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
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?