Dunn et al v. Thomas et al

Filing 1530

PHASE 2A OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLAIM: SEGREGATION directing that, in their submissions of January 5, 8, and 15, 2018, see Order (doc. no. 1522 ), the parties are (1) to address, with all other relevant matters, the plfs pr oposal for procedures for resolving the parties' disputes regarding the placement of prisoners with serious mental illness in segregation (doc. no. 1525 ), as well as (2) to make suggestions of what role, if any, the magistrate judge should, an d by law may, play in the fashioning of a remedy in response to the court's 6/27/2017, finding of liability as to segregation; further ORDERING that the parties may engage in additional discovery as outlined in Part III of this opinion and order. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 1/2/18. (djy, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his
official capacity as
Commissioner of
the Alabama Department of
Corrections, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:14cv601-MHT
(WO)

PHASE 2A OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING
EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLAIM: SEGREGATION
This

litigation

is

before

the

court

on

the

plaintiffs’ proposal, submitted on December 21, 2017
(doc.

no.

1525),

for

procedures

for

resolving

the

parties’ disputes regarding the placement of prisoners
with serious mental illness (SMI) in segregation.
the

plaintiffs

filed

their

proposal,

it

was

When

unclear

whether they intended a district judge or a magistrate
judge to consider it.

And along with this ‘for whom’

question, there is the underlying question of ‘why’ the
plaintiffs even filed the proposal.
An

on-the-record

hearing

on

the

December

21

proposal was held on December 27, 2017. The court now
addresses how it will handle the proposal.

I.
The

Phase

2A

issue

of

segregation

is

currently

before the court in two ways. First, in its Eighth
Amendment

liability

opinion

on

June

27,

2017,

see

Braggs v. Dunn, 257 F. Supp. 3d 1171 (M.D. Ala. 2017),
the

court

reserved

a

finding

on

the

plaintiffs’

contention that the Alabama Department of Corrections
(ADOC)

is

not

conducting

adequate

periodic

mental-health evaluations of prisoners in segregation.
The

court

discrete

completed
contention

an

evidentiary

on

December

1,

hearing

on

this

2017,

and

the

parties are now to make post-hearing legal submissions
in

January

2018.

See

Order

2

(doc.

no.

1504).

The

plaintiffs’ December 21 proposal does not appear to be
part of these January post-hearing submissions.
Second, in its June 27 opinion, the court did make
a liability finding that, among other things, “it is
categorically
serious

inappropriate

mental

to

illness

in

extenuating circumstances.”

place

prisoners

segregation

Id. at 1247.

with

absent

Pretrial and

trial hearings on what remedy is appropriate in light
of this finding are set, respectively, for January 23
and February 5, 2018, with the defendants to make a
pretrial

submission

on

January

5

and

8

and

the

plaintiffs to respond to that submission on January 15.
See Order (doc. no. 1522).

It clearly appears that the

plaintiffs’ December 21 proposal goes to this aspect of
the case and thus should be handled as a part of it.
The parties are, therefore, to address the plaintiffs’
December 21 proposal in their January 5, 8, and 15
pretrial submissions.

II.
3

At the December 27 hearing, counsel for plaintiffs
said that they submitted their December 21 proposal for
consideration by Magistrate Judge Borden in the hope
that he might facilitate, and thus help the court in,
resolution of this remedy aspect of the case by making
factual findings as to whether the ADOC is currently
placing SMI prisoners in segregation and, if so, under
what circumstances.

Defense counsel responded with a

concern that any finding by the magistrate judge would
be duplicative of the findings the court would need to
make at the February 5 hearing.

The court remains open

to the participation of the magistrate judge in the
factual

resolution

appropriate.
magistrate

of

However,

judge’s

role

aspects
it
be

of

is

this

case

imperative

clearly

defined

where

that

the

and

that

that role be within the legal authority given to the
magistrate judge.
that,

in

their

submissions,

the

The court will, therefore, require
January

5,

parties

8,

are

and
to

15

pretrial

include

their

suggestions of what role, if any, the magistrate judge
4

should, and by law may, play in the fashioning of a
remedy in response to the court’s June 27 finding of
liability as to segregation.

III.
Finally,
plaintiffs
thinks

it

in

raised

their
a

should

December

discovery

address

21

matter

now,

proposal,
that

since

the

the

the
court

upcoming

January 23 and February 5 hearings are so near.
the

proposal,

the

plaintiffs

stated:

“This

In
Court

already has sufficient evidence before it to resolve
the dispute: ADOC is placing large numbers of persons
that it has identified as having serious mental illness
in segregation.”
at

2.

consider

The

Plaintiffs’ Proposal (doc. no. 1525)

plaintiffs

“sufficient

then

identified

evidence.”

Id.

what

they

at

2-3.

Afterwards they added: “If the Court does not consider
the

evidence

already

before

it

to

be

sufficient

to

determine whether persons with serious mental illness
are being placed in segregation or if the Court seeks
5

to determine the scope of the problem, the Court should
order the following documentation to be produced ....”
Id. at 3-4.
proposal,

In pages 4 through 13 of their December 21
they

identified

and

discussed

additional

discovery.
At the December 27 hearing, the defendants strongly
disputed

both

plaintiffs’

the

legal

contention

and

factual

that

the

bases

ADOC

for

is

the

still

inappropriately placing SMI prisoners in segregation.
Because

of

the

seriousness
additional

of

defendants’
the

issue,

discovery

on

stance
the

as

court

whether

the

well

as

believes
ADOC

is

the
that

still

inappropriately placing SMI prisoners in segregation is
warranted

and,

if

so,

problem,” id. at 4, is.

on

what

“the

scope

of

the

The court is not saying, at

this time, that the additional discovery should be as
outlined in the December 21 proposal.
court

will

leave

this

additional

Instead, the
discovery

for

resolution by the magistrate judge should the parties
have

a

dispute

over

the
6

additional

discovery.

***
Accordingly,

it

is

ORDERED

that,

in

their

submissions of January 5, 8, and 15, 2018, see Order
(doc. no. 1522), the parties are (1) to address, with
all other relevant matters, the plaintiffs’ proposal
for

procedures

regarding

the

for

resolving

placement

of

the

parties’

prisoners

with

disputes
serious

mental illness in segregation (doc. no. 1525), as well
as (2) to make suggestions of what role, if any, the
magistrate judge should, and by law may, play in the
fashioning of a remedy in response to the court’s June
27, 2017, finding of liability as to segregation.
It is further ORDERED that the parties may engage
in additional discovery as outlined in Part III of this
opinion and order.
DONE, this the 2nd day of January, 2018.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson____
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE