Dunn et al v. Thomas et al

Filing 3764

ORDER ON MEDIATION OF PLANS TO ADDRESS CORRECTIONAL STAFFING LEVELS: it is ORDERED that, by 8/23/2022, at 5:00 p.m., the parties shall file with the court a joint proposal on a schedule to mediate the issues identified above regarding the development of a plan to address ADOC's correctional staffing levels and a method to assess and reassess over time the effectiveness of the steps taken pursuant to that plan. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 8/22/2022. (amf, )

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

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

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

ORDER ON MEDIATION OF PLANS
TO ADDRESS CORRECTIONAL STAFFING LEVELS
By order entered on July 19, 2022, the court required
the parties to submit reports on “what the most recent
quarterly correctional staffing reports to the court
reflect” and set the matter for discussion at the status
conference on August 15, 2022.

Phase 2A Revised Remedy

Scheduling Order on the Eighth Amendment Claim (Doc.
3664)

at

3-4.

The

court

left

to

discretion “how far back to reference.”

the

plaintiffs’

Id. at 3.

The

plaintiffs included in their report, and the defendants

addressed
reports

in

their

filed

response,

between

the

June

quarterly

2021--the

last

staffing
report

preceding the 2021 omnibus remedial hearings--and June
2022--the

most

recent

report

plaintiffs’ submission.

at

the

time

of

the

These reports reflect ADOC’s

correctional-staffing levels and trends between March 31,
2021, and March 31, 2022.

See Quarterly Correctional

Staffing Reports (Doc. 3406-1, Doc. 3443-1, Doc. 3551-1,
Doc. 3618-1 & Doc. 3625-1).
In response to the court’s directive, and based on
the

defendants’

quarterly

staffing

reports,

the

plaintiffs observed that ADOC’s level of correctional
staffing has decreased every quarter since March 2021,
resulting

in

an

approximate

19 %

reduction

in

correctional-staffing levels over the course of one year.
See Pls.’ Analysis of Quarterly Staffing Reports (Doc.
3712) at 5.
plaintiffs’

Without agreeing to all aspects of the
calculation,

the

defendants

acknowledged

that “correctional staffing at major male facilities
decreased from March 31, 2021, to March 31, 2022.” Defs.’
2

Response to Pls.’ Report Regarding Quarterly Staffing
Reports (Doc. 3751) at 2.*
In light of the above, the plaintiffs reiterated a
request they have made previously that the court impose
“mandatory

correctional

staffing

benchmarks”

on

the

defendants. Pls.’ Analysis of Quarterly Staffing Reports
(Doc.

3712)

at

3;

Conference Tr. 20.

see

Aug.

15,

2022,

R.D.

Status

At the August 15 status conference,

the defendants objected that the plaintiffs’ requested
benchmarks would act merely as “arbitrary numbers between
here and the finish line.”
Conference Tr. 42.

Aug. 15, 2022, R.D. Status

Despite ADOC’s falling levels of

correctional staffing, the defendants highlighted steps
they had taken and were pursuing to improve recruitment
and retention, including hiring consulting companies,
successfully negotiating changes to physical standards

* If the court were to incorporate the defendants’
proposed change to include correctional cubicle officers
(CCOs) in the calculation, the decline in correctional
staffing would actually increase in magnitude by about
half a percent.
3

for entry-level correctional-officer positions, and, in
2018, implementing pay adjustments.

See id. at 34-37.

Based on the parties’ representations and because of
the

court’s

concern

that

the

correctional

staffing

picture is not only not improving but hemorrhaging again,
the court determined that the appropriate approach should
involve two tasks.

First, the defendants shall formally

propose,

parties

and

the

shall

attempt

to

develop

jointly, a plan to increase ADOC’s correctional-staffing
levels.

