Maynor v. MORGAN COUNTY, ALA.

147 F. Supp. 2d 1185, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26442
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Alabama
DecidedApril 17, 2001
DocketCIV.A.01-0851-NE
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 147 F. Supp. 2d 1185 (Maynor v. MORGAN COUNTY, ALA.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Maynor v. MORGAN COUNTY, ALA., 147 F. Supp. 2d 1185, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26442 (N.D. Ala. 2001).

Opinion

PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CLEMON, Chief Judge.

This case has been brought and certified as a class action by inmates of the Morgan *1186 County Jail. The Court has carefully considered the evidence adduced at the preliminary hearing of April 12, 2001, together (by agreement of the parties) with the evidence adduced at a similar hearing in the predecessor of this case, Maynor et al. v. Morgan County, Alabama, et al. (N.D.Ala.CV-01-C-0520). Based on the evidence, the Court makes the following preliminary Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

I.

To say that the Morgan County Jail is overcrowded is an understatement. The sardine-can appearance of its cell units more nearly resemble the holding units of slave ships during the Middle Passage of the eighteenth century than anything in the twenty-first century.

Inmates in the Morgan County Jail are required to sleep on the concrete floor space under bunks, on the concrete floor space between bunks within cells — sometimes within two feet of commodes or showers, on tables (on which meals are served) an;d between tables in the anterooms of the cell units. Sometimes, inmates are not provided with sleeping mats, blankets, or sheets.

The linen provided to inmates is not cleaned on a regular basis. When inmates send out their clothes for laundering, they must wait days or weeks (without clothes) until the laundry is returned.

The cell units are dirty and unkept. The Jail does not hire contract janitors, and the inmates are not provided with adequate cleaning supplies and equipment to clean the facilities themselves. The metal surfaces of the showers have in places been completely eroded by rust. Soiled clothes, papers, and other debris litter the floors.

The cell units are poorly ventilated. They are cold in the winter (the air-conditioning system runs on winter nights) and hot in the summer. The vents need cleaning.

Inmates unable to purchase towels, soap, and other items for personal hygiene are often not provided such items by Defendants.

Inmates are seldom (once or twice a month) allowed to leave their cells for exercise in the recreational area atop the jail.

The food is inadequate in amount and unsanitary in presentation.

The known medical needs of inmates go largely unattended: prescribed medications for serious illnesses are not made available for those inmates who cannot afford them; there is a dangerous delay between Defendants’ awareness of the serious medical needs of inmates and the response, if any, to such needs. Defendants are largely indifferent to the needs of mentally ill inmates.

According to the State Fire Marshal, the Morgan County Jail is a fire hazard. Following a September 22, 2000, inspection of the Jail, he wrote:

The occupant load of the jail is 96 inmates. The jail is occupied by 221 inmates and is over crowded. 70 or more inmates are sleeping on the floor. Stacked beds are jammed against each other in some cells.
Building and fire code violations remain the same as reported in the original inspection in 1982. It appears that no attempt have been made to correct the building and fire code violations. There have been several fires in the jail, especially in the past year. Old fire damage was noted in several locations.
The fire alarm, smoke detector and manual fire alarm systems are not working. Reportedly, the system has not been operating for some time.
Several sections were so over crowded that a person had to step around in *1187 mates to get around in the day room and cells. This created a dangerous situation as to the safety of the officers and inmates if an emergency occurred.
This building is a hazard to both life and property. It is recommended that this jail be immediately brought up to present day fire and building code requirements or the occupants removed and entrances to the building secured, until the unsafe conditions and overcrowding are abated.

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit (“PX”) 24, p. 1-2, Fire Marshal’s Report. Assuming the existence of an emergency evacuation procedure, the inmates have not been alerted to it.

II.

The Alabama State Department of Corrections (“DOC”)’s consistent failure to remove “state [prison] ready” inmates from the Morgan County Jail has been the principal cause of the jail’s overcrowding. Under Alabama law, when an inmate has been convicted and sentenced in a circuit court and the court reporter’s transcript has been filed with the circuit clerk, the DOC should “thereupon” transfer the inmate from the county jail to a state prison. Ala.Code § 14-3-30 (1975). But because of alleged overcrowding in the state prisons, the DOC has defaulted in its statutory obligation to remove state ready inmates from the Morgan County Jail.

Alabama’s largest county, Jefferson, had 156 state ready inmates as of April 9, 2001; its next three larger counties, Mobile, Madison, and Morgan had 65, 0, and 57 state ready inmates, respectively. As of the same date, there were 104 state ready inmates in the Morgan County Jail. Defendants’ Exhibit (“DX”) 15. Tuscaloosa, Shelby, Baldwin, and Calhoun are larger than Morgan County, but the number of state ready inmates in each of these counties is significantly less than Morgan County.

As of January 2001, the DOC had the capacity for housing 23,506 inmates in its various penal facilities. Also on that date, the average inmate population in the state penal facilities was 22,738. Thus, despite the DOC’s constant refrain that its prisons are filled to the brim and overflowing, the fact is that it is operating at 96.7% of its capacity — based on its own statistics. PX 17, p. 2. The Limestone facility — located in the adjacent county to Morgan — has a capacity for 2,388 inmates. Yet as of three months ago, it had only 2,041 state inmates — 85.5% of its capacity. Id. All of the inmates incarcerated in state prisons sleep in bunks or beds; not a single one of them sleeps on the floor!

Defendant Commissioner Michael Haley, before assuming his present position, swore under oath:

I cannot agree ... that nothing more can be done in each State prison facility to increase available bed space. It is noteworthy that Warden Ron Jones admits that the multi-purpose building in his prison, Draper Correctional Center, could be converted to bed space for approximately 220 additional inmates... If that is true for Draper, one of the older prisons, I would think it would be true for most, if not all, of the more modern prisons and on a larger scale. Modern prisons are designed with large opens spaces such as multi-purpose rooms, day rooms, gymnasiums, chapels, law libraries, meeting rooms, and what is termed “program areas” -all areas not originally designed as inmate housing. This space could be converted to additional bed space for the alleviation of most, if not all, of the backlogged state inmates currently housed in County jails.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kane v. Winn
319 F. Supp. 2d 162 (D. Massachusetts, 2004)
Laube v. Haley
234 F. Supp. 2d 1227 (M.D. Alabama, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
147 F. Supp. 2d 1185, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maynor-v-morgan-county-ala-alnd-2001.