Dunn et al v. Thomas et al
Filing
3266
ORDER: On Friday afternoon, during the discussion of the legal standard applicable to these hearings, the court misspoke when it said that the issue was "undecided." June 4, 2021, R.D. Tr. at 194. The court meant that the question of wh ich party bears the burden of proof was not resolved by the court's December 2020 opinion. See Opinion and Order on a Process for Finalizing the Phase 2A Remedial Orders (Doc. 3078 ). The December opinion, however, did expressly resolve the que stion of whether the "current and ongoing violation" standard of 18 USC 3626(b)(3)--the provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act that governs proceedings on a motion to terminate--applies to these hearings. As the court explained in th at opinion, "In the absence of a motion to terminate, there is no statutory requirement that the court find a 'current and ongoing violation' of federal law before entering" the proposed relief at issue in these proceedings. Id. a t 24 (citing Thomas v. Bryant, 614 F.3d 1288, 1319-20 (11th Cir. 2010)). The court instructed the parties to provide evidence of current conditions in ADOC facilities to ensure that the proposed relief is necessary in light of those conditions, but i t squarely held in the December opinion that the "current and ongoing violation" standard does not apply, as required by the text of the PLRA and Eleventh Circuit precedent. See id.; see also Opinion and Order Regarding the "Current and Ongoing Violation" Issue (Doc. 2954 ). Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 6/7/2021. (wcl, )
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
On Friday afternoon, during the discussion of the
legal standard applicable to these hearings, the court
misspoke when it said that the issue was “undecided.”
June 4, 2021, R.D. Tr. at 194.
The court meant that the
question of which party bears the burden of proof was not
resolved by the court’s December 2020 opinion.
See
Opinion and Order on a Process for Finalizing the Phase
2A Remedial Orders (Doc. 3078).
The December opinion,
however, did expressly resolve the question of whether
the “current and ongoing violation” standard of 18 U.S.C.
§ 3626(b)(3)--the provision of the Prison Litigation
Reform
Act
that
terminate--applies
governs
to
proceedings
these
on
hearings.
a
As
motion
the
to
court
explained in that opinion, “In the absence of a motion
to terminate, there is no statutory requirement that the
court find a ‘current and ongoing violation’ of federal
law before entering” the proposed relief at issue in
these proceedings.
Id. at 24 (citing Thomas v. Bryant,
614 F.3d 1288, 1319-20 (11th Cir. 2010)).
The court
instructed the parties to provide evidence of current
conditions in ADOC facilities to ensure that the proposed
relief is necessary in light of those conditions, but it
squarely held in the December opinion that the “current
and
ongoing
violation”
standard
does
not
apply,
as
required by the text of the PLRA and Eleventh Circuit
precedent.
See id.; see also Opinion and Order Regarding
the “Current and Ongoing Violation” Issue (Doc. 2954).
DONE, this the 7th day of June, 2021.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?