Case: Braggs v. Dunn

2:14-cv-00601 | U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama

Filed Date: June 17, 2014

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This case concerns alleged systemic failures to provide mental and physical healthcare in Alabama prisons. On June 17, 2014, prisoners and the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program (“ADAP”) filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. The plaintiffs sued the Alabama Department of Corrections (“ADOC”) under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Represented by the Southern Poverty Law C…

This case concerns alleged systemic failures to provide mental and physical healthcare in Alabama prisons. On June 17, 2014, prisoners and the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program (“ADAP”) filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. The plaintiffs sued the Alabama Department of Corrections (“ADOC”) under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Represented by the Southern Poverty Law Center, ADAP, and private counsel, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as class certification. They claimed that ADOC provided inadequate medical and mental health services and involuntarily medicated prisoners.

On September 8, 2015, Judge Myron H. Thompson split the case into two phases: Phase 1 would include all ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims related to physical disabilities; and Phase 2 would include all ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims related to mental health, together with all other claims. During the next year, the parties engaged in fractious discovery and crafted a settlement for the Phase 1 claims. The court allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to assert associational standing on August 5, 2016. 2016 WL 4169157. On October 6, 2015, the court rejected ADOC's invitation to dismiss claims by plaintiffs who had been released from prison for lack of standing. 148 F. Supp. 3d 1329.

Judge Thompson approved the Phase 1 settlement and adopted it as a consent decree on September 9, 2016. The court found that the named plaintiffs had standing and certified a settlement class of "any current or future inmate in the physical custody of the Alabama Department of Corrections who has a disability . . . excluding those inmates whose disabilities relate solely to or arise from mental disease, illness, or defect." The agreement required ADOC to:

  • Evaluate all facilities that house prisoners with disabilities and identify necessary changes;
  • Provide reasonable accommodations for prisoners with disabilities to access prison programs;
  • Provide disability screening and physical examinations for prisoners;
  • Not increase a prisoner's security level solely based on a disability;
  • Provide auxiliary aids and services to prisoners with hearing and vision impairments;
  • Designate employees, create plans, and run drills to evacuate prisoners with disabilities in the event of an emergency;
  • Implement a procedure for prisoners' requests for accommodations and appoint an ADA coordinator for each of its facilities to handle ADA-related matters;
  • Provide ADA training to correctional officers and ADA coordinators; and
  • Create a quality-assurance program.

The agreement also contained the following provisions related to implementation:

  • ADAP will monitor ADOC's compliance with the consent decree and prepare quarterly reports on ADOC's compliance;
  • Claims that ADOC is not in compliance must be resolved in arbitration;
  • This consent decree will terminate after six years if no extension is granted; and
  • ADOC will pay attorneys' fees and costs of $1.25 million plus fees associated with monitoring. 

318 F.R.D. 652.

Judge Thompson split the remaining Phase 2 claims into two parts on September 19, 2016. Phase 2A would consider the plaintiffs’ ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and Eighth Amendment mental health claims, along with their involuntary medication claims. Phase 2B would consider the remaining Eighth Amendment claims about inadequate medical and dental care.

Judge Thompson issued three key rulings on November 25, 2016. First, the court largely denied ADOC’s motion for summary judgment, but dismissed the claims of six individual plaintiffs who had already been released from prison. 219 F. Supp. 3d 1100. Second, the court found that ADAP had associational standing under the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act (“PAIMI”), 42 U.S.C. § 10805. 219 F. Supp. 3d 1163. Third, the court certified two classes. The first consisted of prisoners with serious mental health problems who are or will be subject to ADOC’s mental health care policies, and the second consisted of prisoners with serious mental health problems who are or will be subject to ADOC’s involuntary medication policies. 317 F.R.D. 634.

The Phase 2A trial took place in early 2017, and the parties concurrently worked towards a settlement. They proposed a class action settlement of the plaintiffs’ ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims on January 11, 2017, which Judge Thompson preliminarily approved on February 22, 2017. The parties also proposed a settlement of the plaintiffs’ involuntary medication claims on April 25, 2017, which Judge Thompson preliminarily approved on May 11, 2017. 2017 WL 1956778. However, the parties did not resolve the plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment mental health claims.

On June 27, 2017, Judge Thompson issued a 302-page opinion and order on the Phase 2A Eighth Amendment mental health claim. The court concluded that ADOC’s "horrendously inadequate" mental health services violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. As reported in The Atlantic, the trial included testimony from a prisoner who had not received adequate mental health care in prison, became agitated during testimony, and had to be coaxed back to the stand from the judge's chambers. Judge Thompson was concerned and ordered a full report on the prisoner’s condition and steps taken to address it. Sadly, the prisoner committed suicide ten days after his testimony and before corrective measures were taken. In his opinion, Judge Thompson noted, "[w]ithout question, [the prisoner’s] testimony and the tragic event that followed darkly draped all the subsequent testimony like a pall." He added "[ADOC] could have taken [remedial] action in 2015, after the first meeting on suicides, or in 2016, after the second meeting, rather than waiting until January 2017. By that time, twelve more people, including a plaintiff in this lawsuit, had committed suicide." Judge Thompson found that ADOC acted with deliberate indifference towards its prisoners, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court also rejected ADOC’s arguments that its leaders lacked the authority to fix the problems and that a federal court could not order a state to spend money on prisons. Emphasizing the "severity and urgency of the need for mental-health care," Judge Thompson declared that the proposed relief must be both immediate and long-term, and ordered the parties to meet to discuss a remedy. 257 F. Supp. 3d 1171.

The next day, Judge Thompson adopted the parties’ Phase 2A ADA and Rehabilitation Act settlement as a consent decree. The court certified an injunctive relief settlement class defined as “any current or future inmate in the physical custody of ADOC who has a disability . . . relating to or arising from mental disease, illness, or defect.” Under the terms of the settlement, ADOC agreed to provide adaptive behavior/life skills training to inmates with certain mental disabilities. The training would be designed to help prisoners make good decisions, manage stress, communicate, identify consequences of their actions, advocate for themselves, access prison services, maintain hygiene, make good use of time, and understand prison rules. ADAP obtained access to ADOC’s facilities and records to monitor ADOC’s compliance. ADOC could request termination once the consent decree was in place for at least five years and it was in substantial compliance for at least twelve consecutive months. As part of the order, the plaintiffs obtained $250,000 in attorneys' fees and $12,000 per year in monitoring fees. 

On July 25, 2017, Judge Thompson issued an opinion that provided a legal basis for his approval of the settlement. 321 F.R.D. 653.

Judge Thompson issued a final approval order and consent decree for the involuntary medication settlement on September 6, 2017. ADOC agreed to strengthen the procedural safeguards for prisoners facing involuntary medication. It also agreed to provide ADAP with monthly reports of involuntary medication proceedings and pay $230,000 in attorneys' fees. The consent decree was set to expire after two years. On November 27, 2017, Judge Thompson issued an opinion explaining his reasoning for approving the involuntary-medication settlement agreement. 2017 WL 5665334. 

The resolution of the plaintiff’s involuntary medication claims left outstanding only the Phase 2A Eighth Amendment remedy and Phase 2B claims. On September 13, 2017, Judge Thompson decided to address the remedies for the Phase 2A Eighth Amendment violations in parts, starting with ADOC's chronic staffing shortfalls. The court also severed Phase 2B’s medical and dental claims on September 28, 2017.

In early 2018, the plaintiffs informed the court that ADOC was holding prisoners with serious mental illnesses in segregation (solitary confinement). Judge Thompson ordered ADOC to provide information on certain mentally ill prisoners who had been confined in segregation for at least 30 days on February 8, 2018. And on February 16, 2018, the court expanded the order to require ADOC to provide the plaintiffs weekly lists of prisoners in segregation.

On February 20, 2018, Judge Thompson issued the first opinion on the Phase 2A Eighth Amendment remedies. The opinion largely adopted ADOC’s plan to address understaffing. Under the plan, (1) ADOC would retain consultants to analyze its flaws and develop mental health staffing guidelines; (2) ADOC would contract with a mental health services vendor to hire additional staff immediately; and (3) ADOC’s Office of Health Services Staffing would reorganize and begin to exercise oversight over ADOC’s facilities. 2018 WL 985759.

In a series of orders issued in April, May, and June 2018, Judge Thompson ordered ADOC to:

  • Increase staffing at the Bibb Correctional Facility and improve conditions or transfer prisoners from its Restrictive Housing Unit, 2018 WL 1805594 (April 9, 2018);
  • Adopt a new system to classify inmates’ mental health status and direct mental health providers to submit lists of inmates’ classifications weekly, 2018 WL 2168705 (April 25, 2018);
  • Screen new inmates for mental health problems, 2018 WL 2440287 (April 25, 2018);
  • Screen inmates for mental health problems before segregating them, 2018 WL 4725265 (May 3, 2018);
  • Provide comprehensive mental health training to staff, 2018 WL 4927698 (May 7, 2018);
  • Move prisoners with serious mental disabilities out of restricted housing, 2018 WL 5316025 (June 4, 2018);
  • Create treatment teams responsible for inmates' mental health, 2018 WL 6319111 (June 4, 2018); and
  • Adhere to enumerated standards of care for inmates in various kinds of facilities and protect patient confidentiality, 2018 WL 6274058 (June 19, 2018).

In early 2019, the plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order to stop ADOC from placing prisoners with serious mental illnesses in segregation. In response, Judge Thompson ordered ADOC to provide a comprehensive list of prisoners with serious mental illnesses in segregation on January 22, 2019. On February 14, 2019, the court decided to treat the motion as a request for a preliminary injunction and consider it within the context of unresolved Phase 2A remedial measures.

On February 11, 2019, Judge Thompson issued an opinion after further briefing and examination of the trial record. The court clarified ADOC’s Eighth Amendment liability for prisoners in segregation with serious mental-health needs. Judge Thompson held that by not adequately conducting regular mental-health evaluations of prisoners in segregation, ADOC subjected those prisoners to a substantial risk of serious harm—in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 367 F. Supp. 3d 1340.

Litigation over remedial measures continued into May 2019, when Judge Thompson decided to act more aggressively because of a spate of prisoner suicides: fifteen in the span of fifteen months. On May 4, 2019, the court found that “ADOC continues to fail to provide adequate suicide-prevention measures” and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for immediate relief on the issue of suicide prevention. 383 F. Supp. 3d 1218. The order, largely based on an expert report prepared by outside investigators, ordered ADOC to:

  • Stop placing suicidal inmates on mental-health observation instead of suicide watch;
  • Follow up with prisoners released from suicide watch at least four times;
  • Refer prisoners who are suicidal for more than 72 hours to higher levels of care or document reasons for not doing so;
  • Only transfer prisoners from suicide watch to segregation in “exceptional circumstances” and after a documented mental health evaluation;
  • Train nursing staff who screen prisoners being transferred to segregation to spot suicidal behavior;
  • Conduct unannounced security checks to monitor conditions in restrictive housing units;
  • Comply with previously agreed-upon confidentiality standards, including out-of-cell evaluations; and
  • Try to save the lives of prisoners who have attempted suicide. (On one prior occasion, ADOC staff discovered a prisoner hanging from an improvised noose but left him there for over half an hour before taking him down.)

The court ordered ADOC to track its progress toward compliance and decided to appoint an external monitor (whose identity was left to the parties) with the power to review records and conduct site visits. After two years, either party could move to terminate the external monitoring. 2019 WL 1978476.

Later that month, Judge Thompson directed the parties to file a report on their “pursuit of a path” to “global resolution” of the remaining issues in the case. On June 10, 2019, the court agreed to stay the proceedings regarding mental- and dental-care claims and several Phase 2A remedial orders. The continuing matters, however, included remedying ADA-noncompliance, preventing prisoner suicides, and addressing ADOC’s chronic understaffing.

On September 5, 2019, the parties jointly submitted an agreed-upon schedule for implementing ADA alterations (such as installing ADA-compliant restrooms and improving access to outdoor spaces). The next day, they submitted a notice describing agreed-upon suicide prevention remedies (including increasing the number of staff on hand and stipulating training and preparation requirements for staff).

The court conducted a hearing on October 21, 2019, during which the parties requested to modify the Phase 1 consent decree. On October 24, 2019, Judge Thompson granted them leave to revise the consent decree to reschedule evidentiary hearings and status conferences. 2019 WL 5459721.

After a hearing on December 6, 2019, Judge Thompson ordered the parties to file a joint report on ADOC’s mental-health statistics and caseload information by December 20. The court also ordered the Phase 2A remedial efforts regarding suicide prevention to go into effect beginning December 13, 2019. On December 11, 2019, Judge Thompson approved the parties’ proposal for a mental-health staffing plan.

On December 19, 2019, the court ordered the parties to come up with a process to “identify functional segregation,” meaning spaces that, although not officially built or designed to be segregation units, could safely and effectively serve as such units. Judge Thompson instructed the parties to construct this process “with the goals of creating a manageable, not overly burdensome, and yet objectively verifiable process.” 2019 WL 7041620.

Early the next year, on January 10, the court issued several interim injunctions as the result of several joint stipulations by the parties. The orders implemented procedures and practices regarding mental health classification and mental illness identification, stopgap measures for removing inmates with serious mental illnesses from segregation, confidentiality orders, understaffing remedies, and functional segregation unit solutions. On January 14, 2020, Judge Thompson ordered the parties to meet and discuss whether transferring mentally ill patients implicated procedural due process concerns. 2020 WL 398557. The parties met on January 17, 2020, after which the court dismissed and set aside the issue.

On January 22, 2020, the court instituted a notice-and-comment period for the proposed modifications to the parties’ ADA settlement. ADOC was instructed to collect comments from the class members and to respond to objections and concerns raised by those members. ADOC was also instructed to provide accommodations to inmates who had difficulty reading, writing, or accessing the notice. 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10360. Because the parties failed to reach a final agreement, the court issued more interim injunctions on March 31, 2020, extending the previous injunctive relief to last until December 30, 2020.

The court ordered the parties to file a joint proposed opinion approving the proposed modifications to the 2016 consent decree for Phase 1 ADA modifications by April 21, 2020. The court approved the primary proposed modification of the 2016 consent decree on May 12, 2020. This extended ADOC’s deadline for remediation by approximately eight years, until November 1, 2027. The proposal broke down remediation into three phases—the first round of remediation would be completed by 2023, and the second and third by 2027. Another proposed modification included extending monitoring by ADAP (and associated fees) from 2022 until one year after the remediation is completed. Judge Thompson emphasized the accommodations provided for the notice and comment period, including availability of the proposed modification in Spanish, braille, and larger print sizes. Copies of the proposed modifications were also posted in all dormitories and libraries, and delivered to class members with mobility challenges. The court justified the proposed modifications because an architectural survey revealed that almost every facility would need to be at least partially updated, but the 2016 consent decree anticipated that only up to half of ADOC facilities would need to be remediated to achieve ADA compliance. 2020 WL 2395987. The court appointed Magistrate Judge Stephen M. Doyle to serve as an arbitrator for disputes arising out of the Phase 1 consent decree and Phase 2A ADA Consent decree on July 7, 2020. 

On May 29, 2020, Judge Thompson issued an order regarding Phase 2A’s inpatient treatment remediation. The court required ADOC to submit plans regarding: (1) having more and adequate inpatient treatment beds; (2) having more and adequate treatment space; (3) making Stabilization Unit cells suicide-resistant; and (4) managing high temperatures for patients taking psychotropic medication. The court agreed with the plaintiffs that a monitoring scheme would be necessary to ensure compliance with those remedies, but reserved resolution for a later date. 2020 WL 2789880. The court later declined to take further action on the high-temperature issue. 

After reviewing ADOC’s quarterly staffing report, the court expressed concern that ADOC’s staffing efforts were not sufficient to ensure compliance by the February 20, 2022 deadline. On June 8, 2020, the court ordered ADOC to respond to this concern. ADOC’s response highlighted the dual challenges of staving off COVID-19 and reversing a decade of declining correctional staffing. The court ordered the parties to engage in mediation on the issue of correctional staffing and submit briefs by July 27, 2020. 2020 WL 3621312. The court extended the deadline until September 2020, upon the parties’ requests. Ultimately, this deadline was extended by the December 7, 2021 omnibus order, detailed below.

On July 27, 2020, one of the class members committed suicide after being segregated for 796 days. The class member was the seventh person (and sixth Black person) to die by suicide in ADOC custody since the court issued its remedial opinion regarding suicide prevention in May 2019. In their notice informing the court of the suicide, the plaintiffs once again emphasized the lack of mental health care and out-of-cell time granted to class members incarcerated in segregation and segregation-like facilities.

The court issued a Phase 2A opinion on September 2, 2020, holding that external monitoring was necessary because ADOC had consistently failed to implement improvements to mental health care over the course of several years. The court divided the monitoring scheme into three phases: (1) assessment and monitoring of ADOC’s compliance with the court’s remedial orders by an external monitoring team (EMT); (2) the EMT, as part of its monitoring, training the ADOC how to monitor itself via an internal monitoring team (IMT); and (3) the ADOC monitoring itself through the IMT, with the EMT available for consultation. The shift from phase one to phrase two would occur automatically after one year. 483 F. Supp. 3d 1136.

ADOC argued that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) § 3626(a)(1)(A) required the court to find a “current ongoing violation” of federal law to maintain relief. The court rejected this argument on September 14, 2020, holding that ADOC conflated the PLRA’s requirements under § 3626(a)(1)(A) and § 3626(b)(3). The former section, which governed entry of injunctive relief, required meeting a “need-narrowness-intrusive test”—and did not contain language regarding the ongoing violation of a constitutional right. The latter provision concerned only formal termination of relief. Judge Thompson concluded that, absent a proper motion for termination, the court did not need to find an ongoing constitutional violation to maintain injunctive relief. 2020 WL 5517262. 

Following the September 14 decision, ADOC filed a proper motion to terminate relief. On September 23, 2020, the court observed that the motion covered fifteen different remedial orders. Of those, the court found that thirteen pertained to the defendants’ failure to comply with prior orders. Additionally, one of the remaining two orders required the defendants to maintain a designation system for persons with serious mental illnesses in the prison system. The court declined to rule on these fourteen provisions, and its language suggested reluctance to even consider termination. 2020 WL 5658886.

When a motion to terminate is filed, the PLRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(e)(2)(A)(i), automatically stays any prospective relief until the motion is resolved. However, on September 24, 2020, the court postponed the stay for good cause at the request of the plaintiffs. 2020 WL 5735086. 

ADOC withdrew its motion to terminate those fourteen orders on October 2, 2020. As to the fifteenth “order,” the court found that it was merely a private settlement agreement that did not involve the possibility of court enforcement; thus, it was not something the court could consider for termination.

On October 29, 2020, the Court terminated several provisions pursuant to the parties’ joint statement of remedial stipulations. Terminated provisions fell under staffing, segregation, mental health coding, mental health referral, treatment planning, confidentiality, disciplinary, and level of care orders. All of the provisions under the stopgap remedial orders were terminated.

The following year, on April 6, the plaintiffs filed an updated notice stating that three individuals imprisoned in ADOC custody committed suicide in the preceding four months. This brought the number of individuals who had committed suicide in ADOC custody since the 2017 Phase 2A liability opinion to twenty-seven. 

The court issued a more than 200-page Phase 2A omnibus remedial opinion on December 27, 2021. The court separated the opinion into three parts: Part I addressed the history of the litigation and the legal standards governing the court’s provision of relief; Part II addressed the ways that conditions in ADOC facilities had changed since the 2017 liability opinion; and Part III broke the order down into fifteen overarching sections, each reviewing the parties’ proposals, the court’s determination, and discussion of how the court’s determination met the PLRA requirements. Throughout the opinion, the court balanced the need to protect prisoners with realistic guidelines and timelines. For instance, the court extended the deadline for the remedial orders regarding correctional staffing from February 20, 2022 to July 1, 2025, requiring ADOC to propose realistic benchmarks annually to update the court on progress. 562 F. Supp. 3d 1178.

On January 14, 2022, the court announced that it would take no further action on the Phase 2A ADA aspects of the case. The court noted that the parties could still resort to the ADA consent decree dispute resolution process when necessary. To prevent the ADA aspects of the case from falling through the cracks, the court scheduled tri-annual status conferences through February 7, 2025, to be heard in tandem with the Phase 2A Eighth Amendment claim conferences. 

Later that month, on January 24, ADOC appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (docket no. 22-10292). The plaintiffs filed a cross-appeal two days later. ADOC also moved to stay the December 27, 2021 Phase 2A omnibus opinion and order for the duration of the interlocutory appeal. ADOC contended that the court had erred by entering systemwide relief. The district court declined to grant the stay on January 27, 2022, but stated that it would resolve the stay motion in the next two weeks. 2022 WL 264873.

On February 14, 2022, the court held that, given ADOC’s history of systemic violations and failure to appeal prior findings of systemic violations, systemwide relief remained appropriate. The court granted ADOC’s motion to stay the components of the Phase 2A omnibus remedial order pertaining to compliance with the “Checklist for the ‘Suicide-Resistant’ Design of Correctional Facilities” in Restrictive Housing Units (“RHU”), pending appeal. Judge Thompson granted the stay because of ADOC’s need for a reasonable time frame, but emphasized the need for “urgent” reform in RHUs and other facilities. 2022 WL 466998.

The Eleventh Circuit declined to stay the injunction pending appeal on March 9, 2022. Circuit Judges Adalberto Jordan and Robin S. Rosenbaum issued the order, with Circuit Judge Robert J. Luck dissenting.

On August 5, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a report alleging that ADOC remained too understaffed to provide constitutionally adequate mental health care. In response, the court ordered the parties to attend mediation and develop (1) a plan to remedy ADOC’s understaffing and (2) a method to continually assess the effectiveness of that plan. Later that month, on August 18, the court entered two orders about training and the staffing analysis. A week later, on August 23, the court referred the parties to mediation to develop a plan regarding high temperatures in mental health units.  

Later that month, on August 22, the parties asked the court to extend its supervision and monitoring over the Phase 2A decree provisions related to IQ testing and adaptive behavior/life skills training. The court approved the request a week later, on September 1, holding that the extension complied with the PLRA. 2022 WL 16821528. The court extended the Phase 2 consent decree through October 1, 2023. 

The Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs in the Eleventh Circuit on December 19, 2022. The United States argued that (1) the plaintiffs did not have to re-prove an ongoing constitutional violation in the remedial phase when the court had already found an earlier constitutional violation, and (2) the district court was correct that ADOC's systemic violations warranted systemwide relief. 2022 WL 17902736. The National Disability Rights Network also filed an amicus brief for the plaintiffs in the Eleventh Circuit.

On September 21, 2023, the district court noted that ADOC had offered all ADA-eligible inmates an opportunity to take the adaptive behavior/life skills training courses. Judge Thompson held that ADOC had thus complied with, and exceeded, all the requirements of the Phase 2A ADA consent decree. 2023 WL 6384059.

Throughout 2022 and 2023, the parties continued to file status reports and weekly “exceptional circumstances” reports. On November 21, 2023, the court ordered ADOC to file monthly progress reports on the safe functioning of RHUs. 2023 WL 8092999. The court clarified seven monitoring issues raised by the parties on February 29, 2024, before the external monitoring team begins monitoring in 2024. 2024 WL 866532. 

On March 7, 2024, the Eleventh Circuit heard oral argument on the plaintiffs’ interlocutory cross-appeal of the December 27, 2021 Phase 2A omnibus remedial opinion.

The case is ongoing in the district court and the Eleventh Circuit as of May 1, 2024. 

Summary Authors

Soojin Cha (7/4/2016)

Susie Choi (3/21/2017)

Kaley Hanenkrat (3/6/2018)

Timothy Leake (6/30/2019)

Elizabeth Helpling (3/12/2020)

Hannah Juge (4/21/2022)

Sophia Acker (5/1/2024)

Related Cases

Duke v. Dunn, Northern District of Alabama (2014)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4125874/parties/braggs-v-hamm/


Judge(s)
Attorney for Plaintiff

Austin, Ashley Nicole (Alabama)

Barry-Blocker, Jonathan Michael (Alabama)

Baxter, Glenn Nelson (Alabama)

Blocker, Jonathan (Alabama)

Attorney for Defendant

Addison, Alyce Robertson (Alabama)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:14-cv-00601

Docket [PACER]

March 10, 2020

March 10, 2020

Docket
1

2:14-cv-00601

Complaint

Dunn v. Dunn

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

Complaint
133

2:14-cv-00601

Order [re: Motion to Compel]

Dunn v. Dunn

April 8, 2015

April 8, 2015

Order/Opinion
210

2:14-cv-00601

Third Amended Complaint

Dunn v. Dunn

June 25, 2015

June 25, 2015

Complaint
223

2:14-cv-00601

Opinion and Order

Dunn v. Dunn

July 27, 2015

July 27, 2015

Order/Opinion

2015 WL 2015

239

2:14-cv-00601

New Scheduling Order

Dunn v. Dunn

Sept. 8, 2015

Sept. 8, 2015

Order/Opinion
258

2:14-cv-00601

Order and Opinion

Dunn v. Dunn

Oct. 6, 2015

Oct. 6, 2015

Order/Opinion

2015 WL 2015

318

2:14-cv-00601

Opinion and Order

Dunn v. Dunn

Jan. 27, 2016

Jan. 27, 2016

Order/Opinion

163 F.Supp.3d 163

322

2:14-cv-00601

Opinion and Order

Dunn v. Dunn

Jan. 28, 2016

Jan. 28, 2016

Order/Opinion
376-1

2:14-cv-00601

Settlement Agreement

Dunn v. Dunn

March 15, 2016

March 15, 2016

Settlement Agreement

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4125874/braggs-v-hamm/

Last updated May 1, 2024, 11:07 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF against Alabama Department of Corrections, Ruth Naglich, Kim Thomas ( Filing fee $ 400.00 receipt number 4602032296), filed by Dwight Hagood, Daniel Tooley, Brandon Johnson, Hubert Tollar, Rick Martin, Alex Ball, Brian Sellers, Joshua Dunn, Turner Rogers, Augustus Smith, Zerrick Naylor, William Villar, Robert Dillard, Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program, Gary Lee Broyles, Christopher Jackson, Jermaine Mitchell, Jamie Wallace, Leviticus Pruitt, Richard Terrell, Christopher Gilbert, Willie McClendon, Jonathan Sanford, Chandler Clements, Richard Businelle, Bradley Pearson, Robert Myniasha Williams, Sylvester Hartley, Timothy Sears, Edward Braggs, John Maner, Kenneth Moncrief, Joseph Torres, Matthew Mork, Roger McCoy, Donald Ray Turner, Daletrick Hardy, Bobby Copeland, Tommie Moore, Tedrick Brooks, Howard Carter. (Attachments: # 1 Filing Fee Receipt)(dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

1 Filing Fee Receipt

View on PACER

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

Clearinghouse
2

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

PACER
3

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Joshua Dunn. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

PACER
4

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Alex Ball. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

PACER
5

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Edward Braggs. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

PACER
6

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Tedrick Brooks. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

PACER
7

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Gary Lee Broyles. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

PACER
8

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Richard Businelle. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

PACER
9

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Bobby Copeland. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

PACER
10

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Howard Carter. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

PACER
11

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Chandler Clements. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

PACER
12

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Robert Dillard. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

PACER
13

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Christopher Gilbert. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

PACER
14

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Dwight Hagood. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

PACER
15

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Daletrick Hardy. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

PACER
16

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Sylvester Hartley. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

PACER
17

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Christopher Jackson. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

PACER
18

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Brandon Johnson. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

PACER
19

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by John Maner. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

PACER
20

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Rick Martin. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

PACER
21

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Willie McClendon. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

PACER
22

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Roger McCoy. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

PACER
23

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Jermaine Mitchell. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

PACER
24

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Kenneth Moncrief. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

PACER
25

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Tommie Moore. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

PACER
26

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Matthew Mork. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

PACER
27

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Zerrick Naylor. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

PACER
28

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Bradley Pearson. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

PACER
29

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Leviticus Pruitt. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

PACER
30

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Turner Rogers. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

PACER
31

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Jonathan Sanford. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

PACER
32

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Timothy Sears. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

PACER
33

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Brian Sellers. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

PACER
34

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Augustus Smith. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

PACER
35

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Richard Terrell. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

PACER
36

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Hubert Tollar. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

PACER
37

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Daniel Tooley. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

PACER
38

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Joseph Torres. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

PACER
39

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Donald Ray Turner. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

PACER
40

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by William Villar. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

PACER
41

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Jamie Wallace. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

PACER
42

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Robert Myniasha Williams. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

PACER
43

Motion for Miriam Haskell to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 50.00 receipt number 4602032360) by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Pro Hac Vice Filing Fee Receipt)(dmn, ) (Entered: 06/26/2014)

1 Exhibit A, Certificate of Good Standing

View on PACER

2 Proposed Order

View on PACER

3 Pro Hac Vice Filing Fee Receipt

View on PACER

June 26, 2014

June 26, 2014

PACER
44

TEXT ORDER granting 43 Motion for Miriam Haskell to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 6/27/2014. (dmn, )(NO PDF attached) (Entered: 06/27/2014)

June 27, 2014

June 27, 2014

PACER
45

AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by All Plaintiffs.(Morris, Maria) (Entered: 07/25/2014)

July 25, 2014

July 25, 2014

PACER

Add and Terminate Attorneys

July 25, 2014

July 25, 2014

PACER

***Attorney Maria V Morris, Ebony Glenn Howard, Miriam Fahsl Haskell, William Van Der Pol, Jr., James Patrick Hackney added for Cherry Baker, Quang Bui, Charlie Henderson, and Roger Moseley. (dmn, )(see Doc. 45 for pdf)

July 25, 2014

July 25, 2014

PACER
46

SUMMONS Returned Executed by All Plaintiffs. Kim Thomas served on 7/28/2014, answer due 8/18/2014. (Morris, Maria) (Entered: 07/28/2014)

July 28, 2014

July 28, 2014

PACER
47

Summons Issued as to Alabama Department of Corrections, Ruth Naglich, and Kim Thomas and returned to counsel for personal service. (dmn, ) (Entered: 07/28/2014)

July 28, 2014

July 28, 2014

PACER
48

SUMMONS Returned Executed by All Plaintiffs. Ruth Naglich served on 7/28/2014, answer due 8/18/2014. (Morris, Maria) (Entered: 07/28/2014)

July 28, 2014

July 28, 2014

PACER
49

SUMMONS Returned Executed by All Plaintiffs. Alabama Department of Corrections served on 7/28/2014, answer due 8/18/2014. (Morris, Maria) (Entered: 07/28/2014)

July 28, 2014

July 28, 2014

PACER
50

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 45 Amended Complaint by Alabama Department of Corrections, Ruth Naglich, and Kim Thomas. (Smith, John) Modified on 8/11/2014 to add additional filers. (dmn, ) (Entered: 08/08/2014)

Aug. 8, 2014

Aug. 8, 2014

PACER
51

ORDER granting 50 Motion for Extension of Time and the time for defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint is EXTENDED to and including 8/29/2014. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 8/8/14. (djy, ) (Entered: 08/08/2014)

Aug. 8, 2014

Aug. 8, 2014

PACER

Add and Terminate Attorneys

Aug. 8, 2014

Aug. 8, 2014

PACER

***Attorney David Randall Boyd added for Alabama Department of Corrections. Attorney William Richard Lunsford, and Mitesh Shah added for Ruth Naglich, and Kim Thomas. (dmn, )(see Doc. 50 for pdf)

Aug. 8, 2014

Aug. 8, 2014

PACER

***Attorney Michael Leon Edwards, and Susan Nettles Han added for Alabama Department of Corrections. (dmn, )(see Doc. 50 for pdf)

Aug. 8, 2014

Aug. 8, 2014

PACER
52

ANSWER to 45 Amended Complaint (First) by Alabama Department of Corrections, Ruth Naglich, Kim Thomas.(Smith, John) (Entered: 08/29/2014)

Aug. 29, 2014

Aug. 29, 2014

PACER
53

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Alabama Department of Corrections, Ruth Naglich, Kim Thomas. (Smith, John) (Entered: 09/03/2014)

Sept. 3, 2014

Sept. 3, 2014

PACER
54

NOTICE of Appearance by Alyce Robertson Addison on behalf of Alabama Department of Corrections (Addison, Alyce) (Entered: 09/04/2014)

Sept. 4, 2014

Sept. 4, 2014

PACER

BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support

Sept. 4, 2014

Sept. 4, 2014

PACER
55

NOTICE of Appearance by Elizabeth Anne Sees on behalf of Alabama Department of Corrections (Sees, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/04/2014)

Sept. 4, 2014

Sept. 4, 2014

PACER

Add and Terminate Attorneys

Sept. 4, 2014

Sept. 4, 2014

PACER
56

MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Howard Carter, Joshua Dunn, Daletrick Hardy, Leviticus Pruitt, Robert Myniasha Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25, # 26 Exhibit 26, # 27 Exhibit 27, # 28 Exhibit 28, # 29 Exhibit 29, # 30 Exhibit 30, # 31 Exhibit 31, # 32 Exhibit 32, # 33 Exhibit 33, # 34 Exhibit 34, # 35 Exhibit 35, # 36 Exhibit 36, # 37 Exhibit 37, # 38 Exhibit 38, # 39 Exhibit 39, # 40 Exhibit 40, # 41 Exhibit 41, # 42 Exhibit 42, # 43 Exhibit 43, # 44 Exhibit 44, # 45 Exhibit 45, # 46 Exhibit 46)(Morris, Maria) (Entered: 09/04/2014)

1 Exhibit 1

View on PACER

2 Exhibit 2

View on PACER

3 Exhibit 3

View on PACER

4 Exhibit 4

View on PACER

5 Exhibit 5

View on PACER

6 Exhibit 6

View on PACER

7 Exhibit 7

View on PACER

8 Exhibit 8

View on PACER

9 Exhibit 9

View on PACER

10 Exhibit 10

View on PACER

11 Exhibit 11

View on PACER

12 Exhibit 12

View on PACER

13 Exhibit 13

View on PACER

14 Exhibit 14

View on PACER

15 Exhibit 15

View on PACER

16 Exhibit 16

View on PACER

17 Exhibit 17

View on PACER

18 Exhibit 18

View on PACER

19 Exhibit 19

View on PACER

20 Exhibit 20

View on PACER

21 Exhibit 21

View on PACER

22 Exhibit 22

View on PACER

23 Exhibit 23

View on PACER

24 Exhibit 24

View on PACER

25 Exhibit 25

View on PACER

26 Exhibit 26

View on PACER

27 Exhibit 27

View on PACER

28 Exhibit 28

View on PACER

29 Exhibit 29

View on PACER

30 Exhibit 30

View on PACER

31 Exhibit 31

View on PACER

32 Exhibit 32

View on PACER

33 Exhibit 33

View on PACER

34 Exhibit 34

View on PACER

35 Exhibit 35

View on PACER

36 Exhibit 36

View on RECAP

37 Exhibit 37

View on PACER

38 Exhibit 38

View on PACER

39 Exhibit 39

View on PACER

40 Exhibit 40

View on PACER

41 Exhibit 41

View on PACER

42 Exhibit 42

View on PACER

43 Exhibit 43

View on PACER

44 Exhibit 44

View on PACER

45 Exhibit 45

View on PACER

46 Exhibit 46

View on PACER

Sept. 4, 2014

Sept. 4, 2014

RECAP

BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support of 56 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Howard Carter, Joshua Dunn, Daletrick Hardy, Leviticus Pruitt, Robert Myniasha Williams. (dmn, ) (This document has no pdf attached, see Doc. 56 for pdf.)

Sept. 4, 2014

Sept. 4, 2014

PACER

***Attorney Latasha Lanette Mccrary added for All Plaintiffs. (dmn, ) (see Doc. 56 for pdf)

Sept. 4, 2014

Sept. 4, 2014

PACER
57

RULE 26(f) ORDER directing the parties to file the Rule 26(f) report containing the proposed discovery plan as further set out in the order. Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 9/26/2014. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 9/5/2014. (dmn, ) (Entered: 09/05/2014)

Sept. 5, 2014

Sept. 5, 2014

PACER
58

BRIEFING ORDER re 56 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Daletrick Hardy, Joshua Dunn, Leviticus Pruitt, Howard Carter, Robert Myniasha Williams. Motion Submission Deadline set for 10/3/2014 without oral argument. It is further ORDERED that the defendants file a response, which shall include a brief, on or before 9/26/2014. The plaintiffs may file a reply brief on or before 10/3/2014. ORDER setting out briefing schedules for dispositive motions. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 9/5/2014. (dmn, ) (Entered: 09/05/2014)

Sept. 5, 2014

Sept. 5, 2014

PACER
59

NOTICE of Appearance by Anne Adams Hill on behalf of Alabama Department of Corrections (Hill, Anne) (Entered: 09/05/2014)

Sept. 5, 2014

Sept. 5, 2014

PACER
60

REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Lunsford, William) (Entered: 09/11/2014)

Sept. 11, 2014

Sept. 11, 2014

PACER
61

[VACATED PURSUANT TO COURT 238 ORDER.] ORDER: It is ORDERED that the terms of the discovery plan set out in the 60 Report are ADOPTED and INCORPORATED herein, and that the deadlines pertaining to the class certification phase of the litigation are as follows: (1) Plaintiffs shall submit their expert disclosure(s) to Defendants on or before 6/3/2015, and shall make their expert(s) available for deposition on or before 7/24/2015. Defendants shall submit their expert disclosure(s) to Plaintiffs on or before 7/1/2015, and shall make their expert(s) available for deposition on or before 8/14/2015. (2) Motions to Amend the pleadings and to add parties shall be filed (a) by Plaintiffs on or before 2/20/2015; (b) by Defendants on or before 3/6/2015. (3) Plaintiffs shall file any motion for class certification and supporting materials on or before 9/4/2015. Discovery related to class certification will cease when the motion is filed. The parties shall follow the briefing schedule set out in the 60 Report, but when briefing the class certification motion, the parties should adhere to the court's 58 General Briefing Order. It is further ORDERED that within 30 days of the court's ruling on class certification, the parties shall meet and confer about any remaining discovery issues and shall jointly submit a report proposing deadlines for final discovery, the submission of dispositive motions, and a trial setting. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 9/16/2014. (dmn, ) Modified on 9/4/2015 (dmn, ). (Entered: 09/16/2014)

Sept. 16, 2014

Sept. 16, 2014

PACER
62

RESPONSE in Opposition re 56 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Alabama Department of Corrections, Ruth Naglich, Kim Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Smith, John) (Entered: 09/26/2014)

1 Exhibit 1

View on PACER

2 Exhibit 2

View on PACER

Sept. 26, 2014

Sept. 26, 2014

PACER
63

REPLY to Response to Motion re 56 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Regarding Razor Blades filed by Howard Carter, Joshua Dunn, Daletrick Hardy, Leviticus Pruitt, Robert Myniasha Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1- ADOC Administrative Regulation 435, # 2 Exhibit 2 - ADOC Administrative Regulation 434, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Reply Declaration of Daletrick Hardy Regarding Razor Blades, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Reply Declaration of Jonathan Sanford Regarding Razor Blades, # 5 Exhibit 5 - ADOC 1977 Handbook of Rules and Information for Inmates (excerpt), # 6 Exhibit 6 - Reply Declaration of Richard Businelle Regarding Razor Blades, # 7 Exhibit 7 - Reply Declaration of Robert Dillard Regarding Razor Blades, # 8 Exhibit 8 - Reply Declaration of Richard Terrell Regarding Razor Blades, # 9 Exhibit 9 - ADOC Administrative Regulation 613, # 10 Exhibit 10 - Administrative Regulation 602, # 11 Exhibit 11 - Monthly Report of MHM to ADOC, April 2014 (excerpt), # 12 Exhibit 12 - Reply Declaration of Jamie Wallace Regarding Razor Blades, # 13 Exhibit 13 - Reply Declaration of William Villar Regarding Razor Blades)(McCrary, Latasha) (Entered: 10/03/2014)

1 Exhibit 1- ADOC Administrative Regulation 435

View on PACER

2 Exhibit 2 - ADOC Administrative Regulation 434

View on PACER

3 Exhibit 3 - Reply Declaration of Daletrick Hardy Regarding Razor Blades

View on PACER

4 Exhibit 4 - Reply Declaration of Jonathan Sanford Regarding Razor Blades

View on PACER

5 Exhibit 5 - ADOC 1977 Handbook of Rules and Information for Inmates (excerpt)

View on PACER

6 Exhibit 6 - Reply Declaration of Richard Businelle Regarding Razor Blades

View on PACER

7 Exhibit 7 - Reply Declaration of Robert Dillard Regarding Razor Blades

View on PACER

8 Exhibit 8 - Reply Declaration of Richard Terrell Regarding Razor Blades

View on PACER

9 Exhibit 9 - ADOC Administrative Regulation 613

View on PACER

10 Exhibit 10 - Administrative Regulation 602

View on PACER

11 Exhibit 11 - Monthly Report of MHM to ADOC, April 2014 (excerpt)

View on PACER

12 Exhibit 12 - Reply Declaration of Jamie Wallace Regarding Razor Blades

View on PACER

13 Exhibit 13 - Reply Declaration of William Villar Regarding Razor Blades

View on PACER

Oct. 3, 2014

Oct. 3, 2014

PACER
64

Case REASSIGNED to Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson. Chief Judge William Keith Watkins no longer assigned to the case. (scn, ) (Entered: 11/17/2014)

Nov. 17, 2014

Nov. 17, 2014

PACER

Set/Reset Hearings

Nov. 19, 2014

Nov. 19, 2014

PACER

Set Hearings: Telephone Conference set for 11/24/2014 10:30 AM by telephone before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson. (ag, )

Nov. 19, 2014

Nov. 19, 2014

PACER
65

MOTION for Leave to Depose Incarcerated Plaintiffs by Alabama Department of Corrections, Ruth Naglich, Kim Thomas. (Lunsford, William) (Entered: 11/20/2014)

Nov. 20, 2014

Nov. 20, 2014

PACER
66

ORDER that the 65 Motion for Leave to Depose Incarcerated Named Plaintiffs is GRANTED as further set out in the order. The persons having custody of JOSHUA DUNN, DALETRICK HARDY, BRIAN SELLERS, HUBERT TOLLAR, RICK MARTIN, HOWARD CARTER, SYLVESTER HARTLEY, CHRISTOPHER JACKSON, and QUANG BUI are DIRECTED to prodice each plaintiff for deposition. Signed by Honorable Judge Terry F. Moorer on 11/21/2014. Copy furnished to Transfer Agent. (dmn, ) (Entered: 11/21/2014)

Nov. 21, 2014

Nov. 21, 2014

PACER
67

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson: Telephone Conference held on 11/24/2014 (PDF available for court use only). (Recording Time 10:39 - 11:21.) (ag, ) (Entered: 11/24/2014)

Nov. 24, 2014

Nov. 24, 2014

PACER
68

Joint MOTION for Protective Order by Alabama Department of Corrections. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Smith, John) (Entered: 11/24/2014)

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

Nov. 24, 2014

Nov. 24, 2014

PACER
69

ORDER as follows: (1) The plaintiffs' 56 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction is set for an Evidentiary Hearing on 2/9/2015 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2FMJ in Montgomery, AL before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson. The court hopes the evidentiary hearing will last no more than five days. (2) Before 12/19/2014, the parties are to file a joint statement of the agreed-upon facts and a joint statement setting forth the different versions of the not-agreed-upon facts for the preliminary-injunction hearing. (3) By 2/2/2015, all discovery for the preliminary-injunction hearing is to be completed. (5) By 2/5/2015, the parties are to meet and notify the court which exhibits are admissible by agreement and which are not. By said date, they are also to submit to the courtroom deputy, for marking, copies of all exhibits. (6) The time-period for responding to discovery relating to the preliminary-injunction hearing is shortened to three-business days. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/25/2014. Copies furnished to calendar group, AG. (dmn, ) (Entered: 11/25/2014)

Nov. 25, 2014

Nov. 25, 2014

RECAP
70

PROTECTIVE ORDER granting 68 Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Protective Order as further set out in the order. Signed by Honorable Judge Terry F. Moorer on 11/25/2014. (dmn, ) (Entered: 11/25/2014)

Nov. 25, 2014

Nov. 25, 2014

PACER
71

ORDER: It is ORDERED that, by January 16, 2015, the parties are to get with the Magistrate Judge and the U.S. Marshal to arrange for the presence of any state inmates at the hearing on the preliminary-injunction motion currently scheduled for February 9, 2015. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/26/2014. Copies furnished to USM, Transfer Agent. (dmn, ) (Entered: 11/26/2014)

Nov. 26, 2014

Nov. 26, 2014

PACER
72

[VACATED PURSUANT TO COURT 238 ORDER.] ORDER: On 11/24/2014, this court held an on-the-record conference call with counsel for all parties present. It is ORDERED that the 61 Scheduling Order is amended as follows and as further set out in the order: Non-Jury Trial set for 3/14/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2FMJ in Montgomery, AL before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson. Final Pretrial Conference set for 2/1/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2FMJ in Montgomery, AL before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 1/27/2016. The class certification motion is set for Oral Argument on 6/24/2015 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2FMJ in Montgomery, AL before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson. The court will have a resolution of the class certification issue by 7/15/2015. Discovery due by 11/2/2015. Motions due by 10/2/2015. By no later than 28 days before trial, the parties are to get with the Magistrate Judge and the U.S. Marshal to arrange for the presence of any state inmates. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/26/2014. Copies furnished to calendar group, AG, Transfer Agent, USM.(dmn, ) Modified on 9/9/2015 (dmn, ). (Entered: 11/26/2014)

Nov. 26, 2014

Nov. 26, 2014

RECAP
73

ORDER: With regard to the upcoming preliminary-injunction hearing, it is ORDERED that an on-the-record in-person Status Conference is set for 1/29/2015 at 10:00 AM in chambers library in Montgomery, AL before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 12/1/2014. Copies furnished to calendar group, AG.(dmn, ) (Entered: 12/01/2014)

Dec. 1, 2014

Dec. 1, 2014

PACER
74

NOTICE of Appearance by Valentina Restrepo on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Restrepo, Valentina) (Entered: 12/02/2014)

Dec. 2, 2014

Dec. 2, 2014

PACER
75

ORDER that the clerk of the court is to mail (or email) to counsel for all parties in this case the current filings in McBee v. Daniels, 2:14cv1204-MHT (M.D. Ala.). While the court believes that all counsel should be aware of some of the claims in the pro se McBee lawsuit, the court is not suggesting that the McBee claims have merit, that they should be part of the Dunn litigation, or that counsel should be appointed to represent McBee. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 12/9/2014. Copies mailed and emailed to counsel as directed.(dmn, ) (Entered: 12/09/2014)

