Case 7:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 1 Filed 08/30/11 Page 1 of 25

i

,IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2ul/lUG 30 P:~.R/~HE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

, r". L.~'.. .;' ~-' . John Mason<-lV;' \

WESTERN DIVISION )

Ishmael Gregory, and

)

others similarly situated

)

OJ-ll-rn1I:>-3l55-VI

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

MIKE HALE, IN HIS

)

INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL )

CAPACITY AS SHERIFF OF

)

JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA,)

AND JEFFERSON COUNTY,

)

ALABAMA, TH E

)

JEFFERSON COUNTY

)

COMMISSION, DAVID

)

CARRINGTON, GEORGE

)

BOWMAN! SANDRA LITTLE

)

BROWN, JIMMIE STEPHENS, )

And JOE KNIGHT, in their

)

Official & individual Capacities, )

)

Defenda nts.

)

FILED
2011 Aug-31 AM 11 :45 U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

1

Case 7:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 1 Filed 08/30/11 Page 2 of 25
COMPLAINT
This is a civil rights action brought by John Mason IV, Ishmael Gregory inmates, and others similarly situated at the Jefferson County Jail ("the Jail") due to the deliberate indifference of government officials responsible for their protection and care and a violation of the RLUIPA.
PARTIES 1) John Mason IV ("Mason"), Ishmael Gregory ("Gregory") and others similarly situated are current or future inmates residing in the Jefferson County Jail located in Birmingham, Alabama. They are the named Plaintiffs in this action.
2) Mike Hale, who is sued both in his individual and official capacity as the Sheriff of Jefferson County, Alabama, is responsible for the general operation of the Jefferson County Jail. See e.g. Ala. Code §§ 11-14-21, 1116-?9, 14-6-1,14-6-4,14-6-8, 14-6-17, 14-6-19,14-6-21,14-6-40,14-694,14-6-95, 14-6-95,14-6-96 (1975). At all times relevant to the events described herein the actions and omissions of Sheriff Hale have been taken under the color of state law, and Sheriff Hale has acted as the final policy maker of Jefferson County for those aspects of jail operation under his contro\. Sheriff Hale is also constitutional mandated to maintain certain
2

I'
Case 7:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 1 Filed 08/30/11 Page 3 of 25
constitutionally mandated standards of care at the jail as well developed by the relevant federal case law.
3) The Jefferson County Commission and the individual commissioners are also parties to this action. They provide furids for the jails operation and also are the governing body of Jefferson County.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4) The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.c.
§§ 1331 and 1343. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief under 28
U.S.C. §§ 1343, 42 U.S.c. § 1983 et seq., the First, Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act C'RLUIPA").
5) This Court has venue under 28 U.S.c. § 1391(b) because a
substantial part of the events giving rise to the Plaintiffs claims occurred
within the Northern District of Alabama. Moreover, according to local rules
3

II
Case 7: 11-cv-03155-TMP Document 1 Filed 08/30/11 Page 4 of 25
this action arises within the Western Division of the Northern District since that is where much of Jefferson County is located.
INTRODUCTION 6) Jefferson County, Alabama is the county in which Birmingham and Bessemer, Alabama are located along with numerous other municipalities. Both Birmingham and Bessemer each contain a county jail. The Birmingham jail is designed for 600 inmates and currently houses 1700± inmates. The Birmingham jail is at over 300% capacity and the Bessemer jail is empty. The Bessemer jail has an alleged capacity in excess of 400. 7) The purpose of a county jail is to process people into jail as they are arrested, hold those who are pretrial detainees who do not bond out, let inmates who are doing county time serve their sentences, and to hold state inmates until they can be transferred. The jail also holds child support detainees, and persons who have invoked the wrath of their probation' officers.
8) The Birmingham county jail is hopelessly overcrowded. While the same can be said for the state prison system, the county jail does not have
4

Case 7:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 1 Filed 08/30/11 Page 50f25
the liberty of releasing inmates to an outdoor area. There is nowhere for the inmates to go. A range of adverse effects occur when a facility is overcrowded.
9) With few exceptions prison overcrowding has a number of serious negative consequences. The crowded conditions heighten the level of cognitive strain that persons experience by introducing social complexity, turnover and interpersonal instability into an already dangerous jail world in which interpersonal mistakes or errors in social judgment can be fatal.
10) It is obvious to anyone that given "x" amount of resources and dividing "x" by an ever increasing number of "y" inmates is not a recipe for disaster but a guarantee of one. Further, the lessened staffing of the jail due
4 to the loss of many staffer cerbates the situation.
5p eya'C0rbG~":>
11) The present conditions currently exist in the Birmingham County jail:
a) The facility is at over 200% capacity with inmates 6-8 to a cell designed for two with three to four inmates sleeping on the concrete floor, often without mattresses.
5

Case 7:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 1 Filed 08/30/11 Page 6of25
b) The jail is only serving two meals a day and these meals would shame any standard of decency;
c) The sheriff has discontinued any visitors or clergy from coming
into the jail to visit inmates. It is worthwhile to note that even SuperMax prisons do not enforce this policy. However, he is allowing counsel in (to date);
d) There is no effective segregation of inmate population as to varying levels of offenses;
e) The mental health of inmates is ignored; f) The physical health of inmates is at best abysmal;
1f
g) The threat of violence increases on a daily basis; h) the sheriff has been given numerous notices that these conditions are occurring; g) the sheriff has prevented any mail from reaching inmates i) the sheriff has effectively only allowed the practice of Christianity in the jail
12) The Defendants will no doubt admit that the above conditions are true. Indeed, they have no choice. They however, will point to budgetary
6

Case 7:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 1 Filed 08/30/11 Page 7 of 25
constraints imposed by the failure of the Alabama Legislature to again fund Jefferson County's 10/0 income tax (known as the "occupational taxfl).
13) The Plaintiffs aver that budget constraints are not an excuse for ignoring clear and well known constitutional mandates.
CLASS AVERMENTS
14) This action is properly maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the F.R.C.P. in that the character of the rights sought to be enforced for the class are common.
15) The Class consists of all inmates who have been, are or will be in
the custody of any of the Defendants. ') ;1"(<:- ~ tJ! 2-011
16) The Class and Members of the Class are sufficiently numerous so that it is impracticable to bring all Plaintiffs before the Court. Obviously, if there are 1700 inmates in the county jail now; numerousity has been satisfied.
7

II
Case 7:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 1 Filed 08/30/11 Page 8 of 25
17) The named Plaintiffs will fairly ensure the adequate representation for the interests of the members of the Class. The interests of the named Plaintiffs are not antagonistic to each other or to those of the Class members, as the named Plaintiffs and the Class members all seek declarative and injunctive relief to stop the same systemic patterns, customs and/or practices and legal violations alleged on their behalf. The interests of Plaintiffs and are not antagonistic to each other, as these named Plaintiffs.
18) Each named Plaintiff is sufficiently familiar with the facts and circumstances surrounding the inmate's situation to fairly and adequately represent the inmates interests in this litigation.
19) Plaintiffs and Class members are represented by attorneys employed by each named Plaintiff. They are represented by Alabama attorneys, who have extensive experience litigating the rights of inmates, including Alabama inmates. Plaintiffs' counsel have the resources, expertise, and experience to prosecute this action.
8

II
Case 7:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 1 Filed 08/30/11 Page 9 of 25
20) The character of the Plaintiffs' rights sought to be enforced on behalf of themselves and the Class is common. The questions of law and fact raised by the claims of the named Plaintiffs are common and typical of those raised by the claims of the Class. Questions of law and fact common to Plaintiffs & the Class predominate over any individual issues of law or fact.

21) All of the named Plaintiffs and Class members are in need of adequate jail conditions, must rely on the Defendants for those services, and are harmed by these Defendants' systemic failure to fulfill their legal obligations to provide and necessary adequate and legal jail services and conditions.

22)

The harms suffered by all of the named Plaintiffs are

typical of the harms suffered by the Class members.

23) Common questions of fact include, but are not limited to:

a) whether, contrary to law and reasonable professional standards

Defendants fail to provide Plaintiffs and Class members with safe,

stable, and appropriate jail services; said services being necessary to

prevent them from deteriorative physically, psychologically or emotionally

-1 ItvC)

5(

9

Case 7:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 1 Filed 08/30/11 Page 10 of 25
while in government custody; and timely and appropriate services necessary to ensure that they are either safely reunited with their families or promptly placed in state custody;
b) whether contrary to law and reasonable professional standards the Defendants are in violation of the RLIUPA
24) Common questions of law include, but are not limited to: a) whether the actions and inactions of the Defendants violate the rights of the Plaintiffs and Class members under the Due Process Clause of the Alabama State Constitution; the First{ Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United State Constitution; the RLUIPA{ 42 U.s.c. § 1983{ et seq.{ and regulations promulgated thereunder; and the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADAfI) and §504 of the Rehabilitation Act and; b. Whether the actions of the Defendants are deliberately indifferent to the needs of the Plaintiffs and the class that they represent
10

II
Case 7:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 1 Filed 08/30/11 Page 11 of 25
25) It is constitutionally required that jails be maintained to a known standard of care. The constitution mandates that both prisoners and pretrial detainees not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.
26) The Eighth Amendment affords convicted prisoners protection from cruel and unusual punishment.
27) This protection has been extended to pretrial detainees of various types via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
28) As defined by the Supreme Court, this constitutional protection from cruel and unusual punishment requires correctional officials to provide "humane conditions" of confinement to jail inmates.
29) When a jurisdiction takes a person into custody and holds him against his will, the constitution Imposes a corresponding duty to assume some responsibility for his safety and general well-being.
11

Case 7:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 1 Filed 08/30/11 Page 12 of 25
30) The duties imposed and rights conferred by the Eighth Amendment apply to the unreasonable risk of serious harm, even if such harm has not occurred.
31) It is deliberate indifference for a correctional official to allow serious medical or mental health needs to go unmet.
32) It is deliberate indifference for inmates to not be reasonably protected from harm or not fed or overcrowded.
33) The Eight Amendment guarantees that prisoners will not be deprived of the minimal civilized measures of life's necessities. Accordingly, correctional officials are required to provide reasonable adequate ventilation, sanitation, bedding, hygienic materials and utilities.
34) Conditions will violate the Constitution when they pose an unreasonable risk of serious damage to an inmate's current or future health, and the risk is so grave that it offends contemporary standards of decency to expose anyone unwillingly to that risk.
NAMED PLAINTIFFS
12

II
Case 7:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 1 Filed 08/30/11 Page 13 of 25
35) John Mason Iv is currently in the Jefferson County Jail pending a hearing to obtain release. He has hepatitis "C" and is not being treated for it by the jail. He has also been in numerous fights due to the overcrowding.
36) Ishmael Gregory is currently awaiting transfer to the State Department of corrections. He has a boil which has not been treated, despite numerous attempts to obtain medical assistance. He is in a crowed cell. His laundry is not done for weeks at a time.
INTRODUCTION 42 U.S.C. §1983
37) Plaintiffs incorporate all of the above paragraphs in this complaint as if fully set out herein.
38) Plaintiffs aver that the named Plaintiffs suffer the enumerated harms which are in violation of 42 U.s.c. §1983, the first, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
13

II ,
Case 7:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 1 Filed 08/30/11 Page 14 of 25
39) The Plaintiffs aver that the overcrowding alone leads to the violation of all of the above enumerated constitutional mandated standards.
40) It is the law in this nation that an institution which is at more than 137.5% capacity can be characterized as constitutionally insufficient.
41) The overcrowding, the underfeeding, the lack of medical care, the nonsegregation of inmates, the lack of mental health care, the dangerous conditions, and the lack of sufficient supervisory personnel will continue to exist until court action is taken. WHEREFORE, PREMISES considered, Plaintiff prays for an ORDER which requires the sheriff of Jefferson County to end everyone of his unconstitutional practices, and to award attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.c. §1988.
COUNT II RLUIPA
14

II !
Case 7:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 1 Filed 08/30/11 Page 15 of 25
42) The Jefferson County Sheriff's Office and Sheriff Mike Hale prohibit receipt and possession of virtually all mail and other expressive materials by persons incarcerated at th Berkeley Count Detention Center ("JEFFERSON COUNTY JAIL"). Prisoners at JEFFERSON COUNTY JAIL may not receive books, magazines, newspapers or other expressive materials sent through the mail, regardless of whether the materials are routed directly from publishers or sent by friends, family members or community organizations. In the past two years, Defendants have denied numerous prisoner requests for expressive material, including educational materials required by a correspo,ndence education course, other books, magazines and legal newsletters. Defendants compound these restrictions by failing to provide a library or any other avenue through which prisoners can access expressive material. These practices violate prisoners' rights secured by the Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
43) Defendants also prohibit a wide range of religious materials to JEFFERSON COUNTY JAIL prisoners of various faiths. Prisoners may not possess any religious publications other than the single foundational text for their religions, and Defendants make no accommodation for prisoners whose religious exercise requires access to multiple religious materials. As one example, Defendants denied access to pamphlets, newsletters and other Christian publications sought by an inmate incarcerated at JEFFERSON
15

II
Case 7:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 1 Filed 08/30/11 Page 16 of 25
COUNTY JAIL for much of the past two years. Further, non-Christian inmates often cannot access even the single foundational text JEFFERSON COUNTY JAI 's policy purports to allow.
44) Indeed, the only book, magazine, newspaper or religious publication that Defendants consistently permit prisoners to possess is the Bible. Defendants distribute copies of the King James Bible to prisoners at no cost.
45) These practices discriminate against non-Christian prisoners in violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clauses. Moreover, they substantially burden the religious exercise of all prisoners - Christians, Jews, Muslims or those of other faiths - who require materials other than the Bible to practice their religion. Because Defendants cannot show that imposing a substantial burden on these and other prisoners is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest, Defendants' policies . and practices contravene RLUIPA.
46) The conduct of the defendants constitutes a pattern or practice of denial of a federal right - specifically the Speech and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution - In addition, the defendants violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. §2000cc ("RLUIPA") by unlawfully impeding the religious exercise of
16

II
Case 7:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 1 Filed 08/30/11 Page 17 of 25
JEFFERSON COUNTY JAIL prisoners whose religious exercise requires access to materials other than the Bible.
JURISDICTION, STANDING, AND VENUE 47) This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §§ 1331 and 1345. 48) The Plaintiffs are authorized to initiate this action pursuant to 42 U.S.c. §2000cc-2(f). 48) Declratory and injunctive relief is sought as authorized by 42 U.S.c. § 2000cc-2(f). 49) Venue is proper in the District of Northern District of Alabama pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1391. Defendants reside in Alabama, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in Alabama.
50) In addition to the specific denials of educational materials and legal magazines cited above, at several JEFFERSON COUNTY JAIL prisoners have filed grievances within the past year asserting that the facility prohibits
17

II •
Case 7:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 1 Filed 08/30/11 Page 18 of 25
prisoners from possessing any reading material except for a single religious text.
51) Further, Defendants have taken no steps to mitigate the effect of JEFFERSON COUNTY JAIL IS restrictions on prisoner' access to reading or educational materials. The Facility does not operate a library or offer any other option for prisoners who wish to obtain books, magazines, newspapers, or other educational materials.
52) In short, Defendants effectively prohibit JEFFERSON COUNTY JAIL prisoners from reading anything except, under certain circumstances, a religious book or a personal letter.
JEFFERSON COUNTY JAIL's Restrictions on Prisoners' Possession of Religious Materials
52) Defendants' restrictions on possessing religious material substantially burden the religious exercise of all prisoners who require more than a single text to practice their religions. Defendants have admitted that a prisoner is allowed to possess only his or her "primary religious book," not pamphlets, newsletters or multiple religious texts. Further, the "primary religious book" must be hand-delivered' prisoners cannot order religious materials through the mail.
53) Adherents of numerous religions rely upon documents contained in multiple books pamphlets or other publications to aid in the exercise of
18

II
Case 7:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 1 Filed 08/30/11 Page 19 of 25
their faith. Defendants' practice of denying all materials beyond a single religious text makes no exception for these individuals.
54) JEFFERSON COUNTY JAIL officials have previously admitted that prisoners housed in their facility may only possess a Bible 34. Through these policies and practices, Defendants have imposed, and continue to impose, substantial burdens on the religious exercise of JEFFERSON COUNTY JAIL prisoners. Defendants' practices deprive prisoners of texts and other written materials central to their religious exercise. Specifically, Defendants impose a substantial burden on the religious practice of current JEFFERSON COUNTY JAIL inmates.
55) Defendants have no compelling government interest in burdening the religious exercise of prisoners who wish to possess religious texts other than the Bible.
56) Similarly, Defendants' policy and practice of denying such materials is not the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest. Indeed, Defendants' restrictions prohibit many items permitted by other penal institutions with similar compelling interests, such as the Federal Bureau of Prisons and Alabama Department of Corrections.
19

I'
Case 7:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 1 Filed 08/30/11 Page 20 of 25
57) The substantial burdens imposed on the religious exercise of Mr. Howard and other JEFFERSON COUNTY JAIL prisoners affects, or removal of those substantial burdens would affect commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, or with Indian tribes. Indeed, the substantial burden on these prisoners' religious exercise stems directly from Defendants' prohibition on materials shipped through the mail, often from out of state vendors - core instrumentality of interstate commerce.
58) Not only do Defendants burden prisoners of various faiths by forbidding possession of most religious materials, Defendants engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that unlawfully favors Christian prisoners over non-Christian ones.
59) Specifically, Defendants' policies and practices make King James Bibles freely available to all prisoners while erecting significant barriers to accessing other religious texts.
60) Defendants maintain copies of the King James Bible at the jail and provide a copy of the Bible at no cost to any prisoner wh_o requests it.
60) Defendants make no comparable accommodations from prisoners who seek religious texts other than the Bible, such as the Torah or Koran. JEFFERSON COUNTY JAIL does not provide prisoners of non-Christian faiths copies of their religious texts on site, nor do Defendants make non-
20

Case 7:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 1 Filed 08/30/11 Page 21 of 25
Christian religious materials available for purchase in JEFFERSON COUNTY JAIL's commissary.
61) Defendants compound the effects of this discriminatory practice by prohibiting prisoners from ordering religious materials directly from the publishers of the desired items. Moreover, JEFFERSON COUNTY JAIL's general restrictions on prisoners' receipt of mail preclude friends or family members from sending religious materials through the mail.
62) Thus, while JEFFERSOI\I COUNTY JAIL provides Christian prisoners multiple avenues for obtaining copies of the Bible, Defendants do not stock non-Christian religious materials at the detention center and prohibit non-Christian prisoners from receiving such materials from other sources.
63) Defendants deny detainees and prisoners in their custody access to virtually all outside reading material except letters and the Christian Bible.
64) Defendants' denial of access to outside reading material constitutes a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives prisoners in their
21

Case 7:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 1 Filed 08/30/11 Page 22 of 25

"

custody of rights secured by the Speech Clause of the First Amendment, the RLUIPA and the Constitution of the United States.

WHEREFORE, Defendants action denies the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated their constitutional rights under RULIPA and the various amendments of the United States constitution.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
58. The Plaintiff is authorized, pursuant to Section RLUIPA, to seek injunctive and declaratory relief for Defendants' privileging of Christian religious texts, denial of access to outside reading material, and denial of access to non-Christian religious texts.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays that the Court:
a. Declare that the Defendants have violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by denying
detainees and pl-isoners in their custody access to non-Christian religious texts while permitting Christian religious texts, thereby privileging a single religion over others;

22

Case 7:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 1 Filed 08/30/11 Page 23 of 25
b. Declare that the Defendants have violated the Speech Clause of the First Amendment by denying detainees and prisoners in their custody access to outside reading materials; c. Declare that the Defendants have violated
RLUIPA by denying detainees and prisoners in their custody access to virtually all non-Christian religious texts; d. Direct Defendants, their officers, agents, employees, subordinates, successors in office, and all those acting in concert or participation with them to permit detainees and prisoners in their custody to have access to outside reading material, including religious texts and to provide access to religious texts that does not privilege a single religions; and e. order such other relief as the interests of justice may require.
PLAINTIFFS SPECFICALLY RESERVE THE RIGHT TO ADD PLAINTIFFS TO THIS ACTION AND TO AMEND SAME
23

Case 7:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 1 Filed 08/30/11 Page 24 of 25 Respectfully submitted,

Stewart & Stewart
1823 3rd Ave N Suite 305 Bessemer, AL 35020 (205) 425-1166 FAX 425-5959
Ti~\~c/:

~

Attorney for Plaintiff

Law Office of Timothy L. Arnold 1830 3rd Ave N
Bessemer, AL 35020 (205) 428-4888
FAX 428-4880

24

Case 7:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 1 Filed 08/30/11 Page 25 of 25
SERVE DEFENDANT HALE AT: Hon. Mike Hale Sheriff 2200 Abraham Woods Jr Boulevard Birmingham, AL 35203 Jefferson County Commission David Carrington Jimmie Stephens Sandra Little Brown George Bowman Joe Knight 716 Richard Arrington Boulevard North Birmingham, AL 35203
25

 
 Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21 Filed 11/08/11 Page 1 of 40

FILED
2011 Nov-08 AM 10:16 U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

John Mason IV,

)

Ishmael Khalid Gregory,

)

Darrell Lee Maddox

)

and others similarly situated )

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

Mike Hale, in his individual )

and official capacities as

)

Sheriff of Jefferson County, )

Alabama, Jefferson County, )

Alabama, the Jefferson

)

County Commission, David )

Carrington, George Bowman, )

Sandra Little Brown, Jimmie )

Stephens, and Joe Knight, )

in their individual and official )

capacities,

)

Defendants.

Case No. 2:11-CV-03155-TMP

1

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21 Filed 11/08/11 Page 2 of 40
AMENDED COMPLAINT
This is a civil rights action brought by John Mason IV, Ishmael Khalid Gregory, and Darrell Lee Maddox, inmates, and others similarly situated at the Jefferson County Jail (“the Jail”). Their claims are due to the deliberate indifference of government officials responsible for their protection and care as required by 42 U.S.C. §1983 and because the actions complained of constitute a violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act (“RLUIPA’).
In addition, this action is brought against the Jefferson County Commission for their failure to comply with federal mandated funding and federal constitutional mandates which do not deal with the Sheriff and the Jail.
PARTIES 1) John Mason IV (“Mason”), Ishmael Khalid Gregory (“Gregory”) Darrell Lee Maddox (“Maddox”) and others similarly
2

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21 Filed 11/08/11 Page 3 of 40
situated are current or future inmates residing in the Jefferson County Jail located in Birmingham, Alabama. They are the named Plaintiffs in this action.
2) Mike Hale, who is sued both in his individual and official capacities as the Sheriff of Jefferson County, Alabama, is responsible for the general operation of the Jefferson County Jail. See e.g. Ala. Code §§ 11-14-21, 11-16-29, 14-6-1,14-6-4,14-68, 14-6-17, 14-6-19,14-6-21,14-6-40,14-6-94,14-6-95, 14-695,14-6-96 (1975). At all times relevant to the events described herein, the actions and omissions of Sheriff Hale have been taken under the color of state law, and Sheriff Hale has acted as the final policy maker of Jefferson County for those aspects of jail operation under his control. Sheriff Hale is also constitutionally mandated to maintain certain standards of care.
3) Jefferson County, the Jefferson County Commission, and the individual Commissioners are also parties to this action.
3

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21 Filed 11/08/11 Page 4 of 40
They provide funds for the Jail’s operation and also are the governing body of Jefferson County, (the “Jefferson County Defendants”).
4) Sheriff Hale, Jefferson County, and the Jefferson County Commission have been involved in a prior injunctive action in State Court which concerned many of these same issues. See Mike Hale vs. Jefferson County (CV-09-2041). That case was originally filed in the Bessemer Division of Jefferson County and ultimately transferred to the Birmingham Division. The Honorable Joseph Boohaker presided over that action. Henceforth, that action will be referred to as the “State Action” and the Order that Judge Boohaker issued is hereinafter referred to as the “State Order”. The First Amended Verified Petition for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, Permanent Injunction, Declaratory Judgment, Common Law Writ of Mandamus, and Common law Writ of Prohibition filed in that
4

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21 Filed 11/08/11 Page 5 of 40
State Action is attached to this Amended Complaint as Exhibit “A.” The State Order is attached as Exhibit “B.”

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5) The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. §§1343, 42 U.S.C. §1983 et seq., the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act (“RLUIPA”). The separate counts against the Jefferson County Defendants are based on 42 U.S.C. §1983.

6)

The matter in controversy, exclusive of interest

and costs, exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000 and is a class

action in which there is a federal question.

5

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21 Filed 11/08/11 Page 6 of 40
7) This Court has venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the events giving rise to the Plaintiffs’ claims occurred within the Northern District of Alabama. Moreover, according to local rules, this action arises within the Southern Division of the Northern District since that is where the Jefferson County jail is located.
INTRODUCTION 8) Jefferson County, Alabama, is the county in which Birmingham and Bessemer, Alabama are located along with numerous other municipalities. Birmingham and Bessemer each contain a county jail. The Jefferson County Jail, located in Birmingham, Alabama, is designed for approximately 600 inmates and currently houses 1400 plus inmates. The Birmingham jail is at over 200% capacity. Meanwhile, the county jail located in Bessemer jail is empty. The Bessemer jail could house in excess of 450 inmates, if it were in use.
6

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21 Filed 11/08/11 Page 7 of 40
9) The purpose of a county jail is to process people into jail as they are arrested, hold those who are pretrial detainees who do not bond out, house inmates who are serving sentences, and to hold state inmates until they can be transferred elsewhere. The Jail also holds child support detainees, and individuals who have violated their probation.
10) The Jefferson County Jail in Birmingham is hopelessly overcrowded. While the same can be said for the state prison system, the County Jail does not have the liberty of releasing inmates to an outdoor area. There is nowhere for the inmates to go. A range of adverse effects occur when a facility is overcrowded.
11) With few exceptions, prison overcrowding has a number of serious negative consequences. The crowded conditions heighten the cognitive strain of inmates. This occurs when social complexity, turnover and interpersonal instability is
7

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21 Filed 11/08/11 Page 8 of 40
introduced into an already dangerous jail world. Here interpersonal mistakes or errors in social judgment can be fatal.
12) Currently, there is a fixed amount of resources available and an increasing number of inmates. This is a guarantee for disaster. Further, the reduced staffing of the Jail due to financial cuts exacerbates the situation.
13) The following conditions currently exist in the Jefferson County Jail in Birmingham:
a) Each cell is designed for two inmates. Because the facility is at over 200% capacity, inmates are being housed with 6-8 inmates per cell. There are often three to four inmates sleeping on the concrete floor, some without mattresses;
b) The Jail is only serving two meals per day and these meals are nutritionally deficient and sparse;
c) The Sheriff has discontinued any visitors or clergy from coming into the jail to visit inmates. This policy is not seen even in this country’s most secure prisons. However, the Sheriff is allowing counsel in (to date);
d) There is no effective segregation of inmate population as to varying levels of offenses;
8

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21 Filed 11/08/11 Page 9 of 40
e) The mental health of inmates is ignored; f) The physical health of inmates is ignored; g) The threat of violence increases on a daily basis; h) The Sheriff has prevented mail from reaching inmates; i) The Sheriff has prevented the practice of religions other than Christianity in the Jail; and j) The Sheriff is not providing handicapped inmates with services required under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Sheriff has been given notice that these conditions are occurring.
14) The Defendants will no doubt admit that the above conditions are true. However, will point to budgetary constraints imposed by the failure of the Alabama Legislature to fund Jefferson County’s 1% income tax (known as the “occupational tax”). In the prior State Action, the Sheriff averred in his verified complaint that the budget cuts forced on him by the County Commission would result in his department being in violation of federal law. See Exhibit A. The Sheriff’s budget has since been
9

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21 Filed 11/08/11 Page 10 of 40
cut twice. As a result, the Sheriff is in violation of various constitutional mandates as a matter of law.
15) The Plaintiffs believe that budget constraints are not an excuse for ignoring clear and well known constitutional mandates. In the State Action, the County Commission was made aware of the fact that the budget cuts would violate the federal mandates. They nonetheless proceeded to cut the budget in an arbitrary and capricious manner both in 2010 and 2011, and intend to do so again in 2012.
CLASS AVERMENTS
16) This action is properly maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in that the character of the rights sought to be enforced for the Class are common.
10

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21 Filed 11/08/11 Page 11 of 40
17) The First Class consists of all inmates who have been, are, or will be, in the custody of the Jefferson County Jail. The Second Class consists of all the citizens of Jefferson County who will be impacted by the failure of Jefferson County to administer and carry out its federally mandated duties outside of the Jefferson County Jail.
18) The Classes and Members of the Classes are sufficiently numerous so that it is impracticable to bring all Plaintiffs before the Court. With regard to the First Class, numerosity has been satisfied because there are more than 1,300 inmates currently being house in the County Jail. With regard to the Second Class, numerosity has been satisfied because the number of citizens in Jefferson County is well into the hundreds of thousands.
19) The named Plaintiffs will fairly ensure the adequate representation for the interests of the members of the Class. The
11

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21 Filed 11/08/11 Page 12 of 40
interests of the named Plaintiffs are not antagonistic to each other or to those of the Class members. This is because the named Plaintiffs and the Class members all seek declaratory and injunctive relief to end the systemic patterns, customs, practices and legal violations alleged on their behalf.
20) Each named Plaintiff is sufficiently familiar with the facts and circumstances surrounding the circumstances at the Jefferson County Jail to fairly and adequately represent the inmates’ interests in this litigation.
21) Plaintiffs and Class members are represented by attorneys employed by each named Plaintiff. They are represented by Alabama attorneys, who have extensive experience litigating the rights of inmates, including Alabama inmates. Plaintiffs' counsel have the resources, expertise, and experience to prosecute this action.
12

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21 Filed 11/08/11 Page 13 of 40
22) The character of the rights sought to be enforced by Plaintiffs and the Class is common. The questions of law and fact raised by the claims of the named Plaintiffs and the Class are common. The questions of law and fact common to Plaintiffs and the Class predominate over any individual issues of law or fact.
23) All of the named Plaintiffs and Class members are in need of adequate jail conditions and they must rely on the Defendants for these services. They are harmed by the Defendants' systemic failure to provide the legally required and adequate services and conditions. In addition, the members of the Second Class are in need of adequate fulfillment of their federally mandated rights.
24) The harms suffered by all of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the harms suffered by the Class members.
13

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21 Filed 11/08/11 Page 14 of 40
25) Common issues include, but are not limited to:
a) whether, contrary to law and reasonable professional standards, Defendants fail to provide Plaintiffs and Class members with safe, stable, and appropriate jail service, which are necessary to prevent inmates from deteriorating physically, psychologically or emotionally while in government custody;
b) whether the actions and inactions of the Defendants violate the rights of the Plaintiffs and Class members under the Due Process Clause of the Alabama State Constitution, the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C. §1983, et seq., and regulations promulgated thereunder; the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”) and §504 of the Rehabilitation Act; and
c) Whether the actions of the Defendants are deliberately indifferent to the needs of the Plaintiffs and the Class members.
26) It is constitutionally required that jails be maintained to a known standard of care. The United States Constitution prohibits the cruel and unusual punishment of both prisoners and pretrial detainees.
27) The Eighth Amendment affords convicted prisoners protection from cruel and unusual punishment.
14

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21 Filed 11/08/11 Page 15 of 40
28) This protection has been extended to pretrial detainees of various types via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
29) As defined by the United State Supreme Court, this Constitutional prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment requires correctional officials to provide “humane conditions” for the confinement of jail inmates.
30) When a government entity takes a citizen into custody, the Constitution imposes a corresponding duty on that entity to assume some responsibility for that citizen’s safety and general well-being.
15

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21 Filed 11/08/11 Page 16 of 40
31) The duties imposed and rights conferred by the Eighth Amendment include the unreasonable risk of serious harm, even if such harm has not occurred.
32) It is deliberate indifference for corrections officials to allow serious medical or mental health needs to go unmet.
33) It is deliberate indifference for corrections officials to house inmates without reasonable protection from harm, without adequate meals, and in overcrowded conditions.
34) The Eight Amendment guarantees that prisoners will not be deprived of the minimal necessities. Accordingly, corrections officials are required to provide adequate ventilation, sanitation, bedding, hygienic materials and utilities.
16

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21 Filed 11/08/11 Page 17 of 40
35) Conditions violate the Constitution when they pose an unreasonable risk of serious damage to an inmate’s current or future health. It offends contemporary standards of decency for an inmate to be exposed to such risk.
NAMED PLAINTIFFS
36) John Mason IV is currently in the Jefferson County Jail pending a hearing to obtain release. He has Hepatitis C and is not being treated for it by the jail. He has also been in numerous fights due to the overcrowding.
37) Ishmael Gregory is currently awaiting transfer to the State Department of Corrections. He has a boil which has not been treated, despite numerous attempts on his part to obtain medical assistance. He is in a crowded cell and his laundry is not done for weeks at a time.
17

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21 Filed 11/08/11 Page 18 of 40
38) Darrell Lee Maddox is a pretrial detainee who is deaf and can communicate only via writing. He is not receiving any services to assist him with his disability.
COUNT I The Jefferson County Sheriff’s Violations of
42 U.S.C. §1983
39) Plaintiffs and Class Members adopt and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in this Complaint.
40) Plaintiffs aver that the named Plaintiffs suffer the enumerated harms which are in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
18

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21 Filed 11/08/11 Page 19 of 40
41) The Plaintiffs aver that the overcrowding alone leads to the violation of all of the above-listed constitutionally mandated standards.
42) It is well-established law that an institution which is at more than 137.5% capacity can be characterized as constitutionally insufficient.
43) The overcrowding, lack of proper meals, lack of medical care, non-segregation of inmates, lack of mental health care, dangerous conditions, various violations of the Americans with Disabilities Acts, and lack of sufficient supervisory personnel will continue to exist unless and until court action is taken. The Sheriff has numerous duties which the State of Alabama requires of him. He must ferret out crime, maintain custody of prisoners, and provide basic services for them. His duties as are detailed in Exhibit A.
19

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21 Filed 11/08/11 Page 20 of 40
Plaintiffs pray for an Order which requires the Jefferson County Sheriff to desist in all of the unconstitutional practices, and awards fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988.
COUNT II RLUIPA
44) Plaintiffs and Class members adopt and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in this Complaint.
45) The Jefferson County Sheriff's Office and Sheriff Mike Hale prohibit receipt and possession of virtually all mail and other expressive materials by inmates at the Jefferson County Jail. Inmates may not receive books, magazines, newspapers or other expressive materials sent to them through the mail, regardless of whether the materials are routed directly from publishers or sent by friends, family members or community organizations. In the
20

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21 Filed 11/08/11 Page 21 of 40
past two years, Defendants have denied numerous prisoner requests for expressive material, including educational materials required by a correspondence education course, and other books, magazines and legal newsletters. Defendants compound these restrictions by failing to provide a library or any other avenue through which prisoners can access expressive material. These practices violate prisoners' rights secured by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
46) Defendants also prohibit a wide range of religious materials to Jefferson County inmates of various faiths. Prisoners may not possess any religious publications other than the single foundational text for their religions, and Defendants make no accommodation for prisoners whose religious exercise requires access to multiple religious materials. For example, Defendants denied access to pamphlets, newsletters and other Christian publications sought by an inmate incarcerated at Jefferson County Jail for much of the past two years. Further, non-Christian
21

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21 Filed 11/08/11 Page 22 of 40
inmates often cannot access even the single foundational texts that the Jefferson County Jail’s policy purports to allow.
47) Indeed, the only book, magazine, newspaper or religious publication that Defendants consistently permit prisoners to possess is the Bible. Defendants distribute copies of the King James Bible to prisoners at no cost. Defendant Gregory is denied the practice of his Islamic faith.
48) These practices discriminate against non-Christian prisoners in violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. Moreover, they substantially burden the religious exercise of all prisoners - Christians, Jews, Muslims or those of other faiths - who require materials other than the Bible to practice their religion. Because Defendants cannot show that imposing a substantial burden on these and other prisoners is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest, Defendants' policies and practices contravene RLUIPA.
22

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21 Filed 11/08/11 Page 23 of 40
49) The conduct of the Defendants constitutes a pattern and practice of the denial of a federal right - specifically the Speech and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution. In addition, the Defendants violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. §2000 ("RLUIPA") by unlawfully impeding the religious exercise of inmates of the Jefferson County jail whose religious exercise requires access to materials other than the Bible.
50) Moreover, Jefferson County inmates have filed grievances within the past year asserting that the facility prohibits prisoners from possessing any reading material except for a single religious text. Further, the "primary religious book" must be hand-delivered' to prisoners as prisoners cannot order religious materials through the mail.
23

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21 Filed 11/08/11 Page 24 of 40
51) In short, Defendants have effectively prohibited Jefferson County inmates from reading anything except, under certain circumstances, a religious book or a personal letter.
52) Defendants have no compelling government interest in burdening the religious exercise of prisoners who wish to possess religious texts other than the Bible. Defendants’ policy of not allowing clergy of any type to visit substantially interferes with the ability of the inmates to practice their religion whatever it may be.
53) Similarly, Defendants' policy and practice of denying such materials is not the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest. Indeed, Defendants' restrictions prohibit many items permitted by other penal institutions with similar compelling interests, such as the Federal Bureau of Prisons and Alabama Department of Corrections.
24

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21 Filed 11/08/11 Page 25 of 40
54) Not only do Defendants burden prisoners of various faiths by forbidding possession of most religious materials, Defendants engage in a pattern and practice of conduct that unlawfully favors Christian prisoners over non-Christian ones.
55) Specifically, Defendants' policies and practices make King James Bibles freely available to some prisoners while erecting significant barriers to accessing other religious texts. The prison Chaplin sometimes distributes King James Bibles to inmates, but not on a regular basis. No other persons are allowed to distribute any religious material.
56) Defendants make no comparable accommodations from prisoners who seek religious texts other than the Bible, such as the Torah or Koran. The Jefferson County Jail does not provide prisoners of non-Christian faiths copies of their religious texts on site, nor do Defendants make non-Christian religious materials available for purchase in the Jefferson County Jail’s commissary.
25

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21 Filed 11/08/11 Page 26 of 40
57) Defendants compound the effects of this discriminatory practice by prohibiting prisoners from ordering religious materials directly from the publishers of the desired items. Moreover, the Jefferson County Jail’s general restrictions on prisoners' receipt of mail preclude friends or family members from sending religious materials through the mail.
58) Defendants' denial of access to outside reading material constitutes a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives prisoners in their custody of rights secured by the Speech Clause of the First Amendment, the RLUIPA and the Constitution of the United States.
COUNT III The Jefferson County Defendants’ violations of
42 USC § 1983
26

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21 Filed 11/08/11 Page 27 of 40
59) Plaintiffs and class members adopt and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in this Complaint.
60) The Jefferson County Commission is well aware of the deficiencies in the Sheriff’s Department. In the prior State Action, there was extensive testimony as to the deficiencies in the federally mandated actions which Jefferson County’s budget cuts would create. The State Order, which is incorporated into this Complaint by reference and is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit “B,” sets forth the same facts as this Complaint regarding the conditions of the Jail. See Exhibit B.
61) Because of the previous State Action, the Jefferson County Defendants are well aware of the fact that their budget cuts have caused the Sheriff to violate his constitutionally mandated duties. Moreover, they have been informed of this fact both by testimony in front of the Commission by way of budget hearings and meetings with the Sheriff.
27

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21 Filed 11/08/11 Page 28 of 40
62) The Jefferson County Defendants are liable for failing to carry out their statutory duties under Alabama law regarding the operation of a jail. See Shaw vs. Coosa County Commission, 330 F. Supp 2d 1285, 1289 (M.D. Ala. 2004). The Court in Shaw found that it was possible to find a county commission liable for failing to adequately fund the medical expenses of the operation of the jail. Id. The Jefferson County Defendants are liable for the same actions.
63) The Jefferson County Defendants have also eliminated funding for the Mental Health Court. This funding provided for mental health evaluations of the jail population. The result of this elimination is that the Sheriff has no ability to treat or segregate mentally ill inmates. As a result, the mentally ill inmates have no care. This is in direct violation of a federal constitutional mandate regarding the right of prisoners to mental health care. See, for example, Plata v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 1910 (2011). The
28

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21 Filed 11/08/11 Page 29 of 40
other result of this lack of treatment for mentally ill inmates is that they are released into the general jail population where their situation is at best precarious. It is a violation of basic human decency in a civilized society.
64) The Jefferson County Commission was found to be arbitrary and capricious in its prior budget cuts to the Jefferson County Sheriff. In his Order of July 16, 2009, Judge Boohaker found, as a matter of law, that ‘across the board cuts’ of the Jefferson County Sheriff’s budget were arbitrary and capricious, and were simply done as a matter of expediency. See Exhibit B. Since that Order, the County Commission has continued the pattern and practice of cutting the Sherriff’s budget in the same arbitrary and capricious manner.
65) Since Jefferson County’s cuts to the Jefferson County Sheriff’s budget have been found to be arbitrary and capricious as
29

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21 Filed 11/08/11 Page 30 of 40
a matter of law, it is well settled that this is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
66) The definition of deliberate indifference is the subjective knowledge of a constitutionally mandated duty, the ability to carry out the duty, and the failure to carry out said duty. Being found to be arbitrary and capricious as a matter of law dictates the conclusion that the Jefferson County Defendants are deliberately indifferent to the fate of the prisoners at the Jail.
67) The well-reasoned opinion of Judge Boohaker lays out the reasoning for this finding of law. See Exhibit B.
68) The failure to fund the Sheriff’s operations in a constitutionally proper manner is a matter of policy and custom for the Jefferson County Defendants. It is a policy and custom because the Jefferson County Defendants have failed to
30

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21 Filed 11/08/11 Page 31 of 40
adequately fund the jail over a course of many years. A county commission can be found to be liable for such a failure under §1983 under the theory of Monell. Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, (1978).
69) Further, the elimination of the Treatment Alternatives for Safer Communities (“TASC”) program increased the Sheriff’s by approximately 1000 prisoners per year. This is because the elimination of TASC will dramatically increase the jail population. Thus, the Commission has adopted yet another policy which they know to be constitutionally deficient regarding the Jail and have done so as a matter of expediency.
70) In 2009, the TASC program was funded at approximately two million dollars. The County Commission then proceeded to take TASC through a series of roller coaster budget cuts, the end result of which was the elimination of the TASC budget. Both the Sheriff and L. Foster Cook (TASC Director) have
31

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21 Filed 11/08/11 Page 32 of 40
informed the County Commission that for every dollar that TASC spends on pre-trial diversion, the Sheriff saves ten dollars. Therefore, elimination of the TASC budget has the net effect of increasing the Sheriff’s budget by $20 million. This refusal to fund TASC is both arbitrary and capricious. It is also deliberately indifferent in that this policy is known to lead to further overcrowding of the Jail and the exponential increase in the difficulty of the Sherriff to meet his federal constitutional mandates.
71) Persons, whose acts constitute official policy, can be sued under § 1983 for monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief when they act in a way or promulgate a rule that results in a constitutional deprivation. Local governments are ‘persons’ and may be sued when they engage in a custom or practice that result in a constitutional deprivation. See Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
32

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21 Filed 11/08/11 Page 33 of 40
72) The County Commission’s past budgets cut every department in an arbitrary and capricious manner and are deliberately indifferent. These budgets violate federal constitutional mandates and cause constitutional deprivations.
73) In Judge Boohaker’s Order, the Court references the case of Etowah County Commission v. Hayes, 569 So.2d 397 (Ala. 1990). See Exhibit B. Hayes provides an example of an arbitrary and capricious exercise of the budgetary authority of a county commission. In Hayes, the Etowah County Commission withheld the Etowah County Sheriff’s funding for a large portion of the 1989-1990 fiscal year. The Alabama Supreme Court found that the withholding of all funds which effectively closed the operation of the Sheriff’s Department was an arbitrary and capricious act. Hayes at 398.
74) There is no difference between completely shutting down a Sheriff’s department and reducing its funds to the point
33

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21 Filed 11/08/11 Page 34 of 40
that it cannot operate. Therefore, the County Commission is also in violation of state law.
75) Therefore, the arbitrary and capricious manner in which the Jefferson County budget cuts have affected the Sheriff are prohibited under both Alabama and federal law.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED the Plaintiffs pray for injunctive relief ordering the Jefferson County Commission to fund the Sheriff’s office in an adequate manner, and award fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988 and costs to the Plaintiffs.
COUNT IV The Jefferson County Commission’s other violation of
42 USC § 1983
34

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21 Filed 11/08/11 Page 35 of 40
76) Plaintiffs and Class members adopt and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in this Complaint.
77) This count of the Complaint concerns the failure of the Jefferson County Commission to comply with other federal mandates required under federal law by way of its budget cuts.
78) This count of the Complaint will be amended upon receipt of more information from the County.
79) The Jefferson County Commission carries out many functions which are affected by federal statutory law, federal case law, and federal regulation, in addition to its functions with respect to the Jefferson County Jail. These functions include, but are not limited to, the operation of the following:
a) The Criminal Justice System; b) The Family Court System;
35

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21 Filed 11/08/11 Page 36 of 40
c) The District Attorney’s Office; d) The Department of Community & Economic Development; e) The Office of Senior Citizens Services; f) Youth Detention; and g) Roads and Transportation.
80) All of the above-named activities are federally mandated and/or regulated and/or funded. The arbitrary and capricious manner in which the Jefferson County Commission cut the budget caused these services to be operated in a constitutionally deficient manner.
81) Obviously, the de facto elimination of jury trials in the county affects the rights of persons in the criminal justice system to speedy trials.
36

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21 Filed 11/08/11 Page 37 of 40
82) The failure to adequately fund the family court system violates the federal consent decree of the R.C. vs. Nachman, 969 Fed. Supp. 682 (1997).
83) The effect on the District Attorney’s Office is the same as the effect on the criminal justice system.
84) The funding for the Department of Community & Economic Development is federally driven.
85) The rest of the above-listed departments are funded in a federally deficient manner due to the continuing arbitrary and capricious budget cuts of the Commission.
86) Jefferson County administers a vast amount of federal funds. The local reductions in budget have adversely impacted
37

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21 Filed 11/08/11 Page 38 of 40
these funds. Plaintiffs aver that expert testimony will be required to provide further details.
87) While the state court does not have the power to remedy the above-referenced constitutional violations, this Honorable Court does have that power.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES considered, Plaintiffs seek injunctive and general relief for the above federal constitutional violations, costs and attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988.
PLAINTIFFS SPECIFICALLY RESERVE THE RIGHT TO ADD PLAINTIFFS TO THIS ACTION AND TO AMEND SAME.
Respectfully submitted,
38

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21 Filed 11/08/11 Page 39 of 40
/s/ Dan C. King, III Dan King, III, Esq. Anna L. Hart, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs Stewart & Stewart, P.C. 1823 3rd Ave N Suite 300 Bessemer, AL 35020 Telephone: (205) 425-1166 Facsimile: (205) 425-5959
/s/ Timothy L. Arnold Timothy L. Arnold, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiffs Law Office of Timothy L. Arnold 1830 3rd Ave N Bessemer, AL 35020 Telephone: (205) 428-4888 Facsimile: (205) 428-4880
39

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21 Filed 11/08/11 Page 40 of 40
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on November 8, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification to the parties of record.
/s/ Dan C. King, III
40

 
 Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-1

Filed 11/08/11 Page 1 of 21

FILED
2011 Nov-08 AM 10:16 U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-1 Filed 11/08/11 Page 2 of 21

1N THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA BESSEMER DIVISION

MIKE HALE, as the duly elected Sheriff )

of Je:ffel'Son County, Alabama, and

)

ALLEN FARLEY, Assistant Sheriff )

ofJefferson County

)

)

Petitioners,

)

)

v.

)

)

JEFFERSON COUNTY, a political

)

J _ Subdivision of the State of Alab~tQU~;

BETTYE F1NE COLLJNS, as a duly )

Elected Commissioner of Jefferson

)

County, Alabama; WILLIAM A. BELL, )

as a duly elet-1:ed Commissioner of

)

Jefferson County, Alabama; JIM

)

CARNES, as a duly elected Commissioner)

Of Jeffel'Son County, Alabama; BOBBY )

HUMPHRYES, as a duly elected

)

Commissioner of Jefferson County,

)

Alabama; SHELIA SMOOT, as a duly )

elected Commissioner of Jefferson

)

County,Alabama,

)

)

Respondents.

)

FILED IN OFF/OS
JUL') 3 2009 .ANNE~MAAIE ADAMs
Clerk

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED PETITION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRA1N1NG ORDER ("TRO"), PRELIMJNARY 1NJUNCTION, PERMANENT JUNCTION, DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT, A COMMON LAW WRIT OF MANDAMUS, AND A COMMON LAW WRIT OF PROHIBITION

Petitioners Mike Hale, as the duly elected Sheriff of Jefferson County, and Allen Farley, Assistrurt Sheriff of Jefferson County, amend their original Petition as set forth hereio;

Petitioners amend paragraphs 2, 7, and 8 oftheir Petition.

Petitioners add paragraph 8.1 to their Petition.

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-1 Filed 11/08/11 Page 3 of 21
With the above-referenced amendments incorporated, Petitioners' Petition reads in its entirety as follows:
Pursuant to Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure 57 and 65, Petitioners l\tike Hale, as the duly elected Sheriff of Jefferson County, Alabama ("Sheriff Hale"), and Allen Farley, Assistant Sheriff of Jefferson County, file pursuant to Ala. R. Civ. P. 65, this Verified Petition requesting that this Honorable Court (a) enter a Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") immediately, (b) enter a preliminary and permanent injunction against the Respondents, and (c) declare that the
~endments to Ala. Code § 11-8-3 enacted pursuant to. House Bill 139, which purportedly
authorize county commissions to amend budgets during the fiscal year, as unconstitutionally vagne. Specifically, Petitioners request that this Court Order the Respondents and/or their employees to cease and desist immediately from any actions intended or designed to reduce or remove any funds from the 2008-2009 fiscal year budget of the Office of Sheriff of Jefferson County. Petitioners further request the additional reliefagainst Respondents as set forth herein.
!. PARTIES, JURISDICTION. AND VENUE
1. Sheriff Hale is the duly elected Sheriff of Jefferson County, is over the age of 19 years, and is a resident of Jefferson County. Sheriff Hale maintains an office in the Bessemer cutoff and is obligated to perform the duties at issue in this action in this division of Jefferson County. SheriffHale files a bond and his oath in the Bessemer cutoff ofJefferson County. 2. Assistant Sheriff Allen Farley is over 19 years of age and is a resident of Jefferson County. Assistant Sheriff Perley assists Sheriff Hale in his responsibilities by overseeing the activities ofthe office of the Sheriffin Bessemer. Faxley resides in the Bessemer cutoff. 3. Defendant Jefferson County is a political subdivision of the State of Alabarna and is subject to this lawsuit.
2

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-1 Filed 11/08/11 Page 4 of 21
4. Defendant Bettye Fine Collins is a duly elected Commissioner of Jefferson County, is over the age of 19 years, and is a resident of Jefferson County. 5. Defendant William A. Bell is a duly elected Commissioner of Jefferson Connty, is over the age of 19 years, and is a resident of Jefferson County.. 6. Defendant frm Carns is a duly elected Commissioner ofJefferson Connty, is over the age of 19 years, and is a resident of Jefferson County. 7. Defendant Bobby Humphreys is a duly elected Commissioner of Jefferson Connty, is
..
over the age of 19 years, and is a resident of Jefferson County. Humphreys resides in the Bessemer cutoff at either 339 Toadvine Road, Bessemer, Alabama 35023 or 323 13th Place, Pleasant Grove, Alabama 35127. 8. Defendant Shelia Smoot is a duly elected Commissioner of Jefferson County, is over the age of 19 years, and is a resident ofJefferson County. Smoot resides in the Bessemer cutoff. 8J Defendants Humphreys, Bell, Smoot, and Carns each represent a portion of the Bessemer Cutoff in their official duties as Jefferson County Commissioners.
9. Upon proper service of the Summons and Petition, this Court has jurisdiction over all
Respondents. 10. Venue is proper in this division of this County.
II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 11. Sheriff Hale is a constitutional officer of the State of Alabama and is not merely a titular head of a department of the Jefferson County government. Article V, § 112, Alabama Constitution of 1901, provides, in part, that "[t]he executive departmeut shall consist of ... a Sheriff for each county." Pursuant to§ 112, a Sheriff is an employee of the State, not a county. Hereford v. Jefferson Coun1y, 586 So. 2d. 209, 210 (Ala. 1991); Parker v. Amerson. 519 So. 2d.
3

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-1 Filed 11/08/11 Page 5 of 21
442 (Ala. 1987). 12. A deputy Sheriff is the alter ego of the Sheriff of a county. Mosley v. Kennedy. 245
Ala. 448, 450, 17 So. 2d. 536, 537 (1944). Therefore, a deputy Sheriff is also a state employee.
Whitten v. Lowe, 677 So. 2d. 778, 780 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995). DUTIES OF THE SHERIFF 13. Alabama law imposes upon a Sheriff numerous legal duties. Sheriff Hale performs these duties by employing deputy Sheriffs and others to assist him in carrying out his duties. The Office of the Sheriff has 11 Captains who report to Sheriff Hale and/or Assistaut Sheriff Farley. The Captains oversee the various departments in the Office of the Sheriff. The Captains supervise the Lieutenants, Sergeants, Deputies, and civilians who are employed to cerry out the legal responsibilities of the Office of the Sheriff. . (See attached Affidavits of Sheriff Hale, Assistant Sheriff Farley, and Captains ofthe Jefferson County Sheriff's Office). 14. The Sheriff has legal custody of the jail in his county and the prisoners therein. Ala. Code§ 14-6-1. 15. A Sheriff must furnish support to those prisoners who cannot provide support for themselves. Ala. Code§ 14-6-17. 16. A Sheriff must furnish necessary clothing and bedding, at the expense of the county, and must provide medicines and medical attention for prisoners who are sick or injured. Ala. Code § 14-6-19. 17. A Sheriff has a duty to feed the prisoners in the jail. Ala. Code§ 14-6-40. 18. The County Commission must provide an adequate janitor service for the cleanliness of the jail and soap and towels as well as bedding and clothing for prisoners unable to provide such items for themselves. Ala. Code § 14-6-93.
4

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-1 Filed 11/08/11 Page 6 of 21
19. A Sheriff has a duty to ensure that food for inmates of the jail is nutritious, clean, and wholesome, and of sufficient quantity and variety. Ala. Code § 14-6-97. 20. Each county jail must be of sufficient size and strength to contam and keep prisoners securely confined therein and must be fireproo~ properly ventilated, sufficiently lighted day and night, adequately heated, and must contam adequate sanitary plumbing and sewer connections. Ala. Code § 14-6-103. 21. Prisoners cannot be confined in any jail when the jail is not provided with a deputy, watchman, or attendant whose duty is to watch the jail or prison at night for the prevention of escapes and fire, and to aid in case of sickness among the prisoners. A Sheriff is to appoint, direct, and control the deputy, watchman, or guard. Ala. Code§ 14-6·105. 22. A Sheriff must execute and return the process and orders of the Courts of record of the State of Alabama with due diligence when delivered to him for that purpose, attend upon the Circuit Courts and District Courts in the county when in session, ferret out crim<:l, apprehend and arr<:lSt criminals, and secure evidence of crim<:lS in his or her county and also must ~nt a report of th<:l evidence so secured to the District Attorney or Assistant District Attorney for the county. A Sheriff must also perform such other duties as are or may be imposed by law. Ala. Code § 30-22-3. 23. A Sheriff must keep the jail in a county supplied with wholesome water for drinking and bathing, must keep drinking water accessible at all times to each prisoner, must keep the jail comfortably warm in cold weather, must keep the jail clean and free from offensive odors at all times, and must keep the jail provided with necessary restrooms, beds, bedding, and clothiog for the use ofprisoners. Ala. Code§ 11-14-21.
5

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-1 Filed 11/08/11 Page 7 of 21
DUTIES OF THE COUNTY
24. The counties must allow a Sheriff reasonable expenses for suitable books, statioruu:y, postage stamps used for official business, and telephones. Ala. Code§ 11-12·14. 25. Costs of heating the county jail, of supplying it with wholesome water for drinking and bathing, of keeping it in a clean condition free from offensive odors, and necessary restrooms and dry earth, beds, bedding, and clothing are all first priority claims against the county. Ala. Code § 11-12-IS(a)(l). Janitor services for the jail also constitute a first priority claim. !4, 26. Compensation of the Sheriff, deputy Sheriffs, and jailers are second priority claims against the county. Ala. Code§ 11·12-15(a)(2). For all of these priority claims, the county must set apart sufficient funds to pay these claims. Id. at 11-12·I5(b). 27. The county is required to maintain the jail. Ala. Code§ 11-14-10. Keeping the jail in a state of repair is an affirmative duty of the county. Lane v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 669 So. 2d. 958 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995). 28. The county jail must be of sufficient size and strength to contain and keep securely the prisoners which may be confined there in and must be properly ventilated. Ala. Code § Il-14-13. A county is responsible for levying a county tax to repair the jail when repairs are necessary. Ala. Code§ 11·14-14. 29. The County Commission must make an appropriation of such an amount as is necessary for the first priority claims set forth inAJa. Code§ 11-12-15. Ala. COde§ 11-14-20. 30. Once the appropriation is made by the county for this purpose, a sheriff "so fur as such appropriation will enable him" must keep the jail supplied with wholesome water for drinking and bathing, must keep drinking water accessible at ail times to each prisoner, must keep the jail comfortably warm in cold weather, must keep the jall clean and free from offensive odors at all
6

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-1 Filed 11/08/11 Page 8 of 21
times, and must keep the jail provided with necessary restrooms, bed, bedding, and clothlng for theuseofprisoners. Ala. Code §11-14-21. 31. A county must furnish a Sheriff with the necessary quarters, books, stationary, office equipment, supplies, postage, and other conveniences, and equipment, including automobiles and the necessary repairs, maintenance, and all expenses incidental thereto as are reasonably needed for the proper and efficient conduct ofthe affairs ofthe Sheriff's office. Ala. Code§ 36-22-18. COUNTY'S BUDGETING RESPONSIBILITY 32. Alabama Code § 11-8-3 vests County Commissions with budgetary responsibility and authority. This statute imposes upon County Commissions the duty "to prepare and adopt a budget for the fiscal year begiouing on October 1 of the current calendar year." Id. at § 11-8-3(a). This duty contemplates the County Commission ensuring that the "appropriations made in the budget shall not exceed the estimated total revenue of the county available for appropriations." Id. at § 11-8-3(b). Included in this statate requiring County Commissions to adopt budgets that include appropriations not to exceed estimated total revenue of the county is a provision requiring that such budgets "at a minimum, shall include any revenue required to be included in the budget under the provisions of Alabaraa law and reasonable expenditures for the operation of the offices of the Judge of Probate, tax officials, Sheriff, county treasurer, the county jail, the county courthouse, and other offices as required by law." Id. at § 11-8-3(c). HIRING AND PAYMENT OF DEPUTIES 33. A Sheriff is obligated to hire deputies under Alabama law. Alabama law provides that prisoners shall not be confined in any jail when the jail is not provided with a deputy, watchman, or attendant whose duty it shall be to watch the jail or prison at night for the prevention of escapes and fire and to aid in case of sickness among prisoners. Ala. Code§ 14-6-105.
7

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-1 Filed 11/08/11 Page 9 of 21
34. The Ala. Code also authorizes the payment of overtime to deputy SheriffS. Sheriff Hale makes no allegation in this action regarding whether Ala. Code § 36-21-4 or 36-21-4.1 applies to the payment of overtime to deputy Sheriffs. Regardless of which statute applies, the payment of overtime to deputy Sheriffs is authorized by Alabama law. AGREEMENT REGARDING ROLE OF SHERIFF 35. Defendant Jefferson County has previously acknowledged that it exercises no statutory control over the operation of the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office. CollllDissioner Mary M. Buckalew, who was then President of the Jefferson County Commission, submitted an Affidavit in Streater v. Woodward, 7 F. Supp. 2d. 1215 (N.D. Ala. 1998). Commissioner Buckalew averred that, although Jefferson County provides funds to the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office, "[t]he Sheriff controls the operation ofthe Jefferson County Sheriff's Department and applies the funds allocated to his department as he sees fit." Id. at 1216 n.l. 36. On July 15, 2001, the Attorney General of the State of Alabama issued an opiulon answering questions posed by Baldwin County. Attorney General Opinion No. 2001-215. One of the questions was whether the Baldwin County Commission was legally liable to pay for contracts of employment entered into between the Sheriff and the individuals that had not been approved by the County Commission and to which the County Commission was not a party. The Attorney General opined as follows:
Baldwin County is legally liable for employment contracts entered into between the Sheriff of Baldwin County and jailers, althougll the county did not approve such contracts. Under§ 14-6-1 ofthe Code of Ala., SheriffS have the sole power to hire and dismiss jailers working for the county jail as he had the legally custody and charge of the jail. Although the county has no authority to approve or reject the contract between the Sheriff and the jailer, the county is legally liable for the compensation due the jailer under contract. Under§ 11-12-15 (a) Supp. 2 of the Code of Ala., the county must pay the compensation of the Sheriff, deputy Sheriff, and jailers for services performed. Therefore, ..• Baldwin County is legally liable under Alabama law to pay the compensation ofjailers hired by the
8

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-1 Filed 11/08/11 Page 10 of 21
Sheriff, even when the County Commission did not approve such contracts. ill. JEFFERSON COUNTY'S PLANNED BUDGET CUTS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009 TO OFFICE OF SHERIFF ARE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS AND WILL CAUSE IMMEDIATE AND IRREPARABLE HARM, 37. On January 13, 2009, Judge David Rains ruled in Edwards v. Jefferson Com Conunission, CV-07-900873, that the previous repeal of the occupational tax had been improperly overturned. Jefferson County is currently appealing that decision, Jefferson County requested that Judge Rains stay his Order and allow Jefferson County to continue to
collect and spend the occupational tax while this case was on a:ppeal. That request was denied.
38. Jefferson County appealed Judge Rains' denial of the Motion to Stay to the Alabama Supreme Court. The Alabama Supreme Court also denied Jefferson County's request for a Stay of Judge Rains' Order.. Based on the actions of Judge .Rains and the Alabama Supreme Court, as well as the inaction of the Alabama Legislatore, the Jefferson County Commission has indicated that it intends to pass a resolution cutting approldmately one-third of the remaining 2008-2009 budget of various departments under the authority and control of the Jefferson County Commission, and one-third of the remaining budget ofthe Office of the Sheriff, which is not under the authority and control ofthe Jefferson County Commission. 39. Furthermore, the County Commission informed the Office of the Sherriff to submit a budget for fiscal 2009-2010 that would be approximately one-third of the budget that was required to operate the Office ofthe Sheriffduring fiscal year 2008-2009. 40. By imposing these "across the board" budget cuts in fiscal year 2008-2009 to Jefferson County departments and to the office of Sheriff by amending the previously approved budget, and by informing the Office of the Sheriff that it must submit a proposed budget for fiscal year 2009-2010 of one-third Jess than the fiscal year 2008-2009 budget, the County Commission has
9

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-1 Filed 11/08/11 Page 11 of 21
acted arbitrarily and capriciously with no regard whatsoever for the various needs of the Office ofthe Sheriffand without regard for any constitutional or statutmy obligations imposed upon the Office ofthe Sheriff. 41. By imposing these drastic budget cuts on the Office of the Sheriff, Respondents have ignored the fact that Alabama law imposes upon Sheriff Hale's office nume:rous duties as outlined herein and as set forth in the attached Affidavits. Additionally, Regpondents have made no attempt to identifY what Respondents contend to be necessary cost savings in county departments on which no constitutional or statutory duties have been imposed. 42. If the budget cuts planned to be implemented by Respondents are allowed to be passed and to go into effect, Sheriff Hale and Assistmt Sheriff Farley will be unable to discharge their legal obligations, will be unable to ensure that the Jefferson County Jail is properly stsffed and that the prisoners are fed, clothed, and cared for as required by law, will be unable to pay deputy Sheriffil amounts to which they are entitled under applicable law and overtime pay as is required by federal, will be unable to ferret out crime effectively, and generally will be unable to ensure that law and order in unincorporated Jefferson County and in those municipalities with no police force is maintained. (See attached Affidavits of Sheriff Hale, Assistlmt Sheriff Farley, and the Captains ofthe Jefferson County's Sheriff's Office).
!Y• TRO AND PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
43. The Petitioners incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 - 42 of their Petition For TRO, Preliminary Injunction, Permanent Junction, A Common Law Writ of Mandamus, and A Common Law Writ of Prohibition and Declaratory Judgment and restate them as if fully set forth herein.
10

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-1 Filed 11/08/11 Page 12 of 21
44. A TRO must be issued to prevent immediate and irreparable harm to the Office of the Sheriff. 45. Sheriff Hale alleges that Respondents have indicated that they plan to take affinnative action in violation of Alabama law to cut Sheriff Hale's budget drasticalJy during fiscal year 2008-2009 to the point where the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office cannot perform its duties as imposed upon it by Alabama law. 46. The cuts proposed would result in putting Sheriff Hale in a position that he would be in violation of his duties under stste and federal law. The proposed cuts would result in insufficient funds to cover 911 phone calls adequately, to provide the necessery personnel to patrol the streets and respond to the calls to the Office of Sheriff, to feed the prisoners, to book and release prisoners, to investigate and ferret out crime, to provide deputy services to monitor Jefferson County schools, to respond to federal litigation, to investigate and solve crimes committed, to investigate illegal drug activity and make arrests, and to respond to the other duties that are set forth in the Affidavits of Sheriff Hale, Assistant Sheriff Farley, and the Captains ofthe Sheriff's Office, which are attached hereto. 47. None of the Respondents have a statutory duty or any other duty to inmates in the jail other than as alleged herein. These Respondents also have no statutory or legal authority over Sheriff Hale regarding discharging these duties. 48. The Respondents will not suffer any harm as a result of a TRO or a preliminary or permanent injunction as Sheriff Hale and Assistsnt Sheriff Farley seek an injunction that does nothing more than require Respondents to comply with Alabama law and to fund the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office in the amount originally funded in the 2009-2010 fiscal year. In other words, Petitioners ask that the status quo be maintained.
11

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-1 Filed 11/08/11 Page 13 of 21
49. No notice is necessary for entry of a TRO, although Petitioner's undersigned counsel certifies that it has provided notice ofthis Petition to all Respondents. The undersigned counsel has provided a copy of this Petition with the attached Affidavits to each of the individual Respondents as well as to the attorney for Jefferson County. A TRO may be granted without written or oral notice to the adverse party or that party's attorney if it clearly appears from specific fuels shown by Affidavit, or by the Verified Complaint, that iunnediate and irreparable h\jury will result to the applicant before the adverse party or that party's attorney can be heard in opposition and the applicant's attorney certifies to the Court in writing the efforts, if any, that have been made to give the notice and the reasons supporting his claim that notice should not be required. Ala R. Civ. 65(b). While the Court may act regardless of whether notice has been given, Petitioners state that a copy of this petition has been provided to Mr. Jeff Sewell, who is counsel for the Respondents. 50. Petitioners request that this Court grant Petitioners' request for a TRO to avoid irreparable harm and injury to Petitioners and the Office of Sheriff. Petitioners further request that the TRO requested herein be converted into a Preliminary Injunction in the form and manner as prescribed by Alabama law. 51. Additionally, no security should be required with regard to this Petition because Petitioners are officers ofthe State. Ala. R. Civ. P. 65(c). Furthermore, Petitioners are seeking
-
only to have Respondents refrain from cutting funds that have been allocated to the Office ofthe Sheriff and previously approved in the Sheriff's fiscal year 2008-2009 budget.
V. COMMON LAW WRIT OF MANDAMUS 52. The Petitioners incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 - 51 of their Petition For TRO, Preliminary Injunction, Permanent Junction, A Common Law Writ of Mandamus, A Common
12

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-1 Filed 11/08/11 Page 14 of 21

Law Writ of Prohibition, and Declaratory Judgment and restate them as iffully set forth herein.

53. Sheriff Hale is statntorily required to provide certain goods and services to the inmates of

the jail. Sheriff Hale's deputies are statutorily entitled to overtime pay. Sheriff Hale is

statutorily obligated to perform such other duties as set forth herein and as otherwise imposed by

Alabama Jaw.

54. On the basis of the statutes, oase authorities, and Attorney General opinions noted in the

preceding paragraphs, SheriffHale alleges that he is entitled to a common law writ ofmandamus

compelling Respondents and any employees of Jefferson County who are responsible for

disbursing funds to the Office of the Sheriff to disburse funds budgeted to Sheriff Hale in the

original 2008-2009 fiscel year budget for the J<;fferson County Sheriff's Office.

I' .

55. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Sheriff Hale requests this Court to issue a common

I

law Writ of Mandamus to Respondents directing and/or requiring Respondents to release funds

originally budgeted to Sheriff Hale in the 2008-2009 fiscal year budget for the Jefferson County

Sheriff's Office.

VL COMMON LAWWRIT OF PROHIBIT10N

56. The Petitioners incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 - 55 of their Petition For TRO,

Preliminary Injunction, Permanent Junction, A Common Law Writ of Mandamus, and A

Common Law Writ of Prohibition and Declaratory Judgment and restate them as iffully set forth

herein.

57. SheriffHale is statutorily required to provide certain goods and services to the inmates of

the jail, Sheriff Hale's deputies are statutorily entitled to overtime pay, and Sheriff Hale is

statutorily obligated to perform such other duties as set forth herein and as otherwise imposed by

Alabama Jaw.

13
I

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-1 Filed 11/08/11 Page 15 of 21
58. On the basis of the statutes, case authorities, and Attorney General opinions noted in the preceding paragraphs, Sheriff Hale alleges that he is entitled to a Co=on Law Writ of Prohibition that prohibits the Respondents and any employees of Jefferson County who are responsible for disbursing funds to the Office of the Sheriff from refusing or failing to provide funds to the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office sufficient for Sheriff Hale to meet all contractoal obligations to which he has entered for the 2008-2009 fiscal year and such other costs associated with carrying out the duties ofhis office. 59. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Sheriff Hale requests this Court to issue a Common Law Writ of Prohibition to Respondents and Respondents' employees from reducing the 2008-2009 fiscal year budget for the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office and that otherwise prohibits Respondents and Respondents' employees from refusing or failing to fund the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office so that Sheriff Hale may pay all obligations to which he is contractually obligated for the 2008-2009 fiscal year and such other costs associated with carrying out the duties of his office.
yg;. DECLARATORY .JUDGMENT
60. The Petitioners incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 - 59 of their Petition For TRO, Preliminary Injunction, Permanent Junction, A Co=on Law Writ of Mandamus, A Common Law Writ ofProhibition and Declaratory Judgment and restate them as iffully set forth herein. 61. Sheriff Hale submits that a justiciable controversy exists regarding his right and authority as a constitotional officer, a state officer, and an official elected by popular vote and under state law, both statutory and common law, the obligations imposed upon Sheriff Hale under Alabama law, and the obligations imposed under Defendants to fund Sheriff Hale's department and the County Jail as well as Jefferson County's obligation and civil liability for the payment of Sheriff
14

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-1 Filed 11/08/11 Page 16 of 21
Hale's contracts under Alabama law. 62. Sheriff Hale is entitled to and seeks a declaratory judgment against Respondents as follows:
a. Declaring that Defendant Jefferson County is liable for and is required to allocate adequate budgeting for all employment contracts entered into between Sheriff Mike Hale and employees of the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office and all necessary costs associated with providing the services he is required to provide by law as set forth in tbis Petition for the :fiscal year 2008-2009;
b. Declaring that Defendant Jefferson County is liable for and is required to allocate adequate budgeting for all employment contracts entered into between Sheriff Mike Hale and employees of the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office and all necessary costs associated with providing the services he is required to provide by law as set forth in this Petition for fiscal year 2009-2010;
c. Declaring that Defendants have no right or antbority to amend the 2008-2009 fiscal year budget for the Jefferson County Sheriffs Office;
d. Declaring that the amendments to Ala. Code § 11-8-3 enacted pursuant to House Bill 139 regarding the Commission's anthority to amend a County's budget are unconstitutionally vague;
e. Declaring that any amendment to the 2008-2009 fiscal year budget for the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office adopted by the Je:fferson County Commission is void;
f. Declaring that the 2008-2009 fiscal year budget for the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office shall be not be cut or shall be reinstated if cut and that the Jefferson County Sheriffs Office shall be budgeted in the amount originally set forth io the 2008-2009 fiscal year budget
15

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-1 Filed 11/08/11 Page 17 of 21
except to the extent that the parties have agreed among themselves to a reduced budgeted arriount prior to the filing ofthis Petition;
g. Declaring that any resolution adopted by Defundant Jefferson County to cut the budget of the Office of the Sheriff is void and unenforceable as a violation of Alabama law and as a usurpation of the authority of Sheriff Hale;
h. Declaring that the County provides adequate funding for the legal responsibilities ofthe Office ofSheriffand the County as set forth above in paragraphs 14-34. ALA. CODE § 11-8-3(g) REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO BUDGETS DURING A FISCAL YEAR IS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE AS APPLIED IN THIS CASE. 63. Ala. Code § 11-8·3 was amended in 2007 with House Bill 139, entitled the "House, County, and Municipal Government Committee Engrossed Substitute Bill." The amendment to § 11·8-3, inter alia, authorized County Commissions to amend the budget during the :fiscal year "as detennined necessary by an affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the County Commission." Id. at § ll·8-3(g). Petitioners anticipate that Respondents will use this statute as its authority to amend the budget of the Office of the Sheriff. 64. Ao additional amendment to Ala. Code § 11-8-3 provides that, after the budget is adopted, "no obligation incurred by any county official or office over and above the amount or amounts approved and appropriated by the county commission shall be an obligation of the county unless the obligation is approved by an affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the county commission." Id. at§ 11·8·3(f). The statute does not speak to the issue of when a depa:rtment, or separate office such as that of the Sheriff. that is funded by the county has incurred obligations that were not beyond the amount approved in the original budget, but are now beyond the funding amount for a department under a new amended budget.
16

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-1 Filed 11/08/11 Page 18 of 21
65. Sheriff Hale alleges that he has incurred obligations pursuant to and in accordance with the original 2009-2010 fiscal year budget for the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office adopted by Respondents. Even if one assumes that the Commi~oners have the authority amend the
' Sheriff's budget, Sheriff Hale and Assistant Sheriff Farley will be unable to meet all of the financial obligations and legal obligations to which they are obligated during the 2009-2010 fiscal year.
66. .lf.the_Co~ believes that this statute gives the Commission the anthority-to..mnend the Sheriff's budget after it has been adopted, Sheriff Hale alleges that Ala. Code § 11-8-3, as amended, is unconstitutionally vague in that it contains no provision for those situations in which a county does whet Jefferson County is attempting to do and the end result is that, as would occur in the present case, the Office of Sheriff is unable to meet incurred obligations that were within the original budget for the fiscal year. The statute does not address the issue of what the Commission may do when there is a reduction in the original budget by amendment during a fiscal year to the point where obligations incurred under the original budget cannot be mel As the statute is silent on the appropriate remedy or operation of law in circumstances such as those . before this Court, the statute as amended is unconstitutionally vague, and subsections (f) and (g) should be stricken from the law.
WHEREFORE, Petitioners request a ruling that Ala. Code § 11-8-3 subsections (f) and (g) are unconstitutionally vague and cannot be used as authority to amend the 2008-2009' fiscal budget ofthe Office ofthe Sheriff.
17

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-1 Filed 11/08/11 Page 19 of 21

'i)1;;k~

SheriffMike Hale

IN THE STATE OF ALABAMA)

JEFFERSON COUNTY

)

of~, In Jefferson County, Alabama, on theYJ"l:h- day

2009 before me, a Notary Public in and

for the above-state and county, personally appeared Sheriff Mike Hale, known to me or proved

to .be the person named in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and being first duly

sworn, such person acknowledged that he executed said instrwnent for the purposes therein

contain¢ !Ill hiS free and voluntary act and deed.

. · ~.............:,...:_"-.\1,).\1...~/o ...~'.........~"'......

Y1QbAtU ~L-

Notary Public

···· · - - - -

My conunission expires o • 0 t!J/0~) )D

..-/-

IN THE STATE OF ALABAMA)

JEFFERSON COUNTY

)

·

oMJJ~ In Jefferson County, Alabama, on theniD day

2009 before me, a Notary Public in and

for the above--state and county, personally appeared Assistant _SheriffAllen Farley, known to me

or proved to be the person named in and who executed the foregoing instrwnent, and being first

duly sworn, such person acknowledged that he executed said instrument for the purposes therein

/Mt71Ctl 121~ contained as his free and voluntary act and deed.

·

~~··· Notary Public

/ / J0

R R. , Jt

12)

OF COUNSEL: .RILEY & JACKSON, P.C. 1744 Olonoor Road
Birmingham, AL 35209
Tel: (205) 879-5000 Fax: (205) 879-5901
18

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-1 Filed 11/08/11 Page 20 of 21
OF COUNSEL: BAil'!S & TERRY 1813 3rd Avenue North Bessemer, AL 35020 Tel: (205) 425-1606 Fax: (205) 426-3200
·~---·-
19

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-1 Filed 11/08/11 Page 21 of 21
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Jpfsuoulalrcyech,ginfo2ig0ilniI0nag9hgc,ewtoraoeipstbhycfyooothluclfeneosrswtaCeimfsllY:eoertkfihrnaoetctfhootehrndeUthiCnfisiorteeu7gdrthtisSudtetsaariynetegdosftaFhJsieuralsyCtp,MaC2rl0/taEi0csC9sip,FMaInshatyiasilv,nteeptmohese,letwaScgthyresioctpnehrimcewap, ilaollylirdsfi,eiflonnenddottnthhroeeetgi7faiistbchtoaevtdrieeoadynabnooydff Troy King, Esq. Alabama Attorney General Office 500 Dexter Avenue Montg0mery;-:A:l'; · 36130 James L. Priester, Esq. Grace Murphy, Esq. Maynard, Cooper, Gale, P.C. . 1901 6th Ave., Ste. 2400 Regions/Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203 Jeffery Sewell, Esq. Jefferson County Courthouse 716 North Richard Arrington, Jr. Blvd. Birmingham, AL35203
20

 
 Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2

Filed 11/08/11 Page 1 of 42

FILED
2011 Nov-08 AM 10:16 U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

EXHIBITB

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2 Filed 11/08/11 Page 2 of 42

IN

THE

CIRCUIT

COURT OF JEFFERSON CIVIL DIVISION

COUNTY,

ALABAMA

MIKE HALE, as the Of Jefferson County,

duly elected Alabama;

Sheriff

ALLEN FARLEY, Assistant Sheriff

Of Jefferson County;

Plaintiffs,

V.

JEFFERSON COUNTY, a political Subdivision of the State of Alabama; ·BETTYE FINE COLLINS, as a duly AEAElllleeaaccbbttaaeemmddaaCC;;ooJWmmlMImmLCiLissAsIsAiioRoMnnNeeErrASoo. ,ffBaJJEesefLfaffeLedrr,ussoaloysnnaCCdoouuulnnyttyy ·AEAEAElllllleaeeaacbccbbttataeaeemmmdddaaaCCC,;;oooSBmmmHOmmmEBiiLissBssIssAYiiiooonnHSneeeMUrrr MooOofffOPJJJeHeTefff,RfffeaeeYrsrrsssEaoooSnnnd,uCCCalsoyoouuuannndtttyyuyly
Defendants.

FILED IN OPEN COURT :J~~ :~ {

This Joseph

JB~ofoAhakder,aJudy~~. diaq

.

< ~; ·~~ ·~.

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: CV 09-2041

RECEIVED IN OFFLCE

JUL 16 2009
ANNE-MARIE ADAMS

I

Clerk'

ORDER ON PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

This matter comes before the injunction. The Court, having conducted · 2009, having received sworn testimony ·petition hereby enters the following:

Court on Plaintiffs' petition for preliminary an ore tenus hearing, commencing on July 10, and other evidence with regard to Plaintiffs'

I. '

vtJoeenfdfueiesrmsooiTfnsthshCiisfosoumrmnalataytttcteekbrrytowopfaetjshtuietrciioBosmdninimfcnitleiienondgncheoadannrdniJnuDinmtiehvpe3irso0Ciop,i2ner0crou0vfi9etC.nCiurRoceuue, sirottprCofonionrduerttthnheteosfBarJleeetpefsflrsieneeramdstoiewvnreiCtDhtooivautinmrstaiyoon.ntsifoeonrf .

this

On matter

July 1, 2009, the Circuit Court entered a temporary restraining for hearing on preliminary injunction for July 13, 2009.

order

and

set

I

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2 Filed 11/08/11 Page 3 of 42

Page2 of4l

On July for mandamus arguments:

2, 2009, Respondents Jefferson County, eta], filed relief to the Alabama Supreme Court setting

an emergency petition forth the following

1.

The Circuit Court jurisdiction over the in previously filed Number CV07-1040.

of the Bessemer Division of Jefferson County matter due to the pendency of litigation between the case, Mike Hale v. Jefferson County, et a/, Civil

lacked parties ACtion

2. 3.

taTpobTurhnhfovauaepgtotnerrtoutrihhuzeneeenoiddntCCistcteiiorretrchcpeauuaonniitstttdetehCdCroeopoabuBpuytroraettRrlmwtaeounpsanfcposietotrhydranierodtByoteBunrpaeedtuasssgtr.sthetreiotacmirAinipezicarenttdgeDwttoiooavrsidteshueinerontnceiAnorlonaalsfibgttaiJehtmemutftafpoieoofArnrsftaaoutrloneyrwntCriieemtoyhsuetorGlnuayteitynncpihewnrraogaalvlls.eiodnrnidgnoeegtr

4.

That Petitioner merits.

had

not

met

its

burden

of proof

of likelihood

of succ.ess

on

the

\
!
I

CdBoioresdumsesniretsymsr,eOeOoocrnrurndDstoJeiJinuruvtiglrlinysyaghino7i6tsmnh,f, eeos22ret0f0rvlt030fehJ99nfelr,,suofJCeJemeurfitrofdocetghfurtethseihoteiPcnJsBaeusCtcideeraog,mlsoueerisnentDttoygruuahrtCnlnhaemiiedrnKcBgDiuoniitrnigthmveCiRoisonmiefougstanrhphtt,aooetemJnfruBdtdDtheeognesievsttCsehiT'smeiireooceprnuurer.siteDtsastCiaiBdvno.iidnusPiigrnoettgnjoeulfdemoJngseot.eeftfiroeoerfndstohtanoen

I

On Petition for following:

July 9, 2009, the Alabama Supreme Court Writ of Mandamus, granting said petition.

ruled on Respondents Emergency In so granting, the Court wrote the

fBPTColieroarmmuisnerpitteniokfwgrf"iashnaBr,asgyeMmscwRuaiDikcuetehhssivtoeHrriuaesattilihlnioeeaein,fnu.gfe"BoutfoeOasrtlhisr.t,deeymetorJtoeerirfesfeneDnevrtswiaevocrinatsthtiheoCeedniirrTcwroueeifqmitthutpoCheouseorttuafJrproeytrr,fefRtijehnureejdssuoitnrcan;epc>tpiiCntrvoiooenpgutrrhneieOatlytireerdifCegfiorhin,rrtcutfuhmuoieeft

the

It thus appearing to venue argument posed

fue by

Court that the Supreme Court entered its order based on Respondents herein, and its order having been entered

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2 Filed 11/08/11 Page 4 of 42
Page3of4!
without prejudice, the order of the Supreme Court does not decide nor determine the merits of Plaintiffs' claims.

Standard of Review· and Requisites of Proof

The Court in Blount Recycling,LLCv. City ofCullman, 884 So.2d 850 (Ala

2003) stated the standard by which this matter is to be reviewed by the Court as follows:·

4cC1citrctr7ieo9soio:0faiuuouc,dl(rrulsAtit4icasmn/7eocleagsx2rux.t"teJcoracW&t(9etnie1.eo8g"ce9edn3EredT7as),sler.n0eeetdit)lchbvt,Me.ste"eiirpaetfoidsrcwocpriooresdrmeuCceoiarsrlovptietc.'pemthstrerireevor,ie".tnnlaiioliaAofcomrwnftlwyiiMaitohniebicnneonaraanbrjwmnugyciirlnnoit<ealiocul,nl"JttrGjeliInttuobnxioannneccbstgc.eersbteCieithvneohds.oognet[drBwsspi]iatcnsl.ro,atoy\tuihrtnou2ghdresunb8eaeicebl6tdtCytedoeitAroahurimoenbnenlnda.lidettn.hrs"a"ei7Te[paoT9VpwlVd,f]e,arcihha8selo4eelcl2au.et2,r"hsyrge8ote2trIirSadneH3on.ox,7tnethc.Aaa2Seeooltdleoiffttnd,r.t1rt2ihgehi7aoadde,e,lrl ·

I
I
i
! . 'i
i '

A(tu6(saAh3n4sane)lst6rdaie'stn.ahh1ifS,risaa9oerotr9e5d.dnBt2p75:hsa)ad9ehb.e(rfialS!o5ppy)bor8lela.5toe2ihi,mundeaittnn5tpw1ijtf8o0wueef7s7rriiieigys5tndh(;hlgA(oi(Aktluu2haealpt)ae.lloyt.t9p1hnhb9tr9eeaoe49nttli)hs0ient(mueh)fcj)icueiit.tcn"nditpeanceoBelrtgfaiydletoaihnMnonyiedtnnliaaotjfpnhturfclhttenakhieinc.apnbvmts.itlyioavefCn.nifront.ai,hFttrPsieaytifhdr,eofsreeif7wtnlqet0juthiFyu9rlaelienatSvdcecsl.o,tuai.rsTfoc2eSfeoandme;auprva1esrw.nit1dcmoa2dy&mu8nm(a,l,4udeLt)1sIdonlt1tainhaca3wbo.atn0,eet;t

mTpcoieeeultre,reptqrteuohniImestfeiptrtteisrhesiear,alt'opphcarfeeMorntluiyomartb'spisinerleeeao,krliyrIimdnniegcinnr.jautvhmrn.yecButisiianontjynjuoubnwunecchtCtideioaoinnbsnsltseohfhlaeTovislVueesdl,dptsronuaenopreedrtsqabtu.ate"ihbseleii8tnse8htcse4arhseeSeadaovc..he2rIedfnmotoahfattent8bdht5eree3iedsa.ne.l

I
I.

Proceedings

This action was precipitated by the consequences of Jessica Edwards, et al v. Jefferson County, et a/, Civil Action No. 2007-900873. The Edwards case was commenced on May 11, 2007. After failed attempts at mediation, the case was submitted

I

to the Court under Rule 56 for ruling on motion for summary judgment. .

On January 12, 2009, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and declared that the Jefferson County Occupation Tax, Act 1967-406, had been repealed by a subsequent enactment of the Alabama Legislature, Act 1999-669.

On January 21, 2009, Jefferson County filed an appe8.J of this ruling with the Alabama Supreme Court. ·

I
I

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2 Filed 11/08/11 Page 5 of 42

Page4of4l
On March 13, 2009, Jefferson County' filed a motion for an emergency stay; on March 20, 2009, the Circuit Court granted Jefferson County's motion and ordered a stay until midnight, May 18, 2009.

On· May 28, 2009, Jefferson County sought a second emergency stay from the Circuit Court. On June 4, 2009, the Circuit Court denied Jefferson County's Motion for a second emergency stay and stated in its order:
ipcnro"cilsUeiitnsni.tcfiaoIvlfrettoufhronisrlaettgCehlieoyslu,CartttoihvuoiserrtstCahoneolduuStriiuttospnhlraeessgmoinseloolaCntcigovoueanrsitditdeghlereeangncCatestoiuotfhurntartttpohrteohrrevissisodtmalevysaettshttheheerirsletce.mawrnaifltrrltoeembar.ec"htnhoea

The Respondent Jefferson County Commission then undertook efforts to bring its Fiscal 2008-09 operating budget for the 4ih Quarter of the said fiscal year (July 1 September 30, 2009) into compliance with the Balanced Budget Act by amending the previously approved budget through enactment of an "across the board" one-third reduction in appropriated expenditures for all county departments and agencies, including the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department.

Plaintiff filed for injunctive relief from the then proposed amendments to the Fiscal 2008-09 budget with its action taken on June 30, 2009, the eve of the commencement of the 4th Quarter of the current fiscal year.

Summary of the Testimony Before the Court Cleveland Moore

The Co\)rt received the testimony of Captain Cleveland Moore of the Jefferson

I

County Sheriff's Department. Captain Moore testified that he has been employed by the

I

Sheriffs Department for 29 years and that he has served 14 months in the rank of Captain serving as the Division Commander of the Bessemer Division of the said Department.

\

Captain Moore testified as to the various duties he perfonns and the number of men and

·women who serve in the Bessemer Division of the said Department. Captain Moore

testified that the proposed reductions in funds from the County Commission, resulting

from a one-third, across the board reduction as.applied to the Bessemer Division of the

Sheriffs Office, would result in the layoff of Deputy Sheriffs with those of lowest

seniority being laid off first under current existing rules and regulations of the personnel

board.

I

I

I

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2 Filed 11/08/11 Page 6 of 42
Page 5 of4!
Byron Jackson
The Court next received the testimony of Captain Byron Jackson. Captain Jackson is a 30-year employee with the said Department and is currently serving as Captain ofthe Patrol Division in the Birmingham Division of Jefferson County Alabama. Captain Jackson testified that the Department currently operates with less than the optimum number ofunifon'ned deputies performing all of the statutory duties assigned to · the said Department. Shifting resources to meet Departmental needs in times of manpower shortages, such as are currently being experienced, was described by Captain Jackson as "robbing Peter to pay Paul".
In a layoff scenario wherein budgetary cutbacks would result in cutting back the force, Captain Jackson testified that the latest hires would be the first to be dismissed under current rules and reglilations of the Personnel Board under which the Deputies serve in the Department. Captain Jackson testified that the principle resources of the 'Patrol Division are human resources, without much administrative support staff, so that layoffs in his Division would directly impact the number of Deputies serving on Patrol. Commissioner Bobby Humphryes
The Court next received the testimony of County Commissioner Bobby Humphryes. Commissioner Humphryes testified that he was not aware of the statute identified in the testimony as the "preferred claims statute", Ala. Code §11-12-15 (1975), and had only learned about it after the commencement of the current action.
The Commissioner described the budgetary process as one wherein department heads submit their budget requests to the County Commission, pursuant to the Budget Control Act, and that depending on the estimates of revenue available as well as in consideration of the needs of the other departments, the County Commission approves a budget so as to fund the various Departments of County government in a manner that is geared toward a balanced operating budget, as required by law.
The budget approved by the County Commission for the said Sheriffs Department for fiscal year 2008-09, Commissioner Humphreys testified, was reasonable in that it took into account the request made by the Sheriff and reflected a sum of money that the Commissioner testified the County could afford to appropriate, in the amount of approxirnately$61 million dollars. Commissioner Humphreys testified that the total
I

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2 Filed 11/08/11 Page 7 of 42

Page 6 of 41

budget approved for FY 2008-09 was approximately $700 million dollars, of which the Sheriffs Office was appropriated $61 million dollars. Later testimony clarified the exact amount of the expenditures approved for the current flSca! year.

In June of 2009; Commissioner Humphreys testified that the Defendant County

Commission was faced with the loss of approximately $7 5 million dollars in revenue

I

comprising an estimated 35% of County revenues assigned to the County's General

I

Fund, due to the loss of a business license tax and the denial to the County of

occupational tax collections pursuant to an order of the Circuit Court rendered in the case

I

.of Jessica Edwards, et al v. Jefferson County, et al, Civil Action No. 2007-900873. 1

Because of the requirements of Ala. Code §11-8-J(b) (1975), and its mandate that

appropriations made in the budget shall not exceed the estimated total revenues of the

county available to fund said appropriations, the budget for FY 2008-09 became seriously

out of balance with the loss of the two referenced sources of revenue to the General Fund,

necessitating the County Commission to enact amendments to .the said budget in order to

restore the statutorily mandated balance.

The Commissioner testified that there were a number of proposed resolutions thai came before the County Commission to eliminate certain aspects and services previously funded by County appropriations? . There were measures listed in the Proposed Budgetary Reduction Resolutions, designated as "Eliminate Discretionary Government Functions and Eliminate Jobs", which totaled $13,790,000 million dollars, but none of these proposals were voted upon or approved. Also listed were various discretionary contractual obligations undertaken by the County Commission totaling $24,879,500, .which likewise were not voted upon or approved for elimination or reduction.
On June 16, 2009, of the various proposed resolutions eliminating spending, Commissioner Humphreys testified that only 4 items of prospective appropriations in the 2009-2010 fiscal year were voted upon. They were, namely:
• Postponement oftbe Opening of the New Bessemer Courthouse;

1 This case was commenced on May 11, 2007. to the Court under Rule 56.

After failed attempts

at mediation, the case was submitted

AJOelnfafbeJarasnmounaarLCyeog1ui2ns,lt2ayt0uO0re9c,c, uAthpceattCi1oo9nu9Tr9t-ag6xr6,a9An.tcetd1P9l6a7in-4ti0ff6sh' amdobtieoennfroerpseuamlemd baryyajusdugbmseeqnuteannt dendaecculanreendt

that the of the

2 PlaintiffExhibits #3, #4

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2 Filed 11/08/11 Page 7 of 41
o Abolish Tuition Reimbursement; ~ Terminate Road Maintenance in all Cities; and ~ Close all Satellite Courthouses.

Page 8 of 42

These votes resulted in a prospective savings of $l1,642,063. These measures
were adopted prior to the action taken by the County Commission to adopt and amendment to the FY 2008-09 Budget in which a one-third, across the board reduction in appropriations to all departments of county government, including the Sheriffs
Department, was enacted. The amendment to the fiscal 2008-09 budget reduced the appropriation to the Sheriffs Office by an approximate amount of$5.0 million dollars for the 4th Quarter of the said fiscal year. The Commissioner testified that the across the board one-third cut was approved by the County Commission on June 30, 2009 applied to all Departments of county government, including the Sheriff's Office, however, due to the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued in this· action on July l, 2009, the amended budget was not immediately implemented with regard to ilie Sheriffs Office.
With ilie voiding of the said TRO order by the Alabama Supreme Court on Thursday, July 9, 2009, the Commissioner testified that the amended budget was then implemented with regard to the Sheriff's Department and his unencumbered available appropriated funds for the balance of FY2008-09 were reduced by one-third. The Commission acted on the evening of July 9, 2009 to effectuate the reduction.
When questioned about whether he believed the Sheriffs Office ought to be treated differently from other Departments of county government, the Commissioner testified that given the severe nature of the loss of revenue and the cutbacks necessary to restore balance to the budget, that the County Commission could not adopt a "hands off'' position wit)1 regard to any department of county government, including the Sheriff's Office. The Commissioner testified that ilie County is currently taking in approximately $8.0 million in revenues and expending approximately $18.0 million in expenditures per month with only a $14.0 million dollar cash reserve fund as of several weeks ago.
The Commissioner testified that ilie County Commission's authority over the Sheriffs Office is to fund its budget. In exercising iliat authority to fund the operations of the Sheriff's Office, the Commissioner testified that the Commission takes into account the representations of the Sheriff with regard to his estimate of ilie requirements

I

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2 Filed 11/08/11 Page 9 of 42

Page 8 of4l
of his Department, a view of the estimated revenues of the County, and the needs of the

other departments of county government.

The Commissioner testified that he is not familiar with the day-to-day operation

of the Sheriff's Department. Though the Commissioner testified that he was personally

invited by Assistant Sheriff Farley to tour the Bessemer Division in order to observe the

debilitating effect that a steep reduction in expenditures would cause, the Commissioner

testified that he was not able take the tour. Prior to implementing the said one-third

reduction in the funds available to the Sheriff's Office, the Commissioner testified that

the County Commission had not received any recommendations from the Plaintiff,

Sheriff Hale, with regard to the amount of reduction his Office could sustain, and further,

the Commission did not take into account Ala. Code §11-12-15 (1975) and the priority of

preferred claims stated therein.

Paul Logan

The Court then received the testimony of Paul Logan. Mr. Logan is a Captain

.with the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office in charge of the Vice and Narcotics Division

in the Birmingham Division of Jefferson County. Captain Logan presented a

demonstration of the various functions of his Division. Captain Logan testified that the

Sheriffs Office also receives funding from the proceeds of the sale of contraband seized

by the Vice & Narcotics Division. Captain Logan testified that this fund, known as the Ex

Officio Fund, is placed at the disposal of Plaintiff to spend on equipment only. Captain

i

:'

Logan testified that to his knowledge, the proceeds from forfeiture sales may not, by law,.

be used to fund salaries for personnel3

Mark Farley

The Court then received the testimony of Mr. Mark Farley. Mr. Farley is a

·captain with the Jefferson County Sheriffs Department, Bessemer Division working

primarily in School Resources and Vice· & Narcotics. Captain Farley testified with

regard to the method and means of carrying out the various functions of his division and

the number of uniformed deputies needed to conduct a raid, or serve a warrant or make

an arrest where armed resistance is foreseeable. He also testified that there are uniformed

deputies that work 9 schools and 1 alternative school in the Bessemer Division.

3 Sergeant Steve Morrow later testified with regard to the Ex Officio Fund of the Sheriff's Office

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2 Filed 11/08/11 Page 10 of 42
Page 9 of41
Dennis Berry
The Court then received the testimony of Mr. Dennis Berry. Mr. Berry is a Captain with the Jefferson County Sheriffs Office working in the Supply and Service Department with budget and financial responsibility. In short, Captain Berry is in charge of the budget for the Jefferson County Sheriffs Office.
Captain Berry testified that on Thursday, June 9, 2009, that he had $13 million dollars available in the Sheriff's Office budget. On Friday, June 10, 2009, he testified that his system showed that the original appropriation made to the Sheriffs Office in the FY 2008-09 year of $61,450,732 had been reduced to ·$54,950,556.35. Captain Berry testified that this change meant that rather than having $13 million dollars remaining in the budget to finish the 41h Quarter ofFY 2008-09, he had only $5,983,791.04 remaining.
Captain Berry testified that he had budgeted $10,340,206 for the said remaining Quarter of the fiscal year, comprised of $9,464,15i for personnel and $876,055 for utilities. Captain Berry testified that his budget for the 4th Quarter of the current fiscal year, after the implementation of the June 30, 2009 amendments, currently has a ·$4,356,206 shortfall. Captain Berry further testified that of th~ $9,464,151 in personnel cost, $1,912,050 was budgeted to pay the salaries of the civilian staff, that is, the nonsworn employees.
Should the Sheriff order the entire civilian staff be laid off, and that all utilities in the amount of $876,055 not be paid, then remaining funds in the Sheriff's budget would still leave the Department short by $1,568,310 in meeting personnel costs of the sworn or uniformed deputies. Captain Berry testified that the cost of sworn personnel averages $4,200/month. The cost of each Deputy's salary for the 2.5 months remaining in FY 2008-09 is $10,500. Therefore the amendment to the Plaintiffs budget, assuming that Plaintiff eliminated all civilian personnel, and ceased payment of all operating expenses would reduce the Sheriff's Deputy Force by 155 deputies.
Captain Berry then testified regarding hls analysis that a force reduction of 155 Deputies from the current force of721 :Deputies would leave the Sheriff's Office with no Deputies available to patrol the County after.positions formerly held by the civilian staff in the Bessemer and Birmingham County Jails have been filled with replaced patrol

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2 Filed 11/08/11 Page 11 of 42
Page 10 of41
Deputies, and all other services perfonned by the sworn officers of the force have been filled. 4

Captain Berry testified that the Sheriffs Office attempted to comply with the

March 2009 request to reduce expenditures by approximately $3.0 million dollars and

instead implemented reductions of $2.75 · million dollars with $1.75 miilion being

implemented in the current fiscal year, and due to other circumstances, the other $1.0

million dollars was scheduled to be reduced from the FY 2009-10 budget. Captain Berry

I

also testified that certain cost savings measures were adopted by the Sheriffs Office that

) .

would produce a savings of $700,000 by end of the fiscal year had the said June 30, 2009

amendment to the FY 2008-09 budget not been implemented against the Sheriffs Office

Budget. Thus, after the March 2009 reductions, had there been no other reductions

implemented, Captain Berry testified that the Sheriffs Office would have ended the

fiscal year with a $700,000 surplus.

The reductions implemented on the evening of July 9, 2009 were accomplished without any communication to Captain Berry. Berry testified that while the Sheriff has discretion to spend his Office's appropriation, any change in the various accounts or · reallocation of funds from one account to another within the Sheriffs Office budget, must, under the county-wide SAP5 accounting software system, pass through the County Commission and be approved by Commissioner Collins.
Captain Berry testified that he has worked as the budget officer with the Sheriffs Office for 16 months and that before this current assigmnent, he was the commander of the Binningham and Bessejller Division County Jails.

Captain Berry testified that he had never before seen or known of the "preferred

. claim statute", Ala. Code §11-12-15 (1975). In submitting claims to the County

Commission for payment, Berry testified that he had never referred to any claim as

"preferred" or as "priority" nor had he ever cited to the said statute. He testified that overtime and deputy time spent responding to calls that originate

I
I

outside of the unincorporated territory of Jefferson County are part of the payroll claims

!

4 Plaintiff exhibit #12 5 <~Systems Applications and Products11

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2 Filed 11/08/11 Page 12 of 42

Page ll of41
submitted, but are not separately accounted for under the SAP accounting software used by the County Finance Departtnent.

Ber:ry testified that there are currently 22 vacant deputy positions but that in his calculation of the Sheriff Office budgetary shortfall caused by the Defendant's adoption oftbe amended budget, he did not include funding for vacant positions. Rather, he used the average compensation actually paid to all active personnel, sworn and unsworn.

Berry testified that during the current fiscal year, there have been new deputies

hired, and some lost through retirement. Since March 11, 2009, there have been new

deputies hired and there have been merit pay increases in salaries awarded as welL

In executing a force reduction, Berry testified that the newest deputies are

released first and the newest deputies are first assigned to the county jail, so that the jail

would be the first to experience uriderstaffing as a result of the implementation of the

Amended Budget as applied to the Sheriff's Office. This situation would be remedied by

taking more veteran deputies off patrol and putting them on duty in the county jail.

Berry testified that prior to Defendants' implementation of the budget amendment

reducing the. Sheriff Office's appropriation on July 10, 2009, the Sheriff had not

identified cost centers to be cut. Rather, the Defendant implemented the reductions,

according to the SAP accounting hardware, to the various accounts within the Sheriff

. Office's budget. Under the said accounting system, the Sheriff has the power to exercise

his discretion to reallocate the funds remaining between and among the accounts within

his over all appropriation, with the necessary approval of the changes by the President of

the County Commission, Commissioner Collins.

I

Commissioner James Carnes The Court then received the testimony of Commissioner James Cames.

I

Comn1issioner Carnes has responsibility over Environmental Services and has served

since November 2006 on the CommiSsion. Commissioner Carnes testified that his

.primary responsibility over the Sheriffis to approve the budget for the Sheriffs Office.

Commissioner Carnes testified that in the usual budgetary process the

Commission staff receives requests for appropriations from the staif members of the

various departments of county government funded by appropriations approved by the

I

!

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2 Filed 11/08/11 Page 13 of 42
Page 12 of4J
County Commission wherein the Commission funds the critical needs of the various departments.

Regarding the process that was followed in adopting the amended budget that

featured an across the board one-third reduction in the departments which receive appropriations from the General Fund, Commissioner Carnes testified that there was no

I
I.

such consulting process. The requirements of the Balanced Budget Act required the Commission to take immediate action to reduce expenditures and so the Commission

I

acted more to reduce expenditures than to consider the needs of the various departments

that were to have their budgets reduced. The Commissioner testified that he never asked

about the needs of the Sheriffs Office, never undertook an investigation of his own and

never obtained information from anyone else as· to the impact on the one-third reduction

on the Sheriff's Office before voting to approve it.

But, Commissioner Carnes testified that he was not "picking on" anyone,

I

certainly not on Plaintiff, when he voted for the Amended Budget featuring the across the board reduction. He testified that every department, including his own, has· suffered

I
I

equally from the budget reduction and that he personally has lost employees from his

departments as well as stafffrom his office.

The Conunissioner testified that he has never discussed the minimum required

funding for the Sheriff's Office necessary for Plaintiff to meet his statutory obligations.

In bringing the County budget in.to balance ·under the requirements of the

Balanced Budget Act, Commissioner Carnes testified that the Commission exercises its

budgetary discretion to pick and choose and then they vote on the amendment necessary

to bring the budget to balance. There is no law that requires the Commission to

implement a flat percentage reduction to all departments. The across the board approach, ·commissioner Carnes testified was one of several approaches the Commission could have adopted, .another would have been to prioritize, but it was important not to show

I
I
I

favoritism in this extreme budgetary situation.· So the across the board approach was

taken and it received a unanimous vote among the five commissioners.

Commissioner Carnes testified that the Commission had sent out three separate

notices to the departni.ent heads, including to the Sheriff asking for their

recommendations for reductions in their departments that the Commission would

l

I

I

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2 Filed 11/08/11 Page 14 of 42
- · .~. ~~---~·· ....... ~ .... ~~ ._., v...- ..._v.,J
Page 13 of41
consider in exercising their budgetary powers. The Commissioner testified that the circumstances were such that "we were the Titanic heading toward the iceberg."
Their was no response to the request for cuts and therefore the Commission simply acted by amending the FY 2008-09 budget by reducing appropriations by onethird across the board, implementing the reductions to the Sheriffs Office on July 10, 2009 after the TRO was lifted by action ofthe Alabama Supreme Court.
Though the Sheriffs budget is funded from the General Fund, Commissioner Carnes testified that it is possible to transfer resources from one of the other funds maintained by the County to the General Fund.
During the current fiscal year, Commissioner Carnes testified. that county sales taxes are less than anticipated due to the economic downturn; ad valorem taxes are down and two entire categories of revenue, the Occupational Tax and Business License tax, have been eliminated from the budgets of those departments funded from the General Fund. Yet, to date, Commissioner Carnes testified that there has been no request from the Sheriffs Office that has been refused for payment. Though public safety will be adversely affected by a reduction of resources appropriated to the Sheriffs Office, Commissioner Carnes testified that the other departments of county gov·emment have likewise been adversely affected by the reduction and elimination of revenues and that therefore there has been an adverse affect on the health and welfare of Jefferson County.
The Commissioner testified that the other departments were not asked how much of a reduction in appropriations they could tolerate and still perform their missions. The County is rurming out of money and there was simply no time to interview everyone. A ·decision had to be made which was being forced by the circumstances of rapidly reducing funds with whichto meet payrolls. The budget could. have been balanced by some other means. The Commissioner testified that it was possible to have implemented reductions by SOJJ1e formula other than the across the board method, but the other alternatives were not chosen. No priorities· were given among the departments and so the Commission acted and its all on public record.
Travis Hulsey
The Court next received the testimony of Travis Hulsey, the Director of Revenue and acting Finance D).rector for Jefferson County. Ms. Tracy Hodge, the Manager of

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2 Filed 11/08/11 Page 15 of 42

Page 14 of 41
Budget Information, assists Hulsey in his Department. Mr. Hulsey testified that budgets are made from estimates of revenue and of expenditures, not the actual amounts.
Mr. Hulsey was asked about the setting aside of sufficient funds to pay priority claims submitted to the Commission for payment and testified that there are sufficient funds to pay all claims with the County Treasurer. He testified that all claims presented for payment have been paid. When asked the amount of the set aside, Mr. Hulsey testified that he did not know because that is the duty of the County Treasurer6• Mr. Hulsey
a testified that all claims are made on weekly basis and paid timely.
Regarding the liquidity .in Jefferson County's General Fund, Mr. Hulsey testified that as of June 1, 2009, the General Fund had approximately $20 million dollars on .account. Revenues in the approximate amount of $8.0 million dollars are deposited to the said fund monthly anci expenditures of approximately $18 million are drawn from the ··said fund monthly.

As of July 10, 2009, the General Fund had $4.9 million dollars on deposit and there has been a recent transfer of an additional $5.0 million dollars from the Department .of Revenue, so that currently there is approximately $10.0 million dollars on deposit in the General Fund.

On July 24, 2009 there will be a payroll draw of approximately $6.5 million

dollars and there are weekly expenditures of $1.0 million to vendors.. Currently it is

expected that the General Fund will reach a zero balance on August 7, 2009.

The County Commission has adopted a 32 hour workweek; implemented a hiring

;
I.

freeze; and on June 30, approved an across the board one-third cut in appropriations to all

!

Departments. Mr. Hulsey testified that the $5,069,685 reduction in the budget of the

Sheriff's Office amounted to only an 8.25% reduction in the over all budget."

Mr. Hulsey testified that the budget approved for the Sheriff's Office in October

2008 in the amount of $61,450,723 was more than a reasonable amount on which to fund

the operations of the Sheriff's Office. Hulsey testified that the said Office could be

operated at minimum levels on a budget of $40 million dollars and that he based this

I

opinion on 17 years of dealing with Sheriffs and their budgets.

· 6 Ala. Code §ll-4-23(J)(a) (1975)

I

I

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2 Filed 11/08/11 Page 16 of 42
-- - - - - - · · . •~~i'-'"'' ' - ' ' V./-,t..V'-1-l
Page l5of4l
Mr. Hulsey testified that the budget reduction has been difficult on all concerned and that the across the board reductions was the most fair and consistent means to bring the budget into balance.
When it was brought to his attention that, as applied to the· Sheriffs Office, Plaintiff will be forced to dismiss all non-sworn personnel and not feed the prisoners in the jail and eliminate deputies from patrol, Mr. Hulsey testified that all departments are suffering from the restrictions imposed by the lost revenue and that the other departments are malcing due with the resources they have remaining.
Mr: Hulsey testified that it was his recommendation that the best method to address the revenue shortfall was the across the board one-third cut to all departments, including the Sheriffs Office. This was the most expedient method available.
Hulsey testified that this was not the only method and that a committee comprised .ofhimself, Tracy Hodge, Demetrius Taylor (HR), Jeff Smith (GSA), the County Attorney .and the Personnel Board of Jefferson County, investigated other methods. This committed considered several scenarios. They looked at eliminating non-legally mandated services; they looked outside of the constraints of the General Fund; and at the across the board reduction in expenditures. They took input from the departments with regard to layoffs.
Hulsey testified that the committee did not consider the constitutional or statutory duties of the several departments, including the Sheriffs Department.
Hulsey testified that though the budget as approved provided for a transfer into the General Fund of $17,42!,500 from the Bridge and Public Building Fund, this transfer was never made. The transfer would have been possible had this sum not been encumbered with the payment of debt obligations paid from the Bridge and public Building Fund. However, the expected claims on the said fund were more than originally anticipated which meant that the said 17,421,500 transfer could not be made. In addition to the General Fund there are 16 other identifiable funds maintained by the County · Commission, most of which are for earmarked revenues and eannarked expenditures that are not available to the General Fund.
In the budgetary· process, Mr. Hulsey testified that it is standard operating procedure for all department heads to ask for more than they know will be appropriated.

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2 Filed 11/08/11 Page 17 of 42

Page 16 of41

In approving the requests for FY 2008-09, Hulsey testified that the Commission did not

anticipate the declining ad valorem and county sales taxes, nor the complete loss of the

occupational tax and county business license tax.

The

approximate

$1 00

million

' dollar increase

in

anticipated

revenues

to

the

county for FY 2009 as compared to previous years from 2006-08, was attributed to the

1% tax that was levied and earmarked to the School Warrant Operating Fund for the ftrst

time since its adoption.

"Mr. Hulsey testified that he first learned of the possible loss of the Occupational Tax Revenues on January 12, 2009 when Judge Rains made his ruling in Jessica Edwards, et a! v. Jefferson County, et al, Civil Action No. 2007-900873 declaring the authorizing act to have been repealed in 1999. The reduction in the ad valorem and sales taxes carne to his attention, Mr. Hulsey testified, through a process of monthly monitoring of actual tax receipts against budget projections. In the 1st Quarter of FY 2008-09 there was some reduction, but the trend did not become defined until June 2009 when the actual.receipts fell below 16% of i:evenue projections.
Mr. Hulsey then went department by department and ·explained what the elimination of the "non-statutory" departments would have on the ability· of county government to serve the people. ·

Mr. Hulsey testified that he prepared the June 24, 2009 memo to Commission President Collins in which he asked that the Resolution and Budget Amendment, which reduced appropriations to all departments by one third, be placed on the pre-Commission agenda for Thursday, June 25, 20097 The proposed resolution was voted on and approved on June 30, 2009. Prior to the issuance of the memo, in mid-June 2009, Mr. Hulsey testified that he met with representatives of the Sheriffs Office in the conference room of the Finance Department. The meeting was at the request of the Sheriff's · representatives. "Mr. Hul~ey testified that the said representatives wished to inform him of the requirements of the Sheriff's Office for fimding and that the E:x:hibits8 prepared by Captain Berry and introduced in this case indicating that the proposed reduction would eliminate the patrol division of the Sheriffs Office were not then presented. In fact, Mr.

7 Defendant Exhibit #7 'PlaintiffExhibit## !1, 12

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2 Filed 11/08/11 Page 18 of 42
Pagel7of41
Hulsey testified that the Sheriffs representatives did not propose any reductions for the Sheriffs Office. Hulsey testified that the said representatives did not tell him that the Sheriffs Office could not perform its mission if its budget were reduced as proposed. Mr. Hulsey testified that he told the Sheriffs representative of the clire situation that the County's General Fund faced and that the County would not be able to make payroll unless all departments participated in the force reduction. Ron Eddings
The Court next received the testimony of Mr. Ron Edclings. MI- Eddings is a Captain with the Sheriffs Department currently serving as the Captain of the county jail, Birmingham Division. Captain Eddings testified that if the force reduction is implemented, 60% of the deputies assigned to the county jail will be laid off first, under current Personnel Board Rules. Of the 153 sworn deputies assigned to the CountyJail in Birmingham, Captain Edclings testified that he has 9 positions vacant; 7 in the Anned Forces deployed to Iraq; 5 in the law enforcement academy; and 3 more scheduled to be deployed to Afghanistan within 3 months.
Not counting the 3 who will go to Afghanistan, of the 132 deputies available to him for the county jail, each have 2 off days per week.. Captain Eddings testified that the County Jail requires 100 men per day working three shifts: 46 men for day shift; 31, for evening; and 23 for night shift. With the current force level, and allowing for some men to be in the· Armed Forces, others to be away at the law enforcement academy and those left being allowed to take their days off or else charge the county overtime for working their off days, he cun·ently has a manpower shortage of 6 sworn deputies per shift day.
Captain Eddings testified that the annual cost to operate the Jefferson County Jail . at Birmingham is $20.0 million dollars. Captain Eddings testified that the cost to heat the
county jail, supply it with drinking water, to keep it clean, provide janitorial services; and provide electricity9 is borne by Jefferson County, but does not come from the Sheriffs budget. Provision for bedding and clothing does come from his budget however and Captain Eddings testified that he had recently expended $3 7, 000 for new sheets.
Regarding the staffing of the county jail, by both sworn and unsworn employees, Captain Eddings testified that the Sheriffs Office employs sworn Deputies rather than
9 Ala. Code §11-12-J5(a)(J) (1975}

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2 Filed 11/08/11 Page 19 of 42

VJ Vll n.vt.JV.U J.'IUJJlUCJ L-V V)'·.L.V'tl
Pagel8of41
"watchmen" or c~attendants'' 1 0.

Though Captain Eddings was presented with

classifications within the Jefferson County Personnel Board for a position known as a

"Correctional Offlcer"u, Captain Eddings was· shown other classifications within the Persomiel Board for Corrections Supervisor12 and Senior Corrections Supervisor13,

however all of these classifications pertained to "large municipal jails" not to a county

jail.

Regarding the setting of salaries for the swam employees of the Sheriffs Office,

though Ala. Code §14-6-1 05 (1975) provides that the County Commission shall set the .salaries, Captain Eddings testified that under the "Turquitt Defense14", the County has

left to the Sheriff the setting of Deputy salaries.

Captain Eddings testified that the Sheriffs Office is allowed $1.20/day to feed

I

prisoners and that the cost per month is approximately $55,000.

Regarding health care for inmates, Captain Eddings testified that a private finn

known as Health Assurance, LLC provides this service under contract with the Sheriffs

Office at an annual fili;ed cost of $4,140,000. Prior to this arrangement, Captain Eddings

testified that health care was provided by staff from Cooper Green Mercy Hospital and

that the annual cost of the service to the Sheriff's Office was approximately $4.0 million

dollars. Thus, with the cost of operating the Bessemer and Birmingham Division County Jails being approximately $20 million dollars15, the cost for operating the county jails for the final three months,_ which are the 41h Quarter of FY 2008-09, was testified to be approximately $5.0 million dollars16

Captain Eddings also testified as to staffing requirements and the various

functions that the swom deputies assigned to the county jail perform.

With regard to payment for the health care costs of state inmates temporarily

housed in the Jefferson County Jail, Captain Eddings testified that the Sheriff's Office

°1 Counsel cited to Ala. Code §14-6-!05 (1975)
11 Defendant Exh. #8 12 PlaintiffExh. #19 "PlaintiffExh #20
14 Turquitl v. Jefferson County, Ala., 137 F. 3d 1285 (1 I'" Cir.{Ala.)J998)
15 $20,520,177.00, as per Plaintiff Exhibit #21 16 $5,130,044.25, as per PlaintiffExhibit #21

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2 Filed 11/08/11 Page 20 of 42

Page 19 of4J
usually pays for minor ailments, but that if a hospital stay is required, then the State Department of Corrections is made responsible. 17

Captain Eddings also testified that there are 16 vehicles assigned to jail personnel, 11 sergeants, 4lieutenants and one for the Captain of the County Jail.

Captain Eddings testified that prior to this trial, no one from the Defendant

Jefferson County Commission had ever asked him the amount of fmancial resources

needed td operate the County -Jail. With 78 days remaining in FY 2008-09, Captain

Eddings was asked how much it would cost to operate the County Jail, Birmingham

Division

and

he

responded,

that

with

a

per

day

cost

of

$14,764.78

18 ,

the

cost

would

be

$3,294,385.38. With the effects of the budgetary amendment as adopted by the

Defendant County Commission on June 30,2009, implemented July 1, 2009 reducing the

remaining appropriation to the Sheriff's Office to $5,946,3(53.00 approximately 55% of

the remaining funds would be needed to keep the County Jail, Birmingham Division

operational. Captain Eddings testified that the cost would be higher due to an imminent

· deployment of some of his sworn personnel to Iraq which would require him to work the

remaining force overtime and pay overtime which is not included iu the calculations

made by Captain Berry in Plaintiff Exhibit #21.

When asked by how much more he could reduce his operations, Captain Eddings testified that he is already below what he absolutely needs to operate the county jail and cannot reduce the budget any more than it has already been reduced. Jennifer Parsons Champion

The Court then received the testimony of Ms. Champion who is the County Treasurer, an elected position. Ms. Champion testified that the funds, which come into her custody are transferred from the Revenue Department. Ms. Champion testified that she has read and understands the requirements of Ala. Code §11-12-15(1975), the preferred claims statute, and that she pays out all claims that have been properly presented to her office for payment. Ms. Champion testified that to date she does not

"Ala. Code§ 14-3-30(b). medical condition which

Temporary confinement requires treatment.

of

convict

pending

removal;

inmate

developing

"wtc"rPoWahrlnirachseihccenrtnritiepoiqaftnnfusoEi)ifrnxsesmhhsuaiciablmhtliebmsts#eeeen2fndtiletnienaantcnececte,.irdaieslaltoybtmetriheenesngptcohaunotsustaoisbdmeldyeediofnoifcratahtlhce-oecduacenroeptsyaftrajtoacmiiflle)ithtnayetnoatdrunettdhastitemdhieenenmtdbteeaoptcaefortdthumeenvetieynnltomjapisiaslt,ienat.h"mreeecddeeiippcaat rlotcmfoaenndtit[ioonf

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2 Filed 11/08/11 Page 21 of 42

Page20 of4l
segregate funds so as to meet the requirements of the preferred claims· statute since Jefferson Cmmty operates from a budget with approved appropriations. Dennis Berry

The Court then again received testimony from Captain Dennis Berry who verified that he prepared Plaintiffs Exhibit #21 based on an average amount paid out by the Sheriffs Office over the period of the preceding 9 months of the current fiscal year. Captain Berry testified that at the current rate of spending, the Sheriffs Office will be out of funds by mid-August 2009.

Captain Berry also testified about "comp time" built by Sheriff Department
employees. He described the claim as arising when an employee works over time or on
an off day and rather than be paid over time, the employee takes comp time, that is, time for which the employee may talce off and be paid for the day off He testified that no employee may "book" more than 500 hours of comp time. Currently, there are 8,218.25 hours of comp time booked for Sheriff Department employees. 19
Captain Berry also testified vrith regard to the amount and category of encumbered funds in the Sheriffs Department's budget. "Encumbered" means obligated or promised to pay a certain obligation. Claims proceed through the Department first as pre-encumbered, then encumbered and upon payment, the amount so expended is removed from the encumbered category. As of July 10, 2009, Captain Berry testified that $1,564;300.84 of the amount appropriated to the Sheriffs Office is encumbered20 SheriffMike Hale

The Court then received the testimony of Plaintiff Mike Hale, Sheriff of Jefferson

County. Sheriff Hale, after describing the duties of his office testified that he carmot perforrn all ~f his statutory obligations with a one-third cut in his 4th Quarter budget. The

Sheriff testified that he and his staff have made reductions earlier in the year as they

!

could. He did not comply with the request to reduce his work week from 40 to 32 hours because for much of his staff, the work is 24 hours per day and 7 days per week.

r I

The Sheriff explained the overtime pay situation with his budget and the history

!

of budgeting for over time. He testified that by increasing the force, he was able to cut

" PlaintiffExhibit #23 20 PlaintiffExhibit #24

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2 Filed 11/08/11 Page 22 of 42
Page21 of41
down on overtime expenses and finally get a budget that was more reflective of the actual cost of the Department. The Sheriff testified that he was the first sheriff of the county to actually have a budget for over time.
Regarding the coverage area of the Sheriffs Department, Sheriff Hale testified · that for patrol purposes, his deputies patrol only the unincorporated portions of Jefferson
County, in those municipalities that do not have a police force or an adequate force to patrol their municipality, and in "contract municipalities" wherein the municipal government enters into a contract with the Sheriffs Office for "enhanced law .enforcement services, that is, for the Sheriff to dedicate a certain number of Officers and patrol cars to the municipality21 •
The Civil Division, however, covers the entire County, not just the unincorporated · areas. The Civil Division i;:ccludes the warrant division, service of summons and
complaints, subpoenas and execution of writs from the civil courts.
The Sheriff testified that his office has an ex officio fund and that Sergeant Steve Morrow accounts for those funds. The funds are under the Sheriffs control by virtue of several local acts of the State Legislature. The Sheriff testified that none of the funds may be used to supplant budgeted funds and that should he so use such funds, that he may lose the right to collect them.
Regarding the helicopters that are in service, the Sheriff testified that he bought four and from them built two operable ships. The helicopters were purchased, and are maintained strictly from ex officio funds and the pilots are reserve deputies who work for free as volunteers, so that none of the cost for the use and maintenance of the said helicopters is drawn from budgeted funds.
The Sheriff testified that the loss of 155 deputies, which is the projection made by Captain Dennis Berrl2, would cause him to dismiss the civilian employees. The Sheriff testified that he would dismiss the civilians and fill their positions in the county jails with sworn deputies so that he could retain a force of trained deputies in the Department should he need to assemble a such a force. By moving the deputies into the jail to keep it operational, the Sheriff testified that his patrol force would thus be eliminated.

21 22

Plaintiff Exhibit J:'laintiffExhibit

#1 (Center #12

Point,

Clay,

Pinson

and

Graysville);

Plaintiff Exhibit

#12

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2 Filed 11/08/11 Page 23 of 42

Page 22 of 41
Regarding the contract with Health Assurance, LLC, the Sheriff testified that there had been 8 prisoners deaths under the previous regime with Cooper Green Hospital and that the families had filed civil actions. Tl:)ough he is a state constitutional officer clothed with sovereign immunity, the Sheriff testified that he could become exposed to civil liability if he did not address the issue. Therefore he sought from Cooper Green a commitment to indemnizy the Sheriff and the Sheriffs Office in the event that a prisoner was injured or died while in the care of Cooper Green and could not get the commitment. Therefore he sought out a private company and entered into a contract with Health Assurance, LLC because they provided the service at the same cost as Cooper Green and provided the Sheriff with indemnity.

The Sheriff testified that prior to the County Commission implementing a onethiid cut in his budget, no one from the County made inquiry as to whether the Sheriffs Office could sustain that size of a reduction and the Sheriff testif1ed that the reduction is too much so that he cannot sustain the County Jail operations as well as perform the other missions of his office such as patrol and civil service to the Courts. Steve Morrow

The Court then received the testimony of Sergeant Steve Morrow. Sgt. Morrow

over sees the Ex Officio Fund of the Sheriffs Office?3 Of these funds, Sgt. Morrow

testified that the Sheriff Service Funds, the Sheriff Checking Fund and Sheriff Invested

Funds are in the custody of the County Treasurer. All other funds are maintained in the

Sheriffs Office. Sgt. Morrow testified that the funds may be expended at the sole

l

discretion of the Sheriff for any purpose which furthers law enforcement in the County.

I

When asked if there is any restriction on any of the funds, other than that they be spent to

further law enforcement, Sgt. Morrow testified that the Federal Condemnation Fund,

I

Federal Condemnation Fund - Savings, and the Federal Treasury Fund have significant

restrictions which specifically do not allow the funds to be used to pay deputy salaries.

He also testified that the Sheriffs Academy fund is used to defray the Sheriffs Academy

expenses. The total amount of the Ex Officio Funds as of JUT1e 30, 2009 were

$2,752,120.55.

23 PlaintiffExhibit #25

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2
VlV11J>.VWVll i.'!UUJUC.l \...V v:t-J.-V'-1-l
Page 23 of 41
SheriffMike Hale

Filed 11/08/11 Page 24 of 42

Sheriff Hale was again called to testify. ·The Sheriff was asked if he would give

up use of his helicopters in order to fund deputy salaries. The Sheriff testified that the

helicopter's operating costs for fuel is approximately $1200/month because he can access

fuel at a cost of $!.57/gallon under a Homeland Security Program. This cost is so low,

the Sheriff testified, that he could not hire more than one or two deputies from the

savings and that this would not justify the loss of the helicopters and the impact they have

on crime prevention. The Sheriff was asked whether he would commit some of his ex

officio funds to the purchase of equipment and thus free up some funds in the General

Fund to alleviate some of the pressure on the budget and the Sheriff testified that he

would be willing to do so in discussions 'With the County Commission.

;

The Sheriff agreed that his budget in 1998-99 was only approximately $3 8 million

dollars and that in approximately l 0 years time, it had grown to $60 million though in

I

that decade the population and territory of unincorporated Jefferson County had

'·

witnessed a reduction.

Findings of Fact Based on the foregoing testimony and evidence, the Court makes the following findings offact:

1. The Defendant CountyCommissioners adopted a Budget Resolution for FY 2008-

09 in September 2008 that provided for expenditures to all County agencies and

Departments, including the Sheriffs Deparbnent from the General Fund as well

I' .

as expenditures for 17 other special funds.

I

2. The said budget provided for expenditures of $320,128,498.00 from the General

I

Fund of which $61,450,723.00 was appropriated for the Sheriffs Department

I

3. The Sheriff's Department Budget was allocated into three accounts, with the

respective appropriations as follows:

I

a. Personnel

- $49,806,391.00;

I.

b. Operating Expenses -$10,963,332.00; and,

'

c. Capital Outlay - $ 681,000.00.

4. In addition the said Budget Resolution estimated that the Sheriffs Department

would have available to it $2,888,779.00 in ex officio funds.

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2 Filed 11/08/11 Page 25 of 42

\...JYJI,K(.;.lJUlll'!UJJlUt:f t....V V'1-.4V!fl
Page 24 of 41
5. There are several sources for revenue assigned to the General Fund, included

therein for FY 2008-09 were expected revenues from the County Occupational

Tax in the amount of $72,480,944 and the County Business License fees of

$5,962,679. None of the other 17 special funds maintained by the Defendant

County Commission receive revenue from these two said sources.

6. On January 12, 2009, at the start of the 2"d Quarter of FY 2008-09 the Court in

Jessica Edwards, eta/ v. Jefferson County, et dl, Civil Action No. 2007-900873

ruled that the said Occupation Tax and related Business license taxes were

repealed by Act of the Alabarna Legislature, Act 1999-669.

7. On March 11, 2009, Defendant County Commission issued a memorandum

advising all county departments and agencies of the consequences of the Court's

ruling in the Edwards case, and advised that a one-third reduction in departmentiU

budgets would be necessary.

I

8. On June 4, 2009, the Circuit Court in the Edwards case denied Defendant's final

request for a lift of the stay on use of the Occupation Taxes cun·ent!y being

I

collected by Defendant County Commission. The said case remains on appeal

before the Alabama Supreme Court as of the date of this order.

I

9. In mid-June, 2009 there was some consultation between representatives of the

County Revenue Department anq representatives of the Sheriff's Department with

regard to the looming one-third across the board budget reduction. Plaintiff's

representatives argued against such a reduction while Defendant's representatives

from the Revenue Department attempted to explain that all departments must participate in budget reductions, given the drastic nature of the action necessary.

II.

10. On June 24, 2009, Defendant Commission received the memorandum from the

I

Director of Revenue recommending the uniform one-third reduction in all county

·departmental budgets.

11. On June 30, 2009 Defendant County Commission, acting on the recommendation

of the Director of Revenue, Travis Hulsey, voted unanimously for a resolution

amending the FY 2008-09 Budget so as to bring it into compliance with the. "Balance Budget Act", Ala. Code §11-8-J(b) (1975) by adopting a uniform one-

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2 Filed 11/08/11 Page 26 of 42

VlVlJ A.CtlUll l'lWDDer 1...- Y VY~LVtfl
Page25of4J
third, across the board cut in appropriations to all county departments, including the Sheriffs Office.

12. On July 1, 2009, Plaintiff sought and obtained a Temporary Restraining Order against Defendants from implementing its amendatory budget resolution with regard to the reductions designated for Plaintiffs Department The order was immediately appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court.

!3. On the evening of July 9, 2009, following the grant of writ of mandamus by the Alabama Supreme Court, the temporary restraining order issued by the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Bessemer Division on July 1, 2009 was vacated, and the June 20, 2009 resolution referenced hereinabove was implemented with regard to Plaintiffs budget.

14. To the point of implementation of the June 30, 2009 amendatory resolution,

Plaintiff had expended $47,402,464.47 from his budgeted appropriation for FY

2008-09 and had $1,564,300.84 in either pre-encumbered or encumbered funds,

leaving an unencumbered balance of$14,048,258.53.

15. Following the implementation of the said resolution, Plaintiff's unencumbered

budgeted appropriations were reduced to $5,983,791.04.

16. Plaintiff's testimony is that he required $10,340,206 to complete the balance of

FY 2008-09 and that the implementation of the budget amendment to the

Plaintiffs appropriation created a budgetary shortfall of $4,356,415.

17. Plaintiff's testimony is also that in order to close this budgetary shortfall created

by Defendants' action, he would be required to implement a force reduction

within the Sheriff's Office. Of a force comprised of 557 sworn employees and 164 civilians, Plaintiff testified that he ~ould be required to lay off the entire

civilian staff as well as 155 sworn deputies, leaving Plaintiff's Office without

sufficient manpower to staff the County Jails and maintain patrols of the County

on a 24 hour, 7 day per week basis.

