since 2001. It was found that the staff assigned to the Corrections Division had little or no training in policy direction to perform at levels compliant with minimum confinement standards. The Court also found since 2001, only one fire drill had been conducted and that did not involve , the movement of inmates.

46. Defendants agree to fully train all staff in compliance with minimum standards for jails in Ohio.

47. The Parties agree that the Sheriff will implement training programs and put in place an active fire drill program that involves the movement of inmates. All activities involving fire safety and training shall be logged in writing and made available to monitor/Plaintiffs’ counsel for verification purpose.

48. The Parties agree and understand that the Defendants are hiring up to at least 60 additional deputy sheriffs. These new deputy sheriffs shall be given com-píete correction officer training prior to being stationed alone in the facility.

LEGAL ACCESS

49. The Defendants at one time had a legal access program provided by the University of Akron’s Law School Legal Clinic. The program was suspended due to lack of funds in September 2003. The program has been re-instituted and is presently operational. The Parties recognize that, because of the prior agreement to keep the population at 300 inmates, said legal access program is running at one-half of its intended capacity. Defendants agree to make said program fully operational prior to the re-opening of the final pod in the jail. The Parties agree that said program meets constitutional requirements for providing legal materials to inmates.

50. The Parties agree that notices about the legal access program shall be posted on each pod throughout the jail.

DISCIPLINARY ISSUES

51. The Court in its findings of fact, found an unusually high number of inmate-on-inmate assaults, inmate-on-staff assaults and miscellaneous incidents of violence and use of force. The Court found that these statistics are a direct result of insufficient staffing and overcrowding. Parts of this Order are meant to address those concerns. The Parties agree that Sheriff shall keep incident reports documenting all inmate-on-inmate assaults, inmate-on-staff assaults and miscellaneous incidents of violence and use of force. Said reports shall be made available when requested to Plaintiffs’ counsel. If unusually high numbers of assaults are found, the Parties agree to meet to mediate this problem.

MAINTENANCE ISSUES

52. This Court has made numerous findings in regards to maintenance issues at the County Jail Facilities.

53. The Defendants agree that to keep the County-Jail-Facilities systems operational and limit breakdowns, a minimum number of maintenance people need to be employed in order to assure seven-day-a-week day turn, five-day-a-week afternoon turn, and weekend call out ability.

54. Staff radios have had a history of frequent problems due to old and worn out batteries. Defendants agree to keep an adequate supply of new batteries available to prevent staff radios from breaking down.

55. An intercom unit is located in each cell throughout the facility. The intercom provides communication with each guard station on each range to each cell. The intercom also provides communication from cells to the jail’s central control. Intercoms have been a prevalent source of breakdowns. The Parties agree that said intercoms are a vital part of providing for the safety and security of inmates and deputy sheriffs throughout the facility. The Parties agree that Defendants shall keep all intercoms fully operational and maintain a written log monitoring inspection, breakdown and repair of the intercoms. This log shall be available to monitor/Plaintiffs’ counsel for review.

56. Defendants agree to buy and maintain sufficient inmate mattresses, linen, clothing, and food trays.

57. The Court found numerous instances of CCTV cameras being broken, and computer screens which do not work. The Sheriff has implemented a program of inspection and agrees to upgrade and maintain the integrated security systems, including hardware and software within the next six (6) months. The Sheriff has maintained and will continue to maintain a maintenance log that records inspections, all reported camera/computer screen breakdowns throughout the facility, and repairs made thereto. Said maintenance logs shall be available to Plaintiffs’ counsel for inspection.

58. The Court made findings as to the general cleanliness of the facility and found it to be hazardous to the health of inmates, security staff, and civilian workers in the jail. The Sheriff has implemented a program to make daily inspections and Defendants will continue to insure that showers are clean, washing machines are operational, and all facility fixtures are operational and the sufficient cleaning supplies exist. The Sheriff has recorded and will continue to record inspections in a log.

59. The Defendants agree to properly maintain cell doors, locks, visitation phones, computer software systems, elevators, air handling systems, heating systems, and all other systems and components regulating life-safety, security, and safety of the County Jail Facilities and their occupants. Defendants shall regularly inspect each of these systems, making necessary repairs. All inspections and repairs shall be kept in a log.