Dec. 9, 2014

Dec. 9, 2014

RECAP
76

ORDER: Having considered the mutual consent of the parties as well as the nature of this action, the court finds that this matter is appropriate for mediation pursuant to Rule 16.1 of this court's Local Rules. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: (1) All aspects of mediation shall be private, confidential, and privileged from discovery. Furthermore, the mediator is disqualified as a witness, consultant, attorney, or expert in any pending or future action relating to the dispute, including actions between persons not parties to the mediation process. No subpoenas, citations, writs, discovery paper, or other process shall be served at or near the location of any mediation session upon any person entering, leaving, or attending any mediation session. (2) Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, the court hereby appoints G. Douglas Jones, Esq., as mediator in this matter. The costs of mediation shall be borne equally by the parties. Counsel and the parties shall endeavor in good faith to resolve the case through mediation. Each party must be represented at the mediation by a representative or representatives with full authority to negotiate a settlement. The mediation shall be completed on or before March 6, 2015. Within ten (10) days following mediation, the mediator will report to the court only that a settlement was reached or mediation was conducted and no settlement agreements were reached, whether each party acted in good faith to resolve the matter, and nothing more. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 12/11/2014. (dmn, ) (Entered: 12/11/2014)

Dec. 11, 2014

Dec. 11, 2014

PACER

Add and Terminate Attorneys

Dec. 11, 2014

Dec. 11, 2014

PACER
77

NOTICE of Appearance by William Glassell Somerville, III on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Somerville, William) (Entered: 12/11/2014)

Dec. 11, 2014

Dec. 11, 2014

PACER

***Attorney Brent T. Rosen, William Glassell Somerville, III, and Andrew Philip Walsh added for All Plaintiffs. (dmn, ) (see Doc. 77 for pdf)

Dec. 11, 2014

Dec. 11, 2014

PACER

Set/Reset Hearings

Dec. 18, 2014

Dec. 18, 2014

PACER

Set Hearings: Telephone Conference set for 12/19/2014 01:30 PM by telephone before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson. (ag, )

Dec. 18, 2014

Dec. 18, 2014

PACER
78

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson: Telephone Conference held on 12/19/2014 (PDF available for court use only). (Recording Time 1:32 - 1:41.) (ag, ) (Entered: 12/19/2014)

Dec. 19, 2014

Dec. 19, 2014

PACER
79

ORDERED that the 12/19/2014, deadline for parties to file a joint statement setting forth the agreed-upon facts and the not-agreed-upon facts for the preliminary injunction hearing is extended to 1/9/2015. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 12/19/2014. (wcl, ) (Entered: 12/19/2014)

Dec. 19, 2014

Dec. 19, 2014

PACER
80

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Telephone Conference Proceedings (PDF ACCESS RESTRICTED FOR 90 DAYS) held on November 24, 2014, before Judge Thompson. Court Reporter/Transcriber Starkie, Telephone number 334-262-1221. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST REDACTION DUE WITHIN 7 BUSINESS DAYS. Redaction Request due 1/21/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/2/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/31/2015. (djy, ) (Entered: 12/31/2014)

Dec. 31, 2014

Dec. 31, 2014

PACER
81

ORDER: At the request of the parties, it is ORDERED that the 12/19/2014 deadline for parties to file a joint statement setting forth the agreed-upon facts and the not-agreed-upon facts for the preliminary injunction hearing is extended further to 1/12/2015. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 1/9/2015. (dmn, ) (Entered: 01/09/2015)

Jan. 9, 2015

Jan. 9, 2015

PACER
82

Response to 69 Order, 56 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Joint Request for Continuance of Evidentiary Hearing by Howard Carter, Joshua Dunn, Daletrick Hardy, Leviticus Pruitt, Robert Myniasha Williams. (Morris, Maria) Modified on 1/13/2015 to clean up text and reflect this document is a "Joint Request" (Motion). (dmn, ) (Entered: 01/12/2015)

Jan. 12, 2015

Jan. 12, 2015

PACER

Motion to Continue

Jan. 12, 2015

Jan. 12, 2015

PACER

JOINT REQUEST for Continuance of Evidentiary Hearing on Plaintiffs' 56 Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Howard Carter, Joshua Dunn, Daletrick Hardy, Leviticus Pruitt, Robert Myniasha Williams. (dmn, ) (This document has no pdf attached, see Doc. 82 for pdf.)

Jan. 12, 2015

Jan. 12, 2015

PACER

Set/Reset Hearings

Jan. 13, 2015

Jan. 13, 2015

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Alabama

Case Type(s):

Prison Conditions

Mental Health (Facility)

Intellectual Disability (Facility)

Disability Rights

Special Collection(s):

Post-PLRA enforceable consent decrees

DOJ Civil Rights Division Statements of Interest

Post-WalMart decisions on class certification

Deaf or Blind in Jail/Prison

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: June 17, 2014

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Alabama prisoners with mental and physical disabilities and the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

NDRN/Protection & Advocacy Organizations

Southern Poverty Law Center

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Alabama Department of Corrections, State

Defendant Type(s):

Corrections

Facility Type(s):

Government-run

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.

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

Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness (PAIMI) Act, 42 U.S.C. § 10801

Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Due Process: Procedural Due Process

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Non-settlement Outcome

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Attorneys fees

Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order

Declaratory Judgment

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief granted

Hire

Reasonable Accommodation

Discrimination Prohibition

Develop anti-discrimination policy

Provide antidiscrimination training

Implement complaint/dispute resolution process

Reporting

Monitor/Master

Recordkeeping

Auditing

Monitoring

Goals (e.g., for hiring, admissions)

Required disclosure

Training

Amount Defendant Pays: $1,730,000+

Order Duration: 2016 - 2027

Issues

General/Misc.:

Classification / placement

Conditions of confinement

Confidentiality

Failure to train

Fire safety

Incident/accident reporting & investigations

Informed consent/involuntary medication

Neglect by staff

Rehabilitation

Restraints : physical

Sanitation / living conditions

Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)

Suicide prevention

Disability and Disability Rights:

Depression

disability, unspecified

Hearing impairment

Intellectual/developmental disability, unspecified

Mental Illness, Unspecified

Mental impairment

Mobility impairment

P&A Associational Standing

Reasonable Accommodations

Visual impairment

Discrimination Basis:

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)

Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:

Disciplinary segregation

Grievance procedures

Solitary confinement/Supermax (conditions or process)

Medical/Mental Health Care:

Intellectual/Developmental Disability

Intellectual disability/mental illness dual diagnosis

Medical care, general

Medical care, unspecified

Medication, administration of

Mental health care, general

Mental health care, unspecified

Self-injurious behaviors

Suicide prevention

Untreated pain

Vision care

Wound care