Elzie Ball v. James LeBlanc

PRADO, OWEN, GRAVES, snitсhes, jury Before allowed the happens, to what Judges. conspired Mitchell Circuit reasonably to infer that person to lure unknown third with an * mur- meeting where she was to a

Williams PER CURIAM: phone remained in dered while Mitchell attorney represent appointed person while Mitchell contact with that for Sergio Oliveros-Martinez has moved Rey. The evidence is del was in Marina withdraw and has filed brief leave.to beyond a reason- to demonstrate sufficient California, 386 accordance with Anders v. conspired Mitchell with able doubt 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 87 S.Ct. U.S. at least one other and abetted and aided Flores, (1967), and United States v. night July on the person to kill Williams (5th Cir.2011). Oliveros-Mar- F.3d 229 29, 2010. have response. tinez has not filed We AFFIRMED. reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant

portions of the record reflected therein. that, concur with counsel’s assessment We if is not enforced appeal even waiver Oliveros-Martinez, against appeal presents appel no nonfrivolous issue for America, UNITED STATES Accordingly, late review. counsel’s motion Plaintiff-Appellee GRANTED, for leave to withdraw is coun v. responsibilities sel is excused from further herein, APPEAL and the IS DISMISSED. OLIVEROS-MARTINEZ, Sergio See 5th Cm. R. 42.2. Defendant-Appellant. No. 14-50204

Summary Calendar. Appeals, States Court of

United

Fifth Circuit.

July Jr., Gay, Atty.,

. H. Asst. Joseph U.S. Office, Antonio, TX, Attorney’s

U.S. San Plaintiff-Appellee. BALL; Code; Elzie Nathaniel James Leach, Law Office of E. Evers Jason Magee, Plaintiffs-Appellees Leach, Odessa, TX, Jason for Defendant- Cross-Appellants Appellant. n Oliveros-Martinez, Worth, Sergio Fort

TX, pro se. LeBLANC, Secretary, Depart James M. Safety

ment of Public Correc tions; Cain, Warden, Burl Louisiana Penitentiary; Angela Norwood, State * 47.5, Cir. R. the court has the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. Pursuant 5th opinion determined that should not be this R. 47.5.4. published prеcedent except and is not under Row; De Louisiana of Death Warden Safety and Correc

partment of Public Defendants-Appellants

tions, Cross-

Appellees. 14-30067.

No. Appeals, Court of

United States

Fifth Circuit.

July Depart-

Three inmates sued the Louisiana (the “State”) ment of Corrections and vari- capaci- ous officials their official ties,1 claiming that they the heat endure during the summer months violates the Eighth pre- Amendment because of their Hardy Montagnes, Elizabeth Mercedes existing problems. They medical also as- Compa, O’Kane Promise of Justice Claire provide sert that the failure to air condi- Initiative, Kappel, Trenticosta Cecelia tioning violates the Americans with Dis- Orleans, LA, Project, New Capital Appeals (“ADA”), § Act abilities U.S.C. Bird, Marella, Nilay (argued), U.' Vora (“RA”), and the Rehabilitation Act Nessim, Drooks, Boxer, Lince- Wolpert, & trial, U.S.C. 794. After a bench CA, P.C., berg, Angeles, Los for Plaintiff- district court sustained the Appellee Cross-Appellant. claims, rejected Amendment their Joseрh (argued), Guillot Edmond Grant claims, disability injunction and issued an General, Shows, Attorney Assistant Wade effectively ordering the Defendants to in- Shows, Walsh, L.L.P., & Carlton Cali conditioning throughout stall air death Parsons, Jones, ‍‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​‍III, Roedel, Koch, Blache, row. McCollister, A.L.C., Balhoff & Edmond Although the trial findings court’s General, shows, Shows, Atty. Asst. Wade by prison deliberate indifference officials Walsh, L.L.P., LA, Rouge, & Baton Cali particular to these inmates’ serious heat- Defendant-Appellant Cross-Appellee. vulnerability support related suffice to East, Attorney, Brian D. Senior Scott violation, scope constitutional of its Medlock, Austin, TX, Erin Helene Charles injunctive prior prece relief exceeds our DC, Flynn, Esq., Washington, Hiren Pra- Cook, dent, Gates Patel, Houston, TX, for Amicus vinchandra Cir.2004), Litigation Re the Prison Curiae (“PLRA”), form Act 18 U.S.C.

Despite oversight concerning applicable an law, rejecting the court did not err in the prisoners’ disability claims. affirm in We REAVLEY, Before JONES and part, vacate and remand the court’s but ELROD, Judges. Circuit injunction for consideration.2 further JONES, Judge: EDITH H. Circuit BACKGROUND

In Louisiana built a new state-of- 25,000 square-foot death-row prison facility Angola’s the-art to house death-row facility3 pod by of a surrounded facility, inmates. The cells in that located consists Louisiana, housing wings. pod four Inside the are Angola, conditioning. in lack air LeBlanc, ruling renders moot the include James M. 2. Our issuance of this 1.The officials Secretary Department of stay pending of the Louisiana request we the Plaintiffs' lift Corrections; Safety Nathan Burl Public and appeal. Cain, Warden of the Louisiana State Peniten- Norwood, tiary Angola; Angela in and Assis- 3. The death row unit is one of several build- charge tant Warden in of death row. We ings collectively known as the "Louisiana collectively appellants all as "the refer to Only Penitentiary" "Angola.” the State or against officials in their State” because suit here, facility implicated howev- death-row capacity only essentially against official the er. State of Louisiana. rooms, offices, by conditioning, exacer- visitation ameliorated air administrative clinic, center, and dental a control ailments, dizziness, medical causing bates their chamber. Within each of and an execution headaches, cramps. and wings, of housing four two tiers cells the Each inmate filed administrative com- A Each tier is lettered sit back-to-back. that the heat was exac- plaints explaining housing the tiers through H. None of are erbating requesting his conditions and air conditioned, facility air but the rest of the conditioning. denied their The Defendants heat, the windows is. To alleviate summer rulings the requests. appeals Internal (which opened) can be line the exterior Consequently, were unsuccessful. June housing of each tier. Next to the wall 2013, the inmates sued the Louisiana De- fans, windows are 30-inch which serve two and offi- partment Corrections adjoining cells. Inside each cell is a six- the asserting cials claims under by-eight-inch vent that draws air into the Amendment’s ban on cruel unusual cell from the window across the tier and punishment and violations of the ADA and vents outside. relief, prisoners sought RA. As the Although spend death-row inmates injunction requiring keep the state to the cells, in- twenty-three day hours a their heat index at or below 88° F. provide pota- cell sinks unlimited access to enjoy access to ble watеr. Inmates also ice. later, appoint- A month the district court chest, housing Each tier has an ice which Management ed United States Risk Angola the staff maintains. Inmates can (“USRM”) temperature to monitor the during the access chest themselves facility. During monitoring period, day they the one hour allowed to July August 5, to15 on walk the tiers. The rest of the time in- ranged tiers A and H from 78.26° 92.66° depend guards mates on or other inmates Meanwhile, ranged F.5 the heat index from for ice.4 The uncontroverted evidence separate days 81.5° to 107.79° F. On five run shows that the ice chests out from surpassed the heat index on tier A 100° F. time, time to either because the lone ice H, surpassed tier F On heat index 100° machine cannot it generate enough ice or days. on seven breaks. period, After the data collection the dis- here, Ball, plaintiffs The three Elzie Na- three-day trict court held a bench trial. Code, Magee, long- thaniel and James Experts testified about the Plaintiffs’ med- Angola’s time residents of facili- death-row conditions, ical conditions on death A, ty. Magee lives Ball on tier while row, design and construction H. Code live on tier Each suffers from facility, and the effectiveness of current various conditions: all three practices and procedures. judge per- The hypertension; have Ball has diabetes and sonally facility toured the to observe the obese; is hepa- Code is also obese and has conditions first-hand. months la- Several titis; Magee depressed high and and has ter, 100-page the district court issued a They variety cholesterol. take a of medi- ruling concluded the conditions on cations to control their аilments. Accord- inmates, heat, ing to the the extreme not death row are cruel and unusual because temperature Inmates can distribute ice to other inmates 5. USRM monitored the on all the during they the one hour walk But allowed to tiers. because the Plaintiffs reside If, however, H, spend the tiers. inmates A a those on tiers and and because this is not class-action, showering, only readings their free hour in recreation or from those tiers may appeal. then the other inmates not receive ice. are relevant to this

