Amos v. Cain

MICHAEL AMOS, et al. PLAINTIFFS v. NATHAN "BURL" CAIN, et al. DEFENDANTS

NO. 4:20-CV-7-DMB-JMV

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI GREENVILLE DIVISION

March 19, 2021

ORDER

This is a tale of two prisons—if both the story of the inmates and the story of the prison administrators are credited. One prison, as told by the inmates and their retained experts, is unfit for human habitation, is dangerously understaffed, contains an array of inhumane conditions, and stands in clear violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The other prison, according to the administrators and their retained experts, implemented recent repairs and increased staffing numbers and, as a result, complies with the Eighth Amendment, at least in most respects. These conflicting stories describe the same place—the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman—just at different times. The inmates in this case, who have moved for injunctive relief for four of the plaintiffs, describe Parchman as it existed in February of 2020. The administrators describe Parchman as it existed in June of 2020, after the implementation of numerous improvements. Because the injunctive relief sought relies largely on the state of Parchman as it existed before the repairs and the plaintiffs otherwise have not shown a constitutional violation justifying injunctive measures, injunctive relief will be denied.

IProcedural History

On January 28, 2020, thirty-three inmates at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman filed a "First Amended Class-Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial" against Tommy Taylor, in his official capacity as the Interim Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections,¹ and Marshal Turner, in his official capacity as the Superintendent of Parchman. Doc. #22. In their amended complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants' policies and practices caused years of neglect at Parchman, which place them in imminent danger of serious physical injury, in violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment, as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 18-26. The pleading, which includes a proposed class action, seeks monetary and injunctive relief. Id. at 27-29.

On June 9, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a supplemental motion² for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.³ Doc. #98. Pursuant to a scheduling order issued by the Court,⁴ the defendants responded to the motion on July 13, 2020, Doc. #119, and the plaintiffs replied on July 27, 2020, Doc. #123.

IIStandard of Review

A preliminary injunction is warranted only if the movant establishes: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not issued, (3) that the threatened injury if the injunction is denied outweighs any harm that will result if the injunction is granted, and (4) that the grant of an injunction will not disserve the public interest.

Big Tyme Invs., L.L.C. v. Edwards, 985 F.3d 456, 463-64 (5th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). For a preliminary injunction to issue, the party seeking the injunction must "clearlycarr[y] the burden of persuasion on all four requirements." Id. at 464.

"The standard for issuing a [temporary restraining order] is the same as the standard for issuing a preliminary injunction." Texas v. United States, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, No. 6:21-cv-3, 2021 WL 247877, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 26, 2021) (citing Clark v. Prichard, 812 F.2d 991, 993 (5th Cir. 1987)). While the elements are the same, a plaintiff seeking a temporary restraining order must ordinarily make a stronger showing than a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction. Esparza v. Bd. of Trs., 182 F.3d 915 (5th Cir. 1999) (table decision). "Mandatory preliminary relief, which goes well beyond simply maintaining the status quo pendente lite, is particularly disfavored, and should not be issued unless the facts and law clearly favor the moving party." Martinez v. Mathews, 544 F.2d 1233, 1243 (5th Cir. 1976).

In addition to the standards applicable to injunction motions generally, the Prison Litigation Reform Act provides:

Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right. The court shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief.

18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). Necessarily, "when a district court fashions prospective relief in prison litigation, the relief must meet the standards set forth in the Act." Williams v. Edwards, 87 F.3d 126, 133 (5th Cir. 1996).

To determine whether the standards for an injunction have been satisfied, "the procedures in the district court are less formal, and the district court may rely on otherwise inadmissible evidence, including hearsay evidence." Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter v. F.D.I.C., 992 F.2d 545, 551 (5th Cir. 1993). However, "the record must nevertheless support [a] court's decision." Id.

IIIScope of Motion

Before addressing the merits of the plaintiffs' supplemental motion, it is necessary to clarify the scope of the requested relief and how this scope impacts the issues before the Court.

While the amended complaint includes a proposed class action, no class action has been certified. Accordingly, "each plaintiff's case ... must be examined separately." Crawford v. W. Elec. Co., Inc., 614 F.2d 1300, 1317 (5th Cir. 1980). In this sense, each plaintiff's entitlement to an injunction depends on their individual entitlement to such relief. See Chainey v. Street, 523 F.3d 200, 218 (3d Cir. 2008) ("This is not a class action suit; each plaintiff must prove he or she is entitled to damages."). That is not to say that a plaintiff (or even a non-party) who is not individually entitled to injunctive relief may not benefit from one who is so entitled. Others may benefit from an injunction "if such breadth is necessary to give prevailing parties the relief to which they are entitled." Easyriders Freedom F.I.G.H.T. v. Hannigan, 92 F.3d 1486, 1502 (9th Cir. 1996).

The supplemental motion seeks injunctive relief as to four plaintiffs—Aric Johnson, Phillip Webster, Kuriaki Riley, and Justin James ("Injunction Plaintiffs"). Doc. #98 at 1-3. The requested relief concerns the medical treatment of these plaintiffs as well as the environmental conditions to which they are exposed. Id. The relevant factual background, therefore, is limited to those aspects of the Injunction Plaintiffs' medical treatment and housing directly related to the requests for injunctive relief.

IVGeneral Factual Background⁵

"Parchman is a prison consisting of an area of over 28 square miles, 58 separate buildings; a facility maintaining miles of roads, a water system, and sewage treatment plant." Doc. #118-4at 7. Parchman is divided into "Units." Doc. #101-1 at 1. Units are divided into buildings, id., and buildings are divided into zones, Doc. #101-5 at PageID 2402.

Of relevance to this case, inmates are housed in Unit 25, Unit 26, Unit 29, and Unit 30. Doc. #101-1 at 9-10. Johnson and Webster are housed in Unit 29, Building F, Zone A.⁶ James is housed in Unit 30, Building A, Zone B.⁷ And Riley is housed in Unit 30, Building B, Zone A.⁸ Parchman's central medical operation is in Unit 42. Doc. #101-1 at 1-2.

As a part of permitted expedited discovery, a team of experts retained by the plaintiffs was authorized to inspect Parchman's premises. The results of this inspection, which occurred over three days in February 2020 (February 11, 12, and 28), paint a stunning picture of the conditions at that time.

Eldon Vail, a former correctional administrator with 35 years of experience in the field,⁹ identified major problems with plumbing and electrical systems, including malfunctioning sinks and toilets and exposed wiring. See Doc. #100-1 at 9-12. Vail also observed "filthy" conditions and significant security risks posed by staffing shortages and use of force practices. Id. at 5-6. According to Vail, "the conditions at Parchman fall[] far below anything I have ever seen in any other jurisdiction in this country." Id. at 36.

Marc Stern, a board-certified internist specializing in correctional health care,¹⁰ called "[t]he health-related conditions ... at Parchman ... the worst conditions I have observed in anyU.S. jail, prison, or immigration detention facility in my 20 years working in this field." Doc. #101-1 at 3. Stern based this conclusion on deficiencies in Parchman's healthcare practices, as well as the presence of mold, prisoner complaints about rodent infestations, prisoner complaints about temperatures, and the physical condition of Parchman. Id. 5-15.

Craig Haney, a professor in psychology,¹¹ found that the inmates at Parchman were being "subjected to truly horrendous living conditions" which posed a grave risk to their mental well-being. Doc. #101-2 at 19-20. Debra Graham, an environmental health and safety expert,¹² found that "the cleanliness and sanitation at [Parchman] is inadequate, and in many of the areas the conditions are deplorable." Doc. #101-3 at 12. Graham also found deficiencies in Parchman's lighting, plumbing, and fire safety. Id. at 18-19.

Madeline LaMarre, a nurse practitioner,¹³ found a "systemic" lack of access to healthcare at Parchman. Doc. #101-4 at 6. LaMarre reached this conclusion based on inmate reports concerning access to healthcare request forms and the general provision of treatment. Id. at 8-12. Ultimately, LaMarre found that "[t]he totality of the...