881 F.3d 346
5th Cir.2018Background
- Three death-row inmates at Louisiana State Penitentiary (Ball, Code, Magee) sued under the Eighth Amendment alleging extreme heat in non–air-conditioned cells and medical vulnerability to heat-related injury.
- District court initially entered a broad injunction (First Plan) requiring reducing/maintaining heat indices to 88°F and effectively facility-wide air conditioning; Fifth Circuit in Ball I found an Eighth Amendment violation but held that the First Plan violated the PLRA and Gates.
- On remand the State implemented a narrower Second Plan (cold showers, ice, personal fans, ice machines); parties also trialed additional experimental measures (Third Plan) during settlement talks (stipulated as Rule 408 materials).
- District court admitted evidence about the Third Plan, found the Second Plan inadequate, and entered a modified injunction adopting many Third Plan measures (relocation, diverted pod air vent, plastic curtain, IcyBreeze units and ice), triggered when heat index exceeded 88°F.
- State appealed, arguing the district court violated the Ball I mandate by (1) imposing a maximum heat-index requirement and (2) effectively mandating air conditioning (IcyBreeze units); it also challenged admission of Third Plan evidence under Rule 408.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court could rely on or impose a maximum heat index (88°F) on remand | Ball: district court may assess measures needed to remedy continued constitutional harm and may consider heat-index evidence | State: Ball I foreclosed relitigation of a maximum heat index; mandate forbids imposing a ceiling | Court: Reversed—Ball I foreclosed adopting a maximum heat index; district court violated the mandate by incorporating an 88°F ceiling |
| Whether IcyBreeze units = impermissible air conditioning | Ball: IcyBreeze are ice chests with fans, similar to measures approved in Ball I/Gates (ice, fans); thus permissible | State: IcyBreeze functionally provide cold air akin to air conditioning forbidden by Ball I | Court: IcyBreeze units are not air conditioning and are permissible; district court may order them if narrowly necessary |
| Whether other Third Plan measures exceed Ball I / PLRA limits (diverted pod air, relocation, fans, ice, showers) | Ball: these measures are among remedies suggested in Ball I and Gates and may be narrowly ordered | State: some measures may be more intrusive or effectively facility-wide cooling | Court: Most measures fall within Ball I; relief must still be narrowly drawn, least intrusive, and limited to plaintiffs per PLRA |
| Whether admitting evidence of the Third Plan violated Rule 408 | Ball: evidence of conduct affecting conditions and feasibility is admissible under Rule 408(b) for supervisory/feasibility purposes | State: Third Plan arose from compromise negotiations and was excluded by stipulation and Rule 408(a)(2) | Court: No abuse of discretion—district court permissibly admitted Third Plan evidence for non-prohibited purposes (feasibility, supervision); if error, likely harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Ball v. LeBlanc, 792 F.3d 584 (5th Cir. 2015) (earlier panel found Eighth Amendment violation but limited remedial relief under PLRA and Gates)
- Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323 (5th Cir. 2004) (approved fans, ice water, and showers as remedies when heat index reaches 90°F)
- Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493 (2011) (courts’ continuing duty to assess efficacy and consequences of systemic injunctive relief)
- Baum v. Blue Moon Ventures, 513 F.3d 181 (5th Cir. 2008) (modification of injunctions constrained by prior mandates and law-of-the-case)
- United States v. Teel, 691 F.3d 578 (5th Cir. 2012) (mandate-rule and law-of-the-case review standards)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard)