Braggs v. Hamm

• Decision Date: 14 February 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action 2:14cv601-MHT (WO)
• Parties: EDWARD BRAGGS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOHN HAMM, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama

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)

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama

February 14, 2022

OPINION AND ORDER ON STAY MOTION

Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This longstanding case is before the court on the defendants' motion to stay the Phase 2A omnibus remedial order pending their interlocutory appeal.^[1] For reasons

1

that follow, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part.

In an omnibus remedial opinion entered on December 27 and 28, 2021, the court set forth the history of this litigation through those dates, which included approximately two years of disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. See Braggs v. Dunn, No. 2:14cv601-MHT, 2021 WL 6112444, at *2-7 (M.D. Ala. Dec. 27, 2021) (Thompson, J.) (“Phase 2A Omnibus Remedial Opinion Part I”). And, on January 27, 2022, the court set forth the more recent history leading up to the stay motion. See Braggs v. Dunn, No. 2:14cv601-MHT, 2022 WL 264873, at *1-2 (M.D. Ala. Jan. 27, 2022) (Thompson, J.). The court will assume the reader is familiar with those two opinions and will not repeat what is in them, insofar as the background history is concerned.

Against this historical background, as well as other past opinions and orders that the court will reference, the court will, after setting forth the standard for

2

relief, take up the arguments made in the defendants' stay motion.

I. Legal Standard

A stay pending appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d) “is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009) (quoting Virginian Ry. Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 658, 672 (1926)). Rather, the issuance of a stay is “an exercise of judicial discretion, ” based upon “the circumstances of the particular case.” Id. (quoting Virginian Ry. Co., 556 U.S. at 672-73). In exercising this discretion, a court must consider “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Id. at 425-26 (2009) (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S.

3

770, 776 (1987)). The party requesting a stay bears the burden to demonstrate that the particular circumstances justify it; “[i]t is not enough that the chance of success on the merits be ‘better than negligible'” or that there is “some ‘possibility of irreparable injury.'” Id. at 434 (citations omitted).

In evaluating the motion to stay, the court declines to adopt the all-or-nothing approach urged by the defendants in their filings and during oral argument. As a matter of law, it is perfectly permissible for the court to take up areas of relief individually. Indeed, the former Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals followed this approach in at least two cases arising in the context of state prison operations. See generally Ruiz v. Estelle, 650 F.2d 555 (5th Cir. Unit A June 1981) (granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion to stay injunctive relief);^[2] see also Williams v. Edwards, 547

4

F.2d 1206, 1208 (5th Cir. 1977) (noting that the appellate court granted a partial stay of one area of injunctive relief pending appeal). And as a practical matter, the various areas of relief addressed in the omnibus remedial order come before the court in different postures and present different issues as to the four factors the court must consider in its evaluation of the defendants' motion. Even the two arguments on the merits that the defendants raise against the entire omnibus remedial order--that the court erroneously did not re-find deliberate indifference in the December 2021 omnibus remedial opinion, and that the evidence did not support the court's determination that most relief needed to be systemwide--present different questions as applied to different areas of relief. These distinctions are even more pronounced with respect to the equities and the parties' arguments as to the harms that will fall upon the defendants if certain provisions are not stayed or upon the plaintiffs if they are.

5

II. Correctional Staffing

The correctional staffing provisions of the December 2021 omnibus remedial order that the defendants appeal and seek to stay perhaps epitomize the need for the court to consider the propriety of a stay as to individual areas of relief. Although the defendants' motion to stay is silent on correctional staffing, despite requesting a stay of all relief, see Defs.' Mot. to Stay (Doc. 3489) at 3, the court found, and again finds, that correctional staffing is too sizeable and central a problem in this litigation not to be addressed specifically. See January 2022 Order, 2022 WL 264873, at *5. Additionally, as the court and the parties recognized at the outset of the 2021 omnibus remedial hearings, the posture of this issue differs from that of most other areas covered by the omnibus remedial order. The court entered injunctive relief as to correctional and mental-health understaffing in February 2018. See Braggs v. Dunn, No. 2:14cv601-MHT, 2018 WL 985759 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 20, 2018) (Thompson, J.) (“Phase 2A Understaffing Remedial Opinion”); Braggs v.

6

Dunn, No. 2:14cv601-MHT, 2018 WL 7106346 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 20, 2018) (Thompson, J.) (“Phase 2A Understaffing Remedial Order”). To the extent that relief was modified in the December 2021 omnibus remedial order, it was to extend deadlines for the defendants' compliance, making the existing relief less onerous for the defendants.

The court is left with some uncertainty as to the precise contours of the defendants' motion to stay.^[3] The

7

defendants request a stay of all remedial obligations but disavow any need to stay the February 2018 understaffing remedial order. They justify this request, it appears, by recasting the court's December 2021 extension of prior deadlines at the defendants' request as brand-new relief for the plaintiffs, related to the court's February 2018 understaffing remedial order only to the extent that it renders the previous relief a legal nullity that cannot be “revive[d].” Defs.' Reply in Support of Mot. to Stay (Doc. 3514) at 7-8; see also Feb. 9, 2022, Status Conference R.D. Tr. at 23 (confirming the court's reading of the defendants' motion to stay). Because the court finds that this is a mischaracterization of the December 2021 omnibus remedial order and because the defendants have not met their burden to show that the circumstances justify a stay, the court will deny the defendants' motion as to correctional staffing.

8

Roughly eight months after the court found that the defendants were violating the Eighth Amendment rights of the plaintiffs and that “persistent and severe shortages of mental-health staff and correctional staff” permeated the problems with ADOC's provision of mental-health care, Braggs v. Dunn, 257 F.Supp.3d 1171, 1268 (M.D. Ala. 2017) (Thompson, J.) (“Phase 2A Liability Opinion”), the court entered its Phase 2A understaffing remedial opinion and order. Therein, the court adopted, with some modifications, the defendants' proposed remedial plan on correctional and mental-health understaffing and declined to order the plaintiffs' proposal. See February 2018 Phase 2A Understaffing Remedial Opinion, 2018 WL 985759, at *8. With respect to correctional understaffing, the court ordered, among other provisions, that by May 1, 2018, the defendants' staffing experts “shall complete the staffing analyses for each of ADOC's 15 major facilities ... and shall submit their final staffing analyses and recommendations to ADOC, ” and by February 20, 2022, “the defendants shall have fully

9

implemented [the experts'] correctional staffing recommendations, as modified by any agreements between the parties or orders of this court.” February 2018 Phase 2A Understaffing Remedial Order, 2018 WL 7106346, at *1. In largely deferring to the defendants, the court cautioned that “the defendants are not to delay implementation until the last minute, but are to begin immediately and swiftly upon receiving the relevant recommendations.” February 2018 Phase 2A Understaffing Remedial Opinion, 2018 WL 985759, at *8. The court found that the ordered relief and the corresponding deadlines complied with the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). See Id. at *8-9. The defendants did not appeal.

The defendants' experts timely completed their staffing analyses and recommendations and submitted them to the court in May 2018. See Correctional Staffing Analysis Report (Doc. 1813-1). The experts recommended that ADOC maintain a total of 3, 826 full-time equivalent correctional officer positions between what they termed “mandatory” and “essential” posts. “Essential” posts are

10

those that are “needed for normal operations but may be temporarily interrupted without significant impact.” Id. at 106. “Mandatory” posts, which comprised the bulk of the 3, 826 positions, are those that “cannot be left unfilled without jeopardizing safety and security.” Id. The experts also recommended that ADOC “create an agency staffing unit that will be responsible for the implementation and enforcement of any staffing changes resulting from this analysis.” Id. at 20.

By the time of the 2021 omnibus remedial hearings, however, ADOC had taken no steps to create the agency staffing unit that was recommended to implement the experts' other recommendations and to update their staffing analyses. See Braggs v. Dunn, No. 2:14cv601-MHT, 2021 WL 6117939, at *18 (M.D. Ala. Dec. 27, 2021) (Thompson, J.) (“Phase 2A Omnibus Remedial Opinion Part II”); Braggs v. Dunn, No. 2:14cv601-MHT, 2021 WL 6116913, at *2 (M.D. Ala....