60. The Defendants agree that the MSJ physical facility shall be assessed for all maintenance defects and addressed pri- or to re-opening. Upgrades and maintenance prior to opening shall be discussed and explained to Plaintiffs’ counsel.

61. Defendants agree to provide a security upgrade for the inmate/public visitation areas.

LOCKDOWNS

62. This Court made findings that as a result of lack of staff, the inmates at the Justice Center were frequently locked down for lengthy periods of time. The Sheriff agrees that lockdown logs shall be kept indicating any unscheduled lockdowns that occur in the facility, length of the lockdown and the reason for said lock-downs. These logs shall be maintained and made available to Plaintiffs’ counsel for inspection.

RECREATION

63. Due to safety and security issues with fencing in outdoor recreation areas, the Defendants suspended all outdoor recreation at the Justice Center. The Defendants have undertaken a study to insure that these outdoor recreation areas could be operating in the future in a safe and secure manner. In order to accomplish this goal, certain structural changes must be made to the fencing in the outdoor recreation areas. Defendants agree to make said changes for the outdoor recreational areas so that they will be operational by August 1, 2007. The Sheriff agrees to properly supervise outdoor and indoor recreation.

MONITORING

64. During the pendency of this Order, Plaintiffs’ counsel shall monitor and review Defendants’ compliance with the terms of this Order. Said monitors shall visit at least monthly and no more than twice a month to review compliance.

65. The Sheriff agrees to continue to make available to Plaintiffs’ counsel by way of email daily population figures indicating the total number of inmates in the facility. Defendants shall also furnish a breakdown of inmates housed by pod.

ATTORNEYS FEES

66. The Plaintiffs and Defendants have reached an agreement in regards to the payment of attorneys fees associated with the trial of this matter. Said fees were agreed paid through May 28, 2006. Since that time, Plaintiffs counsel has on a quarterly basis filed hours reflecting attorneys fees. Defendants shall have the right to review and question the accuracy of said hours but nonetheless agree to pay Plaintiffs counsel said fees within thirty (30) days of the signing of this Order at a rate of $186.00 per hour.

67. The Plaintiffs and Defendants anticipate that additional attorneys’ fees will be associated with monitoring and enforcement of this Order. Said costs of monitor/Plaintiffs counsel and/or Plaintiffs’ counsel shall be paid on a yearly basis. Defendants shall pay costs for reasonable monitoring fees/reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses approved by this Court on an annual basis. Monitoring rates are to be billed at an office rate not to exceed $150.00 an hour. The rates for actual legal work including in court or out of court brief writing are to be billed at a rate of $186.00.

CONTINUING JURISDICTION

68. The Parties understand and agree that the County Jail Facilities shall be fully operational and at maximum capacity as defined in this Order by August 1, 2007.

69. This Court specifically retains jurisdiction over this action for three years to ensure compliance and to issue additional Orders as required by Justice or as the Parties may request. All additional changes shall be in writing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Alice M. Batchelder

JUDGE ALICE M. BATCHELDER

/s/ David D. Dowd, Jr.

JUDGE DAVID D. DOWD, JR.

/s/ Dan Aaron Polster

JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER

Mahoning County Officials:

/s/ Randall A. Wellington

RANDALL A. WELLINGTON, SHERIFF

/s/ Anthony T. Traficanti

ANTHONY T. TRAFICANTI, COMMISSIONER

/s/ David Ludt

DAVID LUDT, COMMISSIONER

/s/ John A. McNally, IV

JOHN A MCNALLY, IV, COMMISSIONER

City of Youngstown

Board of Control:

/s/ Jay Williams

JAY WILLIAMS, MAYOR

/s/ABSENT

DAVID BOZANICH, FINANCE DIRECTOR

/s/ Iris Torres Guglucello

IRIS TORRES GUGLUCELLO, LAW DIRECTOR

APPROVED BY:

/s/ Paul L. Gains

PAUL J. GAINS (#0020323)

Prosecuting Attorney

LINETTE M. STRATFORD (#0047223)

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney

Mahoning County Prosecutors Office

21 W. Boardman Street 6th Floor

Youngstown, OH, 44503

/s/ Robert Armbruster

ROBERT ARMBRUSTER (#0011623)

Armbruster, Kelley, Kot, Honeck & Baker

159 S. Main St., Suite 720

Akron, OH 44308

/s/ Anthony J. Farris

IRIS TORRES GUGLUCELLO (#0019416)

Law Director

ANTHONY J. FARRIS (#0055695)

Deputy Law Director

City of Youngstown

26 South Phelps Street

Youngstown, OH 44503

/s/ Thomas Kelley

THOMAS KELLEY (#0016820)

Armbruster, Kelley, Kot, Honeck & Baker

159 S. Main St., Suite 720

Akron, OH 44308

EXHIBIT A

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MAHONING COUNTY, OHIO

IN RE: MAHONING COUNTY JAIL OVERCROWDING RELEASE POLICY

CASE NO. 06 CV Open

May 1, 2006

JUDGMENT ENTRY

This matter is before the Court for approval of the Overcrowding Release Policy (attached hereto) to resolve the lack of staffing due to inadequate funding at the Mahoning County Jail. Upon recommendation of the Criminal Justice Working Group and upon due consideration thereof, the Overcrowding Release Policy is unanimously adopted by the Judges of this Court effective immediately.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

HON. ROBERT A. DOUGLAS, JR. JUDGE

MUNICIPAL COURT

/a/ R. Scott Krichbaum

HON. R. SCOTT KRICHBAUM, JUDGE COMMON PLEAS COURT

HON. ROBERT P. MILLICH, JUDGE MUNICIPAL COURT

/s/ Maureen A. Cronin

HON. MAUREEN A. CRONIN, JUDGE COMMON PLEAS COURT

HON. ELIZABETH A. KOBLY, JUDGE MUNICIPAL COURT

/s/ John M. Durkin

HON. JOHN M. DURKIN, JUDGE COMMON PLEAS COURT

/s/ Joseph M. Houser

HON. JOSEPH M. HOUSER, JUDGE COUNTY COURT NO. 2

/s/ James C. Evans

HON. JAMES C. EVANS, JUDGE COMMON PLEAS COURT

/s/ Diane Vettori

HON. DIANE VETTORI, JUDGE COUNTY COURT NO. 3

/s/ Maureen A. Sweeney

HON. MAUREEN A. SWEENEY, JUDGE

COMMON PLEAS COURT .

/s/ David A. D’Apolito

HON. DAVID A. D’APOLITO, JUDGE COUNTY COURT NO. 4

/s/ Scott D. Hunter

HON. SCOTT D. HUNTER, JUDGE COUNTY COURT NO. 5

OVERCROWDING RELEASE POLICY FOR MAHONING COUNTY JAIL

First, all nonviolent misdemeanants confined in lieu of bond awaiting arraignment, held subject to court order or capias warrant. Each such inmate shall be served with a “Summons After Arrest ” to appear in the appropriate Court at its next regularly scheduled session.

Second, any inmate that is determined not to be indigent and serving time in lieu of payment of fines and costs who has completed serving the initial sentence.

Third, inmates confined for conviction of nonviolent misdemeanor offenses, who have served seventy percent (70%) of their sentence, with a priority for those with the fewest remaining days on their sentence. Such prisoners shall be required to voluntarily return to the Jail upon notice by the Sheriff to complete their sentences.

Fourth, if the release of the inmates under the third category fails to reduce the population to acceptable levels, the Sheriff shall then release any prisoners in the third class who have served at least fifty percent (50%) of their sentence. Priority will be given to those who have completed the highest percentage of their total sentence. Such prisoners shall be required to voluntarily return to the Jail upon notice by the Sheriff to complete their sentences.

Fifth, all inmates confined for conviction of non-violent misdemeanor offenses with less than fifty percent (50%) of their sentence served shall be furloughed to await re-incarceration, subject to recall from a Jail Waiting List. Such prisoners shall be required to voluntarily return to the Jail upon notice by the Sheriff to complete their sentences.

Sixth, any inmates confined for conviction for an OUI offense and serving a mandatory sentence shall be released only if they have served the minimum statutory sentence.

Seventh, if the release of the inmates under the sixth category fails to reduce the population to acceptable levels, the Sheriff shall then release any prisoners in the sixth class, with priority being given to those who have completed the highest percentage of their total sentence. Such prisoners shall be required to voluntarily return to the Jail upon notice by the Sheriff to complete their sentences.

Eighth, any inmates confined for conviction of a nonviolent, felonies, who is serving time in the county jail that has completed at least seventy percent (70%) of their sentence, with priority being given to those who have served the greatest percentage of their sentence. Such prisoners shall be required to voluntarily return to the Jail upon notice by the Sheriff to complete their sentences.

Ninth, if the release of the inmates under the eighth category fails to reduce the population to acceptable levels, then the Sheriff shall release any prisoner in the eighth category who has served at least fifty percent (50%) of their sentence with priority to those prisoners who have completed the highest percentage of their total sentence. Such prisoners shall be required to voluntarily return to the Jail upon notice by the Sheriff to complete their sentences.

Tenth, all inmates confined for conviction of non-violent felonies, who are serving time in the county jail with less than fifty percent (50%) of their sentence served shall be furloughed to await re-incarceration, subject to recall from a Jail Waiting List. Such prisoners shall be required to voluntarily return to the Jail upon notice by the Sheriff to complete their sentences.

Eleventh, any inmates incarcerated while awaiting trial in lieu of bond for nonviolent felonies. The inmate shall be furloughed into the Sheriffs Day Reporting Program unless the Judge orders the inmate released on their own recognizance subject to any other conditions imposed by the Trial Court with priority being given to first time offenders.

Twelfth, all violent misdemeanants confined in a post-arraignment status except those charged with domestic violence. Each such inmate shall be released upon service of a summons by Corrections Division Staff, directing the inmate to appear in the Court of Jurisdiction at the time and date previously set by that Court except domestic violence.

Thirteenth, all inmates confined for conviction of violent misdemeanor offenses except those convicted of domestic violence shall be furloughed to await re-inearceration, subject to recall from a Jail Waiting List. Such prisoners shall be required to voluntarily return to the Jail upon notice by the Sheriff to complete their sentences, with the priority given to those who have completed the highest percentage of their total sentence except domestic violence.

Fourteenth, any inmate-confined for conviction of indirect contempt. But, any inmate confined for direct contempt shall not be released.

The Sheriff shall provide a list of all individuals released under this policy to the appropriate Courts by the fifth of each month. Such list shall provide the date of release and what paragraph of the Overcrowding Policy each inmate was release under.

No inmate shall be released who does not fall within one of the above-referenced enumerated steps for release.

EXHIBIT B

AGREEMENT FOR THE BOARDING OF PRISONERS BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF MAHONING AND THE CITY OF YOUNGSTOWN

This Agreement is entered into this 23 day of Feb., 2007 between the County of Mahoning, Ohio (“County”) and the City of Youngstown, Ohio (“City”).

Whereas, municipal and county governments are permitted by law to enter into agreements for the provision of services to the public;

Whereas, the Commissioners of the County have adopted Resolution 07-02-029 authorizing this Agreement on behalf of the County; and

Whereas, the Council of the City has adopted Ordinance ORD-07-31 authorizing the Board of Control to execute this Agreement on behalf of the City.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual promises set forth herein, the parties agree for themselves and their respective successors and assigns as follows:

1. Purpose and Scope of Services:

A. Upon the effective date of this Agreement, the County shall keep and maintain 30 beds available for housing of City prisoners as defined in Section 2 of this Agreement. The County shall keep, board, and maintain up to 30 City Prisoners in the Mahoning County Justice Cen-I ter and/or the Mahoning County Minimum Security Jail (hereinafter collectively referred to as “County Jail Facilities”). For this period City Prisoners held for direct contempt shall not be counted in the 30 prisoner allotment.

B. Commencing May 1, 2007 the County shall accept seventy one (71) City Prisoners for incarceration in the County Jail Facilities as defined in Section 2 of this Agreement.

C.Commencing August 1, 2007, or upon full operation whichever is earlier, the County shall (1) have County Jail Facilities fully staffed and operating at the maximum capacity and (2) accept all City Prisoners not to exceed two hundred and twenty one (221).

C. The City recognizes and agrees that the County may hold Federal Prisoners in the County Jail Facilities to the extent otherwise consistent with this Agreement. But the County agrees that it will give first priority to City Prisoners up to the maximum capacity of federal prisoners eligible to be held on any given day.

2. City Prisoner Defined:

A. “City Prisoner” shall be defined as any prisoner accepted for booking or judicially ordered confined in the County Jail Facilities by judges of the Youngstown Municipal Court as a result of a misdemeanor offense that occurred or allegedly occurred in the City of Youngstown whether charged under City ordinance or state law.

B. Those prisoners who are charged with felony offenses and City charges on a concurrent basis shall not be counted as City Prisoners except when confinement for felony charges is not required (i.e., because of bond or case disposition status) but confinement under the misdemeanor(s) continues by order of the Youngstown Municipal Court.

C. Those prisoners initially charged with felony offenses which are reduced to misdemeanor offenses or dismissed in the Youngstown Municipal Court will be regarded as City Prisoners from the initial date of booking.

D. Those prisoners confined under City charges and misdemeanor charges of some other jurisdiction shall be counted as City Prisoners during any time that their confinement is required solely by order of the Youngstown Municipal Court.

E. Those prisoners who are confined under City charges and misdemeanor charges of some other jurisdiction shall be counted as a City Prisoner if an order from the Youngstown Municipal Court prevents the County from transferring custody of the prisoner to the other jurisdiction. At such time as the other jurisdiction takes custody of the prisoner, the prisoner will no longer be counted in the then current allotment of City Prisoners. The County will make reasonable efforts to notify the Youngstown Municipal Court of any new significant criminal charges or detainers that are filed against a City Prisoner.

3. Cost Per City Prisoner:

A. For each City Prisoner up to seventy-one (71) per day as applicable under the terms herein, the City shall pay the cost of meals and the cost of medical services not covered under the terms of the County’s Medical Services Agreement. The terms of coverage and rates for medical services of City Prisoners negotiated by County shall mirror those for County Prisoners.

B. For each City Prisoner housed in excess of seventy-one (71) prisoners per day the City agrees to pay the same per diem-per prisoner amount that is paid by the federal government for the housing of federal inmates under the County’s Intergovernmental Agreement with the federal government. The parties recognize that this agreement can change from time to time. The present agreement provides for a per diem in the amount of $68.84; a copy is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by reference.

4. Medical Services:

A. As provided in section 3A of this Agreement the County agrees to provide City Prisoners with the same level of medical- care and services provided all other prisoners. And the City agrees to pay the actual medical costs of City Prisoners that are not covered under the County’s present Medical Services Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and incorporated herein by reference.

B. The County agrees to promptly notify the Sentencing Judge of all medical cases requiring removal of a City Prisoner from the County Jail Facilities. If the Sentencing Judge is unavailable, the Mahoning County Sheriff shall notify the Administrative Judge of the Youngstown Municipal Court. If emergency medical services are required the notification shall be as soon as possible. If non-emergency medical services are required prior notice shall be made prior to removal of a City Prisoner. All costs associated with hospital or health care services provided outside County Jail Facilities will be reimbursed by the City if not covered under the County’s Medical Services Agreement. In the event Mahoning County is a party to any contract that provides discounted rates from medical providers or facilities for treatment of jail inmates provided outside County jail facilities, the City of Youngstown will be afforded the same discounts.

C.The County shall provide guarding of City prisoners receiving medical treatment outside the Mahoning County Jail which does not result in the admission of said prisoner for more than one overnight stay ending prior to 12:00 noon of the following day. By mutual agreement, the Youngstown Police Department will be given at least six (6) hours notice by the Sheriff that the sheriff will cease guard services when more than one overnight stay will be required. The purpose of such notice is to give the City an opportunity to provide a city officer to guard such City Prisoner(s). Unless and until the City responds by providing said officer for guarding, the County agrees to continue to guard said prisoner(s), and the City agrees to reimburse the County for the wages paid to guard the city prisoner for more than the first night’s stay as defined above.

5. Billing:

At the end of March, June, September, and December, the County shall l submit to the City an itemized statement certified by the Sheriff of the County or his designees, showing the name of the City Prisoner, dates of days confined in the County Jail Facilities, the pumber of days billed, charges billefl, and the amount due from the Cityj for each City Prisoner’s confinement under this Agreement. All billings, less any credits directly related to the Agreement, are due to the County,and shall be paid within thirty (30) days of receipt.

6. Daily Prisoner List

The Mahoning County sheriff shall provide a list of all City Prisoners on a daily basis to the Youngstown, Municipal Court Judges.

7. Prisoner Release Order:

The City and the County recognize and agree that the Sheriff has the obligation and authority to refuse to accept or to release any City Prisoner when such act is necessary to comply with any Prisoner Release Ordered by the Court in Roberts v. Mahoning County, U.S. District Court Case No. 4:03cv2329 which is/are incorporated herein by reference. But the County agrees that City Prisoners will not be refused acceptance or released to the extent such City Prisoners are held consistent with this Agreement.

8. Budget and Funding

The Parties agree that the Board of Commissioners and City Council and the Board of Control will provide funding to ensure full compliance with this Agreement.

9. Criminal Justice Working Group

For purposes of encouraging an efficient delivery of services pursuant to this Agreement and any related impact upon the judicial system and law enforcement services of Youngstown and Mahoning County the parties will reinstitute periodic meetings of the Criminal Justice Working Group (“CJWG”). The CJWG shall meet as least monthly for the purpose of resolving any difference that may arise pursuant to this Agreement or to recommend procedural changes that will benefit the parties.

10. Modification:

It is understood that terms of this Agreement may only be modified in writing by the mutual consent of the parties and as approved by the court in Roberts v. Mahoning County, U.S. District Court Case No. 4:03cv2329.

11. Transportation:

The City remains responsible for the transportation of City Prisoners to City courts.

12. Term:

The term of this contract shall be for three (3) years.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have set our hands this 23 day of Feb., 2007.

CITY OF YOUNGSTOWN

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

/s/ Iris Torres Guglucello

Iris Torres Guglucello, Esq.

Law Director

City of Youngstown

COUNTY OF MAHONING

/s/ Anthony T. Traficanti

Commissioner Anthony T. Traficanti

/s/ Jay Williams

Mayor Jay Williams

/s/ David Bozanich

David Bozanich, Finance Director

/s/ Iris Torres Guglucello

Iris Torres Guglucello, Law Director

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

/s/ Linette M. Stratford

Linette M. Stratford, Esq.

Chief Assistant Prosecutor

Civil Division, Mahoning County

Prosecutor’s Office

COUNTY OF MAHONING

/s/ Anthony T. Traficanti

Commissioner Anthony T. Traficanti

/s/ John A. McNally

Commissioner John A. McNally

/s/ David Ludt

Commissioner David Ludt

/s/ Randall A. Wellington

Sheriff Randall A. Wellington

CERTIFICATE OF DIRECTOR OF FINANCE

I hereby certify that payment will be made on invoices issued to the City of Youngstown under this Agreement, and that sufficient money is in the treasury or in the process of collection to the credit of the appropriate fund or division to discharge the City’s obligation under this Agreement.

/s/ David Bozanich

Finance Director

EXHIBIT 1

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands on the date as indicated.

ATTEST:

/s/ Nancy M. Laboy

Date: 1-22-04

MAHONING COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

/&/ Edward Reese

EDWARD REESE, PRESIDENT

/s/ David Ludt

DAVID LUDT

/s/ Vicki Allen Sherlock

VICKI ALLEN SHERLOCK

DATE:_

APPROVED AS TO FORM

/s/ ..........

MAHONING COUNTY ATTORNEY

JOURNAL ENTRY

JE 03-1116

It was moved by Mrs. Sherlock, and seconded by Mr. Ludt, that the Board of Mahoning County Commissioners does hereby enter into an agreement with Corrections Corporation of America to house federal inmates pursuant to the U.S. Department of Justice/Marshal Services Intergovernmental Agreement and ORC 9.07.

A copy of said agreement is on file in the Office of the Mahoning County Commissioners, 21 W. Boardman Street, Suite 200, Youngstown, Ohio 44503.

Roll call voting resulted: Mr. Ludt: aye

Mrs. Sherlock: aye

Mr. Reese: aye

Motion carried this 21st day of November, 2003.

/s/ Edward J. Reese

EDWARD J. REESE,

PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD

ATTEST:

/s/ James M. Fortunato

JAMES M. FORTUNATO,

ACTING CLERK OF THE BOARD

JR. VOL. 91, PAGE 891

cc: Gary Kubic Special Projects Sheriff

INCARCERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN MAHONING COUNTY AND CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

This Agreement is hereby entered into between Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and Mahoning County, Ohio (the County) as of November 21, 2003.

WHEREAS, the County is party to an Intergovernmental Service Agreement (“IGA”) with the United States Marshals Service (“USMS”) to house federal inmates, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by reference;

WHEREAS, CCA owns Northeast Ohio Correctional Facility (“CCA Facility”) in Ohio and desires to house federal inmates at the Facility;

WHEREAS, the USMS need for inmate beds exceeds the capacity of Mahoning County Justice Center (“MCJC”); and

WHEREAS, CCA has available space at the CCA Facility;

NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

1. The parties understand that this Agreement is subject to the provisions of the Amended Agreement between The City of Youngstown, Ohio and CCA of America pursuant to Ohio Revised Code § 9.07 and the Development Agreement (collectively “9.07 Agreement”) a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and incorporated herein by reference. The parties agree that the 9.07 Agreement shall supercede this Agreement in the event of a conflict in terms.

2. Upon reaching a population of 200 federal inmates in the MCJC, the County will house any additional USMS inmates received pursuant to the IGA in the CCA Facility unless CCA does not accept said inmates in accordance with paragraph 3 below. The County shall have the option to offer federal inmates to CCA prior to reaching the 200 inmate threshold at the MCJC but shall have no obligation to do so. CCA shall provide services for federal inmates housed in its Facility in compliance with the terms of the IGA.

3. The County will not amend, terminate or otherwise change the terms of the IGA without advance notice to CCA. CCA is not obligated to accept USMS federal inmates from the County at the CCA Facility if space is not available or if the IGA is materially changed to CCA’s detriment without CCA’s approval or if the acceptance of the inmates would be financially impractical for CCA as determined by CCA.

4. CCA shall indemnify, defend and save harmless the County, its agents, employees, and representatives from and against any and all suits, actions, claims, demands, damages or losses arising from CCA’s operation of the CCA Facility. CCA expressly recognizes that such duty to indemnify, defend and save harmless is inclusive of CCA’s duty to indemnify, defend and save harmless the County, its agents, employees, and representatives as set forth in the 9.07 Agreement to which the County, its agents, employees and representatives are contractual third party beneficiaries.

5. The County will pay CCA the per diem fee paid to the County pursuant to the IGA less an administrative fee per inmate for each federal inmate housed at CCA pursuant to this Agreement and the IGA. As of the execution of this Agreement, the per diem amount under the IGA is $67.00 and the County’s administration fee shall be $1.00. If the per diem set forth in the IGA increases above $67.00, the fee shall increase by an equal- amount but shall not exceed $3.00. CCA agrees to submit the necessary documentation for payment to the County as set forth in the IGA. The County will pay amounts due to CCA within thirty (30) days after receipt of funds. To the extent allowed under the IGA, CCA will be designated Payee and funds due pursuant to the IGA will be paid directly to CCA. In such instance, CCA will deduct the administrative fee and forward that amount to the County within thirty (30) working days of receipt of funds.

6. During the term of this Agreement, CCA shall not execute a direct agreement with the United States Marshal for the Northern District of Ohio to house inmates detained under the authority of that Marshal if such an agreement would place CCA in competition with the County facility and would prevent the County from housing such inmates. This provision shall not apply if the County is housing a comparable number of federal inmates at a per diem equal to or greater than the per diem set forth in the IGA or if the County elects to no longer make beds available to the Marshal or otherwise if such direct agreement would not be to the County’s detriment.

7. The term of this Agreement shall commence on November 21, 2003 and shall be for an initial period of five .(5) years with three options to renew for five years each upon mutual agreement of the parties.

8. Either party may terminate this Agreement if a breach of this Agreement by the other party remains uncured for thirty (30) days after the date of notice of said breach.

9. The failure of performance of any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement resulting from acts of God, war, civil insurrection or not shall not be a breach. This provision does not include those acts of insurrection or riot that are caused by the by the federal inmates or as a result of the negligence of the employees or agents of CCA.

10. The provisions of this Agreement are for the sole benefit of the parties hereto and shall not be construed as conferring any rights on any other person or entity.

11. This Agreement shall be interpreted by the laws of the State of Ohio, and courts within Ohio shall preside over any legal action filed to enforce or interpret this Agreement.

