David Bailey v. Bryan Collier, 868 F.3d 354

Background

Six named plaintiffs incarcerated at the Wallace Pack Unit (≈1,400 inmates); housing areas are not air-conditioned and summer indoor heat index frequently exceeds 90° and can reach ≈100°.
Plaintiffs (filed 2014) allege Eighth Amendment cruel-and-unusual-conditions claims and ADA/Rehabilitation Act claims for failure to provide reasonable accommodations for heat‑sensitive or disabled inmates.
Plaintiffs sought certification of a General Class (all Pack Unit inmates) and two subclasses: a Heat‑Sensitive Subclass and a Disability Subclass; district court certified all three classes under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2).
Defendants operate the Pack Unit and rely on heat‑mitigation measures (extra showers, cold water, fans, temporary access to air‑conditioned "respite areas"); plaintiffs presented expert evidence that these measures are inadequate to reduce the risk of serious heat‑related harm.
Defendants appealed certification, arguing lack of commonality, Rule 23(b)(2) unsuitability (insufficient specificity of injunctive relief), and that the PLRA restricts class certification at the certification stage.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed: district court’s factual findings about mitigation inadequacy were not clearly erroneous; class and subclasses were properly certified; the PLRA does not alter Rule 23(b)(2) certification requirements.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Commonality under Rule 23(a)(2) for General Class	Pack Unit conditions and mitigation practices are uniform; experts show mitigation fails to reduce risk below constitutional baseline for all inmates, creating a common question whether conditions pose substantial risk	Because risk varies by age/health, inadmissible to resolve "substantial risk" for all inmates together; must show even healthiest inmates face substantial risk despite mitigation	Affirmed: district court’s factual finding that mitigation is ineffective for all inmates was plausible; commonality satisfied (one common question suffices)
Commonality for Subclasses (heat‑sensitive, disability)	Same common contentions as General Class; mitigation ineffective for vulnerable inmates and disability subclass also shares claim that reasonable accommodations were not provided	Risk still varies among vulnerable inmates; cannot be resolved class‑wide	Affirmed: subclasses share common questions and were properly certified
Appropriateness of Rule 23(b)(2) certification / specificity of injunctive relief	Requested injunctive relief (e.g., maintain heat index ≤88° or other relief sufficient to protect inmates) provides adequate content; defendants’ conduct applies uniformly so class relief is appropriate	Relief is not specified enough; court must identify a single form of injunctive relief appropriate for all class members	Affirmed: (b)(2) satisfied—defendant’s conduct applies generally; plaintiffs provided sufficiently specific possible remedies (e.g., heat‑index target, air conditioning) for certification stage
Role of PLRA (18 U.S.C. § 3626) at certification stage	PLRA limits prospective relief but does not alter class certification standards; PLRA restraints arise when a court fashions prospective relief after liability is found	PLRA’s "narrowly drawn/least intrusive" requirements must be considered at certification and thus bar (or limit) (b)(2) certification here	Affirmed: PLRA does not modify Rule 23(b)(2) certification analysis; PLRA issues arise when court crafts prospective relief post‑judgment, not at certification

Key Cases Cited

Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323 (5th Cir. 2004) (upheld class‑wide injunctive relief for excessive heat—fans, ice water, daily showers—under Eighth Amendment)
Ball v. LeBlanc, 792 F.3d 584 (5th Cir. 2015) (affirmed Eighth Amendment violation for extreme prison heat; discussed remedies and PLRA tailoring)
Hinojosa v. Livingston, 807 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 2015) (recognized Eighth Amendment right to be free from exposure to extremely dangerous temperatures without adequate remedial measures)
Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (Rule 23(a)(2) commonality requires a common contention capable of class‑wide resolution)
M.D. ex rel. Stukenberg v. Perry, 675 F.3d 832 (5th Cir. 2012) (district court must conduct a rigorous analysis under Rule 23; standard of review for certification)
In re Rodriguez, 695 F.3d 360 (5th Cir. 2012) (Rule 23(b)(2) looks to common behavior by defendant toward class)
Maldonado v. Ochsner Clinic Found., 493 F.3d 521 (5th Cir. 2007) (Rule 23(b)(2) requires injunctive relief to be specific and provide content to craft detailed relief)
Williams v. Edwards, 87 F.3d 126 (5th Cir. 1996) (PLRA does not apply until court fashions prospective relief)