Dunn et al v. Thomas et al

Filing 1590

ORDER: In the defendants' proposed remedial plan (doc. no. 1374 ), in the defendants' pretrial brief (doc. no. 1478 ), throughout the nine-day evidentiary hearing on understaffing, and during the post-trial oral argument on January 24, 2018, the defendants maintained that the proposed remedy as to understaffing would apply to all of ADOC's major facilities, with the exception that the Savages would not conduct a staffing analysis at the Tutwiler facility at this time (as agre ed upon by the parties), as further set out. Because the court presumes that the defendants are not attempting to relitigate liability at the remedial stage, it is ORDERED that defendants shall, by February 5, 2018, at 5:00 p.m., point to the section(s) of the liability opinion, if any, in which the court limited its liability findings to those six facilities. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 2/2/2018. (kh, )

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)

ORDER
In the defendants’ proposed remedial plan (doc. no.
1374),

in

the

defendants’

pretrial

brief

(doc.

no.

1478), throughout the nine-day evidentiary hearing on
understaffing, and during the post-trial oral argument
on January 24, 2018, the defendants maintained that the
proposed remedy as to understaffing would apply to all
of ADOC’s major facilities, with the exception that the
Savages would not conduct a staffing analysis at the
Tutwiler facility at this time (as agreed upon by the
parties).

However,

the

defendants’

proposed

opinion

has

suggested that the court limit its supervision of the
remedial

plan’s

implementation

Donaldson,

Draper,

Staton--on

the

Elmore,

basis

to

six

facilities--

Fountain,

that

Holman,

“Plaintiffs

and

failed

to

establish that correctional or mental-health staffing
at

other

ADOC

violation

with

health care.”

facilities
respect

to

creates
the

a

constitutional

provision

of

mental-

State’s Proposed Opinion on Correctional

and Mental Health Staffing Remedies at 14.

The court

is concerned by this abrupt change in position.
Because the court presumes that the defendants are
not attempting to relitigate liability at the remedial
stage, it is ORDERED that defendants shall, by February
5, 2018, at 5:00 p.m., point to the section(s) of the
liability opinion, if any, in which the court limited
its liability findings to those six facilities.
DONE, this the 2nd day of February, 2018.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE