Filed Date: May 28, 2015
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
On February 26, 2013, the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division sent notice to the Alabama Department of Corrections that it would be conducting an investigation of the Julia Tutwiler Prison. The investigation sought to address allegations that prisoners were subjected to sexual abuse by prison staff in violation of their constitutional rights; allegations that the prison failed to report and prevent sexual abuse; and allegations that the prison failed to provide adequate mental health and medical care to victims of sexual abuse. On January 17, 2014, the DOJ issued a findings letter. The department's findings detailed unconstitutional conditions that subjected women prisoners to a substantial risk of harm. These conditions included staff sexual abuse and sexual harassment of prisoners, prison officials' failure to adequately respond to and investigate allegations of sexual abuse and harassment, and systemic deficiencies that directly contributed to staff and prisoner sexual abuse and staff sexual harassment.
On May 28, 2015, the DOJ Civil Rights Division filed this lawsuit against the state of Alabama and its Department of Corrections (ADOC) under CRIPA for the heinous sexual abuse committed by the ADOC's male officers at Tutwiler. And the parties had reached a settlement agreement and subsequently submitted a motion for its approval, which Judge Myron Thompson accepted on June 18, 2015. The court issued a consent decree and designated an independent monitor.
The settlement required the ADOC and Tutwiler to make recommended changes and file compliance reports every six months. The substantive part of the settlement agreement contained sections on General Policies and Procedures, staffing and training, risk assessment and education, rights to privacy and reporting, and response and investigation procedures to reports of sexual assault.
The policy section of the agreement required ADOC and Tutwiler to:
The consent decree was set to be in effect until ADOC was found in substantial compliance in three consecutive compliance reports.
The initial monitor, Jennie Lancaster, filed the first report on February 26, 2016 on the assessment period for May–Dec. 2015. The monitor described positive progress and granted a 3-month extension for compliance on the general policies and procedures and training. Ms. Lancaster filed a second report on August 25, 2016, before stepping down from the position for personal reasons. Ms. Lancaster was replaced by Dr. Kathleen Dennehy as the next monitor on August 25, 2016. From February 2016 through August 2019, Ms. Lancaster and Dr. Dennehy filed a total of eight monitor reports—all of which indicated steady progress.
In the eighth report, filed on August 27, 2019, the monitor noted that Tutwiler and the ADOC had achieved "substantial compliance" with 41 sections of the settlement agreement and "partial compliance" with three sections of the agreement. The monitor further mentioned that Tutwiler's and the ADOC's general policies continued to work toward preventing sexual abuse and harassment. The monitor remarked that staff exhibited knowledge of procedures related to reporting sexual harassment, safety for inmates, and investigative processes. In addition, the monitor found that Tutwiler and the ADOC fully implemented the required Behavior Intervention & Discipline Policy and Disciplinary Segregation policies. Tutwiler's and the ADOC's use of camera recording also satisfied the monitor, although the monitor found that audio capabilities would further surveillance efforts. Further, the ADOC's and Tutwiler's inmate education program communicating the right to be free from sexual abuse and harassment and right to privacy satisfied their duties as outlined in the agreement. The monitor, did, however, find that some challenges still existed at the Tutwiler facility. Specifically, staffing vacancies could impact safety and security at the facility. Additionally, recruitment and retention problems with women candidates did not allow for a finding of substantial compliance with terms in the agreement.
The monitor continued to research compliance at the facility until April 2023, filing an additional seven reports. In the ninth and tenth reports, the monitor again noted that Tutwiler and the ADOC were in substantial compliance with 41 sections of the settlement agreement, but that issues still remained regarding staff recruitment, management, and retention. The lack of substantial compliance on the staffing issues concerned Judge Thompson—on September 4, 2020, he issued an order requesting the parties to file a statement explaining their understanding of the lack of compliance on the two issues. In their joint statement, filed on September 24, 2020, the parties indicated that a finding of substantial compliance would only be attainable by the end of 2022 at the earliest, since the Consent Decree defined substantial compliance as a finding of substantial compliance reflected in three consecutive monitoring reports. The defendants noted that, through continued recruitment and retention initiatives, they expected that staffing numbers at Tutwiler would continue to rise, and that the staff vacancy rate would correspondingly continue to fall.
Judge Thompson then held a status conference with the parties on September 29, 2020, which he found was "extremely useful in facilitating the court’s oversight of the consent decree and this litigation in general." On October 1, 2020, he instructed the parties to file a joint report explaining their understanding of the current status of the understaffing issue in September 2021. The parties filed their joint report on September 24, 2021, shortly after the monitor submitted her twelfth report. In the report, the parties cited progress on the issues through enhanced recruitment and retention efforts and the creation of the new positions of Basic Correctional Officer (BCO) and Cubicle Correctional Officer (CCO). And, despite new challenges in staffing and retention due to the coronavirus pandemic, the ADOC reported a combined vacancy rate for correctional officers of twenty-seven percent, down from the thirty-six percent vacancy rate recorded in August 2020.
Judge Thompson continued to require the parties to periodically submit joint statements detailing the status of the consent decree. In their next joint statement on March 21, 2022, filed after the monitor's thirteenth report, the parties detailed an uptick in the vacancy rate of thirty-seven percent for corrections officers, due to the the continued impact of the pandemic. To mitigate staffing challenges, the ADOC utilized mandated overtime for correctional staff, hired retired officers to work part-time, retained the part-time services of retired uniform staff, and allowed officers from other ADOC facilities to work overtime or otherwise be temporarily assigned to Tutwiler. The monitor commended these initiatives.
The parties next turned their attention to the implementation of ADOC's plan to recruit women correctional officers at Tutwiler. Under the Consent Decree, the ADOC agreed to work with the Alabama Peace Officers Standards and Training Commission (APOSTC) when hiring entry-level corrections officers until the standards employed were (a) validated for a corrections environment and (b) examined for the necessity of gender-norming certain components. However, in her thirteenth report, the monitor noted that there was a system-wide issue with the application of the APOSTC physical standards to women candidates—specifically with regard to the completion of the Physical Agility/Ability Test (PAAT) requirement. The parties noted that the ADOC engaged in multiple efforts to work with the APOSTC on its standards in a way that would increase the hiring of women correctional officers and correctional officers overall. However, the monitor stated that the ADOC and Tutwiler would remain in partial compliance with this requirement unless one of the following three pathways were to be implemented: (1) successfully implementing the APOSTC standards in their current form, (2) successfully advocating for the change of the APOSTC standards, or (3) employing a different, validated and gender-normed, physical entry test for correctional officer candidates at Tutwiler. However, due to the connection between APOSTC’s certification process for law enforcement personnel (including correctional officers) in Alabama and the eligibility for certain pension benefits and promotional opportunities, the parties concluded that the implementation of the APOSTC standards remained the only viable option for hiring reform.
Judge Thompson ordered the parties to meet and confer and submit a joint proposal for the timely resolution of the issue of compliance with the APOSTC requirement. In their joint proposal, filed on April 26, 2022, the parties outlined their plan to meet with the leadership of APOSTC to propose changes to the physical fitness entry standards for entry-level corrections officer positions. Judge Thompson approved this proposal. The parties provided an update on their progress on June 29, 2022. They stated that APOSTC approved ADOC’s proposed changes to the physical fitness entry standards reflected in the "Troy study" (a study conducted at Troy University that identified the minimal fitness requirements for Alabama correctional officers based on job duties and incumbent staff capabilities). Specifically, APOSTC approved a 3-year pilot program adopting the proposed changes reflected in the Troy study, scheduled to begin on October 10, 2022. According to the parties, these developments represented significant progress toward achieving compliance with the Consent Decree.
The monitor filed her fourteenth report on September 30, 2022, again noting that the settlement requirements regarding staffing, recruitment, and retention remained in "partial compliance" with the Consent Decree. On October 8, 2022, Dr. Dennehy notified Judge Thompson that she intended to resign her position as monitor in February 2023 upon submission of the fifteenth monitor report. Judge Thompson ordered the parties to submit a proposed "transition plan" in light of Dr. Dennehy's resignation. In the parties' Joint Transition Plan, filed on November 28, 2022, the parties proposed transitioning from external monitoring to a system of internal evaluation with substantial input from the United States. Under this new system, Alabama would designate an internal monitor with sufficient expertise, time, and authority to oversee compliance with the Consent Decree. The state would also assemble a team of ADOC staff with sufficient knowledge and authority to maintain and help achieve substantial compliance with the Consent Decree. The United States would still retain all currently existing rights under the Consent Decree to assess the State’s progress.
Judge Thompson, however, did not enter an order approving the parties' proposed plan. On May 31, 2023, the parties requested that Judge Thompson enter an order approving the Joint Transition Plan. On October 12, 2023, Judge Thompson ordered the parties to submit a modified joint proposed transition plan that "reflect[ed] current circumstances." Furthermore, Judge Thompson directed that the plan should provide for biannual compliance reports, with a status conference two weeks following the filing of each report, and that the parties should name Deidra Wright, warden at Tutwiler, as the internal compliance officer. The parties submitted their modified transition plan on October 25, 2023.
On October 27, 2023, Judge Thompson issued an order adopting the modified joint transition plan and naming Deidra Wright as the internal compliance officer. Judge Thompson ordered Compliance Officer Wright to file her first compliance report (the sixteenth compliance report overall) in January 2024. In her report, filed on January 26, 2024, the internal monitor found that the ADOC and Tutwiler were still in substantial compliance with 41 of the 44 sections of the Consent Decree, and that they were still in partial compliance with three sections related to staffing. However, in the parties’ joint statement on February 8, 2024, the United States noted that it disagreed with a substantial compliance rating for parts of Consent Decree concerning the investigation of allegations of sexual abuse and harassment (four subparts under paragraph III.K). Specifically, the United States submitted that issues with investigator training, the investigative process, and review by upper-level management justified lowering the State’s compliance rating to partial compliance for four sections of the Consent Decree.
The United States further outlined their objections in a separate filing on February 8, 2024. The U.S. and its expert consultants “identified concerning patterns with the State’s [sexual assault and harassment] investigative processes and procedures that include: investigative records that are missing vital case information such as interview details, case outcomes, and objective credibility determinations; untimely and delayed investigations; lack of administrative investigations; failure to collect and preserve statements, video, and other evidence; and incorrect classification of ‘unsubstantiated’ cases as ‘unfounded.’” The U.S. also noted that the former independent monitor, Dr. Dennehy, had raised concerns about the soundness of investigations and changes to the Tutwiler investigative process in the fifteenth monitor’s report (Dr. Dennehy did, however, give the State an opportunity to address the concerns, rather than downgrade the State’s compliance rating). On February 20, 2024, Judge Thompson issued an order directing both the Department of Justice and the internal monitor to file separate reports to assess DOJ’s objections to the Sixteenth Compliance Report.
The United States filed its report on March 4, 2024. In the report, the U.S. submitted affidavits from two expert consultants hired by the Department of Justice to assess whether ADOC and Tutwiler were in compliance with the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). In summary, the experts noted that (1) there were persistent issues with timeliness and delays in the investigations, (2) administrative investigations were either not completed or were inappropriately indistinguishable from criminal investigations and failed to consider administrative violations, whereas PREA standards required that an administrative investigation be conducted in addition to a criminal investigation, (3) investigative procedures used by ADOC, including interviewing an alleged perpetrator prior to speaking with the alleged victim or other witnesses, appeared “unusual” and were not in accordance with established investigative principles, (4) investigative reports lacked thoroughness and failed to include required information to support their conclusions, including discussions about whether “staff actions or failures to act” contributed to the abuse allegations, and detailed reasonings and justifications behind the investigator’s facts and findings, (5) concerns existed regarding notification practices to complainants and alleged victims of PREA allegations, and (6) there were delays in conducting the reviews of PREA investigations.
The internal monitor filed her report on April 1, 2024. She critiqued the federal government's expert affidavits, stating that "[b]oth declarations report[ed] concerns in vague generalities without explanation of which performance measures and audit tool sections Tutwiler appeared to fail." The internal monitor noted that after conducting interviews with investigators, ADOC, and OIG (Office of Inspector General) and LESD (Law Enforcement Services Division) personnel and leadership, ADOC conducted self-corrective action and transferred all PREA investigations back to LESD. Thus, the monitor stated that the "corrective action addressed the identified concerns and supported the finding that ADOC remains in substantial compliance with these provisions."
In response to the latest filings, the court issued an order on July 26, 2024 stating that it would not take any present action, and would instead take up any issues remaining at the next status conference, scheduled for October 3, 2024. The court directed the parties to specify in future filings when they are bringing their concerns to the court's attention for informational purposes only and when they are requesting that the court take action to resolve their disagreements. The case is still ongoing.
(There were also two earlier CRIPA matters involving Tutwiler. The first was in the mid 1980s. For information, see U.S. v. Alabama. The second was in the mid 1990s. See 1994-2002 CRIPA Investigation, Julia Tutwiler Prison, Wetumpka (AL).)
Summary Authors
Soojin Cha (5/20/2016)
Angela Heverling (5/9/2006)
Kaley Hanenkrat (2/2/2018)
Richa Bijlani (12/1/2019)
Muiz Wani (3/28/2024)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5584396/parties/united-states-v-state-of-alabama/
Abbate, Julie (Alabama)
Adams, Jerusha Tatiana (Alabama)
Anderson, Robert G (Alabama)
Bohan, Mary Regina (Alabama)
Bowdre, Marylou E. (Alabama)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5584396/united-states-v-state-of-alabama/
Last updated Dec. 17, 2024, 9:06 p.m.
State / Territory: Alabama
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Post-PLRA enforceable consent decrees
Civil Rights Division Archival Collection
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 28, 2015
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division
Plaintiff Type(s):
U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff
Attorney Organizations:
U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Alabama Department of Corrections, State
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et seq.
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Order Duration: 2015 - None
Issues
General/Misc.:
Food service / nutrition / hydration
Incident/accident reporting & investigations
Sanitation / living conditions
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Discrimination Basis:
Affected Sex/Gender(s):
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Assault/abuse by staff (facilities)
Sex w/ staff; sexual harassment by staff
LGBTQ+:
Medical/Mental Health Care: