Amos v. Cain
| Decision Date | 12 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | NO. 4:20-CV-7-DMB-JMV,4:20-CV-7-DMB-JMV |
| Parties | MICHAEL AMOS, et al. PLAINTIFFS v. NATHAN "BURL" CAIN, et al. DEFENDANTS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi |
Before the Court are five motions for judicial notice filed by the plaintiffs. Docs. #83 (May 14 Motion), #86 (May 15 Motion), #109 (June 20 Motion), #125 (August 10 Motion), #142 (August 27 Motion). Collectively, the motions ask the Court to take judicial notice of facts which are said to establish seventy-one inmate deaths at Mississippi Department of Corrections facilities between December 29, 2019, and August 25, 2020. The Court's ruling on each motion, and the reasons underlying each ruling, are set forth below.
Federal Rule of Evidence 201 provides that a court may take judicial notice of an "adjudicative fact" if the fact is "not subject to reasonable dispute" in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be questioned.
Doe v. Mckesson, 945 F.3d 818, 833 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)), vacated on other grounds, No. 19-1108, 2020 WL 6385692 (U.S. Nov. 2, 2020). The burden is on the party seeking judicial notice to show that these requirements have been satisfied. Newman v. San Joaquin Delta Cmty. Coll. Dist., 272 F.R.D. 505, 516 (E.D. Cal. 2011); see 21B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE EVIDENCE § 5108 (2d ed.) ()
Analytically, the facts the plaintiffs seek to have judicially noticed may be broken into four categories: (1) facts related to deaths at Parchman as evidenced by official MDOC press releases; (2) facts related to deaths at Parchman as evidenced by news reports; (3) facts related to deaths at facilities other than Parchman as evidenced by MDOC press releases; and (4) facts related to deaths at facilities other than Parchman as evidenced by news reports. The facts themselves may be divided into three categories—facts concerning alleged deaths at MDOC facilities (e.g., "On January 1, 2020, Walter Earl Gates was killed at ... Parchman"),1 statements made by MDOC regarding those deaths (e.g., "On December 29, 2019, according to [MDOC] Terrandance Dobbins was killed at South Mississippi Correctional Institution in a "major disturbance."),2 and statements made by non-MDOC persons regarding those deaths (e.g., "According to Sunflower County Coroner Heather Burton, Denorris died from neck injuries after fight with cellmate.").3
Adjudicative facts are those facts which are relevant to the disposition of the case. See Usery v. Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc., 531 F.2d 224, 244 n.52 (5th Cir. 1976) (Brown, C.J., concurring) (); Dippin' Dots, Inc. v. Frosty Bites Distrib., LLC, 369 F.3d 1197, 1204 (11th Cir. 2004) (); United States v. Gilkerson, 556 F.3d 854, 855 n.2 (8th Cir. 2009) (). Facts are relevant if they have "any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence" and "the fact is of consequence in determining the action." Fed. R. Evid. 401.
However, "[c]aution must also be taken to avoid admitting evidence, through the use of judicial notice, in contravention of the ... hearsay rules." American Prairie Constr. Co. v. Hoich, 560 F.3d 780, 797 (8th Cir. 2009); see United States v. Greene, 210 F.3d 373 (6th Cir. Apr. 7,2000) (unpublished table decision) (); see generally Johnson v. Spencer, 950 F.3d 680, 705 (10th Cir. 2020) (). In this sense, adjudicative facts must be admissible for the purpose offered. In re NewStarcom Holdings, Inc., 547 B.R. 106, 136 (Bankr. D. Del. 2016); see generally Wooden v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co., 862 F.2d 560, 563 (5th Cir. 1989) ().4
In their amended complaint, the plaintiffs assert Eighth Amendment claims, through the vehicle of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based on allegations that the defendants have created substantial risks of serious harm, injury, and death by: (1) maintaining "dangerous environmental conditions, including, but not limited to, vermin, exposure to mold and other toxic substances that endanger health, filthy cells and fixtures, broken plumbing, inoperable lighting, lack of electricity, and inadequate ventilation," Doc. #22 at 19; (2) "failing to protect [the plaintiffs] from violence, ignoring, by act or omission emergency situations, and enabling violent attacks within prison walls," id. at 21; (3) "providing inadequate nourishment to maintain health and serving food in an unsanitary and unsafe manner," id. at 22; (4) providing "inadequate medical care, including dental care, optical care, and other health-related services," id. at 23; and (5) providing inadequate mental health care, id. at 26. The plaintiffs seek various forms of injunctive and declaratory relief againstthe Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections and the Superintendent of Parchman, both in their official capacities. Id. at 27-28.
As explained more below, the plaintiffs seek to utilize judicial notice to establish the facts and circumstances of the various deaths. The Court must, therefore, determine whether the facts and circumstances are relevant as argued by the plaintiffs. Furthermore, as mentioned above, the facts requested to be judicially noticed are not only facts of the deaths but also statements by MDOC and non-MDOC officials about the facts of the deaths. Insofar as the relevance of these statements depend on the truth of the matters asserted, the facts of such statements may only be deemed adjudicative facts if they are not excludable under the rule against hearsay. Hoich, 560 F.3d at 797.
The Eighth Amendment requires prison officials to provide humane conditions of confinement with due regard for inmate health and safety. To show a violation, inmates must prove that they were exposed to a substantial risk of serious harm and that prison officials acted or failed to act with deliberate indifference to that risk.
Valentine v. Collier, 978 F.3d 154, 2020 WL 6039993, at *5 (5th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). Id. (citation omitted).
Where, as here, a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against state officials in their official capacities,5 "the plaintiff must identify a practice, policy, or procedure that animates the constitutional violation at issue." Ariz. Students' Ass'n v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 824 F.3d 858, 865 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 (1991)). For the official capacity claim to succeed, the policy or practice must have been "implemented with deliberate indifference to theknown or obvious consequences that constitutional violations would result." Alvarez v. City of Brownsville, 904 F.3d 382, 390 (5th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). In this sense, to be relevant, the judicially noticed facts sought here must relate to: (1) whether the plaintiffs were exposed to a substantial risk of serious harm; (2) whether the prison officials acted with deliberate indifference; or (3) whether the alleged constitutional violations were caused by a custom or policy that was implemented with deliberate indifference.
The plaintiffs argue that deaths at MDOC facilities are relevant "to the agency's disposition (deliberate indifference) as well as its custom or policies related to security, medical treatment, and environmental conditions effecting Plaintiffs." Doc. #97 at 2. They further argue that the deaths at Parchman are relevant because "the mental and physical impact of witnessing death and killing weighs greatly on the Plaintiffs" and that the non-Parchman deaths are relevant because "the medical provider for every MDOC facility is the same and functions under a singular operating procedure." Doc. #144 at 2.
First, the plaintiffs offer no specific argument as to how or why the facts sought to be judicially noticed would be relevant to proving a custom or official policy of the defendants. Indeed, none of the facts sought to be judicially noticed involve conduct on the part of the defendants. The facts of the deaths would thus have no bearing on whether the defendants maintained (or are maintaining) an official policy or custom. See Cadena v. El Paso Cnty, 946 F.3d 717, 728 (5th Cir. 2020) () (cleaned up).
Second, the plaintiffs have offered nothing to suggest that any of the named plaintiffs witnessed the deaths at issue. Even if the plaintiffs witnessed the deaths, the plaintiffs haveoffered no argument as to how or why the alleged impact of the deaths would be relevant to their claims, which involve no requests for monetary damages. Accordingly, the Court finds these claims of relevance to be without merit.
To the extent the plaintiffs seek injunctive relief based on allegedly ongoing constitutional...
To continue reading
Request your trial