Henderson v. Thomas
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123722
M.D. Ala.2012Background
- Eight HIV+ inmates challenge ADOC's policy segregating HIV+ prisoners from the general population as disability discrimination under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.
- Plaintiffs move for certification of a class comprising all present and future HIV+ inmates in ADOC prisons.
- HIV+ inmates are housed in specific facilities (males: Limestone or Decatur Work Release; females: Tutwiler or Montgomery Women's Facility) with segregation and armband disclosures.
- Defendants allegedly apply discriminatory criteria for work-release transfers, restrict program participation, and prohibit HIV+ inmates from food-service jobs; medical-clearance policy is implicated.
- Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief; Leatherwood consent decree (expired 2006) addressed HIV healthcare but does not eliminate ongoing constitutional obligations.
- Court certifies a class under Rule 23(a) and (b)(2), allowing present and future HIV+ inmates to be represented by named plaintiffs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the class satisfies Rule 23 numerosity | Henderson et al. show ~260 HIV+ inmates; sufficient members. | Some inmates may be ineligible for certain programs, but still not defeat numerosity. | Numerosity satisfied. |
| Whether commonality and typicality are met | All plaintiffs share the same disability and effects of HIV segregation policy. | Factual differences may defeat commonality. | Commonality and typicality satisfied. |
| Whether the class is adequately represented | Named plaintiffs can adequately pursue class claims and have no irreconcilable conflicts. | Potential conflicts due to prior HIV care arrangements under Leatherwood decree. | Adequacy of representation satisfied; conflicts not fundamental. |
| Whether Rule 23(b)(2) certification is appropriate | Plaintiffs seek prospective, class-wide relief for an overarching policy. | Relief could be individualized; challenges to relief scope. | Rule 23(b)(2) certification appropriate. |
| Whether female HIV+ inmates may be included in the class | Female HIV+ inmates face the same overarching policy as males. | Small class size and unique circumstances for women. | Inclusion of female HIV+ prisoners within the class authorized. |
Key Cases Cited
- Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 350 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir. 2003) (burden to prove all Rule 23 requirements; role at certification)
- Jackson v. Motel 6 Multipurpose, Inc., 130 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 1997) ( Rule 23(a) prerequisites and 23(b) requirements)
- Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 (U.S. 1974) (class-action merits not resolved at certification; merits considered to degree necessary)
- Kornberg v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 741 F.2d 1332 (11th Cir. 1984) (nexus for typicality: same event/pattern and legal theory)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (commonality and typicality; economy of class action)
- Onishea v. Hopper, 171 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 1999) (Rule 23(b)(2) certification history)
- Edwards v. Alabama Department of Corrections, 81 F. Supp. 2d 1242 (M.D. Ala. 2000) (class treatment of prisoners and systemic challenges)
- Prado-Steiman ex rel. Prado v. Bush, 221 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2000) (typicality supported by shared legal theories)