12. This Agreement shall not be altered, changed or amended except in writing executed by both parties.

13. This Agreement incorporates all the agreements, covenants and understandings between the parties. Other than the 9.07 Agreement and IGA Agreement, no prior contract or understandings, verbal or otherwise, of the parties and/or their agents shall be valid or enforceable unless embodied in this Agreement.

14. All notices sent pursuant to this Agreement shall be sent certified mail, return receipt requested to:

County: Gary Kubie

Mahoning County Administrator

21 West Boardman Street

Suite 200

Youngstown, Ohio 44503

John A McNaily, IV

Law Director

City of Youngstown

26 South Phelps Street

Youngstown, Ohio 44503

Randall A. Wellington

Mahoning County Sheriff

110 5th Avenue Youngstown, Ohio 44603

CCA: G. A. Puryear IV, General Counsel

Corrections Corporation of America

10 Burton Hills Boulevard

Nashville, TN 37215

15.No waiver of any breach of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement shall be a waiver of any other or subsequent breach; nor shall any waiver be valid or binding unless the same shall be in writing and signed by an authorized representative of the party alleged to have granted the waiver.

MAHONING COUNTY, OHIO (THE COUNTY)

BY: /s/ Edward J. Reese

Edward J. Reese

Mahoning County Commissioner

BY: /s/ Dave Ludt

Dave Ludt

Mahoning County Commissioner

BY: Vicki Allen Sherlock

Vicki Allen Sherlock

Mahoning County Commissioner

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA (CCA)

BY: /s/ Damon Hininger

Damon Hininger

Vice President, Federal Customer Relations

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

/s/ Linette M. Stratford

Mahoning County Prosecutor’s Office

EXHIBIT 2

RESOLUTION OF AWARD

RES 06-12-002

WHEREAS, the Board of Mahoning County Commissioners advertised for bids to be received until 2:30 p.m., Wednesday, October 18, 2006, for Comprehensive Health Services for Inmates.

WHEREAS, bids were received, read and recorded on that date and taken under advisement pending the recommendation of Robert Knight, Health Administrator/Contact Monitor.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, upon the certification of County Auditor and approval of County Prosecutor, that the Board of Mahoning County Commissioners awards the bids to:

HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, LTD

9000 N. Lindbergh

Peoria, IL 61615

Proposal No. 1-per unit pricing

2 year contract with optional 3rd and 4th year renewals

(Effective January 1, 2007)

A copy of said agreement is on file in the Office of the Mahoning County Commissioners, 21 W. Boardman Street, Youngstown, Ohio 44503.

It was moved by Mr. McNally, and seconded by Mr. Ludt, that the foregoing Resolution be approved this 7th day of December, 2006.

Roll call voting resulted: Mr. Ludt: aye

Mr. McNally: aye

Mr. Traficanti: aye

WHEREUPON, the President of the Board declared the foregoing Resolution be duly adopted this 7th day of December, 2006.

/s/ Nancy M. Laboy

NANCY M. LABOY,

CLERK OF THE BOARD

JR. VOL. 94, PAGE 812

cc: Auditor

Jail Medical/

Health Professionals, LTD

Purchasing

AGREEMENT OF AWARD

THIS AGREEMENT MADE this 1st day of January, 2007. Between the COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MA-HONING COUNTY, hereinafter called the party of the first part, and HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, LTD., the Vendor, hereinafter called the party of the second part.

WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of payments hereinafter mentioned, and to be made by the party of the first part, party of the second part agrees to furnish the following:

BID PROPOSAL NO. 1. Mahoning county justice center/min security jail Bid Proposal No. 1 is for Comprehensive Medical Services for Inmates with the bidder quoting prices based on the fact that Ma-honing County will assume no financial responsibility for catastrophic incidents, and the bidder will use its own network vendors for Pharmacy, Radiology, Lab Services, Nurses, etc. A copy of said Bid Proposal is attached hereto as “Attachment A” and the party of the second part further agrees to the provisions set forth in the General Provisions and Conditions attached hereto as “Attachment B”(excluding all information in Appendix A) which are made a part hereof as through fully written herein. Further, the parties agree that the quotation, proposal, and other contract documents are incorporated herein by that reference as through fully rewritten herein. The parties agree that the Affidavit required by Section 5719.042 of the Ohio Revis