Dunn et al v. Thomas et al

Filing 1926

ORDERED as follows: (1) Plaintiffs' motion for show-cause order (doc. no. 1916 ) is granted as follows. The parties are to engage forthwith in mediation before Magistrate Judge John E. Ott regarding both issues presented in the plaintiffs� 39; motion, namely, both the "reporting" and "implementation" issues. By the date set forth below, the parties are to file a joint statement to the court explaining what issues, if any, have been resolved. To the extent that the i ssues have not been resolved, defendants are to file, by said date, a response showing cause as to why they should not be held in contempt. (2) The parties' oral request, made on-the-record on July 10, 2018, with regard to hospital-level care is granted as set forth below. (3) The remaining deadlines and dates for the Phase 2A remedy scheduling order for the Eighth Amendment claim (doc. no. 1860 ) are, accordingly, revised as further set out below. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 7/11/2018. (Reset: Evidentiary Hearing and Oral Argument set for 7/23/18 at 9:00 a.m to 10/22/2018 at 9:00am) (furn: calendar, ag)(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)

ADDITIONAL PHASE 2A REVISED REMEDY SCHEDULING ORDER ON
THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLAIM
I.
On July 2, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion for a
show-cause order as to why defendants should not be
held in contempt of this court’s orders regarding the
mental-health understaffing remedy.
both

that

requirements

defendants
to

have

produce

failed

certain

The motion claims
to

comply

with

information

(the

“reporting issue”), and that defendants have failed to
hire the requisite number of mental-health staff by the

deadlines
issue”).

set

by

the

court

(the

“implementation

Based on the representations made during an

on-the-record conference call on July 10, 2018, the
parties

will

be

given

a

brief

period

to

continue

mediating these issues before Magistrate Judge John E.
Ott,

after

which,

defendants

will

if
be

plaintiffs’ motion.
not

reach

the

they

have

required

not

to

been

resolved,

respond

to

the

The court emphasizes that it does

question

of

what

dispute

resolution

process may be required for these or other issues under
its understaffing remedial opinion and order, see Phase
2A Understaffing Remedial Opinion (doc. no. 1656) and
Order

(doc.

no.

1657),

but

adopts

this

particular

procedure in the exercise of its discretion.

II.
On July 10, 2018, the court held an on-the-record
conference call regarding the status of the Phase 2A
hospital-level care remedy.

The parties informed the

court that defendants have revised their approach to
this

issue

since

they

submitted
2

a

proposed

plan

in

December 2017. That new approach consists primarily of
a Request for Proposal (“RFP”), which will solicit bids
from
The

providers
parties

of

hospital-level

further

represented

mental-health
that

if

the

care.
RFP

is

successful in soliciting bidders, the implementation of
a resulting contract or contracts would resolve perhaps
“90

percent”

of

the

disputes

regarding

the

hospital-level care remedy.
In order to provide defendants with an opportunity
to issue the RFP and report back on its success, and to
provide both parties further opportunity to resolve the
remaining

“10

percent”

of

issues,

the

court

will

continue the evidentiary hearing now set for July 23,
2018, as well as the related deadlines.

In addition,

because defendants’ approach to hospital-level care has
significantly changed, the parties will be required to
submit a new proposed plan and pretrial briefing.
court’s

grant

of

this

continuance

is

based

The
on

representations by defendants that they will continue
to provide interim hospital-level care to the extent

3

needed by inmates, and in accordance with the prior
orders in this case.
***
It is therefore ORDERED as follows:
(1) Plaintiffs’ motion for show-cause order (doc.
no. 1916) is granted as follows.

The parties are to

engage forthwith in mediation before Magistrate Judge
John

E.

Ott

regarding

both

issues

presented

in

the

plaintiffs’ motion, namely, both the “reporting” and
“implementation” issues.

By the date set forth below,

the parties are to file a joint statement to the court
explaining what issues, if any, have been resolved. To
the

extent

defendants

that
are

the
to

issues

file,

by

have
said

not

been

date,

a

resolved,
response

showing cause as to why they should not be held in
contempt.
(2) The parties’ oral request, made on-the-record
on July 10, 2018, with regard to hospital-level care is
granted as set forth below.

4

(3) The remaining deadlines and dates for the Phase
2A remedy scheduling order for the Eighth Amendment
claim

(doc.

no.

1860)

are,

follows:

5

accordingly,

revised

as

OLD DATES

NEW DATES

STAFFING
Parties’ Joint
Statement and
Defendants’ Response
to Show-Cause Order
Re: Mental-Health
Understaffing

7/23/18

HOSPITAL-LEVEL CARE
Joint Status Report,
Including Status of
RFP
Defendants’ New
Proposal
Plaintiffs’ Response
Pretrial Briefs,
Summarizing Issues
and Evidence for
Trial
Evidentiary Hearing
and Oral Argument

9/7/18

9/17/18
9/27/18
10/15/18

7/23/18 at 9:00 a.m.

10/22/18 at 9:00 a.m.

SUICIDE PREVENTION
Defendants' Proposal
Plaintiffs' Response
Pretrial Hearing
Evidentiary Hearing

8/14/18
8/28/18
9/4/18 at 10:00 a.m.
9/10/18 at 9:00 a.m.

DISCIPLINARY
SANCTIONS
Defendants' Proposal
Plaintiffs' Response
Pretrial Hearing
Evidentiary Hearing

9/21/18
10/5/18
10/12/18 at 10:00 a.m.
10/22/18 at 9:00 a.m.

DONE, this the 11th day of July, 2018.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE