Jones v. Gusman, 2013 WL 2458817

Background

Consent judgment approved to remedy unlawful conditions at Orleans Parish Prison (OPP) and to settle related claims by Class Plaintiffs, the United States, and Sheriff; City of New Orleans opposes the consent judgment and seeks to litigate funding obligations as a third-party defendant.
OPP comprises seven facilities housing 2,400–2,500 inmates with systemic deficiencies in safety/security, medical/mental health care, environmental conditions, fire safety, and LEP services.
Consent judgment sets multi-component reforms (safety, mental/medical health care, sanitation, fire safety, language access, youthful prisoners) overseen by a Monitor and compliance coordinator; funding is determined via a two-stage process with a funding trial and possible court resolution.
Court held the proposed consent judgment complies with the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) narrow tailoring requirement and is narrowly drawn, the least intrusive means, and adequately addresses constitutional rights violations.
A separate unopposed motion seeks class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) to include all current and future OPP inmates; notice and public comment were provided; court approves certification and the settlement.
Public comments broadly supported the settlement and court found the class action appropriate for injunctive relief addressing systemic conditions at OPP.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the consent decree comply with PLRA narrow tailoring?	Plaintiffs argue remedies are tailored to address systemic rights violations.	City/Sheriff contend the decree may be broader than necessary and funding may burden third parties.	Yes; decree is narrowly tailored to remedy constitutional violations and minimizes public-safety impact.
Are the safety and security provisions of the decree appropriate and sufficient?	Remedies address staffing, supervision, classification, and accountability to reduce violence/abuse.	Arguments centered on funding and potential overbreadth.	Provisions are narrowly drawn, address identified deficiencies, and are necessary to remedy rights violations.
Is the monitoring/compliance structure appropriate?	Monitor access and reporting are essential to verify compliance.	No substantial opposition raised beyond funding concerns.	Yes; Monitor and Compliance Coordinator framework is adequate for oversight.
Is the funding provision and City’s third-party status properly handled?	Funding process must ensure constitutional remedies and City participation.	Funding disputes should respect City’s budgeting role and legal obligations.	Funding provisions are properly structured; City participation is permitted and disputes are resolvable with court involvement if needed.
Should the settlement be certified as a class action under Rule 23(b)(2)?	Settlement class of all current and future OPP inmates benefits from uniform relief.	Opposition was limited to funding and process; no substantial class issues contested.	Yes; class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is appropriate and the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.

Key Cases Cited

Williams v. City of New Orleans, 729 F.2d 1554 (5th Cir.1984) (standard for evaluating consent decrees and fairness under PLRA)
Plata v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 1910 (Supreme Court 2011) (narrow tailoring and balance to public safety under PLRA)
Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323 (5th Cir.2004) (aggregate approach to conditions of confinement and systemic remedies)
Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir.1974) (remediation of prison conditions requires holistic remedies; changes post-pledge not moot)
M.D. ex rel. Stukenberg v. Perry, 675 F.3d 832 (5th Cir.2012) (class certification for systemic, injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2))
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (Supreme Court 1997) (context for settlement class certification considerations)
Brown v. Plata, — U.S.—, 131 S. Ct. 1910 (2011) (PLRA narrow tailoring and constitutional remediation)