Second, the parties shall develop a method to

measure periodically the effectiveness of the plan and
to assess whether and to what extent it needs to be
modified.
First,

a

concrete

plan

or

combination

of

plans

remains critical to get ADOC on track toward positive
staffing

trends

and,

ultimately,

constitutionally

adequate levels of correctional staffing.

As the court

explained at the August 15 status conference, it is one
thing to establish mandatory staffing benchmarks, but
there must be “a plan in place to actually achieve the
4

benchmarks.”

Id. at 21.

The court finds that the

defendants should formally propose a plan to address
correctional

understaffing,

with

the

input

and

involvement of the plaintiffs throughout the process.
The defendants appeared to be receptive to this strategy
for moving forward.
all ideas.

See id. at 37-38 (“[W]e are open to

And I would certainly be open to having a

long discussion with plaintiffs’ counsel about any ideas
that they want us to discuss.”).

Moreover, in addition

to involving both parties, the court agrees with the
defendants that the development of this plan should also
include either the EMT, as soon as it is operative, or
at least Rick Raemisch, whom the parties unanimously
selected

to

administrator.

serve

as

the

EMT’s

correctional

See id. at 41.

Second, the court, the parties, and the EMT require
a method to measure whether any plan they implement is
working.

The parties, again with the input of the EMT

generally or of Mr. Raemisch specifically, should attempt
to

develop

jointly

a

method
5

for

measuring

the

effectiveness of any plan developed through the above
process.
to

The purpose of this measurement is functional:

provide

“an

opportunity

for

assessment

[and

reassessment] rather than purely one for achieving.”

Id.

at 42.
The court has already required the defendants to
“develop ...,

and

submit

to

the

court,

realistic

benchmarks for the level of correctional staffing ADOC
will attain by December 31 of 2022, 2023, and 2024.”
Phase 2A Omnibus Remedial Order (Doc. 3464) at § 2.1.5.
These benchmarks are, and remain, due to be submitted by
December 1, 2022.

See Phase 2A Revised Remedy Scheduling

Order on the Eighth Amendment Claim (Doc. 3667) at 6.

In

ordering the defendants to develop and submit benchmarks,
the court emphasized:
“The benchmarks need not be enforceable. They
are merely meant as a means of measuring ADOC’s
progress towards filling its mandatory and
essential posts by 2025, so that the court and
the parties can determine if ADOC is falling
behind and take appropriate action immediately.
By assessing ADOC’s progress against the
benchmarks, the court and the parties will
decrease the chances that, come four years from
the omnibus remedial hearings, they will have to
6

scramble to ensure that ADOC complies with the
court’s correctional staffing order or, worse,
to extend the deadline for doing so by another
four years.”
Braggs v. Dunn, 562 F. Supp. 3d 1178, 1260-61 (M.D. Ala.
2021) (Thompson, J.).
At this time, it is premature for the court to
determine whether the parties’ joint efforts to develop
a method of measuring the effectiveness of any plan or
plans to address ADOC’s current levels of understaffing
will supplant or supplement the benchmarks that the court
has already ordered the defendants to develop.

That

issue will be something for the court to revisit later.
To accomplish the two tasks articulated above, the
parties agreed that mediation before Judge Ott is the
appropriate next step in developing a workable plan and
the means of measuring whether that plan is working.
id. at 44-47.

See

Given the need to mediate the additional

issue of the safe function of ADOC’s RHUs with the current
levels of correctional staffing, the parties proposed to
submit to the court by August 23, 2022, a schedule or
timeline to discuss and address these issues.
7

See id.

at 59-60.

The court adopts this deadline for the parties

to submit to the court a joint proposal on a schedule or
timeline for the process articulated above.
* * *
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that, by August 23, 2022,
at 5:00 p.m., the parties shall file with the court a
joint

proposal

on

a

schedule

to

mediate

the

issues

identified above regarding the development of a plan to
address ADOC’s correctional staffing levels and a method
to assess and reassess over time the effectiveness of the
steps taken pursuant to that plan.
DONE, this the 22nd day of August, 2022.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8