Dunn et al v. Thomas et al
PHASE 1 ORDER REQUIRING ADDITIONAL STIPULATION directing that the parties are to submit to the court, by no later than 8/26/2016, a joint stipulation stating that they affirmatively agree that 18 USC 3626(f) is not applicable to the arbitrator to be appointed per the terms of their settlement agreement, that this arbitrator will not be a special master, and that they expressly waive the right to challenge his decisions or the consent decree on the basis of 3626(f), as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 8/18/16. (djy, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
JOSHUA DUNN, et al.,
JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his
official capacity as
the Alabama Department of
Corrections, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO.
PHASE 1 ORDER REQUIRING ADDITIONAL STIPULATION
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 18 U.S.C.
appointing special masters in prison cases.
for such an appointment to be permissible during the
remedial phase of a case, the court must find that the
remedial phase will be “sufficiently complex to warrant
statute prescribes a mechanism for selecting a special
master from lists submitted by the parties; it appears
that a special master to which both parties consent
letter, of the provision.
See § 3626(f)(2).
master every 6 months to determine whether the services
of the special master continue to be required ....”
Finally, there are certain limitations
imposed on the special master’s power, including that
he or she “(A) may be authorized by a court to conduct
hearings and prepare proposed findings of fact, which
shall be made on the record; (B) shall not make any
authorized by the court to assist in the development of
remedial plans; and (D) may be removed at any time, but
termination of relief.”
court pursuant to Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil
court to exercise the powers of a master, regardless of
Pursuant to Rule 53, a special master
ordinarily makes recommended factual findings which a
district court reviews de novo upon objection; however,
parties to a case can stipulate that a special master
appointed upon their consent has the authority to make
final, unreviewable factual findings.
See Fed. R. Civ.
States Magistrate Judge John Ott.
Although neither the
parties nor the court has ever suggested that his role
would be that of a special master, the court is intent
on ensuring that this provision is not later subject to
confusion or challenge.
It is therefore ORDERED that the parties are to
submit to the court, by no later than August 26, 2016,
agree that 18 U.S.C. § 3626(f) is not applicable to the
settlement agreement, that this arbitrator will not be
a special master, and that they expressly waive the
right to challenge his decisions or the consent decree
on the basis of § 3626(f).
DONE, this the 18th day of August, 2016.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?