Ronald Paul Adams, Etc., United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee v. Nathan Mathis v. Roy L. Thornell, State Fire Marshal

Fifth Circuit

Ronald Paul Adams, Etc., United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee v. Nathan Mathis v. Roy L. Thornell, State Fire Marshal

614 F.2d 42, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 19593

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 17, 1980

Docket78-2035

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 614 F.2d 42 (Ronald Paul Adams, Etc., United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee v. Nathan Mathis v. Roy L. Thornell, State Fire Marshal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ronald Paul Adams, Etc., United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee v. Nathan Mathis v. Roy L. Thornell, State Fire Marshal, 614 F.2d 42, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 19593 (5th Cir. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This class litigation was instituted by the filing of a pro se complaint alleging serious constitutional violations in the operation of the Houston County Jail in Dothan, Alabama. In March 1975 the Court granted the motion of the United States to intervene and subsequently certified a class of plaintiffs consisting of all inmates of the jail at any time since the suit was filed, as well as all future inmates to be confined in that facility.

The District Court found that the jail was seriously overcrowded, posed a health hazard, was psychologically debilitating to inmates, did not adequately protect inmates from harm, had no classification system, and did not adequately separate male and female inmates. The District Judge’s order of extensive relief was commensurate in scope with that of the infirmities discerned. 1 Williams v. Edwards, 547 F. 2d 1206 (5th Cir. 1977); Newman v. Alabama, 503 F.2d at 1320 (5th Cir. 1974). We affirm on the basis of the District Court’s opinion at 458 F.Supp. 302.

AFFIRMED.

1

. Pursuant to court order, defendants have filed reports which reflect clear compliance with the specifics. The Fire Marshal argues that he has complied as precisely as possible, but seeks relief from the language which prohibits him, generally, from “depriving any member of the class of his or her constitutional rights.” He argues persuasively that this language does not apprise him of the acts he is restrained from doing. Defendants may and should seek clarification from the district court.

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

PER CURIAM:

This class litigation was instituted by the filing of a pro se complaint alleging serious constitutional violations in the operation of the Houston County Jail in Dothan, Alabama. In March 1975 the Court granted the motion of the United States to intervene and subsequently certified a class of plaintiffs consisting of all inmates of the jail at any time since the suit was filed, as well as all future inmates to be confined in that facility.

The District Court found that the jail was seriously overcrowded, posed a health hazard, was psychologically debilitating to inmates, did not adequately protect inmates from harm, had no classification system, and did not adequately separate male and female inmates. The District Judge’s order of extensive relief was commensurate in scope with that of the infirmities discerned. 1 Williams v. Edwards, 547 F. 2d 1206 (5th Cir. 1977); Newman v. Alabama, 503 F.2d at 1320 (5th Cir. 1974). We affirm on the basis of the District Court’s opinion at 458 F.Supp. 302.

AFFIRMED.

1

. Pursuant to court order, defendants have filed reports which reflect clear compliance with the specifics. The Fire Marshal argues that he has complied as precisely as possible, but seeks relief from the language which prohibits him, generally, from “depriving any member of the class of his or her constitutional rights.” He argues persuasively that this language does not apprise him of the acts he is restrained from doing. Defendants may and should seek clarification from the district court.

Donald J. Lareau v. John R. Manson, Commissioner of Correction, State of Connecticut, Defendant- Jesus Campos, James Scott, Jr., Donald J. Lareau and Clarence King v. John R. Manson, Commissioner of Correction, State of Connecticut, and Richard Wezowicz, Warden, Hartford Community Correctional Center, Defendants

651 F.2d 96 (Second Circuit, 1981)

Lareau v. Manson

507 F. Supp. 1177 (D. Connecticut, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

614 F.2d 42, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 19593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ronald-paul-adams-etc-united-states-of-america-ca5-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack