Reynolds v. Dept/Transportation, et al

Filing 9081

ORDER directing as follows: (1) the defendants; 8973 Motion for Order on the pending motion for refund of contempt fines is granted; (2) the defendants' 8751 Motion for Refund of Contempt Fines and the intervenors' 8830 Cross-Motion for Order Confirming That Fine Funds shall Be Used For Compensating Victims of Defendants' Contempt are denied without prejudice subject to being refiled. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/20/14. (djy, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
JOHNNY REYNOLDS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:85cv665-MHT
(WO)

ORDER
This matter is before the court on three related
motions:

the

defendants’

motion

for

order

on

the

pending motion for refund of contempt fines (doc. no.
8973);

the

defendants’

motion

for

the

refund

of

contempt fines (doc. no. 8751); and the intervenors’
cross-motion for order confirming that fine funds shall
be

used

for

compensating

victims

of

defendants’

contempt (doc. no. 8830).
The use of contempt fines has been before the court
previously in 2009 on the recommendation of the special
master (doc. no. 8378). In 2009, the special master

recommended denying without prejudice the intervenors’
motion

for

contempt

further

fines

orders

(doc.

no.

regarding
8361)

and

disposition
the

of

defendants’

motion to recover contempt fines (doc. no. 8179). The
special master recommended that no action be taken with
respect to the use of contempt fines until the pending
issues

in

overruled

the

lawsuit

objections

intervenors

and

recommendation

are

resolved.

from

adopted

the
the

The

plaintiffs
special

court
and

master’s

(doc. no. 8480 & 8481). The contempt

fines are being held within the court’s registry.
It

is

still

premature

to

resolve

whether

the

contempt fines should be used in the manner suggested
by

the

defendants

and

the

intervenors.

determination will be made later.
***
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:

2

That

(1) The

defendants’

motion

for

order

on

the

pending motion for refund of contempt fines (doc. no.
8973) is granted.
(2) The

defendants’

contempt fines

motion

for

the

(doc. no. 8751) and the

refund

of

intervenors’

cross-motion for order confirming that fine funds shall
be

used

for

compensating

victims

of

defendants’

contempt (doc. no. 8830) are denied without prejudice
subject to being refiled.
DONE, this the 20th day of November, 2014.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE