Dunn v. Dunn

• Decision Date: 25 November 2016
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14cv601–MHT (WO)
• Citation: 219 F.Supp.3d 1100
• Parties: Joshua DUNN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Jefferson S. DUNN, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama

219 F.Supp.3d 1100

Joshua DUNN, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.Jefferson S. DUNN, 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, Northern Division.

Signed November 25, 2016

Andrew Philip Walsh, Lisa Wright Borden, Patricia Clotfelter, William Glassell Somerville, III, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Anil Ashok Mujumdar, Diandra S. Debrosse, Gregory Martin Zarzaur, Zarzaur Mujumdar & Debrosse, Birmingham, AL, Brent L. Rosen, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Brooke Menschel, Ebony Glenn Howard, Jack Richard Cohen, Latasha Lanette McCrary, Maria V. Morris, Rhonda C. Brownstein, Valentina Restrepo, Natalie Lyons, Jaqueline Aranda Osorno, Southern Poverty Law Center, Montgomery, AL, Eunice Cho, Kristi L. Graunke, Southern Poverty Law Center, Atlanta, GA, James Patrick Hackney, Glenn Nelson Baxter, William Van Der Pol, Jr., Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program, Tuscaloosa, AL, Miriam Fahsl Haskell, Southern Poverty Law Center, Miami, FL, for Plaintiffs.

Bryan Arthur Coleman, Mitchell David Greggs, Evan Patrick Moltz, Luther Maxwell Dorr, Jr., Maynard, Cooper & Gale, PC, Christopher Fred Heinss, Jenelle Rae Evans, John Eric Getty, Michael Leon Edwards, Susan Nettles Han, Steven C. Corhern, Balch & Bingham LLP, Birmingham, AL, Matthew Reeves, Christopher Stephen Kuffner, Melissa K. Marler, Michael Paul Huff, Stephen C. Rogers, Maynard Cooper & Gale PC, Huntsville, AL, David Randall Boyd, John W. Naramore, John Garland Smith, Balch & Bingham LLP, Anne Adams Hill, Elizabeth Anne Sees, Joseph Gordon Stewart, Jr., Alabama Department of Corrections, Montgomery, AL, for Defendants.

PHASE2A INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS SUMMARY JUDGMENT OPINION

Myron H. Thompson, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The plaintiffs in this putative class-action lawsuit are dozens of state prisoners and the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program (ADAP).The defendants are officials of the Alabama Department of Corrections(ADOC): the Commissioner and the Associate Commissioner of Health Services.¹They are sued in their official capacities only.

In Phase 2A of this case, with which this opinion is concerned, ADAP and a subset of individual plaintiffs assert the following mental-health claims: constitutionally inadequate mental-health treatment in Alabama prison facilities and involuntary medication without due process.They rely on the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, as enforced through 42 U.S.C. § 1983.Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief.Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(federal question) and § 1343(civil rights).²The case is proceeding on two parallel tracks consisting of ADAP's claims and the individual plaintiffs' claims.

In September 2016, more than two years after this case was filed and after extensive discovery, defendants moved for summary judgment on the individual plaintiffs' Phase 2 claims.³This motion is now before the court.The court will, at this time, decide the motion only as to the Phase 2A claims.⁴

As defendants requested summary judgment with regard to only individual plaintiffs, this opinion addresses only the claims by those individual prisoners, and hereinafter ‘plaintiffs' refers to only individual plaintiffs, excluding ADAP.The defendants' summary-judgment motion will be granted in part and denied in part.

I.Background

ADOC confines about 23,500 prisoners in 28 prison facilities, including 15 major facilities, which are close custody or medium custody, and 13 work release centers, which are minimum custody.Of the major correctional facilities, Tutwiler is the only one that houses female prisoners.At three of the major correctional facilities—Bullock, Donaldson, and Tutwiler—there are Residential Treatment Units ("RTUs"), which house mentally ill prisoners who need more direct monitoring and intensive treatment than is available in general population.Bullock and Tutwiler also have Intensive Stabilization Units ("SUs"), which house mentally ill prisoners in need of direct monitoring and stabilization after crises.

Based on an intake screening, which takes place at Kilby for men and Tutwiler for women, prisoners receive a mental-health code ranging from MH–0, which indicates that a prisoner does not need any mental-health care, to MH–6, which indicates that a prisoner cannot be treated in ADOC custody and requires referral for inpatient treatment in a state hospital.Codes of MH–1 to MH–2 are for prisoners who ADOC believes can be housed in general population, while the higher codes (MH–3 to MH–5) indicate that a prisoner should be housed in an RTU or SU. Prisoners can also be added to the mental-health caseload during a post-intake classification review, based on a referral by staff, or by self-referral.At different points in early 2016, the mental-health caseload included between 2,700 and 3,400 prisoners.

ADOC has contracted with MHM Correctional Services, Inc.(MHM) to provide mental-health services—including medication, individual counseling, and group therapy—to mentally ill prisoners.MHM's current contract with ADOC went into effect on October 1, 2013.MHM's program in Alabama is led by Dr. Robert Hunter, who has been the Medical Director and Chief Psychiatrist since 2003, and Teresa Houser, who is the Program Manager (an administrative position) and has been working for MHM since 2008.MHM employs a range of mental-health providers, including psychiatrists, certified registered nurse practitioners (CRNPs), psychologists, ‘mental health professionals'(MHPs), registered nurses (RNs), licensed practical nurses (LPNs), activity technicians (ATs), and clerical support staff.⁵

Although MHM provides virtually all of the mental-health treatment for prisoners, ADOC also employs two psychologists who assist with the intake process, ‘psychological associates' who do some screening and may provide some therapeutic care to prisoners with very low-level mental illness,⁶ and a chief psychologist who is responsible for oversight of mental-health staff.

Commissioner Jefferson Dunn, who took office in April 2015, leads the ADOC.Associate Commissioner for Health Services Ruth Naglich, who has served in this role since 2004, has a nursing license and 20 years of experience in correctional medicine.She is responsible for managing and overseeing ADOC's medical and mental-health services, including those services delivered by MHM.

II.Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a)"if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."With respect to issues where "the non-moving party bears the burden of proof ... at trial [such as, here, the merits of plaintiffs' claims], the moving party, in order to prevail, must do one of two things: show that the nonmoving party has no evidence to support its case, or present affirmative evidence demonstrating that the nonmoving party will be unable to prove its case at trial."Hammer v. Slater , 20 F.3d 1137, 1141(11th Cir.1994)(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

On issues as to which the movant has the burden of proof at trial (such as, here, exhaustion of administrative remedies), the movant"must show affirmatively the absence of a genuine issue of material fact: it must support its motion with credible evidence that would entitle it to a directed verdict if not controverted at trial."Rich v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr. , 716 F.3d 525, 530(11th Cir.2013)(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Once the party seeking summary judgment has met its initial burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to demonstrate why summary judgment would be inappropriate.SeeCelotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 331, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265(1986).The nonmoving party must affirmatively set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial, and may not rest upon mere allegations or denials in pleadings.SeeFed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1).

The court's role at the summary-judgment stage is not to weigh the evidence or to determine the truth of the matter, but rather to determine only whether a genuine issue exists for trial.SeeAnderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202(1986).In making this determination, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, drawing all reasonable inferences in that party's favor.SeeMatsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538(1986);see alsoAm. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Delta Commc'ns Corp. , 590 F.2d 100, 101–02(5th Cir.1979)("If a frog be found in the party punch bowl, the presence of a mischievous guest but not the occurrence of spontaneous generation may reasonably be inferred.").The court is not to weigh conflicting evidence or make credibility determinations at summary judgment.Mize v. Jefferson City Bd. of Educ. , 93 F.3d 739, 742(11th Cir.1996).

III.Procedural Arguments

A. Mootness

Defendants contend that the mental-health care claims of six of the named plaintiffs—Businelle, Carter, Dillard, Dunn, Moncrief, and Terrell—are due to be dismissed as moot, based on " ‘[t]he general rule ... that a prisoner's transfer or release from a jail moots his individual [and pre-certification class] claim for declaratory and injunctive relief’ " regarding conditions of confinement.⁷Dunn v. Dunn , 148 F.Supp.3d 1329, 1337(M.D. Ala.2015)(Thompson, J.)(quotingMcKinnon v. Talladega Cty. , 745 F.2d 1360, 1363(11th Cir.1984) ).Plaintiffs argue that none of these plaintiffs' pre-certification class claims are moot because: (1) all of them but Terrell have been conditionally released and are subject to the terms of probation or parole, (2) Dunn has been arrested and charged with another crime, making it...