On March 28, 2011, a class of HIV-positive men and women imprisoned by the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC) filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, under the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act. The plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU of Alabama, the national ACLU, the ACLU AIDS Project, and the ACLU National Prison Project, sought declaratory and injunctive relief and class certification.
The plaintiffs alleged that the ADOC's policy of segregating HIV-positive prisoners from the rest of the general population violated the ADA. Specifically, they alleged that the ADOC did not provide those prisoners with equal treatment because they excluded them from certain housing units, substance abuse programs, jobs, certain medical treatment, and work release. Additionally, the plaintiffs challenged the ADOC policy of publicizing the prisoners' HIV-positive status by requiring them to wear white armbands, stigmatizing those with HIV.
On August 30, 2012, the District Court (Judge Myron H. Thompson) approved the plaintiff's motion to certify the class, finding that the requirements for class certification had been met (289 F.R.D. 506). The class definition was "all present and future and future HIV positive inmates incarcerated in ADOC prisons."
On September 5, 2012, Judge Thompson denied the defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In this ruling, Judge Thompson found that the plaintiffs "plausibly alleged" that the prisoners' HIV status qualified as an impairment that substantially limited a major life ability, as required under the definition of disability under the ADA, because the immune system of the person diagnosed was impaired. He also found that the claim under the Rehabilitation Act was sufficient because HIV did not fall under the Act's contagious disease exception. Judge Thompson also held that the plaintiffs did not need to exhaust their administrative remedies, as required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, because the prison did not provide appropriate forms for the prisoners to use to file administrative grievances. Finally, he held that sovereign immunity did not apply, and thus the ADOC could be sued. 891 F. Supp. 2d 1296.
On December 21, 2012, Judge Thompson held that the policies of the ADOC did violate the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. After finding that the plaintiffs had standing to sue and that their claims were not moot, Judge Thompson held that the blanket policy of segregation violated the two acts and that housing HIV-positive inmates at other facilities would not pose an undue burden on the state. The court did not address the allegations regarding the work release policy. 2012 WL 6681773.
On August 1, 2013, the parties reached a preliminary settlement. On August 6, the court preliminarily approved the proposed settlement agreement. Under the terms of the detailed agreement, the defendant agreed to the following: discontinuation of separate HIV housing and isolation at intake; revision of all HIV-specific policies and protocols; maintenance of an Acute Care Unit for inmate care; implementation of a detailed procedure before any HIV-positive inmate is transferred to defendant's facilities; adoption of new hiring and reporting requirements; and payment of $1.3 million in attorneys fees.
A consent decree entering the final approval of the parties' settlement was issued on September 30, 2013, and the court retained jurisdiction over the case. This primary agreement covered 14 of the 29 facilities in the state, and was developed in addition to a private agreement on the other 15 facilities. Both settlements had June 30, 2015 as expiration date (the private agreement followed the date set for the primary agreement).
On December 08, 2015, the defendants were ordered to pay $ 99,000.00 in additional attorney’s fees, regarding the work done since the entry of the consent decree.
After the payment of the additional fees, the case was dismissed in its entirety with prejudice on January 8, 2016. On April 8, 2016, a motion to reopen the case was denied, and Judge Thompson reiterated that this litigation was over.
The case is closed.
Jonathan Forman - 07/05/2013
Priyah Kaul - 11/18/2014
Marcella Pereira Ferraro - 05/17/2019
compress summary
