Dunn et al v. Thomas et al

Filing 2793

PHASE 2A ORDER AND INTERIM INJUNCTION WITH REGARD TO THIRTEEN STIPULATIONS AND ASSOCIATED ORDERS: This court previously found, based on a joint agreement of the parties, that 13 of the parties' stipulations, separately and in conjunction with all other relief so far in this case, temporarily met the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 18 U.S.C. 3626(a)(1)(A)as further set out. Accordingly, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court that defendants Jefferson D unn and Ruth Naglich are ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from failing to comply with the following orders, as identified by the parties, until this court enters an opinion regarding their compliance with the PLRA or until December 30, 2020, whichever is earl ier: (1) Order Re: Segregation Remedy (doc. no. 1720 ); and (2) Order and Injunction Re: Bibb Segregation Remedy (doc. nos. 1751 & 1751 1); and (3) Order and Injunction on Mental-Health Identification and Classification Remedy (Coding) (doc. nos. 1792 & 1792 -1); and (4) Order and Injunction on Mental-Health Identification and Classification Remedy (Intake)(doc. nos. 1794 & 1794 -1); and (5) Order and Injunction on Segregation Remedy (Pre-Placement, Mental-Health Rounds, Periodic Evalu ations) (doc. nos. 1815 & 1815 -1); and (6) Order and Injunction on Mental-Health Identification and Classification Remedy (Referral) (doc. nos. 1821 , 1821 -1, & 1821 -2); and (7) Order and Injunction on Segregation Remedy (Stopgap Measures fo r Removing Inmates with Mental Illness from Segregation (doc. nos. 1861 & 1861 -1); and (8) Order and Injunction on Mental-Health Individualized Treatment Planning Remedy (doc. nos. 1865 & 1865 -1); and (9) Order and Injunction on Mental-Healt h Psychotherapy and Confidentiality Remedy (doc. nos. 1899 & 1899 -1); and (10) Order and Injunction on Confidentiality (doc.nos. 1900 , 1900 -1, & 1900 -2); and (11) Order and Injunction on Mental-Health Understaffing (doc. nos. 2301 & 2301 -1); and (12) Opinion and Interim Injunction with Regard to Stipulation on Provision of Hospital-Level Care (doc. nos. 2717 & 2724 -1); and (13) Opinion and Interim Injunction with Regard to Stipulation on Mental-Health Consultation to the Discip linary Process (doc. nos. 2718 & 2725 -1). It is further ORDERED that the court finds, pursuant to the parties' agreement (doc. nos. 2790 ), as well as the court's detailed prior review of each stipulation in open court, that the relief in each of the above 13 stipulations, separately and in conjunction with all other relief so far in this case, meets the "need-narrowness-intrusiveness" requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 18 U.S.C. 3626(a)(1)(A), for the period from the date of this court order until either the Court's resolution of whether they comply with the PLRA's need-narrowness-intrusiveness requirement or December 30, 2020, whichever is earlier. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 3/31/2020. (kh, )

Case 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-JTA Document 2793 Filed 03/31/20 Page 1 of 6

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 ORDER AND INTERIM INJUNCTION WITH REGARD TO
THIRTEEN STIPULATIONS AND ASSOCIATED ORDERS
This
agreement

court
of

previously

the

parties,

found,
that

based
13

of

on
the

a

joint

parties’

stipulations, separately and in conjunction with all
other relief so far in this case, temporarily met the
requirements
(PLRA),

18

of

the

Prison

Litigation

U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A).

See

Reform
Phase

Act
2A

Opinion and Interim Injunction With Regard to Eleven
Joint Stipulations (doc. no. 2716); Phase 2A Opinion
and Interim Injunction with Regard to Stipulation on

Case 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-JTA Document 2793 Filed 03/31/20 Page 2 of 6

Provision of Hospital-Level Care (doc. no. 2717); Phase
2A

Opinion

and
on

Stipulation

Interim

Injunction

Mental-Health

with

Regard

Consultation

Disciplinary Process (doc. no. 2718).

to

to
the

As a result of

this temporary finding, the court continued an upcoming
in-person evidentiary hearing on the PLRA to allow the
parties to continue negotiations on the matter.

See

Phase 2A Opinion and Interim Injunction With Regard to
Eleven Joint Stipulations (doc. no. 2716).
Those negotiations were not successful.

See Joint

Notice Regarding Monitoring and PLRA Negotiations (doc.
no. 2775) (“[T]he Parties hereby give notice that they
have not reached an agreement regarding monitoring or
the PLRA.”).

Nonetheless, the evidentiary hearing set

to begin on April 13, 2020 was continued generally in
light

of

the

current

outbreak

of

the

Coronavirus

Disease (COVID-19) and the rapidly evolving threat to
health

and

safety.

See

Phase

Scheduling Order (doc. no. 2784).

2A

Revised

Remedy

In light of the fact

that the court’s time-limited PLRA finding was set to
2

Case 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-JTA Document 2793 Filed 03/31/20 Page 3 of 6

expire on May 11, 2020, and thus the parties’ relevant
stipulations would be unenforceable after May 11, 2020,
the court ordered the parties to file joint or separate
statements

on

compliance

with

interim.

See

stipulations

how,

if

the
id.

and

PLRA
The

at

all,

should
parties

associated

each
be
now

orders

stipulation’s

extended
agree
“shall

in

the

that

the

remain

in

effect pending the Court’s resolution of whether they
comply

with

the

PLRA

need-narrowness-intrusiveness

requirement, but no longer than nine (9) months from
[March 30, 2020].” Joint Request to Extend Phase 2A
Remedial Orders (doc. no. 2790) at 1-2.

The court

interprets “nine (9) months from [March 30, 2020]” to
refer to December 30, 2020, but the parties can correct
the court if necessary.
Accordingly, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE
of the court that defendants Jefferson Dunn and Ruth
Naglich

are

ENJOINED

and

RESTRAINED

from

failing

to

comply with the following orders, as identified by the
parties, until this court enters an opinion regarding
3

Case 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-JTA Document 2793 Filed 03/31/20 Page 4 of 6

their compliance with the PLRA or until December 30,
2020, whichever is earlier:
(1)

Order Re: Segregation Remedy (doc. no. 1720);

and
(2)

Order

and

Injunction

Re:

Bibb

Segregation

Remedy (doc. nos. 1751 & 1751—1); and
(3)

Order

and

Injunction

on

Mental-Health

Identification and Classification Remedy (Coding)
(doc. nos. 1792 & 1792-1); and
(4)

Order

and

Injunction

on

Mental-Health

Identification and Classification Remedy (Intake)
(doc. nos. 1794 & 1794—1); and
(5)

Order

and

(Pre-Placement,

Injunction

on

Mental-Health

Evaluations) (doc. nos. 1815 &
(6)

Order

and

Injunction

Segregation
Rounds,

Remedy
Periodic

1815-1); and
on

Mental-Health

Identification and Classification Remedy (Referral)
(doc. nos. 1821, 1821-1, & 1821-2); and
(7)

Order

and

Injunction

on

Segregation

Remedy

(Stopgap Measures for Removing Inmates with Serious
4

Case 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-JTA Document 2793 Filed 03/31/20 Page 5 of 6

Mental Illness from Segregation (doc. nos. 1861 &
1861-1); and
(8)

Order

and

Injunction

on

Mental-Health

Individualized Treatment Planning Remedy (doc. nos.
1865 & 1865-1); and
(9)

Order

and

Injunction

on

Mental-Health

Psychotherapy and Confidentiality Remedy (doc. nos.
1899 & 1899-1); and
(10)

Order and Injunction on Confidentiality (doc.

nos. 1900, 1900-1, & 1900-2); and
(11)

Order

and

Injunction

on

Mental-Health

Understaffing (doc. nos. 2301 & 2301-1); and
(12)

Opinion and Interim Injunction with Regard to

Stipulation

on

Provision

of

Hospital-Level

Care

(doc. nos. 2717 & 2724-1); and
(13)

Opinion and Interim Injunction with Regard to

Stipulation

on

Mental-Health

Consultation

to

the

Disciplinary Process (doc. nos. 2718 & 2725-1).
It

is

further

ORDERED

that

the

court

finds,

pursuant to the parties’ agreement (doc. nos. 2790), as
5

Case 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-JTA Document 2793 Filed 03/31/20 Page 6 of 6

well

as

the

court’s

detailed

prior

review

of

each

stipulation in open court, that the relief in each of
the

above

13

stipulations,

separately

and

in

conjunction with all other relief so far in this case,
meets the “need-narrowness-intrusiveness” requirements
of

the

Prison

Litigation

Reform

Act

(PLRA),

18

U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A), for the period from the date of
this court order until either the Court’s resolution of
whether

they

comply

with

need-narrowness-intrusiveness

the

requirement

or

PLRA’s
December

30, 2020, whichever is earlier.
DONE, this the 31st day of March, 2020.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6