Ball v. LeBlanc

• Decision Date: 08 July 2015
• Docket Number: No. 14–30067.,14–30067.
• Citation: 792 F.3d 584
• Parties: Elzie BALL; Nathaniel Code; James Magee, Plaintiffs–Appellees Cross–Appellants v. James M. LeBLANC, Secretary, Department of Public Safety and Corrections; Burl Cain, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary; Angela Norwood, Warden of Death Row; Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Defendants–Appellants Cross–Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

792 F.3d 584

Elzie BALL; Nathaniel Code; James Magee, Plaintiffs–Appellees Cross–Appellants

v.James M. LeBLANC, Secretary, Department of Public Safety and Corrections; Burl Cain, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary; Angela Norwood, Warden of Death Row; Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Defendants–Appellants Cross–Appellees.

No. 14–30067.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

July 8, 2015.

Mercedes Hardy Montagnes, Elizabeth Claire O'Kane Compa, Promise of Justice Initiative, Cecelia Trenticosta Kappel, Capital Appeals Project, New Orleans, LA, Nilay U. Vora (argued), Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim, Drooks, & Linceberg, P.C., Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff–Appellee Cross–Appellant.

Grant Joseph Guillot (argued), Edmond Wade Shows, Assistant Attorney General, Shows, Cali & Walsh, L.L.P., Carlton Jones, III, Roedel, Parsons, Koch, Blache, Balhoff & McCollister, A.L.C., Edmond Wade Shows, Asst. Atty. General, shows, Cali & Walsh, L.L.P., Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendant–Appellant Cross–Appellee.

Brian D. East, Senior Attorney, Scott Charles Medlock, Austin, TX, Erin Helene Flynn, Esq., Washington, DC, Hiren Pravinchandra Patel, Houston, TX, for Amicus Curiae

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.

Before REAVLEY, JONES and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion

EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge:

In 2006, Louisiana built a new state-of-the-art prison facility to house death-row inmates. The cells in that facility, located in Angola, Louisiana, lack air conditioning. Three inmates sued the Louisiana Department of Corrections (the “State”) and various prison officials in their official capacities,¹ claiming that the heat they endure during the summer months violates the Eighth Amendment because of their pre-existing medical problems. They also assert that the failure to provide air conditioning violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”), 29 U.S.C. § 794. After a bench trial, the district court sustained the prisoners' Eighth Amendment claims, rejected their disability claims, and issued an injunction effectively ordering the Defendants to install air conditioning throughout death row.

Although the trial court's findings of deliberate indifference by prison officials to these particular inmates' serious heat-related vulnerability suffice to support a constitutional violation, the scope of its injunctive relief exceeds our prior precedent, Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323, 339 (5th Cir.2004), and the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3626. Despite an oversight concerning applicable law, the court did not err in rejecting the prisoners' disability claims. We affirm in part, but vacate and remand the court's injunction for further consideration.²

BACKGROUND

Angola's 25,000 square-foot death-row facility³ consists of a pod surrounded by four housing wings. Inside the pod are administrative offices, visitation rooms, a medical and dental clinic, a control center, and an execution chamber. Within each of the four housing wings, two tiers of cells sit back-to-back. Each tier is lettered A through H. None of the housing tiers are air conditioned, but the rest of the facility is. To alleviate the summer heat, windows (which can be opened) line the exterior wall of each housing tier. Next to the windows are 30–inch fans, which serve two adjoining cells. Inside each cell is a six-by-eight-inch vent that draws air into the cell from the window across the tier and vents outside.

Although death-row inmates spend twenty-three hours a day in their cells, in-cell sinks provide unlimited access to potable water. Inmates also enjoy access to ice. Each housing tier has an ice chest, which the Angola staff maintains. Inmates can only access the chest themselves during the one hour a day they are allowed to walk the tiers. The rest of the time inmates depend on guards or other inmates for ice.⁴ The uncontroverted evidence shows that the ice chests run out from time to time, either because the lone ice machine cannot generate enough ice or it breaks.

The three plaintiffs here, Elzie Ball, Nathaniel Code, and James Magee, are long-time residents of Angola's death-row facility. Magee lives on tier A, while Ball and Code live on tier H. Each suffers from various conditions: all three prisoners have hypertension

; Ball has diabetes and is obese; Code is also obese and has hepatitis ; and Magee is depressed and has high cholesterol. They take a variety of medications to control their ailments. According to the inmates, the extreme heat, not ameliorated by air conditioning, exacerbates their ailments, causing dizziness, headaches, and cramps.

Each inmate filed administrative complaints explaining that the heat was exacerbating his conditions and requesting air conditioning. The Defendants denied their requests. Internal appeals of the rulings were unsuccessful. Consequently, in June 2013, the inmates sued the Louisiana Department of Corrections and prison officials asserting claims under the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment and violations of the ADA and RA. As relief, the prisoners sought an injunction requiring the state to keep the heat index at or below 88° F.

A month later, the district court appointed United States Risk Management (“USRM”) to monitor the temperature at the facility. During the monitoring period, July 15 to August 5, the temperature on tiers A and H ranged from 78.26° to 92.66° F.⁵ Meanwhile, the heat index ranged from 81.5° to 107.79° F. On five separate days the heat index on tier A surpassed 100° F. On tier H, the heat index surpassed 100° F on seven days.

After the data collection period, the district court held a three-day bench trial. Experts testified about the Plaintiffs' medical conditions, the conditions on death row, the design and construction of the facility, and the effectiveness of current practices and procedures. The judge personally toured the facility to observe the conditions first-hand. Several months later, the district court issued a 100–page ruling that concluded the conditions on death row are cruel and unusual because of extreme heat during parts of the year. The court denied the prisoners' ADA and RA claims because they are not disabled. Based on the constitutional violation, the court issued a permanent injunction, requiring the state to develop a plan to keep the heat index at or below 88° F. Effectively, the district court ordered Louisiana to install air conditioning. Both sides now appeal.

DISCUSSION

The parties present four issues. The Defendants assert that the district court made several erroneous evidentiary rulings, wrongly found a constitutional violation, and issued an overbroad injunction contrary to the PLRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3626, and Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323 (5th Cir.2004). The inmates' cross-appeal contends that the district court used a superseded definition to determine whether they are disabled under the ADA and RA. We review the liability issues first, then the scope of the injunction.

I. Evidence

The State's evidentiary objections are easily resolved. It contends that the heat index, on which the district court based its ruling, is inherently unreliable and inappropriate in prison settings. It also contends that the court should not have taken judicial notice of other facts without providing the State an opportunity to respond. The objections are meritless.

We review evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. Battle ex rel. Battle v. Mem'l Hosp. at Gulfport, 228 F.3d 544, 550 (5th Cir.2000) (citing Jon–T Chemicals, Inc. v. Freeport Chem. Co., 704 F.2d 1412, 1417 (5th Cir.1983) ). Even if the court abused its discretion, this court will presume the error is harmless. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 61 ; Bocanegra v. Vicmar Servs., Inc., 320 F.3d 581, 584 (5th Cir.2003). The party asserting the error has the burden of proving that the error was prejudicial. See Dietz v. Consol. Oil & Gas, Inc., 643 F.2d 1088, 1093 (5th Cir.1981) (quoting Liner v. J.B. Talley and Co., Inc. 618 F.2d 327, 329 (5th Cir.1980) ).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of or relying on the heat index. The thrust of the State's argument is that because heat index is a derived number, courts cannot use it as a basis for ruling. Although the State's expert meteorologist, Jay Grymes, testified that the heat index is “not a real number,” the rest of his testimony bolsters the use of the heat index. For example, Grymes testified that the heat index is a “guideline number” and that he “provide[s] heat index as a guide to [his] viewers to make better decisions.” Dr. Susi Vassallo, the Plaintiffs' expert, testified that peer reviewed scientific articles measure the correlation between heat index and morbidity and mortality. This court also has relied on the heat index before. See Gates, 376 F.3d at 339 (upholding increased access to ice, water, and showers when the heat index exceeds 90° F.). In the absence of further proof, the court did not abuse its discretion.

The State's complaint about the court's taking judicial notice of publicly available evidence is similarly weak. The court cited an article from the National Weather Service's website called Heat: A Major Killer and referred to temperature readings from the Baton Rouge Regional Airport.

Because the district court did not warn the State that it would be taking judicial notice of these materials, the State complains it was “deprived of the opportunity to request an opportunity to be heard regarding the data.” Rule 201, however, expressly contemplates courts' taking judicial notice without prior warning.See Fed.R.Evid. 201(e) (“If the court takes judicial notice before notifying a party, the party, on request, is still entitled to be heard.” (emphasis added)); 21B Kenneth W. Graham, Jr., Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. § 5109 (2d ed.) (Rule 201 does “not require any notice to the parties that judicial...