591 year. proving the burden of that the error during parts heat was of extreme ADA and prejudicial. denied the See Dietz v. Consol. Oil & The court (5th Gas, Inc., 1088, they because are not disabled. 643 F.2d 1093 RA claims Cir. violation, 1981) (quoting on the constitutional v. Talley Based Liner J.B. and (5th Cir.1980)). injunction, Co., 327, a re- permanent сourt issued Inc. 618 F.2d develop keep to quiring plan the state to The district court did not abuse its at 88° F. Effective- the heat index or below by admitting rely evidence of or discretion court ordered Louisiana to ly, the district ing on the heat index. The thrust of the conditioning. Both sides now install air argument is that heat in State’s because appeal. number, dex is derived courts cannot use ruling. Although it as a basis for DISCUSSION expert meteorologist, Jay Grymes, State’s The parties present The four issues. testified that the heat index is “not a real that the district court Defendants assert number,” testimony rest his bolsters evidentiary rul made several erroneous example, the use of the heat index. For a constitutional viola ings, wrongly found Grymes testified that the heat index ais tion, injunction and issued an overbroad “guideline “provide[s] number” and that he PLRA, contrary to the 18 U.S.C. guide heat index as a to [his] viewers Cook, and 376 F.3d 323 Cir. Gates Vassallo, make better decisions.” Dr. Susi 2004). cross-appeal The inmates’ contends expert, the Plaintiffs’ testified that peer superseded that the district court used a scientific articles measure the reviewed they definition to determine whether correlation between heat index and mor ADA RA. disabled under the We re bidity mortality. court This also has first, liability view the issues then relied on the heat index before. See injunction. scope of the Gates, (upholding 376 F.3d at 339 in ice, water, creased access to and showers I. Evidence F.). when the heat index exceeds 90° In evidentiary objections are The State’s proof, the absence of further the court did easily It that the heat resolved. contends not abuse its discretion. index, on which the district court bаsed its about complaint The State’s the court’s ruling, inherently inap- unreliable and taking judicial publicly notice of available It con- propriate settings. also similarly evidence is weak. The court cit- that the court should not have taken tends ed an article from the National Weather judicial pro- notice of other facts without Major website called Heat: A Service's viding opportunity respond. State and referred to read- Killer objections are meritless. Air- ings Rouge Regional from the Baton evidentiary rulings We review port. for abuse of discretion. Battle ex rel. Bat not Because the district did Gulfport, Mem’l Hosp. tle v. (5th Cir.2000) taking warn the State that it would be (citing Jon-T materials, judicial notice of these the State Chemicals, Co., Freeport Inc. v. Chem. (5th Cir.1983)). “deprived opportu it complains wаs if F.2d Even nity request opportunity to an to be heard discretion, the court abused its this court 201, however, regarding the data.” Rule presume will the error is harmless. See judi 61; contemplates taking courts’ Bocanegra expressly v. Vicmar Fed.R.Civ.P. ‍‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​‍(5th Servs., Inc., 581, warning. prior cial notice without See 320 F.3d 584 Cir. 201(e) (“If 2003). ju- the court takes party asserting The the error has Fed.R.Evid. 592 (1993) to an (holding exposure 22 party, a the L.Ed.2d notifying

dicial notice before plain to be to request, damage [a is still entitled risk of party, on “unreasonable added)); 21B KenNeth Eighth (emphasis heard.” actionable under the health” tiffs] Seiter, Jr., GRAham, Amendment); W. also v. & Proo. Evid. see Wilson Fed. Prao. ed.) (Rule (2d 201 “not re- does 2327, 5109 294, 304, 2321, 111 115 501 S.Ct. U.S. judicial parties that quire any notice to (1991) “a (postulating 271 that low L.Ed.2d taken,” party and “a to be notice about [is] a night at combined with cell all”). at The no advanсe notice might get can violate the failure to issue blankets” moreover, State, not avail itself of the did Gates, Amendment); at 376 F.3d Eighth pro- the court to provision requiring Rule’s of both requisite proof 339. Without heard. See opportunity to be vide Fed. of an subjective objective components 201(e); also Fed.R.Civ.P. See R.Evm violation, however, Eighth Amendment 59(a)(2) (“After trial, nonjury the court a merely prison heat “uncomfortable” trial, open the may, motion for a new on “a human er’s cell does not reflect basic entered, take judgment if one has been prison need that the has failed to meet” testimony, findings of additional amend constitutionally suspect. Woods and is not of law or make new fact and conclusions Edwards, 577, 51 F.3d 581 Cir. v. ones, entry judg- of a new and direct 1995). ment.”). event, expla- any In the State’s predicatе findings The of a vague, cursory is prejudice nation of harm and offi substantial risk of serious showing It makes no that unpersuasive. of the cials’ deliberate indifference to risk the district court’s consideration or Baton National Service article error. findings Weather factual reviewed for clear Rouge temperature readings altered Gates, 333; Bryant, at v. 376 F.3d Thomas Dietz, at outcome. See 643 F.2d (11th Cir.2010) 1288, (citing 614 F.3d 1312 judicial objections fail as well as notice Farmer, 842, 114 511 U.S. at S.Ct. “ objection. the heat index 1981). finding clearly ‘A erroneous if sup it is without substantial evidence Eighth II. Amendment it, the effect port misinterpreted the court Turning Eighth to the Plaintiffs’ evidence, or convinced this claims, Amendment the Constitution findings against prepon “ ” prisons,’ ‘does not mandate comfortable testimony.’ Petro derance credible permit it inhumane ones.” but nеither does L.P., La., L.P. Props., Chesapeake v. hawk Brennan, 825, 832, 114 Farmer v. 511 U.S. (5th Cir.2012) 380, (quoting 689 F.3d (1994) 1970, 1976, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 S.Ct. Co., French v. Allstate Indem. (quoting Chapman, Rhodes v. U.S. (5th Cir.2011)). 571, 577 This court re 337, 349, 101 S.Ct. 69 L.Ed.2d found views de novo whether the facts so (1981)). temperatures, Extreme cell Gates, Eighth Amendment. violate the therefore, Eighth can violate the Amend 376 F.3d. at 333. ment. To be tantamount to the infliction reasons, For various the State asserts punishment, prison of cruel and unusual the Plaintiffs are not at substantial “an unreasonable pose conditions must risk of serious harm and its officials were prisoner’s damage” risk of serious deliberately not indifferent to this risk. objective health—an test—and offi Further, that, contends because the State cials must have acted with deliberate indif provides it the remedies this court man- subjective posed ference to the risk —a Gates, dated in there can be no McKinney, 509 U.S. Helling test. 33-35, 2475, 2481-82, violation as a matter of law. 125 Amendment S.Ct. prisoners proper to the trial receive care for reject challenges these their ail- We ments, findings. they may at increased court’s be risk heat stroke. This evidence of the Plain- mainly on Dr. testimo- Based Vassallo’s heightened vulnerability tiffs’ high to that the heat ny, the court found district temperatures, combined with the USRM risk of plaintiffs these 'at substantial puts showing high temp- data the Vassallo, According harm. to Dr. serious H, eratures on tiers A and led the court to is critical for system the cardiovascular find that the Plaintiffs are at substantial body maintaining temperature. normal risk serious harm. hyperten- Dr. testified that both Vassallo adversely and diabetes can affect this sion argues The State that the totality system. critical “The heart has to be able record evidenсe refutes Dr. Vassallo’s very hard to meet the demands of pump to opinion. Specifically, the district court dis- can Hypertension generally de- heat.” counted the arguments State’s that no ability crease “the of the blood vessels prisoner death-row has ever suffered a result, As a those vessels open and close.” incident; heat-related prisoners’ these be,” compliant they “not as as should signs medical records no show heat- they “they open can’t like should have illness; prisoners’ poor dietary related heat,” response to and blood there- to in choices and failure to exercise caused their body. cannot circulate to cool the fore problems; prisoners’ health and the suffer Therefore, gen- people hypertension with high pressure year, just blood all not controlling have a hard time erally can Thus, the summer months. the State con- body temperature. The same is true their tends, do not suffer an un- people for with diabetes. Cardiovascular reasonable of serious heat-related in- risk disease, diabetes, which can result from jury at all. vessels, can harden arteries blood fail to that These facts show result, inhibiting circulation. As thus First, clearly erred. the district ability can lose to circulate blood diabetics Angola, including plaintiffs, no one at these ability and thus the to maintain properly has ever had a heat-related incident and body temperature. normal records do prisoner’s these medical hypertension for can The treatments signs not show of heat-related illness ability to further inhibit these prove To unconstitutional insufficient. bоdy temperature. Specifically, regulate conditions, inmates need not show blockers, help which control blood beta injury already has that death or serious compound hyper- can the effects pressure, Helling, 509 occurred. See U.S. system. has on the cardiovascular tension (“That at 2481 Amend S.Ct. prevent Beta blockers blood vessels from harm to in against ment future protects dilating properly while at the same time proposition.”). They mates is not a novel “decreasing] ability pump as heart’s need show that there is “substantial requirements hard and to meet the of heat Gates, of serious harm.” 376 F.3d at risk Likewise, decrease or exercise.” diuretics Further, provided Dr. a rea Vassallo the total amount of water and salt past the lack of explanation sonable body, resulting in fluid around which less plaintiffs: harm to these “heat stroke is a According can contract. to Dr. the heart thermoregulation failure of which is dra Vassallo, fluid to con- without sufficient It occurs sudden catastrophic. matic and tract, the heart is unable to meet suddenly from ly.... People can suffer on the car- places increased demands heat Therefore, having com- if stroke without ever system. diovascular even heat 594 Wilson, result, safety.” (quoting a or Id. U.S. the weather.” As

plained about 2326). 302-303, 111 at Deliberate plausibly concluded that at S.Ct. court the district two-prong inquiry. at a substantial risk indifference is itself a Plaintiffs here are facts of serious harm.6 An official must both be “aware of from which the inference could be drawn Second, forego Plaintiffs ex- because harm that a substantial risk of serious food, junk overeat the State ercise and the infer- exists” and “he must also draw any accom- that their ailments and asserts 837, at at 1979. ence.” Id. S.Ct. are their own creation. Pris- panying risk requi- official had the prison “Whether a records confirm these inmates’ on canteen knowledge of a substantial risk is a site consumption unhealthy high of foods with question subject of fact to demonstration may sugar Although and salt content. this ways, including in inference from the usual true, conjectural evidence is at best be evidence, and a factfinder circumstantial plain- connection between these about the may prison conclude that a official knew of lifestyle. conditions and their We are tiffs’ very from fact that a substantial risk agree constrained to with the district that, at the risk was obvious.” Id. finding compris- court’s canteen food (internal diеts, quota- and S.Ct. at 1981 citations and part es omitted). medical conditions arise from a com- tion their marks factors, many bination of of which are out- variety of The district court relied on a Thus, side their control. the district showing that the of evidence State knew when, clearly in the did not err face disregarded and a substantial risk to the evidence, conflicting it found that these routinely personnel Plaintiffs. Medical at prisoners are substantial risk of serious prisoners monitor and administer medi- harm. daily. “closely cation Correctional officers Finally, year- that the suffer row, temperature monitor” the on death high pressure simply round blood irrele- recording every two vant to the district court’s substantial-risk Norwood, moreover, hours. Defendant finding. that prisoners’ complaint of, prison testified that the maintains list high pressurе places their blood them at closely, partic- and monitors more inmates abnormally high risk of heat stroke ularly susceptible to heat-related illness. during Louisiana’s extended hot season. list, None of the Plaintiffs was on the The lower risk other months does not although personally Norwood reviewed the vulnerability during offset their the sum- prisoner, inspected ARPs for each each any allergy mer more than an to insect records, prisoner’s medical interviewed bugs bites ceases to exist when the Code, Magee both Ball and and admits dormant winter. should have been on the list. Defendant always thinking Cain admitted he was

The second element for about “how to overcome the heat” and that liability requires “prison Amendment offi adding he considered extra fans and ice on ‘sufficiently culpable cials] havе [to] ” Farmer, strikingly, the tiers. Most after this suit at state mind.’ 511 U.S. filed, Wilson, during was the court-ordered (quoting 114 S.Ct. at 1977 501 U.S. 2323). monitoring period surrep- the Defendants 111 S.Ct. at “In titiously awnings began soak- conditions cases that state of mind is one installed ing of ‘deliberate indifference’ to inmate health some of the tiers’ exterior walls with however, emphasize, finding ry 6. We that the is tied to the individual health conditions of regarding inju- substantial risk a heat-related inmates. these corroboration, attempt in an to reduce the interior al water there is a substantial temperature. Their trick backfired. risk of serious harm. facts,

Based on these the district court Although the premise State’s is reasonably that the inferred Defendants correct, its conclusion that the district knew of a substantial risk of serious harm court’s deliberate finding indifference is to the Plaintiffs. erroneous does not follow. The district complains Yet the State that the deliber finding solely did not base its on the finding fundamentally ate indifference prisoners’ requests, administrative but on flawed because the district court relied totality of the record evidence. There solely on the administrative enough, is more than particularly ‍‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​‍light in remedy which requests, required un of the State’s attempt to cool down the 1997e(a). 42 der the PLRA. See U.S.C. awnings cells with misting without prove If that is sufficient to deliberate court, telling the to prove subjective indifference, continues, the State then awareness of a substantial risk of serious for a separately there is no need court to Therefore, harm. the district court’s de analyze prong. the deliberate indifference liberate finding clearly indifference is not statutory necessity, As a see Gonzalez v. erroneous.

Seal, Cir.2012), 702 F.3d 788 Even if it cannot overcome the district every case includes an administrative rem findings, court’s factual argues State edy request. a court finds that Whenever that this court’s decision Gates v. Cook prisoner’s complaint justified ie., a was — precludes liability. upheld Gates an in- that a there is substantial risk of harm— junction requiring Mississippi equip guilty violating the defendant will be fans, provide each cell with inmates with Eighth Amendment. water, additional access to ice and allow daily showers when the heat index in the agree

We with the Defendants’ cells exceeded 901 F. 376 F.3d at 339. premise request for administrative re —a The State claims to offer these exact reme- prove lief cannot alone deliberate indiffer year-round. dies request ence. A for administrative relief only is at best circumstantial that evidence court, however, The district demonstrat prison a offiсial is aware of facts from distinguishable. ed Gates is Where harm; which he can deduce a risk of it is cell, approved fans for fan Gates each each particularly strong not even evidence of in Angola’s death row serves two cells. grievances essentially that. Because LeBlanc, F.Supp.2d Ball v. 988 n. 680 evidence, pleadings, they (M.D.La.2013). not must have Although 100 a seemingly independent they verification difference, before be minor the district court found probative. Separating come the few meri not Angola] provide [at “the fans [do] complaints torious from the mountain cell, air equal amounts of flow to each nor complaints frivolous is as difficult work for provide the fans a cooling [do] detectable A prison officials as for federal courts. effect.” court in Id. district Gates legitimate complaint go unrecognized can also ordered increased in-cell access to ice. Here, contrast, by diligent by even the most official. As a 376 F.3d at 339. in result, administrator who has re mates have unfettered access to ice they remedy request during day ceived an administrative the one hour a can walk aware, Ball, necessarily F.Supp.2d not made without faetu- the tiers.7 at 680 n. then, leaving obtaining guarantee. casionally 7. Even ice down the tier ice is no breaks suggests empty. The record that the ice machine oc- chests cells, are disabled under prisoners that the are in their prisoners When definition, harm- any error was guards inmates or correct so on other they depend allows while State less. ice. Id. And day, ap- as once to shower con the district court’s Gates, We review temperature is the water proved novo, factual F. for of law de and its and 120° clusions maintained between Lightbourn little providing findings for clear error. thus purposes, sanitation Paso, Tex., ma- these Cnty. heat. Id. Given El relief from the Of preclude (5th Cir.1997). not differences, does made a Gates If the district court terial violated holding the State that affected its factual find legal error th.at Amendment. course unless ings, proper “remand is the only one resolution of permits the record fact, findings of we on its Based Pullman-Standard v. the factual issue.” that affirm conclusion the district court’s 1781, Swint, 273, 292, 102 S.Ct. 456 U.S. very cells hot housing prisoners these (1982); 1792, 72 66 see also Aran L.Ed.2d access to heat-relief sufficient without (5th Shaw, 641, v. 775 F.3d Project sas measures, knowing that each suffers while — denied, 14-1138, Cir.2014), cert. No. extremely him conditions that render from — 2859, -, -, 135 S.Ct. U.S. injury, heat-related vulnerable to serious -, 1255228, at *1 L.Ed.2d 2015 WL Amendment. the violates (June 2015). 22, Disability III. Claims RA,10 person ADA and a Under both the inmates assert that the The physical if he has “a or mental is disabled the heat violates failure to alleviate State’s substantially or impairment that limits one a reasonable accommodation rights their major activities.” 42 U.S.C. more life under the ADA and for their “disabilities” 12102(1)(A). a ma- § The statute defines rejected prison the RA.8The district court First, ways. major jor activity life in two they no evi presented claims because ers’' include, limited life activities but are not Ball, they are disabled.9 dence to: prisoners argue The F.Supp.2d at 687. oneself, caring performing manual rests on that the district court’s conclusion tasks, hearing, eating, sleeping, seeing, disability of and an abbreviated definition bending, walking, standing, lifting, Although pris the superseded cаse law. learning, reading, correct, speaking, breathing, are there is still no evidence oners disability consequential dispa a and its limitations appeal, prisoners the also assert 8. On (3) by entity; and prisoners' were known the covered rate-impact claim. But the com entity allege disparate-impact failed to make reasonable accom plaint a does not Tex., and, tell, Neely P'ship, appeal v. PSEG Ltd. we can modations. claim as far as this 242, Cir.2013). (5th The ADA prisoners have 735 F.3d the first time the asserted such applies prisoners. Dep’t principle appel Pa. Corr. "It is a bedrock a claim. 213, 1952, Yeskey, 118 S.Ct. raised for the first time 524 U.S. late review that claims (1998). 141 L.Ed.2d 215 The district appeal will not be considered.” Stewart on Mirror, prisoner prove court found each failed to & Inc. v. U.S. Auto Glass Disc. Glass Ctr., Inc., they prong i.e., that are disabled. 316-17 Cir. first — 2000). Accordingly, we will not address incorporates the ADAdefinition of 10.The RA prisoners’ disparate-impact claim. disability by reference. See 29 U.S.C. 705(20)(B). Accordingly, prisoners § if the succeed on a failure-to-accommodate To disabled, claim, (1) they prove: are disabled under both plaintiff he is a a must (2) qualified disability; statutes. individual with a thinking, communicating, showing evidence the record their concentrating, thermoregulatory functions working. impaired, they and therefore are disabled. 12102(2)(A). Second, major a life § Id. major of a activity operation includes “the Assuming arguendo that therm- 12102(2)(B).

bodily function.” Id. Such oregulation major activity,11 is a life there include, but are not limited to: functions prisoners’ is no evidence that these therm- system, growth, the immune normal cell oregulatory systems are actually impaired. bladder, bowel, neurological, digestive, Vassallo, According thermoregula to Dr. brain, circulatory, respiratory, endoc- capacity body tion “the to main rine, reproductive functions. tain the of 98.6 within half a prisoners prove The can themselves degree Id. or so.” There is no evidence that substantially lim- if their ailments disabled ailments have ever caused major activity opera- life or the body it either temperatures their to rise above 98.6° major bodily fact, function. tion of F. In Dr. Vassallo testified prisoners’ symptoms are consistent with out that the prisoners point body temperatures, normal no in there is they are court considered whether district dication that these have ever had only under the first definition of disabled body temperatures, elevated and there is activities; it did not consider major life prisoners no evidence that these ever ex major affect a impairments whether their difficulty in perienced thermoregulating. agree. The district bodily function. We first definition of a quoted court the That the record is devoid of such evi- major that “a disability, but it overlooked unsurprising. dence is Over the course of activity operation also includes the of a life trial, three-day any the there is hardly 12102(2)(B). § Id. major bodily function.” prisoners’ disability mention of the claims. partially The district court also relied on overwhelming majority The of the testi- Williams, Toyota Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Motor mony related to the future risk of heat- 184, 197, 681, 122 151 534 U.S. S.Ct. stroke, prisoners’ present not the inability (2002), Congress super L.Ed.2d 615 which regular body temperature. to maintain seded in the Americans with Disabilities result, testimony As a the medical focused (“ADAAA”). Act of Amendments 2008 the generally on risks to individuals with Tex., Neely P’ship, v. Ltd. 735 F.3d PSEG prisoners, the same ailments as these not (5th Cir.2013). 242, 245 any prisoners presently on limitations the counsel, experience. prisoners’ The more-

Although may error have affected this over, determination, never asked the three medical ex- the district court’s the perts prisoners’ thermoregu- whether the any whether evidence question remains latory systems actually disability impaired, claims. supports in prisoners argue “thermoregula- probably The because evidence the record major activity, ample precludes any lapse tion” is a life there is such assertion. This Post-ADAAA, (5th Cir.2009). prisoners urge 11. The this court to hold that 469 n. 8- thermoregulation major bodily is a function thermoregulation no court has held that is a (and activity) major function, a thus life because mаjor bodily regula- nor do EEOC 42 ADA’s list is non-exhaustive. See U.S.C. thermoregulation major bodily a tions list as 12102(2)(B). passage § Before the 1630.2(i)(l)(ii). function. 29 C.F.R. Ac- ADAAA,this court left undecided whether cordingly, we take the cautious route and body regulation "the consti- thermoregula- deciding that assume without activity major a life under the ADA.” tutes major activity. a life tion is Distribution, LLC, Agro v. 555 F.3d EEOC deciding grant when to or As this sions of law disability claims. to their fatal (3) injunction, or mis- deny permanent before, the cur- although has said legal or conclusions applies the factual disability “expresses rent definition ” fashioning injunctive relief.’ Id. the defini- when its intention broaden Congress’s .to Supply Corp., 90 ‘disability,’ (quoting N. Alamo Water the term coverage tion 916-17). from the F.3d at the term way it in no eliminated disability a on a prove need to ADA or the by discretion The court did not abuse its Neely, disability discriminatiоn.” claim of injunction. The deciding to an issue disability The claims 735 F.3d at 245.12 injunction argument first is that State’s law as a matter of even insupportable to improper because conditions which legal definition of dis- expanded under the subjected were do not vio these ability. Eighth Amendment. This conten late the light sustaining in of our tion fails Injunction IV. analy Eighth court’s Amendment district Eighth vio- remedy To Amendment cases, Moreover, in in as other sis. Gates lation, Louisiana the district court ordered injunctions in upheld courts have to reduce and maintain “develop plan unreasonably alleging Amendment cases row ‍‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​‍Angola in the death the heat index risky exposure temperatures. to extreme degrees at Fahrenheit.” tiers or below 88 Arpaio, 623 F.3d See Graves Ball, Effectively, F.Supp.2d curiam) (9th Cir.2010) an in (per (leaving air plan requires the State to install junction place requiring keep throughout death row hous- conditioning inmates on certain medications cells ing. The attacks the district court’s State degrees); below 85 temperatures with First, it ways. order in two contends Berge, Jones-El v. requirements injunctive relief are Cir.2004) (upholding order to install air Second, argues it that present not here. “supermax” conditioning Wisconsin’s injunction overbroad air the is because prison). conditioning beyond measures en- is the scope injunction The is another facility-wide and dorsed Gates v. Cook greatly matter. The PLRA limits a PLRA.

relief violates the ability injunctive to fashion relief. court’s court can award such permanent

This court reviews Before district relief, it must find that “such relief is injunctions Syme for abuse of discretion. Settlements, drawn, narrowly extends no further Rapid v. tra Ins. Co. .than Life (5th Cir.2014) (сit Ltd., 242, to the violation of the necessary correct 775 F.3d Corp. City right, Federal and is the least intrusive' ing Supply N. Alamo Water Juan, Tex., necessary 916-17 means to correct the violation.” San 90 F.3d of 3626(a)(1)(A). (5th Cir.1996)). § court 18 U.S.C. The must An abuse of discretion “ ‘(1) weight any to ad- “give relies also substantial occurs when the district impact public safety opera- on or the clearly findings factual when verse on erroneous justice system by tion a criminal caused grant deny permanent to or the deciding (2) If, making after the neces- injunction^] relies on erroneous conclu- the relief.”' Id. thermoregulate, get ability can Ball the argues that he is disabled be- to 12. Ball also requiring system only requested he order impairs his endocrine relief cause diabetes —an true, Although might keep to the at or below 88 sight. this be Louisiana and his system sight degrees. that claim—that Ball’s diabe- and As for that Ball’s endocrine thermoregulation impairs is no evi- impaired does not entitle him to relief from tes —there Only limits his dence in the record. the heat. if Ball’s diabetes the adverse that it sary findings weighing facility-wide and could not order relief. justice system, trial, criminal the impact on the At the start of the district court said: injunctive required, feels relief is court still not, contrary This is widespread to be- extend no further than such relief “shall lief, an require effort to the state to necessary to correct violation air-conditioning install for all of the tiers right particular plaintiff Federal of a or that house all death row inmates. I plaintiffs.” Id. think application injunctive relief only made clear that it’s these three injunction court’s district so, inmates that are of issue. And First, ways. PLRA in violates the two course, the evidence in this case will type district court ordered a of relief—air pertain any to facts that are relevant as conditioning unnecessary to cor —that plaintiffs to these three.... and these Eighth rect Amendment violation. plaintiffs only. three This is not class PLRA, plaintiffs Under the are not enti not, action again, lawsuit. This is an remedy; tled to the most effective available effort to anyone seek relief for other to a that they remedy are entitled elimi than these three inmates. injury. nates the constitutional See Westefer Neal, . 683-84 It why unclear the district court v Cir.2012) (vacating injunction an under the changed its mind when it fashioned the injunction. PLRA it exceeded was re because what The PLRÁ limits relief to the Clause). quired under the Due In particular plaintiffs Process before the court. 18 cases, 3626(a)(1)(A). can plaintiffs Amendment U.S.C. This is not a class only remedy action; Ball, Code, obtain a that reduces the risk Magee are the socially acceptable plaintiffs result, of harm to a level. before the court. As a permissible perhaps them, risk is un any apply only Some relief must if Plata, Plaintiffs’ expert, possible. avoidable. Here own Brown v. 563 U.S. Vassallo, 1910, 1940, explained Dr. there are 131 S.Ct. 179 L.Ed.2d 969 (2011) facility- many acceptable (holding remedies short of scope “the of the order conditioning. example, air For wide the must be determined with reference to the by Defendants could divert cool air from the constitutional violations established tiers; guards’ pod court”); into the allow specific plaintiffs inmates before Gates, air during (vacating injunc- access conditioned areas their 376 F.3d at 339 time; at purportedly applied prisoners tier allow access to cool showers tion that to day; provide ample supply plaintiffs least once a of outside the “it class because times; drinking scope litigation”); cold water and ice at all exceeds the of the see Graves, supply personal ice and containers individ also 623 F.3d at 1049-50 & n. fans; ual and ice ma (noting install additional that if the district court can limit class-member, chines. it precisely types These relief to an affected must PLRA). in remedies this court endorsed Gates v. do so under the PLRA requires. Cook and See Nevertheless, the district court ordered Accordingly, 376 F.3d at on re 339-40. relief to all inmates because 85 death-row mand the district court must limit its relief may any “the Defendants move death row types to these of remedies. any inmate to a different tier cеll at and/or Ball, F.Supp.2d The district court also erred because it time.” 688-89. provide lim- to facility-wide, Essentially, way awarded relief instead of it felt the Ball, Code, iting Magee. plaintiffs such relief to and effective relief to these three is to relief. The district apparently provide facility-wide The district court understood however, determination, errone- CONCLUSION court’s conditioning assuming air Even ous. reasons, AFFIRM foregoing we For the it is remedy here—and acceptable an court’s resolution of the the district condition- possible provide air not—it is claims, disability and but VA- Amendment inmates. As the solely to these three ing REMAND the district court’s CATE and acknowledged argu- at oral Defendants reconsideration under the injunction for ment,' placed in cells Plaintiffs could be here. principles stated which are cooler pod, to the officers’ next the tiers. Louisi- than those farther down REAVLEY, dissenting. Judge, Circuit one of the four also air condition ana could opinion, agree I with almost all of the suscepti- the benefit of tiers for injunction I affirm the which but would coupled illness. When ble to heat-related only orders the heat index principal move the Plaintiffs an order not to with row tiers to be maintained Angola death unless certain conditions from these cells met, options adequately degrees. could these below viola- remedy the Plaintiffs’ constitutional Moreover, Gaies-type remedies

tion. access to

available on remand —increased showers,

water, ice, ought cold etc.— must) (and pris- three be tailored to these

oners. injunction Because the district court’s RUSH; Rush, Jerry Liliane unnecessary reliéf and provides type Plaintiffs-Appellants, Plaintiffs, it applies beyond these three Accordingly, the dis- violates the PLRA. trict court abused its discretion. MAC, Defendant-Appellee, Freddie Finally, disparity. we note the substantial Housing Agency, Finance Federal ordered in between the relief Gates Intervenor-Appellee. injunction in this case. scope mandate a maxi- The Gates court did not No. 14-1476. in the Missis- applicable mum heat index Appeals, States Court of United required particular It heat sippi prison. Sixth Circuit. water, ice,

measures, fans, including ice showers, reaches 90 “if the heat index July Decided and Filed: 2015. Gates, at 336. degrees or above.” Rehearing Aug. Denied injunction relief that is requires here extensive, applies during even far more is no heat risk to the

months when there

Plaintiffs, facility, entire and of covers the upheld expensive.

course is Since Gates relief, injunction providing narrower ‍‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​‍showing no that the Constitu- there is prison-

tion relief for these mandated more condition in this

ers the same

case, must craft relief on remand the court well closely aligned

more with Gates as as

consistent with the PLRA.

Case Details

Case Name: Elzie Ball v. James LeBlanc

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Date Published: Jul 8, 2015

Citation: 792 F.3d 584

Docket Number: 14-30067

Court Abbreviation: 5th Cir.