Ball v. Leblanc

• Decision Date: 19 December 2013
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 13–00368–BAJ–SCR.
• Citation: 988 F.Supp.2d 639
• Parties: Elzie BALL, et al. v. James M. LeBLANC, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana

988 F.Supp.2d 639

Elzie BALL, et al.

v.James M. LeBLANC, et al.

Civil Action No. 13–00368–BAJ–SCR.

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana.

Dec. 19, 2013.

Mercedes Hardy Montagnes, Elizabeth Claire O'K Compa, The Promise of Justice Initiative, Steven Robert Scheckman, Schiff, Scheckman & White LLP, New Orleans, LA, Jessica C. Kornberg, Mitchell A. Kamin, Nilay U. Vora, Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert Nessim Drooks & Lincenberg, Los Angeles, CA, for Elzie Ball, et al.

Edmond Wade Shows, Amy L. McInnis, Jacqueline B. Wilson, Shows, Cali, Berthelot & Walsh, LLP, Carlton Jones, III, Judith R.E. Atkinson, Thomas E. Balhoff, Roedel, Parsons, Koch, Blache, Balhoff & McCollister, James L. Hilburn, Parish Attorney's Office, Baton Rouge, LA, for James M. LeBlanc, et al.

RULING AND ORDER

BRIAN A. JACKSON, Chief Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

On August 5, 2013, this matter came before the Court for a non-jury trial on the merits and a hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 12).¹ Having considered the parties pretrial and post-trial submissions, the evidence introduced at the trial, and the arguments presented by counsel, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden of proving that Defendants have subjected them to cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court finds, however, that Plaintiffs did not introduce sufficient evidence to establish that Defendants have violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, as modified by the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendment Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' request for declaratory and injunctive relief is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as outlined below. Further, Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 12) is DENIED AS MOOT.² The Court's credibility findings, findings of fact and conclusions of law are set forth below, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 52(a).

II. JURISDICTION

It is uncontested that this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 2201.

III. BACKGROUNDA. Plaintiffs' Claims

Plaintiffs Elzie Ball (“Ball”), Nathaniel Code (“Code”), and James Magee (“Magee”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) are death row inmates, who are currently incarcerated at the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, Louisiana (“Angola”). Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against Defendants James M. LeBlanc ³ (“LeBlanc”), Nathan Burl Cain ⁴ (“Cain”), Angelia ⁵ Norwood ⁶ (“Norwood”), and the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (collectively “Defendants”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983⁷ (“ Section 1983”); the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, U.S. Const. amend. VIII; Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., as modified by the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendment Act (the “ADAAA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.; and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (the “Rehabilitation Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 794. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have violated, and continue to violate, their rights under the Eighth Amendment, ADA, ADAAA, and Rehabilitation Act by subjecting them to excessive heat, acting with deliberate indifference to their health and safety, and discriminating against them on the basis of their disabilities.

Plaintiffs seek a ruling and order from this Court granting their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 12), and requiring Defendants to take action to decrease and maintain the heat index in the Angola death row tiers at or below 88 degrees Fahrenheit.⁸ Plaintiffs further seek a ruling and order: (1) declaring that Defendants have violated Plaintiffs' rights; (2) requiring Defendants to develop and implement a long-term plan to maintain the heat index in the Angola death row tiers at or below 88 degrees Fahrenheit; (3) appointing a monitor to oversee Defendants' implementation of such plan; (4) requiring Defendants to provide Plaintiffs clean, uncontaminated ice and drinking water at regular intervals during the summer months; (5) requiring Defendants to lower the shower temperature during the summer months; and (6) enjoining Defendants from retaliating against Plaintiffs.⁹ Plaintiffs also seek attorneys' fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1988 and 12205.

Defendants oppose Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and deny all liability. (Docs. 15, 38.) Defendants contend that Plaintiffs have not suffered, nor are they likely to suffer, adverse health effects due to the conditions of confinement at Angola's death row facility. Defendants further contend that they have not violated Plaintiffs' rights under the ADA, ADAAA, or Rehabilitation Act. Thus, Defendants request that the Court deny Plaintiffs' motion, rule in Defendants' favor, and deny Plaintiffs all requested relief.

B. Procedural History

The instant litigation was filed on June 10, 2013. (Doc. 1.) Eight days later, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. 12.)

On July 2, 2013, Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction was heard with oral argument. (Doc. 24.) After considering the parties' arguments, the Court determined that it was necessary to obtain current, accurate temperature, humidity, and heat index data from Angola's death row facility before ruling on Plaintiffs' motion. Accordingly, the Court deferred its ruling, pending the collection of such data by a neutral third-party expert. (Doc. 24.) The Court also issued a scheduling order, and set the trial on the merits to begin on August 5, 2013. (Docs. 24, 28.) Subsequently, the Court ordered the parties to retain a neutral third-party expert to install the necessary equipment, and record, collect, and disseminate the required data, beginning on July 15 and ending on August 5, 2013. (Doc. 36.)

From August 5 through August 7, 2013, the Court conducted a hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and the trial on the merits. Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(a)(2). During the trial, the parties jointly submitted the temperature, heat index, and humidity data collected and analyzed by the neutral third-party expert, United States Risk Management, L.L.C. (“USRM”), to the Court. During the trial, the parties also presented testimonial evidence regarding the conditions at Angola's death row facility, and Plaintiffs' underlying medical conditions and medications. Following the trial, the undersigned toured the death row facility and observed the conditions first-hand. As a result, the Court makes the following credibility findings, findings of fact, and conclusions of law.

IV. CREDIBILITY FINDINGS

1. “In a non-jury trial, credibility choices and the resolution of conflicting testimony are the province of the judge, subject only to Rule 52(a)'s clearly erroneous standard.” Justiss Oil, Co., Inc. v. Kerr–McGee Refining Corp., 75 F.3d 1057, 1067 (5th Cir.1996) (citation omitted); Reich v. Lancaster, 55 F.3d 1034, 1045 (5th Cir.1995) (“The trial judge's ‘unique perspective to evaluate the witnesses and to consider the entire context of the evidence must be respected.’ ”) (citation omitted).

2. In making its findings of fact, the undersigned relied on the parties' written submissions, the oral testimony presented at trial, and the evidence introduced at trial. Due to the number of disputed facts, it was necessary to consider the demeanor of each witness, his or her interests in the case, and the internal consistency of his or her testimony. See Justiss Oil, 75 F.3d at 1067.

3. The following are the Court's credibility findings as to Defendant Norwood.

4. On July 15, 2013 at 4:45 p.m., Defendant Norwood issued an email to all of the death row supervisors regarding the monitors that were installed in the death row tiers by USRM. Norwood's email ordered the following:

In order to ensure accurate and consistent temperature recording, all fans and windows are not to be adjusted in any manner. In addition, no offender and/or employee is to tamper with the recording devices placed on each tier. Only authorized persons will be allowed inside the cells with the recording devices.

5. Despite Norwood's issuance of the hold order, Defendants installed awnings over the windows in tiers C and G on or about July 26, 2013. Such awnings remained on the windows from that date until the end of the data collection period. Defendants also attempted to wet and/or mist the ceiling and/or outside walls of certain housing tiers using water hoses. Defendants took such actions without seeking the permission of the Court.

6. When asked by counsel for Plaintiffs about her understanding as to the purpose of the data collection, Norwood testified as follows:

BY MR. VORA: Ms. Norwood, what was your understanding as to why USRM was installing those monitors?

BY MS. NORWOOD: Because the Judge wants a fair and impartial, objective reading of the temperatures.

BY MR. VORA: And you understood that it was important for you to make sure that he did get fair and impartial readings of the temperatures inside of the death row tiers, correct?

BY MS. NORWOOD: Yes.

BY MR. VORA: In fact, you understood it and you even advised the other death row supervisors to ensure that the correctional officers also understood that they were to ensure that the Judge received fair and impartial numbers for the USRM monitors, correct?

BY MS. NORWOOD: Yes.

...

BY MR. VORA: The reason that you asked for all the fans and windows not to be adjusted in any manner was to ensure, in your words, accurate and consistent temperature recordings, correct?

BY MS. NORWOOD: Yes.

Trial Transcript, Testimony of Angelia Norwood, Aug. 5, 2013.

7. Later, Norwood testified that she understood that: (1) the data was being collected pursuant to a court order; (2) she had an obligation to obey the Court's order; and (3) she had an obligation not to...