18. In addition to appropriated funds, Plaintiff has available to him ex officio funds,
which may be expended by Plaintiff in his discretion for the advancement of law

I

enforcement in Jefferson County. Five of the said ex officio funds are restricted

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2 Filed 11/08/11 Page 27 of 42

l...,.lVJJ .M,.l:tlUri l'lUIDOer \.... V U::t-LU£1 1
Page 26 of 41
and may not be used to fund the salaries of employees of the Sheriffs Office,
those funds and the amounts therein as of June 30, 2009, are:

a. The Federal Condemnation Fund-$] 34,744.22

b. The Federal Treasury Fund

-$ 10,262.85

c. Sheriffs Academy Fund

- $ 67,570.75

d. State Pending Fund

- $209,268.43

e. Federal Condemnation- Savings - $300,000.00

f Federal Condemnation- Checking $200,000.00

Thus, of the $2,752,120.55 reported in the said funds, $1,611,667.02 may be expended in Plaintiffs discretion restricted only' by the qualification that such discretionary expenditure should be for the betterment of law enforcement in Jefferson County, Plaintiff has indicated a willingness to exercise his discretion with regard to these funds as a source and means to assist alleviate the financial crisis which precipitated this action,

19, Defendant's adoption of the amended budget for FY 2008-09 on June, 30, 2009

i.

was not preceded by consultation with Plaintiff in an attempt to ascertain the

reasonable needs of Plaintiff's Department 20. Defendants acted in adopting the amended budget for FY 2008-09 without

I

independent knowledge or information from Plaintiff, his agents or

representatives, of the reasonable needs of Plaintiff and his Office, and without

such knowledge of whether the reduction in budgeted funds of $5,069,685 for the

fmal quarter of FY 2008-09 would render Plaintiff able to carry out the duties of

his office, Defendants took action to adopt and implement its said amendatory

budget resolution.

Findings ofLaw Separation of Powers Doctrine

'The Office of the Sheriff

This is a dispute arising between two co-equal branches of local government.

Plaintiff, as Sheriff of Jefferson County, as are all Sheriffs in the State of Alabama, is a member of the Executive Branch of State Government. Art. V §112, Constitution of1901 states:

"The executive department shall consist of a governor, lieutenant governor, attorney-general, · state auditor, secretary .of state, state treasurer,

I
I

!

'

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2 Filed 11/08/11 Page 28 of 42
ClVll ACUOll NUmDer CV l)'j'·LU41
Page 27 of 41
superintendent of education, commissioner of agriculture and industries, and a sherifffor each county.(emphasis added)"
In int10rpreting this and other provisions of the Alabama Constitution, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that an Alabama Sheriff is an executive officer of the State for the county in which he or she is elected and serves. In McMillian v. Monroe County, Ala., 520 US. 781, 117 S.Ct. 1734 (US.A/a.,J997), the Court wrote:

" . . . [T]he Alabama Supreme Court has interpreted these provisions [of the Alabama Constitution of 1901] as evidence of 'the framers' intent to ensure
that sheriffs be considered executive officers of the state." Parker[ v.
Amerson], 519 So.2d [442, 446 (Ala.J987).) Based primarily on this understanding of the State Constitution, the court has held unequivocally that sheriffs are state officers, and that tort claims brought against sheriffs based on their official acts therefore constitute suits against fue State, not suits against the sheriff's county. Jd., at 443-445. (note 5 omitted) Thus, Alabama counties are not liable under a theory of respondeat superior for a sheriffs official acts that are tortious. I d., at 442.

Turning from the Alabama Constitution to the Alabama Code, the relevant

'.

provisions are less compelling, but still support the conclusion of the Court of

Appeals to some extent. Section 36-22-3 of the code sets out a sheriffs

duties . . . .

. . .[M]ost importantly, '[i]t shall be the duty of sheriffs in their

respective counties, by themselves or deputies, to ferret out crime, to

apprehend and arrest criminals and, insofar as within their power, to secure

evidence of crimes in their counties and to present a report of the evidence so

secured to the district attorney or assistant district attorney for the county." §

36-22-3(4). By this mandate; sheriffs are given complete authority to enforce

the state criminal law in their counties. In contrast, the "powers and duties" of

the counties themselves--creatures of the State who have only the powers

granted to them by the State, Alexander, ·150 So.2d, at 206--do not include

any provision in the area of law enforcement. Ala. Code § 11-3-11 (1989).

Thus, the "governing body" of the counties--which in every Ala)Jama county

is the county commission, see Calvert v. Cullman County Comm'n, 669

So.2d 119 (Ala.J995) (citing § 11.-1-5)--cannot instruct the sheriff how to

ferret out crime, how to arrest a criminal, or ·how to secure evidence of a

crime. And when the sheriff does secure such evidence, he has an obligation

to share this information not with the county comrb.i.ssion, but with the district

attorney (a state official, see Hooks v. Hilt, 539 So.2d 157, 159 (Ala.J988))."

117 S.Ct at 1738, 1739.

The Jefferson County Commission

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2 Filed 11/08/11 Page 29 of 42

I._,JVJJ .M.\....llUlJ l'fWllUG! VV U';J~LV't1
Page 28 of 41
The County Commission, on the other hand is the legislative body, which

presides over county government with its powers and duties assigned to it, by

statute at Ala. Code §11-3-11 (1975). Its powers primarily are centered on the right

to appropriate funds for the various departments· of county government, including

that of the Sheriff's Office. Those powers are listed as follows:

"(a) The county commission· shall have authority:

(J) To direct, control, and maintain the property of the county as it may deem

expedient according to law, ...

(2) To levy a general tax, for general county purposes and -a special tax, for

special purposes, according to this Code.

(3) To examine, settle, and allow all accounts and claims chargeable against

the county.

(4) To examine and audit the accounts of all officers having the care,

management, collection, or disbursement of money belonging to the county

or appropriated for its use and benefit.

·

(5) To make such rules and regulations for the support of the poor in the

county as are not inconsistent with any law of the state.

(15) To expend money for the purpose of improving the sanitary conditions

of the county

(16) To appropriate money to promote or enforce the health and quarantine

laws of the state for the benefit of the county and its inhabitants when

requested so to do by the State Board of Health.

(17) To pay out of any funds in the county treasury all the expenses,

including a reasonable attorney's fee, incurred by the county treasurer ·in

resisting the payment of any warrant where said resistance on the part of the

county treasurer is successful.

(18) To set aside such part of the revenue of the county as may be deemed

i

expedient for the purpose of creating a sinking fund for the payment of bonds or other indebtedness and to invest such sinking fund in such interest-bearing

I

securities or deposit the same on interest-bearing account within the state as it

may deem wise.

(19) To set aside, appropriate, and use county funds or revenues for the purpose of developing, advertising, and promoting the agricultural, mineral, timber, water, labor, and all other resources of every kind of the county and

! I
I

for the purpose of locating and promoting agricultural, .industrial, and

~I
!

manufacturing plants, factories, and other industries in the county. The

county commission is authorized to enter into contracts with any person,

fum, corporation, or' association to carry out the purposes set forth in this

subdivision. (20) To insure in solvent companies the courthouse, jail, machine shops, and other buildings of the county against loss by fire and storm and the trucks,

I
I

tractors, machines, shovels, gra_ders, equipment, vehicles, and other personal

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2 Filed 11/08/11 Page 30 of 42

Page29 of41
property of the county against loss by fire and theft and against liability for damages to persons and property....
(22) To exercise such other powers as are or may be given by law. (b) It shall be the duty of the county commission to provide a janitor for the courthouse and to see that the janitor keeps clean and in a sanitary condition all courtrooms, corridors, halls, and offtces in the courthouse of the county."

It is also the duty of the Defendant County Commission to adopt budgets for the
various departments of county government and to appropriate funds to the various
executive departments of county government pursuant to the adopted budget. ·Pursuant to
Budget Control Act, Act 2007-488, p. 1037, § 1, which became effective September 1,
· 2007, Ala. Code§ 11-8-3 (1975) was amended so as to state the following, in pertinent
part:
· (a) It shall be the duty of the county comrmsswn, at some meeting in September of each calendar year, but not later than October 1, to prepare and adopt a budget for the fiscal year beginning on October 1 of the current calendar year which shall include all of the following: (I) An estimate of the anticipated revenue of the county for all public funds under its supervision and control including all unexpended balances as provided in Section 11-8-6. (2) An estimate of expenditures for county operations. (3) Appropriations for the respective amounts that are to be used for each of such purposes.
(b) The appropriations made in the budget shall not exceed the estimated total revenue ofthe county available for appropriations.
. (c) The budget adopted, at a minimum, shall include any revenue required to be included in the budget under the provisions of Alabama law and reasonable expenditures for the operation of the offices of the judge of probate, tax officials, sheriff, county treasurer, the county jail, the county courthouse, and other offices as required by law.
(d) In order that the budget adopted is based upon an estimate of revenue and operating expenditures as nearly correct as possible, at least 60 days before the meeting of the county commission at which the county budget is adopted:

(1) Any public official who receives public funds, including any official

entitled to ex officio fees, or who issues any kind of order payable out

of the county treasury without approval of such county commission
to shall furnish the countY commission in writing an estimate of the

revenue and of the anticipated expenditures the official will be called

upon to make during the next fiscal year.

(2) The judge of probate, tax officials, sheriff, county treasurer, and any

other county official or employee named by the county commission shall prepare and submit to the county commission an itemized

I
I·

I
!

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2 Filed 11/08/11 Page 31 of 42

Page 30 of 41
estimate ofthe amount the official or employee believes to be necessary for personnel, office supplies, and other expenditures during the following fiscal year. Any official entitled to ex officio fees shall include in his or her estimate the estimated amount of any ex officio .fees the official will receive during the following fiscal year. (e) Based upon the estimated revenue and expenditures set out in subsection (d), together with any other financial information available to the county commission regarding the anticipated revenue and expenditures for the next fiscal year, the county commission shall approve a budget which includes the expenditures it deems proper for the next fiscal year. (f) Following the adoption of 'the budget, no obligation incurred by any county official or office over and above the amount or amounts approved and appropriated by the county commission shall be an obligation of the county unless the obligation is approved by an affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the county commission. (g) The budget may be amended during the fiscal year as determined necessary by affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the county
commission. No amendment may authorize an expenditure which exceeds
anticipated revenue of the county except as otherwise specifically authorized by general law."

Also adopted as part of the Budget Control Act of2007 is the provision contained inA/a. Code§ 11-8-9 (1975), whichprovidesthefollowing:
"No warrant shall be issued or check drawn on the county treasury or county depository by any person except as authorized by the chair of the county commission or such other officer as may be designated by such county commission, unless otherwise provided by law, and officers who are authorized to pay claims which have not been first approved by the county commission shall issue orders for warrants or checks. pursuant to procedures established by the couoty commission."

Finally, Ala. Code§ Jlc8-10(1975) was included in the said Act and it provides as follows:
"No warrant or order for the payment of money shall be issued under authority of the county commission until funds are available for its payment upon presentation to the treasurer or depository pursuant to procedures established by the county commission."

Taken together these measures provide that the County Commission has the sole

authorrty to exercise its discretion in budgeting and appropriating funds to departments of county government. For purposes of the Budget Control Act, the Sheriff, though not a

I

1,

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2 Filed 11/08/11 Page 32 of 42
CWll ACtlOU NUmber CV UY-:LU4l
Page31 of4J
County employee, but a State Constitutional Officer, has equal standing before the County Commission, as do other Department heads, in the budgetary process. The County is required by these statutes to aciopt and. maintain a balanced. buciget through its ftscal year, which commences on October 1 and. ends on September 30 of each calendar year.
In adopting its budget for the various departments, Defenciant Commission is to provide reasonable expenditures for the operation of the various offices, including that of the Sheriff. Subpart (d) requires Department heads, including the Plaintiff Sheriff to submit to the Defendant County Commission an itemized estimate of the amount necessary to operate his or her office. Then, pursuant to Subpart (e), the Defendant County Commission, based on the estimates, that is, based on the input it received from those Departments who receive an appropriation, approves a budget which includes the .expenditures the Commission deems proper for the next fiscal year.
In Chambers County Com'n v. Chambers County Bd. of Education, 852 So.2d 102 (Ala. 2002) the Court clearly stated the authority of the Defendant County Commission in matters of appropriations of .funds to county departments. The Court wrote, citing to the ruling in Geneva County Comm'n v. Tice, 578 So.2d 1070 (Ala.J991), in which this Court stated:
'"We reiterate the holding in Morgan County Comm'n v. Powell[, 292 Ala. 300, 293 So.2d 830 (1974),] that 'the trueintent of the legislature was to place in the county governing body, which body appropriates the public monies, the final say-so in the disposition of such funds, and thus centralize in the legislative body a function lawfully and traditionally delegated to that body by the legislature.' 292 Ala. at 310, 293 So.2d at 839,. '578 So.2d at 1075.(emphasis added)" 852 So.2d at 110
The Scope of Judicial Review under the Separation of Powers Doctrine In an action wherein an officer of the executive branch of government seeks aid of
the Court to enjoin the legislative branch of the government, a separation of powers issue arises which limits the field of operation for the Court in the exercise of its otherwise broad and plenary powers to issue writs of injunction in all cases where such a writ should lie.
\

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2 Filed 11/08/11 Page 33 of 42

UVlJ A.Ct)OD NUillber CV U';I~L.U'i 1
Page 32 of 4)

The Court in Geneya County Com'n v. Tice, 578 So 2d 1070 (Ala. 1991) defined the parameters in which the Court has a field of operation when the dispute is between

two co-equal branches of the Government. Citing to the ruling in Etowah County

Comm'n v. Hayes, 569 So.2d 397 (Ala.I990), the Court wrote:

I

"In testing the absolutism of the authority of the legislative branch to appropriate operational funds for the executive branch,- the judicial branch of

I

government is constrained not to substitute its judgment for that of the

legislature and thus usurp the plenary power of that branch. Finch v. State,

271 Ala. 499, 124 So. 2d 825 (1 960). Any encroachment in such matters by

the judiciary is limited to adjudication of constitutional challenges,

to allegations of statutmy violations, and charges of conduct so arbitrary and
capricious as contravene lawfully constituted authority. I d.' 569 So.2d at

398.(emphasis added)" 578 So.2d at 1072

Tice thus defines the field of operation for the Court in a dispute between the Executive and Legislative Branches of the county government. The Court shall review the evidence with regard to each.

A. Constitutional Challenge to the Budget Control Act

First, there was no constitutional challenge posed by Plaintiff to the cited statutes under which Defendant acted in adopting and implementing its amendatory budget resolution on June 30, 2009.

B. Statutory Violations

Plaintiff claims that Defendants breached the said cited statutes in adopting the

amendatory budget resolution in that Defendants failed to comply with Subparts (d) and

(e) of Ala. Code §11-8-3 (1975). Plaintiffs introduced evidence that though Defendants

sought input from all agencies for their recommendations for one-third reductions in their

budgeted appropriations, Defendants, nevertheless, failed to take into account any

recommendations so made. Though the evidence is that, rather than propose ways and

means to reduce his budget, Plaintiff instead wished to "make his case" for exempting his

Department from the effects of a sweeping one-third reduction, the evidence is also before the Court that Defendants decided not to take these matters into consideration. To

I

. have adopted the "prioritization" option, as described by Mr. Hulsey, would have

I

required the Defendant Commission to take into account the 'needs of the Department heads. However, this option was not taken. Instead, the Defendant Commission adopted

I
i

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2 Filed 11/08/11 Page 34 of 42

ClVll A chon Number CV U~-:104)
Page33 of41
unanimously the across the board reduction which treated all Departments, regardless of
any intrinsic differences in the ways and means and method of executing their missions,

the same. The consultive provisions ·of Ala. Code §11-8-3 (1975), however, apply during the
60-day period preceding the adoption of a budget for a full fiscal year. In the case before the Court, Defendant Commission was engaged in adopting an amendment to the budget, as authorized by Ala. Code§ 11-8-3(g){l975). A strict reading of the said statute does not .require such consultive procedure prior to the adoption of an amendatory resolution.
Plaintiff also claims that Defendant's adoption and implementation of its amendatory resolution on June 30, 2009 was violative of the Preferred Claims statute, Ala. Code §11-12-15 (1975), in that the said resolution failed to prioritize the budgetary expenditures of Plaintiff and his Office.
In Geneva County Commission v. Tice, supra, the Deputy Sheriffs raised the same statute with regard to their claim for overtime pay from the County Commission.

The Court wrote the following:

"[The deputies] rely heavily upon the provisions of!aw that impose on the

sheriff certain duties, such-as those set out in Ala. Code 1975, § 36-22-3, and,

citing § 11-12-15, they argue that the compensation for deputy sheriffs and

jailers is a "preferred claim". , .(note 4 omitted)

We are not unmindful of the duties and obligations placed upon the

sheriffs departments throughout the state, and the provisions of law that

make certain claims "preferred claims." However, we are also not unmindful

that county commissions have the duty and responsibility for budgeting and

appropriating operational fonds for several executive departments of county

government. When this Court has been faced with similar arguments

involving a similar confrontation between a sheriffs department and a county

commission, it has specifically held that the judiciary "is limited to

· adjudication of constitutional challenges, allegations of statutory violations,

and charges of conduct so arbitrary as to contravene lawfully constituted authority. Etowah County Comm'n, 569 So.2d at 398.(emphasis added)"
578 So.2d at 1072

I I

The Court thus established the three-pronged basis - a) constitutional challenge to the statute upon which the Commission acted; b) failure of the Commission to comply with the statute; and, c) review of the discretionary action under the arbitrary and capricious standard - upon which this Court may enjoin a County Commission in the

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2 Filed 11/08/11 Page 35 of 42
t......JVHJ-u;uun J'mmoer l.. v v~~.LUG J
Page 34 of 41
. execution of its budgetary duties in response to an argument that the Preferred Claims
statute should be applied by the Court in deciding whether there has been a statutory
. violation.
The Court finds that the Preferred Claims statute a part of the statutory formula to
which Defendant Commission must conform when performing its budgetary function.
The budgetary function is essentially the planning and pre approving of future
expenditures over the period of the prospective fiscal year. The Preferred Claims statute
ml)st be complied with after the claim is actually incurred and is presented for payment.
That is, Ala. Code §11-12-15 (1975) applies not at the beginning;but at the end of the spending continuum. The testimony before the Court was that to date, despite the
decreasing liquidity of the General Fu11d, the Defendant County Corninission has
approved all claims presented by Plaintiff and the County Treasurer has paid all claims
presented which have been so approved. The Court does not find that Defendant
Commission has failed to comply with the relevant statutes.
C. The Arbitrary and Capricious Standard ofReview.
By law, discretion is vested in the Defendant County Commission in exercising
its budget and spending powers. In ECO Preservation Services, LLC v. Jefferson
County Com 'n, 933 So.2d 1067 (Ala. 2006) the Court restated the long standing rule that
any state action which is discretionary, is subject to judicial review under the "arbitrary and capricious standard" in order to determine whether the governmental body abused its
discretionary powers by acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner toward the aggrieved party. The Court wrote:
''Our cases have consistently held that local governments may not arbitrarily exercise their discretionary powers ... In Mobile County v. City ofSaraland, 501 So.2d 438 (Aia.I987), we issued a writ of mandamus to compel a city council to grant ...a [right-of-way] permit to Mobile County.·We based that decision on our conclusion that the city's denial-of the permit was arbitrary and capricious. 501 So.2d at 440. A county commission is supject to the same standard. See Etowah County Comm'n v. Hayes, 569 So.2d 397, 398 (Ala.l990)Gudicial review of county commission's decisions extends to "conduct so arbitrary or capricious as to contravene lawfully constituted authority"); Black v. Pike County Comm'n, 375 So.2d 255 (Ala.J979)(analyzing denial of liq\}or license under arbitrary-or-capricious standard).(Note 8 omitted) Although our cases have not always used the words 'arbitrary or capricious,' we have consistently applied that standard in

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2 Filed 11/08/11 Page 36 of 42
LlYll Acnon .Nurnoer cv U~·:LU41 Page 35 of 41
practice when reviewing a county's decision to grant or deny a license or permit." 933 So.2d at 1071
The Court in State v. Board ofRevenue & Road Com'rs ofMobile CoWity, 180
Ala. 489, 61 So. 368 (Ala. 1913) described "arbitrary and capricious" as follows:
"It is well-settled law also that, where the duty to be performed ... involves
the exercise of discretion on the part of a tribunal or officer, mandamus will ·lie to set judgment or discretion in motion, but will not direct the manner of
its exercise. The writ cannot be used for the correction of errors. 'I( however,
judgment or discretion is abused, and exercised in an arbitrary or capricious
manner, mandamus will lie to compel a proper exercise thereof" 19 Am. & Eng.Encyc. pp. 737-739, where numerous cases are cited, including our case of White v. Decatur, 119 Ala 476, 23 South. 999. And, 'if by reason of a mistaken view of the law or otherwise there has been in fact no actual and bona fide exercise ofjudgment and discretion,' mandamus will lie. Ib., citing Mobile Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cleveland, 76 Ala. 321, among other cases." 61 So. at 370
In other words, if the statute vests the Defendant Commission with discretion in
making budgetary decisions, then its actions must reflect that there was a bona fide
·exercise of judgment and discretion rather than a discretionary decision taken. without
deliberation or forethought given.
In the context of disputes between Sheriffs and County Commissions, the Court in
Etowah County Com'n v. Hayes, 569 So.2d 397 (Ala. 1990) provided an example of an
arbitrary and capricious exercise of the budgetary authority by a couoty commission and
discussed the "reasonable test" to be applied in such analyses. The Court wrote:
"This expedited appeal from a partial summary judgment, made final pursuant to Rule 54(b), A.R.Civ.P., presents the issue whether the trial court erred in granting injunctive relief to the sheriff of Etowah Couoty, requiring the Etowah County Commission to reinstate the funding withheld from the Etowah County Sheriffs Department for the remainder of the 1989-90 fiscal year. Because we agree with the trial court that the Commission's withholding of all funds, which effec:tively closed the operation of the Sheriff's Department, was an arbitrary and capricious act, we affirm the judgment granting injuoctive relief. ..(emphasis original)" 569 So.2d at 398
Withholding all funds and the resultant effective closing of the Sheriffs
Department was found to be an arbitrary and capricious exercise of the County
Commission's discretionary powers, that is, the decision makers vested with
discretionary powers did not weigh the consequences of the implementation of its

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2 Filed 11/08/11 Page 37 of 42

ClYll ACtlOTI NllmDer CV U~~L:ULI1
Page 36 of41
decision. One could not infer that due deliberation would have produced a decision that

would knowingly termin.ate the operation of the Sheriffs Department.

Regarding the "reasonable test" analysis used by the Court under the "arbitrary

and capricious" standard of review, the Court in Hayes, wrote the following:

"While we do not reject out of hand the "reasonableness" test, as urged by

the sheriff, the application of that test, contrary to the sheriffs contention,

does not focus solely on what is reasonable from the viewpoint of the sheriff

in the operation of his department The application of fue "reasonableness"

test takes into account not only the reasonableness ofthe sheriff's request for

funding of his department, but how that request impacts upon, and relates to,

the totality ofthe County's budget.

Conceivably, the County Commission may receive budget requests from

each of the County's executive departments and may agree that none of the

requests is "unreasonable" Jrom the standpoint of each department in fue

performance of its perceived goals; and, yet, the total of such requests may

exceed ·by millions of dollars the total revenues available to fund the County's

budget Thus, while the Commission is jegally mandated to follow statutory

guidelines and to establish funding priorities accordingly (see, Shelby County

Commission v. Smith, 372 So.2d 1092 (Ala.1979); and Hale v. Randolph

County Commission, 423 So.2d 893 (Ala.Civ.App.J982)), it does not have

the burden of proving that any reduction in requested funding is justified

because the requests are unreasonable when viewed from the narrow perspective of the operation of that particular department. See Ball v.

I

Escambia County Commission, 439 So.2d 148 (Ala.l983). See, also,

Comment, "State Court Assertion of Power to Determine and Demand Its

Own Budget," 120 U.Penn.L.Rev. 1187 (1972).

This is not to say, of course, that the Commission is permitted to

exercise unfettered discretion to reject "reasonable" budget requests for

adequate performance of essential functions of government. Morgan County

Commission v. Powell, 292 Ala. 300, 293 So.2d 830 (1974)." 569 So.2d at

399.

The above cited authority authorizes the Court to malce a finding that Defendant
acted arbitrarily and capriciously if it simply refuses to appropriate funds sufficient to
operate Plaintiffs Office and may enjoin the act and its consequences. However, under
the reasonableness test, fue Court in Geneva County Com'n v. Tice, 578 So.2d 1070
(Ala. 1991) wrote the following:
"We reiterate the holding in Morgan County Comm'n v. Powell that "the true intent of the legislature was to place in the county governing body, which body appropriates the public monies, the final say-so in the disposition of such funds, and thus centralize in the· legislative body a function lawfully

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2 Filed 11/08/11 Page 38 of 42
l..-lYll ACnon .i."!Umber CY UY-'.GU4 J.
Page 37 o£41
and traditionally delegated to that body by the legislature." 292 Ala. at 310, 293 So.2d at 839.
This is not to say, of cours·e, that the Commission is pennitted to exercise unfettered discretion to reject 'reasonable' budget requests for adequate performance of essential functions of government." Etowah County Comm'n v. Hayes, at 399. See also, Morgan County Comm'n v. Powell. The Commission is legally mandated to follow statutory guidelines and to establish funding priorities accordingly, but the judiciary is not given the power to substitute its determinations for those of the commission. See Shelby County Comm'n v. Smith, 372 So.2d 1092 (Ala.l979); and Hale, 423 So.2d 893." 578 So.2d at 1075
Under the "arbitrary and capricious" standard of review the Court finds from the evidence that the reason given by those who testified and who participated in the decision
to propose, adopt, and implement the across the board one-third amendatory budget on June 30, 2009 did so for the principal reason that it was "expedient". That is, the time was short, a decision had to be made and rather than taking into consideration the
requirements of each of the executive departments affected, Defendant Commission took one action that applied to all Departments.
Expediency became a value due to the extremity that the budgetary situation had
reached by June 30, 2009. Had action been taken earlier in the crisis, possibly time would have been available for more deliberation and more options could have been explored to meet the fact that the Defendant Commission was spending at a rate of $18.0 million dollars per month, but only had access to $8.0 million dollars per month, thus drawing down its cash reserves by a factor of $10.0 million dollars per month to the point that reserves had dipped below one month's expenditures. By early to mid-June 2009, indeed, time did become of the essence-to amend the FY 2008-09 so that the said budget would not come out of compliance with the requirement that it remain in balance.
However, as lvlr. Hulsey testified, even with the reductions implemented in March
2009 and the implementation of the across the board one-third reduction on June 30,
2009, still, the General Fund will be dissipated on August 7, 2009, a mere 21 days from
the date of this order. The expedited manner in which the June 30, 2009 decision was
taken, thus did not produce the desired result, that is, to bring expenditures into line with available revenues so that the budget could be balanced and ali agencies could be funded through the end of the 4th Quarter of the current fiscal year. According to lvlr. Hulsey

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2 Filed 11/08/11 Page 39 of 42
L-lVll A.CtJOn NUmoer C.:Y UY-LU41
Page 38 of41
neither objective will be met as expenditures will over take revenues by August 7, 2009 and many agencies and departments will thus have to close their doors..
Looking to the missions of the various executive departments of county · government funded by the DefendantCounty Commission, the evidence before the Court
indicates that there are intrinsic differences in the outlays for personal, operations and capital. ·Some departments are personnel intensive in providing services while others are less reliant on personnel and more on equipment and machinery. Of those departments that are service oriented, some operate on a normal 9-5 five day per "week normal basis. Implementation of the 32,hour workweek in such departments can produce savings.
The Sheriffs Department, however, is one in which personnel are of necessity on . duty 24 hours per day, 7 days per week on a three shift per day basis. Reduction of the sworn employee force from 40 hours to 32 hours could conceivably increase the need for manpower rather than reduce it.
When a uniform policy is applied ·across the board to departments that are intrinsically the same, such a policy is the paradigm of a reasonable exercise of discretionary power. However, when applied unifonnly across departments that are not intrinsically the same, then unintended results can accrue, such as, the prospective loss of the entire unsworn staff currently employed by the Sheriffs Office. With a $10.0 million dollar need to complete the fiscal year, the one-third reduction, or $5.9 million dollars has worked, in effect, more than a 50% reduction in available funds to the Plaintiff in the remaining months of the 4th Quarter of FY 2008-09, causing Plaintiff to chose between patrolling the territory under his jurisdiction or not staffing the county jail. That is, Plaintiff is left unable to perform the core missions of his Office. Though this was certainly not the intent of Defendant Commissioners in adopting and implementing the Defendants' amendatory budget resolution, the evidence before this Court is that such is indeed the effect on Plaintiff.
The Court finds the Action of the Defendant Commission to Have been Arbitrary and Capricious as to Plaintiff Hale in his Official Capacity.
As to Plaintiff therefore, in his official capacity, the Court fmds that the June 30, 2009 amendatory resolution to the FY 2008,09 budget was an arbitrary and capricious

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2 Filed 11/08/11 Page 40 of 42
Page 39 of4l
exercise of Defendant Commission's discretionary powers with regard to budget and appropriation of funds to Plaintiffs Office.
In so finding, the Court is ever mindful of the budgetary crisis facing Jefferson County. There are many architects whose actions or whose failure to act created the budgetary crisis in which the Defendant Commissioners are as much a victim as is the Plaintiff Sheriff as well as all of the people who work for county government and are served by it.
The Court is also mindful of its own limitations under the law, in fashioning a remedy. The Court carmot order the Defendant Commissioners to adopt a budget that is not bala.nced, as such an act would run afoul of the Budget Control Act and its requirement that the county budget be balanced. The Court likewise, cannot instruct the Defendant Commissioners on how best to budget for the Plaintiffs Office, since to do so would be a usurpation of the discretionary powers vested solely in the Offices of the Defendant Commissioners and a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers.
The Court is also mindful of the limitations imposed by practicalities of the current budgetary crisis in the General Fund of Jefferson County. There are only 21 days before August 7, 2009, the date upon which Mr. Hulsey has testified that the Defendant · County Commission no longer has any funds remaining in its General Fund with which to fund, not just Plaintiff's Office, but all executive departments of County Government which receive appropriations from. the General Fund. As an analogy was drawn to the Titanic during the course of the trial, the Court also draws an analogy to that event in that the parties may be scrambling for better seats on the deck of that ship, even as it sinks under the sea.
However, the Comt is also mindful that we are a nation of laws and that the rule oflaw shall always prevail under any and all circumstances, especially in times of crisis, whether budgetary or otherwise. As the Court stated during the cour.se of oral arguments, the first duty of all government is to maintain order. Each branch of government, whether legislative, executive or judicial, always acts with this duty in mind. Whether Plaintiff Sheriff is patrolling the unincorporated territory of Jefferson County, or Defendant Commission is perfonning its many duties with regard to all of the executive

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2 Filed 11/08/11 Page 41 of 42

Page 40 of41
departments of county government, both are in the same harness performing the same duty toward the citizens of Jefferson County.
This Court therefore chooses to perform its duty as well by enforcing the rule of law, even in a time of budgetary crisis. The Court is authorized to enter a preliminary injunction upon its being reasonably satisfied by the evidence of the following four elements:

(1) That without the injunction the Plaintiff Sheriff will suffer immediate and irreparable injury;

(2) That the plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law;

·(3) That the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of the case; and

(4) That the hardship imposed upon the defendant by the injunction would not umeasonably outweigh the benefit to the plaintiff.

The Court is so satisfied.

WHEREFORE, the foregoing matters and authority having been duly considered by this Court the following is hereb):' ORDERED:

1. Defendant County Commission is hereby preliminarily enjoined from

implementing its June 30, 2009 amendatory budgetary resolution with regard to the budgeted appropriations to the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office. 2. Defendant County Commission, its staff or representatives are hereby ordered to enter immediately into consultations with Plaintiff Hale, his_ agents or

representatives to reconsider the amendatory appropriation for Plaintiffs

Sheriff Office.

3. Both parties shall consult in good faith with each other in order to work

II.

toward a resolution which renders Defendants' budget balanced; provides Plaintiff with sufficient funds to operate the Sheriff's Office, at some

I

reasonable minimum level, until the end of FY 2008-09; and wherein the

discretion of the Defendant to set its budget and the discretion of the Plaintiff to run his Office are exercised in a manner that is informed by the limitations

imposed on respective parties by the budgetary crisis which affects them both. · 4. The Court shall consider that good faith has been exercised by the parties if,

among other things, all available financial resources of Defendant

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 21-2 Filed 11/08/11 Page 42 of 42
Page 41 of 41
Commission and Plaintiff Sheriff are taken into consideration. By this it is meant:
a. The ex: officio fimds of the Plaintiff which are not either restricted as to payment for personnel salaries, pre-encumbered or encumbered are made avai)able to the Defendant County Commission's General Fund through a system of fimd transfers;
b. The fimds of Defendant County Commission which are neither preencumbered nor encumbered, nor restricted either by contract, federal or state law, nor any regulation of any governmental agency or board, 'and thus which the Defendant County Commission currently has discretion to transfer to the General Fund are made available to the General Fund through a system of fund transfers for the resolution of funding of Plaintiff's Office for the balance of the current fiscal year.
5. This Court explicitly states that by its order of today, it is not directing the Defendant toward any Court defmed resolution with regard to its funding decision for Plaintiff's Office for the balance of the· current fiscal year. Discretion to appropriate county funds for Plaintiffs Office remains with the Defendant CoUJity Commission. Tpday's Order addresses process only, and directs Defendant to engage in a good faith deliberative process with Plaintiff, so as to restore, if possible, sufficient funding to Plaintiff so that his Office may remain operable for the balance of the current fiscal year.
6. The parties are hereby directed to appear before this Court on Thursday, July 23,2009 @ 1:30 p.m. to report of their compliance with the Court's Order of this day.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF WLY2009.
I
I -
II .
i

 
 Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 71 Filed 04/15/14 Page 1 of 3

FILED
2014 Apr-15 PM 01:32 U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOHN MASON, IV, ET AL.,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
MIKE HALE, ETAL.,
DEFENDANTS.

)

)

)

)

)

CASE No. 2:11-CV-03155-TMP

)

)

)

)

)

JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT
COME NOW all parties to the above entitled action and jointly move this Court for approval of class settlement regarding conditions at the Jefferson County Jail in Birmingham, Alabama and evidence thereof state as follows: I. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in 2011 as a class action lawsuit claiming that the overcrowded
conditions at the Jefferson County Jail in Birmingham, Alabama constituted violations of the inmates civil rights, most notably the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. 2. Defendants each denied liability and extensive discovery was conducted. 3. In November of 2013, this Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and certified a class of current and future inmates in the Jefferson County Jail under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 4. On March II, 2014, all parties via respective counsel reached a proposed settlement agreement which is attached as Exhibit 1 to this motion. 5. All parties have also reviewed the proposed notice of class settlement attached as Exhibit 2 to this motion.

1

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 71 Filed 04/15/14 Page 2 of 3
6. All parties believe that this proposed settlement is fair and just and represents a favorable outcome to this lawsuit. WHEREFORE, all parties pray this Court enter an Order approving the proposed
settlement in accordance with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

OF COUNSEL:
STEWART & STEWART, P.C. 1826 3rd Avenue North, Suite 300 Bessemer, Alabama 35020 Phone: (205) 425-1166 Fax: (205) 425-5959

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ John E. Lawes Donald W. Stewart John E. Lawes Attorneys for Plaintiff

OF COUNSEL:
RILEY & JACKSON, P.C. 3530 Independence Drive Birmingham, Alabama 35209 Phone: (205) 879-5000 Fax: (205) 879-5901

/s/ James E. Murrill, Jr. James E. Murrill, Jr. Attorney for Defendant Mike Hale
2

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 71 Filed 04/15/14 Page 3 of 3

280 Jefferson County Courthouse 716 Richard Arrington Jr. Blvd. North Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Phone: (205) 325-5688 Fax: (205) 3255840

Isl French A. McMillan Assistant County Attorney

3

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 71-1 Filed 04/15/14 Page 1 of 7

FILED
2014 Apr-15 PM 01:32 U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

Exhibit 1

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 71-1 Filed 04/15/14 Page 2 of 7
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Plaintiffs, by and through counsel, and Defendants, by ·and through respective (:9unsel, en~er into this Settlement Agreement (..Agreement") providing for resolution of the claims asserted by Plaintiffs in the civil action styled Mason et al v. Hale et al., Civil Action No. 2:11~ cv-03155-TMP, currently pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (the "Lawsuit''). The parties agree to the following terms and conditions:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. WHERE.AS, the Lawsuit, a certified class action for injunctive relief, was filed based on allegations of overcrowding and failure to properly fund the JefterSon County Jail in Birmingham, Alabama (the "Birmingham Jail") leading to alleged unconstitutional conditions at the facility;
2. WHEREAS, Defendants deny liability in this matter, but the parties, through this Agreement, seek to make certain changes regarding staff and conditions at the Birmingham Jail and the Jefferson County Jail in Bessemer, Alabama (the "Bessemer Jail") as provided herein;
3. WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendants acknowledge that this Agreement does not constiMe: (a) an admission by any Defendant of any violation of Jaw; or (b) an admission by any Defendant that any current er past policy, practice, or procedure altered by this Agreement violated or failed to comply with any applicable Constitutional
provision, law, rule, or regulation; or (c) a consent decree enforceable in any court.
4. WHEREAS, the parties agree that neither this Agreement nor anything contained in this Agreement confers "prevailing party" status on any Plaintiff for any pwpose whatsoever, and that Plaintiffs have not achieved that status as a result of this litigation or the entry into this Agreement by the parties. Likewi.se, Plaintiffs shall not be determined to be ''prevailing parties" as a result of this Agreement or any performance or failure of perfonnance hereunder.
5. WHEREAS, the parties agree that a resolution of the claims in the Lawsuit would benefit aU parties by avoiding the time and expense of ongoing litigation; and
6. WHEREAS, the parties have entered into this Agreement in reliance on the mutual
representations contained herein;
7. WHEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises of the parties set forth below, sufficiency of which is acknowledged by all of the parties. the undersigned parties agree to the final resolution of all claims related to the Lawsuit. It is hereby stipulated and a.greed by and between the undersigned as follows:
1

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 71-1 Filed 04/15/14 Page 3 of 7
II. EFFECTIYE DATE
It The effective date of this Agreement shall be the date on which the Agreement is last executed by the parties. by and through counsel.
III. PARTIES
9. Plaintiffs are a certified class currently led by the following named individuals: Drew Thacker, Gregory Robinson, and George Van Zandt. Plaintiffs filed the Lawsuit and a class has been certified consisting of all inmates who are now, or who will in the future, be detained at the Binningham Jail.
10. Defendants are the following persons in their official capacities only: Mike Hale, Sheriff of Jefferson County ("Sheriff Hale"); and David Carrington, George Bowman, Sandra Little Brown, Jimmie Stephens, and Joe Knight, Jefferson County Commissioners (the "Jefferson County Conunission'l All of the Defendants are sued in their official capacities only and enter into this Agreement in their official capacities only. The parties recognize that Sheriff Hale has certain statutory authority regarding, and day-to-day operational responsibilities concerning, the Birminghan1 Jail and the Bessemer Jail. The parties likewise recognize that Sheriff Hale is dependent upon funding from the Jefferson County Commission in order to operate the Birmingham Jail and the Bessemer Jail. The parties also recognize that the Jefferson County Commission is bound by the Balanced Budget Act and is required. to maintain a balanced budget in each calendar year when allocating for multiple required functions and officials in a calendar year.
IV. DEFINITIONS
11. "Detainee'' means any person incarcerated in the Birmingham Jail or the Bessemer Jail, whether that person be a pre-trial detainee, an arrestee, a County inmate post-conviction, a state inmate either awaiting transfer to the state prison system or returning from the state prison system to answer charges in Jefferson County, a federal detainee of any kind, or any other person otherwise booked into the Birmingham Jail or the Bessemer Jail.
12. "Control Room Operators" or "CROs" means newly created positions at the Binningham Jail and/or Bessemer Jail that will visually monitor Detainees from control booths but will n,ot have direct contact with Detainees.
V. REMEDIAL PROVISIONS
A. POPULATION
13. At least 100 Detainees from the Binningham Jail shall be transferred to the Bessemer Jail byFebruary 1,2014.
2

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 71-1 Filed 04/15/14 Page 4 of 7
14. At least 100 additional Detainees from the Birmingham Jail shall be transferred to the Bessemer Jail by June 1~ 2014.
t S. Housing of Detainees shall generally be limited to two detainees per cell unless housing classification requirements and fixed design limitations require that more than two Detainees be housed in a cell. A reasonable effort shall be made to minimize the amount oftime that more than two Detainees are housed in a cell.
16. Procedures for the segregation of mentally ill, physically handicapped, high risk, or otherwise special needs Detainees for the Birmingham Jail and Bessemer Jail shall be provided to class counsel no later than June 1, 2014.
B. STAFFING
17. Reasonable efforts shall be made to complete the hiring process for at least 40 CROs by February 1, 2014.
18. At least an additional 20 deputies shall be re-assigned to the Bessemer Jail by February 1, 2014.
19. At least 100 deputies or CROs shall be assigned to the Birmingham Jail.
20. At least an additional 3 deputies shall be assigned to the Bessemer Jail after February 1, 2014 and before June 1, 2014.
C. PHYSICAL PLANT AND ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
21. Qualified inmates shall be provided access to recreational activities unless doing so would endanger the lives or safety ofthe Detainee, other Detainees, or the Jail staff.
22. Cells, pods, donnitories, or any other form of Detainee housing shall be maintained in proper working order, including but not limited to: properly working plumbing, lighting, electrical, and HVAC systems.
23. Detainees shall be provided with clean linens and laundry on a regular basis,.
~4. Detainees shall be provided with prophylactic dental hygiene equipment including adequate tooth paste and tooth brushes.
VI. PROVISIONS OF INFORMATION IO PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL
25. Plaintiffs' counsel a.l.ld Plaintiffs' expert shall have the right to come to the offices of Riley & Jackson to review redacted reports (i.e., reports not including any names, social security numbers, dates of birth, or medical infonnation) upon request but no more than every 3: months. These reports may not be disseminated to any other person, except as
3

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 71-1 Filed 04/15/14 Page 5 of 7
required for this Lawsuit, and may not be used by counsel for any party in any other proceeding. Plaintiff.<;' expert shall sign a confidentiality agreement that any information will not be shared with anyone other than Plaintiffs' class counsel. Plaintiffs' counsel agrees to keep the information confidential and may only use it in regards to this Lawsuit. The reports contemplated under this paragraph include: a) all incident reports documenting use of force, alleged use of force, assaults with or without a weapon, fighting with or without·a weapon, sexual assaults or alleged sexual assaults, (b) daily Detainee counts for each jail, and (c) staffing rosters for both jails for the 1st and 15th day of each month showing the number of deputies who actually reported for duty and where they were assigned.
26. lo. addition to the quarterly report contemplated by 41 25, Plaintiffs' counsel shall have the right to make an inspection of the Birmingham Jail. Plaintiffs' counsel shall have the right to make the aforesaid inspection between June I, 2014 and December 31, 2014 at a mutually agreed upon time with Sheriff Hale's counsel.
27. The parties agree that should Defendants fail to comply with the preceding paragraph,
and Plaintiffs may ask the Court to remove this case from its administrative docket
restore this case to the Court's active docket for resolution of any dispute arising wider, 25. Such a motion will not reJieve the parties of their obligations to produce the documents described in 1j 25. Prior to approaching the Court for such relief, Plaintiffs' counsel will make a good faith effort to confer with Defendants' counsel to resolve the issue
VII. ATTORNEY'S FEES AND cosi:·
28. Defendants sh.all pay Plaintiffs' counsel $135,000.00 within 30 days of their execution of this Agreement and court approval as reimbursement for any and all claims for costs and fees associated with Plaintiffs' prosecution of the Lawsuit, including any such costs and fees associated with effectuating the provisions of this Agreement. By their signatures to this Agreement, Plaintiffs' counsel waive any further or additional claim for litigation costs, attorney fees, reimbursement or the like associated with the prosecution of the Lawsuit and release Defendants, and any other person or entity, from any claim of attorney's fees, litigation costs, reimbursement, or the like that Plaintiffs or their counsel may have, or claim to have, in connection with the prosecution of the Lawsuit.
29. By their signatures to this Agreement, Defendants waive wiy claim for litigation ~osts, attorney fees, reimbursement or the like associated with the defense of the Lawsuit and release Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' counsel from any claim of attomey fees, litigation costs, reimbursement, or the like that Defendants or their counsel may have, or claim to have, in connection with the defense of the Lawsuit.
4

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 71-1 Filed 04/15/14 Page 6 of 7

VIII. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

30. Best efforts. All parties agree to exercise their best efforts and take .all reasonable steps
necessary to effectuate this Agreement The parties commit to open and timely communication about issues that arise with regard to implantation ofthis Agreement.

31. Dissemination of this Agreement to Deputies: Sheriff Hale shall educate and infonn his deputies regarding the contents of this Agreement.

32. No waiver of privilege or immunity. Nothing in this Agreement, or undertaken pursuant to this Agreement, constitutes or is intended to constitute a waiver of any applicable privilege or immwiity.

33. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire agreement by and. ainong the parties as to the claims in this case and no agreement entered into at any time, nor any written agreement entered into prior to the execution of this Agreement, shall be deemed
to exist or bind the parties, or to vary the tenns and conditions contained herein, or to determine the meaning of any provisions therein.

34. Mutual exclusivity of provisions. Ifany provision of this Agreement is declared invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect, unaffected and unimpaired.

35. Persons bound. This Agreement shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the parties hereto, their attorneys, and their respective successors and assigns.

36. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Alabama as to interpretation, construction, and perfonnance.

IX. STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AND EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT

37. Upon execution of the Agreement, the parties will jointly move the Court to stay the

Lawsuit and place the Lawsuit on the Court's administrative docket until January 2,

2016.

.

38. The parties shall perform their respective obligations and duties under this Agreement beginning on the Effec~ive Date. The parties agree to make a good faith .effort to confer regarding any dispute that arises wider the Agreement and attempt to resolve any dispute
that arises wider this Agreement. Counsel will make good faith efforts to resolve any dispute in a timely manner.

39. At any time prior to January 1, 2016, any party may file a motion requesting that this case be restored to the Court's active docket for such proceedings as the Court deems necessary and appropriate.

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 71-1 Filed 04/15/14 Page 7 of 7

40. If the Plaintiffs do not file the motion described in the preceding paragraph within the prescribed time, or if the motion is filed but the Court finds after an evidentiary hearing that there is no current and ongoing violation of Plaintiffs~ rights or current violations of the Agreement, the case will be dismissed with prejudice.
41. The Court will retain jurisdiction of the case until it is finally dismissed pursuant to the tenns of this Agreement.
42. The parties hereto, by and through counsel, with full and complete authority, have caused this Agreement to be properly executed as ofthe date last ex.ecuted below.
43. Upon payment to the Plaintiffs' counsel pursuant to paragraph 28 above, Plaintiffs shall
withdraw any and all claims and proofs of claim filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs' counsel in the County's chapter 9 bankruptcy case, In re Jefferson County, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Case No. 1105736-IBB9.

IN WITNES WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands and seals the date and year w n below.

onald Stewart
John Lawes On behalfofPlaintiffs as Class Counsel
~ e a e, m is o 1c1a capacity as
Sheriff of Jefferson Cowtty, Alabama

4/{Q/ l4
Date

3- '2 7-14-
Dat.e

6

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 71-2 Filed 04/15/14 Page 1 of 5

FILED
2014 Apr-15 PM 01:32 U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

Exhibit 2

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 71-2 Filed 04/15/14 Page 2 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOHN MASON, IV,ETAL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
MIKE HALE, ETAL., DEFENDANTS.

)

)

)

)

)

CASE No. 2:11-CV-03155-TMP

)

)

)

)

)

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
Mason v. Hale, Case No. 2:11-CV-03155-TMP

TO: ALL PRISONERS AT THE JEFFERSON COUNTY JAIL, BIRMINGHAM, AL

THE PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE IS TO INFORM YOU OF:

• THE TERMS OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

• THE REASONS WHY CLASS COUNSEL BELIEVE THAT SETTLEMENT IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CLASS

• YOUR RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT

BACKGROUND
On August 30, 2011, a federal lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama alleging overcrowding at the Jefferson County Jail in Birmingham, Alabama. An Amended Complaint in this action was filed on or about November 8, 2011. Lawyers with the law firm of Stewart and Stewart, P.C. and the Law Office of Timothy L. Arnold appeared on behalf of the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Plaintiffs requested that the lawsuit be recognized as a Class Action, so that the interests of all inmates at the Jefferson County Jail in Birmingham, Alabama would be represented. The Court subsequently granted class certification to a class of inmates defined as "all current and future inmates in the Jefferson County Jail located in Birmingham." The lawsuit is not one for money damages. Rather, the lawsuit asked the Court to declare that overcrowding conditions at the Jefferson County Jail unconstitutional, and order Defendants to undertake changes to the living conditions at the Jail.

1

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 71-2 Filed 04/15/14 Page 3 of 5
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
The Parties have agreed to settle this lawsuit on the terms stated below. The Proposed Settlement Agreement does not constitute any admission of liability by the Defendants. Defendants deny the truthfulness of the claims in this lawsuit and deny having engaged in any culpable conduct. After much deliberation, Class Counsel have concluded that the terms and conditions of the Proposed Settlement Agreement are in the nest interests of the Class.
1. Why Class Counsel Support the Settlement
In deciding to support a settlement of this lawsuit, Class Counsel carefully weighed the benefits of the proposed settlement terms against the risks of an unfavorable outcome in the litigation and the time needed to prosecute the case through a trial and likely appeals. After considering all these issues, it is our professional opinion that Proposed Settlement Agreement will improve the overcrowding conditions for the Class more quickly and the comprehensively than any result the Class might obtain through further litigation of this lawsuit.
2. A Summary of the Key Terms of the Proposed Settlement Agreement
• Transfer of at least 200 inmates from the Birmingham Jail to the Bessemer Jail to occur by June 1, 2014.
• Housing of inmates to be generally limited to two inmates per cell. • Qualified inmates to be provided access to recreational activities. • Creation of substantial increase in oversight personnel. • The lawsuit will be stayed on the inactive docket for a period of two years during
which time Plaintiffs' counsel will have access to incident reports and staffing roster information • During this time Plaintiffs' counsel and expert will be able to inspect the jail. • If the Defendants do not comply with the terms of the lawsuit, it may be reinstated for further litigation.
The above summary does not include all the terms and conditions of the Proposed Settlement Agreement. The only complete statement of the terms ofthe proposed settlement is found in the actual Proposed Settlement Agreement. You may obtain a copy of the Proposed Settlement Agreement by writing to:
John E. Lawes Stewart & Stewart, P.C. ATTN: Mason v. Hale, Case No. 2:11-CV-03155-TMP 1826 3rd Avenue North, Suite 300 Bessemer, AL 35020
2

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 71-2 Filed 04/15/14 Page 4 of 5

3. The Settlement Must Be Approved By The Court Before It Is Final.

Under federal class action rules, before this lawsuit can be settled, the Court must find that the settlement terms are fair, reasonable, and adequate to all Parties. Court approval is an additional level of protection for all class members. While Class Counsel strongly believe that this settlement is in the best interests of all current and future prisoners at the Jefferson County Jail in Birmingham, Alabama, we recognize that some class members may not support the settlement. If you do not think this settlement is a good idea, you have the right to file a formal objection with the Court.

After reviewing all timely objections, the Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on

____, 2014 at

, in the Hugo L. Black U.S. Courthouse in Birmingham, AL,

to decide whether or not to approve the Proposed Settlement Agreement. If the Court

decides that the settlement terms are fair, reasonable, and adequate, then the Proposed

Settlement Agreement will become final. If the Court approves the Proposed Settlement

Agreement, the parties will jointly move for the case to be placed on the inactive docket

for a period of two years after which the suit will be dismissed. Thereafter, any disputes

regarding implementation of the Agreement will be handled through the dispute

resolution mechanism set forth in the Agreement and/or state court.

Ifthe Court decides not to approve the Proposed Settlement Agreement, the settlement will be voided and will have no further effect. The case will not be settled, but will go to trial. If that happens, there is no assurance that any decision at trial will be in favor of the class members, or would be upheld on appeal; or that, even if there is a favorable trial decision, it will be as favorable to class members as the Proposed Settlement Agreement would have been.

4. You Have the Right to Object to the Settlement.

If you have no objection to the Proposed Settlement Agreement, you do not have to do anything.

If, however, you believe the Court should not approve the settlement because you object for any reason to the terms of the Proposed Settlement Agreement, you may object. You must submit your objection in writing to the Court. Any objection must contain the following information:

a. The case name and number: Mason v. Hale, Case No. 2: 11-CV-03155-TMP

b. Your full name and identification number

c. A concise explanation of why you object to the Proposed Settlement Agreement

For your objection to be considered by the Court, you must mail it by Clerk of the Court, with a copy to all Counsel, at the following addresses:
3

to the

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 71-2 Filed 04/15/14 Page 5 of 5

French A. McMillan Jefferson County Attorney's Office 716 Richard Arrington Boulevard North Room280 Birmingham, Alabama 35203
James E. Murrill, Jr. Riley & Jackson, P.C. 1744 Oxmoor Road Birmingham, Alabama, 35209

John E. Lawes Stewart & Stewart, P.C. ATTN: Mason v. Hale, Case No. 2:11-CV03155-TMP 1826 3rd Avenue North
Suite 300 Bessemer, Alabama 35020

5. Money Issues
This lawsuit does not involve money damages, so whether or not this case settles or goes to trial, no class member will obtain money from the Defendants.
The proposed settlement provides that Defendants shall pay Plaintiffs' Counsel a one-time lump sum of $135,000 to cover their fees and costs for the last three years, as well as all future fees and costs incurred by Plaintiffs' Counsel during the monitoring period of this settlement agreement through 2016.
6. Questions About the Proposed Settlement Agreement
If you have any questions about the proposed settlement, you may contact Class Counsel by writing to:
John E. Lawes Stewart & Stewart, P.C. ATTN: Mason v. Hale, Case No. 2:11-CV-03155-TMP 1826 3rd Avenue North Suite 300 Bessemer, AL 35020

4

 
 Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 80 Filed 06/13/14 Page 1 of 4

FILED
2014 Jun-13 PM 01:44 U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOHN MASON, IV, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. MIKE HALE, et al.,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 2:11-CV-03155-TMP

)

)

)

)

)

JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING PROPOSED CLASS SETTLEMENT

COME NOW all parties and jointly stipulate to the following regarding the notice, terms,

and implementation of the proposed settlement reached in this matter:

1. On April 15, 2014, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Approval of Class Settlement

[Doc. 71], which included a proposed settlement agreement reached by the parties to resolve all

pending claims [Doc. 71-1] and a contemplated procedure for notifying inmates at the Jefferson

County Jail at Birmingham (the “Birmingham Jail”) about the settlement [Doc. 71-2].

2. With regard to notifying inmates at the Birmingham Jail about the settlement, the

parties stipulate to the following:

a. Birmingham Jail personnel posted the Notice of Proposed Class Action

Settlement [Doc. 71-2] in the dayspace area of all inmate housing units by April 24, 2014. The

notice remained posted for approximately 5 weeks.

b. All inmates have access to a dayspace area at least once a day. This includes

inmates who are housed in segregation for medical or disciplinary reasons since those inmates are

brought to a dayspace area to bathe once a day. The notice in those particular dayspace areas was

posted near the shower facilities.

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 80 Filed 06/13/14 Page 2 of 4
3. The proposed settlement agreement set forth certain specified actions relative to the Birmingham Jail and the Jefferson County Jail at Bessemer (the “Bessemer Jail”). Those specified actions have been taken, or are in the process of being taken. With respect to the Birmingham Jail and the Bessemer Jail, the parties stipulate to the following:
a. Sheriff Mike Hale (“Sheriff Hale”) maintains two jails: the Birmingham Jail and the Bessemer Jail. In or around October of 2009, Sheriff Hale stopped housing inmates at the Bessemer Jail in the wake of reductions to his funding. From in or around October of 2009 until December of 2013, all inmates in Sheriff Hale’s custody were housed in the Birmingham Jail.
b. Sheriff Hale resumed housing inmates at the Bessemer Jail in December of 2013; those inmates having formerly been housed in the Birmingham Jail. As of February 1, 2014, between 100 and 125 inmates that had formerly been housed at the Birmingham Jail had been transferred to the Bessemer Jail. As of June 1, 2014, approximately 225 inmates that had formerly been housed at the Birmingham Jail had been transferred to the Bessemer Jail.
c. Current inmate housing in both the Birmingham Jail and the Bessemer Jail is generally limited to no more than two inmates per cell. On occasion, classification requirements (e.g., not housing males and females together, not housing violent offenders and non-violent offenders together, providing separate housing for inmates with pressing medical needs, etc.) and the fixed design limitations of both jails will result in three inmates being housed in a cell. Personnel in both jails are now able to minimize the amount of time that occurs following the resumption of inmate housing at the Bessemer Jail.
d. To facilitate the resumption of inmate housing at the Bessemer Jail, Sheriff Hale recently created a new civilian employment position: the control room operator. The control room operator’s job is to man the control booths that exist in the inmate housing blocks, from

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 80 Filed 06/13/14 Page 3 of 4
which inmates are monitored by video and line of sight. The control room operator does not have direct interaction with inmates. Instead, the control room operator frees-up deputies to have that interaction since the control booths must be manned at all times and since the control booths would otherwise have to be manned by one or more deputies.
e. In June of 2013, before the resumption of inmate housing at the Bessemer Jail, 102 deputies and no control room operators were assigned to the Birmingham Jail. Currently, 113 deputies and 24 control room operators are assigned to the Birmingham Jail; an increased amount of staffing even though the Birmingham Jail has approximately 200 fewer inmates than it did in June of 2013.
f. Prior to the resumption of inmate housing, 5 deputies were assigned to the Bessemer Jail. As of February 1, 2014, following the resumption of inmate housing, 27 deputies were assigned to the Bessemer Jail. Currently, 34 deputies and 8 control room operators are assigned to the Bessemer Jail.
g. Qualified inmates are currently provided access to recreational activities; they were not before the resumption of inmate housing at the Bessemer Jail.
h. Maintenance issues involving inmate housing are currently resolved much faster than they were before the resumption of inmate housing at the Bessemer Jail.
i. Inmates are currently provided with clean linens and laundry at least once a week, and more often if necessary.
j. Inmates are currently provided with tooth brushes and tooth paste at booking and thereafter as necessary.
4. Based on the foregoing, the parties believe that the class members were given adequate notice of the settlement, that the terms of the settlement adequately resolve all claims in

Case 2:11-cv-03155-TMP Document 80 Filed 06/13/14 Page 4 of 4
this matter, and that no class member has raised an objection which warrants the Court’s denial of
the parties’ proposed settlement. Given that, and the fact that the Defendants have substantially
complied with the terms of the proposed settlement agreement [Doc. 71-1] relative to the
Birmingham Jail and the Bessemer Jail, the parties respectfully request that the Court approve the
proposed settlement agreement [Doc. 71-1].
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ John Lawes Donald Stewart John Lawes Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
/s/ Jay Murrill Robert R. Riley, Jr. Keith Jackson Jay Murrill Attorneys for Defendant Sheriff Mike Hale
/s/ Shawnna H. Smith Attorney for Defendants Jefferson County, Alabama, the Jefferson County Commission, George Bowman, Sandra Little Brown, David Carrington, Joe Knight, and Jimmie Stephens

 
 Case: 2:11-cv-3155 As of: 10/31/2017 01:55 PM CDT 1 of 11
STAYED,CLOSED,CONMAG
U.S. District Court Northern District of Alabama (Southern) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:11−cv−03155−TMP

Mason et al v. Hale et al Assigned to: US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 08/30/2011 Date Terminated: 01/05/2016 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

John Mason, IV

represented by John E Lawes WADE S ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES 600 Luckie Drive Suite 400 Birmingham, AL 35223 205−279−7243 Fax: 855−546−1717 Email: john.lawes.d0cn@statefarm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anna Louise Hart HART LAW LLC 400 Vestavia Parkway Suite 100 Vestavia, AL 35216 205−276−1286 Email: ahart@hartlawllc.com TERMINATED: 04/18/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dan C King , III 1823 3rd Avenue North Bessemer, AL 35020 205−428−4888 Fax: 205−428−4880 Email: dankinglaw@gmail.com TERMINATED: 11/04/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Donald W Stewart STEWART & STEWART PC 1021 Noble Street Sutie 110 Anniston, AL 36201 256−237−9311 Fax: 256−237−0713 Email: donaldwstewart5354@yahoo.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy L Arnold TIM ARNOLD, ATTORNEY AT LAW 212 Newport Drive Bessemer, AL 35023−1802 205−841−2470 Fax: 205−282−0012 Email: ta918@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ishmael Gregory

represented by Anna Louise Hart (See above for address)

Case: 2:11-cv-3155 As of: 10/31/2017 01:55 PM CDT 2 of 11

TERMINATED: 04/18/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dan C King , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/04/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Donald W Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy L Arnold (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff George Van Zandt

represented by John E Lawes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Donald W Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy L Arnold (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Greg Robinson

represented by John E Lawes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Donald W Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy L Arnold (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Mike Hale in his individual and official capacity as Sheriff of Jefferson County, Alabama

represented by Jeremiah M Mosley RILEY JACKSON PC 3530 Independance Drive Birmingham, AL 35209 205−879−5000 Fax: 205−879−5901 Email: jeremiah@rileyjacksonlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James E Murrill , Jr RILEY & JACKSON PC 3530 Independence Drive Birmingham, AL 35209 205−879−5000

Case: 2:11-cv-3155 As of: 10/31/2017 01:55 PM CDT 3 of 11

Fax: 205−879−5901 Email: jay@rileyjacksonlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kallie C Lunsford RILEY & JACKSON PC 3530 Independence Drive Birmingham, AL 35209 205−879−5000 Fax: 205−879−5901 Email: kallie@rileyjacksonlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Keith Jackson RILEY & JACKSON PC 3530 Independence Drive Birmingham, AL 35209 205−879−5000 Fax: 205−879−5901 Email: kj@rileyjacksonlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert R Riley , Jr RILEY & JACKSON PC 3530 Independence Drive Birmingham, AL 35209 205−879−5000 Fax: 205−879−5901 Email: rob@rileyjacksonlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shawnna H Smith JEFFERSON COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 716 Richard Arrington Jr. Blvd. North, Suite 280 Birmingham, AL 35203 205−325−5688 Fax: 205−325−5840 Email: cockrellh@jccal.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Jefferson County Alabama

represented by French A McMillan SEWELL, SEWELL & McMILLAN LLC 1841 2nd Ave, Suite 214 Jasper, AL 35501 205−544−2350 Fax: 205−544−2345 Email: french@sewellmcmillan.com TERMINATED: 06/13/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shawnna H Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Jefferson County Commission, The

represented by French A McMillan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/13/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:11-cv-3155 As of: 10/31/2017 01:55 PM CDT 4 of 11

Defendant David Carrington in his official and individual capacity
Defendant George Bowman in his official and individual capacity
Defendant Sandra Little Brown in her official and individual capacity
Defendant Jimmie Stephens in his official and individual capacity
Defendant Joe Knight in his official and individual capacity

Shawnna H Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by French A McMillan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/13/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawnna H Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by French A McMillan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/13/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawnna H Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by French A McMillan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/13/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawnna H Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by French A McMillan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/13/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawnna H Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by French A McMillan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/13/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawnna H Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed # Docket Text

Case: 2:11-cv-3155 As of: 10/31/2017 01:55 PM CDT 5 of 11

08/30/2011
08/30/2011 08/31/2011 09/01/2011 09/01/2011 09/02/2011
09/22/2011 09/22/2011
09/30/2011 10/14/2011 10/17/2011 10/18/2011 10/20/2011 10/20/2011 10/21/2011 10/24/2011
10/27/2011 10/28/2011

1 COMPLAINT against George Bowman, Sandra Little Brown, David Carrington, Mike Hale, Jefferson County Alabama, Jefferson County Commission, The, Joe Knight, Jimmie Stephens (Filing fee $ 350, rcpt #B4601026226), filed by Ishmael Gregory, John Mason, IV.(FNC) (Entered: 08/31/2011)
2 Request for service by certified mail filed by Ishmael Gregory, John Mason, IV. (FNC) (Entered: 08/31/2011)
3 Summons Issued as to George Bowman, Sandra Little Brown, David Carrington, Mike Hale, Joe Knight, Jimmie Stephens. Mailed certified mail, this date. (FNC) (Entered: 08/31/2011)
4 NOTICE of Appearance by Anna Louise Hart on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Hart, Anna) (Entered: 09/01/2011)
5 NOTICE of Appearance by Donald W Stewart on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Stewart, Donald) (Entered: 09/01/2011)
6 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Ishmael Gregory. George Bowman served on 9/1/2011, answer due 9/22/2011; Sandra Little Brown served on 9/1/2011, answer due 9/22/2011; David Carrington served on 9/1/2011, answer due 9/22/2011; Mike Hale served on 9/1/2011, answer due 9/22/2011; Joe Knight served on 9/1/2011, answer due 9/22/2011. (KAM, ) (Entered: 09/06/2011)
7 MOTION to Dismiss by George Bowman, Sandra Little Brown, David Carrington, Jefferson County Alabama, Jefferson County Commission, The, Joe Knight, Jimmie Stephens. (McMillan, French) (Entered: 09/22/2011)
8 Brief in Support of Motion by George Bowman, Sandra Little Brown, David Carrington, Jefferson County Alabama, Jefferson County Commission, The, Joe Knight, Jimmie Stephens. (McMillan, French) CORRECTING DOCKET − brief incorrectly filed as a motion Modified on 9/27/2011 (KAM, ). (Entered: 09/22/2011)
9 ORDER re 7 MOTION to Dismiss: plaintiff may file any opposition to the motion within 20 days. Signed by US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on 9/30/2011. (PMA) (Entered: 09/30/2011)
10 MOTION Waiver of Magistrate Jurisdiction UNOPPOSED by John Mason, IV. (Hart, Anna) (Entered: 10/14/2011)
11 ORDER denying 10 Motion to waive jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. Signed by US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on 10/17/2011. (PMA) (Entered: 10/17/2011)
12 ANSWER to Complaint by Mike Hale.(Murrill, James) (Entered: 10/18/2011)
13 MOTION to Change Venue by John Mason, IV. (Hart, Anna) (Entered: 10/20/2011)
14 MOTION for Extension of Time (unopposed) by John Mason, IV. (Hart, Anna) (Entered: 10/20/2011)
15 UNIFORM INITIAL ORDER − with appendices attached; Signed by US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on 10/21/2011. (BST, ) (Entered: 10/21/2011)
16 ORDER finding as moot 13 Motion to Change Venue. The designation of the division is not a change of venue. Based upon the motion, however, the court agrees that the case should properly be designated as a Southern Division case, and the Clerk is DIRECTED to change the style to reflect this change. The court further GRANTS 14 Motion for Extension of Time and gives plaintiffs until Friday, October 28, 2011, to respond. Signed by US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on 10/24/2011. (PMA) (Entered: 10/24/2011)
17 MOTION for Extension of Time (UNOPPOSED) by John Mason, IV. (Hart, Anna) (Entered: 10/27/2011)
18 ORDER granting 17 MOTION for Extension of Time (UNOPPOSED) filed by John Mason, IV, and extending deadline for plaintiffs to respond until November 4, 2011. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS will be granted. Signed by US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on 10/28/2011. (PMA) (Entered: 10/28/2011)

Case: 2:11-cv-3155 As of: 10/31/2017 01:55 PM CDT 6 of 11

11/04/2011 11/07/2011 11/08/2011 11/10/2011 11/22/2011 11/28/2011 11/29/2011 11/29/2011 11/30/2011 12/03/2011 12/05/2011
01/09/2012 01/10/2012
02/29/2012 03/06/2012
03/23/2012

19 MOTION to Amend/Correct UNOPPOSED by John Mason, IV. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Hart, Anna) (Entered: 11/04/2011)
20 ORDER granting 19 Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint, based upon plaintiff's representations that the motion is unopposed. The plaintiff may file the amended complaint within 7 days. Signed by US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on 11/7/2011. (PMA) (Entered: 11/07/2011)
21 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by John Mason, IV. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Hart, Anna) (Entered: 11/08/2011)
22 NOTICE by George Bowman, Sandra Little Brown, David Carrington, Jefferson County Alabama, Jefferson County Commission, The, Joe Knight, Jimmie Stephens of Bankruptcy (McMillan, French) (Entered: 11/10/2011)
23 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Mike Hale.(Murrill, James) (Entered: 11/22/2011)
24 ORDER pursuant to the notice of bankruptcy, on the court's own motion, this case is STAYED. Signed by US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on 11/28/2011. (KAM, ) (Entered: 11/28/2011)
25 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint by George Bowman, Sandra Little Brown, David Carrington, Jefferson County Alabama, Jefferson County Commission, The, Joe Knight, Jimmie Stephens. (McMillan, French) (Entered: 11/29/2011)
26 MOTION to Dismiss Brief in Support thereof by George Bowman, Sandra Little Brown, David Carrington, Jefferson County Alabama, Jefferson County Commission, The, Joe Knight, Jimmie Stephens. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B)(McMillan, French) (Entered: 11/29/2011)
27 ORDER finding as moot 7 Motion to Dismiss, and giving the plaintiff 20 days in which to file any opposition to the motion to dismiss the amended complaint 25 . Signed by US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on 11/30/2011. (PMA) (Entered: 11/30/2011)
28 MOTION to Stay (Temporary) by John Mason, IV. (Hart, Anna) (Entered: 12/03/2011)
29 ORDER granting 28 Motion to Stay until a resolution of the issue regarding the implications of the automatic stay for defendant Hale, or for 60 days if the issue has not been resolved by that time. Upon a resolution of the issue in the bankruptcy court, or at the end of the 60−day period, whichever is sooner, the parties are DIRECTED to file a status report. Signed by US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on 12/5/2011. (PMA) (Entered: 12/05/2011)
30 STATUS REPORT by Ishmael Gregory, John Mason, IV. (Hart, Anna) (Entered: 01/09/2012)
31 ORDER re 30 Status Report filed by Ishmael Gregory, John Mason, IV, 28 MOTION to Stay (Temporary) filed by John Mason, IV. Based upon the status report, the stay is EXTENDED until March 1, 2012. The parties are to file a status report on that date, or sooner if any action taken by the bankruptcy court affects the pendency of this action. Signed by US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on 1/10/2012. (PMA) (Entered: 01/10/2012)
32 STATUS REPORT by Ishmael Gregory, John Mason, IV. (Hart, Anna) (Entered: 02/29/2012)
33 ORDER LIFTING STAY in accordance with the terms and limitations of the Bankruptcy Court's 2/24/12 order; the parties are directed to file their R26 report w/in 20 days; plas are given 20 days to file a response in opposition to the pending motions to dismiss the amended complaint. Signed by US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on 3/5/2012. (KAM, ) (Entered: 03/06/2012)
34 STIPULATION re 25 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint by George Bowman, Sandra Little Brown, David Carrington, Ishmael Gregory, Mike Hale, Jefferson County Alabama, Jefferson County Commission, The, Joe Knight, John Mason, IV, Jimmie Stephens. filed by George Bowman, Sandra Little Brown, David Carrington,

Case: 2:11-cv-3155 As of: 10/31/2017 01:55 PM CDT 7 of 11

03/26/2012 03/30/2012
04/09/2012
04/16/2012 04/18/2012 04/20/2012 04/20/2012
05/23/2012 05/29/2012
06/01/2012 06/13/2012
06/20/2012
08/20/2012 08/21/2012
08/23/2012 08/29/2012

Ishmael Gregory, Mike Hale, Jefferson County Alabama, Jefferson County Commission, The, Joe Knight, John Mason, IV, Jimmie Stephens (Hart, Anna) (Entered: 03/23/2012)
35 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Hart, Anna) (Entered: 03/26/2012)
36 ORDER re 35 Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. This cause is hereby SET for a SCHEDULING CONFERENCE in the chambers of the undersigned magistrate judge at 10:30 A.M., Tuesday, April 10, 2012. Signed by US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on 3/30/2012. (Putnam, T) (Entered: 03/30/2012)
37 ORDER pursuant to the joint stipulation, all claims against the Commissioner dfts and dft Hall in their individual capacities are dismissed w/out prejudice; each party shall be responsible fot its own costs and attys fees associated with this dismissal. Signed by US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on 4/6/2012. (KAM, ) (Entered: 04/09/2012)
38 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by John Mason, IV. (Hart, Anna) (Entered: 04/16/2012)
39 ORDER granting 38 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Anna Louise Hart terminated. Signed by US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on 4/18/2012.(KMT). (Entered: 04/18/2012)
40 NOTICE by Mike Hale Consent to Magistrate Judge Authority (Murrill, James) (Entered: 04/20/2012)
CONSENT to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge T. Michael Putnam by George Bowman, Mike Hale, Jefferson County Commission, The, Sandra Little Brown, Joe Knight, Jefferson County Alabama, Ishmael Gregory, John Mason, IV, Jimmie Stephens, David Carrington.. filed (KAM, ) (Entered: 04/23/2012)
41 STIPULATION Joint Stipulation as to Class Certification by John Mason, IV. filed by John Mason, IV (Stewart, Donald) (Entered: 05/23/2012)
42 ORDER. In Chambers Conference set for 6/13/2012 at 10:00 AM in Hugo L Black US Courthouse, Birmingham, AL before US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam. Signed by US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on 5/29/2012. (KMT). (Entered: 05/29/2012)
43 Submission of Discovery regarding motion by John Mason, IV. Related document: 28 MOTION to Stay (Temporary) filed by John Mason, IV.(King, Dan) (Entered: 06/01/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam: Scheduling Conference held, in Chambers, on 6/13/2012−Court's preliminary remarks−Counsel's statements−WRITTEN SCHEDULING ORDER to be entered by the Court. (Court Reporter, None.) (RLD) (Entered: 06/13/2012)
44 SCHEDULING ORDER : certain time limits apply as set out in this order; Amended Pleadings due from pla by 9/3/2012 and from dfts by 10/1/2012. Discovery due by 2/15/2013. Dispositive Motions due by 3/15/2013. Class Certification Hearing is set for 8/30/2012 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3B, Hugo L Black US Courthouse, Birmingham, AL before US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam. Parties shall be trial ready by 6/1/2013. Signed by US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on 6/20/2012. (KAM, ) (Entered: 06/20/2012)
45 First MOTION Plaintiff's Motion to Add Additional Named Plaintiff(s) and Proposed Class Representative(s) by John Mason, IV. (King, Dan) (Entered: 08/20/2012)
46 ORDER re 45 Plaintiff's Motion to Add Additional Named Plaintiff(s) and Proposed Class Representative(s). The defedants may file a response, if any, to plaintiffs' motion within 14 days from the date of this order. Signed by US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on 8/21/2012. (KMT). (Entered: 08/21/2012)
47 Brief Plaintiffs' Brief in Support of Motion for Class Certification. (King, Dan) (Entered: 08/23/2012)
48 NOTICE of Appearance by Dan C King, III on behalf of John Mason, IV (King, Dan) (Entered: 08/29/2012)

Case: 2:11-cv-3155 As of: 10/31/2017 01:55 PM CDT 8 of 11

08/29/2012 08/30/2012
09/10/2012 09/28/2012 10/04/2012
02/08/2013 03/15/2013 03/15/2013 03/15/2013
03/18/2013 03/20/2013 03/20/2013
04/05/2013 04/15/2013 04/18/2013 04/18/2013

49 Opposition to re 45 Plaintiffs' Motion to Add Named Plaintiff(s) and Proposed Class Representative(s) filed by George Bowman, Sandra Little Brown, David Carrington, Jefferson County Alabama, Jefferson County Commission, The, Joe Knight, Jimmie Stephens. (McMillan, French) (Entered: 08/29/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam: Class Certification Hearing held on 8/30/2012−Court's preliminary remarks−Counsel's arguments−Court GRANTED Motion to add plaintiff THACKER to the case−Court to take the Class Certification matter under submission−WRITTEN ORDER to be entered by the Court. (Court Reporter, Cheryl Powell.) (RLD) (Entered: 08/30/2012)
50 ORDER granting 45 Motion add an additional plaintiff. Signed by US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on 9/10/2012. (KAM, ) (Entered: 09/10/2012)
51 MOTION to Continue by John Mason, IV. (King, Dan) (Entered: 09/28/2012)
52 ORDER granting 51 Motion to Extend Time for Expert Disclosure. The scheduling order (Doc. 44 ) is AMENDED as follows: The plaintiffs shall disclose expert witnesses and reports pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(2) by 11/6/2012, and defendants shall do so by 12/6/2012. All other deadlines remain unchanged. Signed by US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on 10/4/2012. (Putnam, T) (Entered: 10/04/2012)
53 MOTION to Certify Class by John Mason, IV. (Stewart, Donald) (Entered: 02/08/2013)
54 First MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment by John Mason, IV. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A−C, # 2 Exhibit Exhibits D−E, # 3 Exhibit Exhibits F−L)(Stewart, Donald) (Entered: 03/15/2013)
55 MOTION for Summary Judgment by George Bowman, Sandra Little Brown, David Carrington, Jefferson County Alabama, Jefferson County Commission, The, Joe Knight, Jimmie Stephens. (McMillan, French) (Entered: 03/15/2013)
56 Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment by George Bowman, Sandra Little Brown, David Carrington, Jefferson County Alabama, Jefferson County Commission, The, Joe Knight, Jimmie Stephens. (McMillan, French) CORRECTING DOCKET − BRIEF INCORRECTLY FILED AS A MOTION Modified on 3/19/2013 (KAM, ). (Entered: 03/15/2013)
57 Evidentiary Material re: 55 MOTION for Summary Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(McMillan, French) (Entered: 03/18/2013)
58 ORDER re 54 First MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment filed by John Mason, IV ; any opposition to the motion is due by 4/19/2013; reply is due by 4/30/2013. Signed by US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on 3/20/2013. (KAM, ) (Entered: 03/20/2013)
59 ORDER re 55 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Joe Knight, David Carrington, Jimmie Stephens, George Bowman, Jefferson County Commission, The, Jefferson County Alabama, Sandra Little Brown ; any opposition is due by 4/19/2013; reply by 4/30/2013. Signed by US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on 3/20/2013. (KAM, ) (Entered: 03/20/2013)
ORDER setting In Chambers Status Conference for 4/18/2013 at 10:00 AM in the Hugo L Black US Courthouse, Birmingham, AL before US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam. Signed by US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on 4/5/2013.(MDW). (Entered: 04/05/2013)
60 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 58 Order, by Mike Hale. (Murrill, James) (Entered: 04/15/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam: Status Conference held, in Chambers and by telephone, on 4/18/2013−Court's preliminary remarks−Counsel's statements−WRITTEN ORDER to be entered by the Court. (Court Reporter, None.) (RLD) (Entered: 04/18/2013)
61 ORDER granting 60 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 58 Order, filed by Mike Hale as set out in this order;. Hearing to determine adequacy of

Case: 2:11-cv-3155 As of: 10/31/2017 01:55 PM CDT 9 of 11

05/31/2013 06/05/2013 06/10/2013 06/27/2013 07/15/2013 09/26/2013 10/30/2013
11/04/2013 11/04/2013 11/07/2013 11/07/2013 11/19/2013 01/22/2014
02/06/2014 02/06/2014

class counsel is set for 6/4/2013 02:00 PM Courtroom 3B in Hugo L Black US Courthouse, Birmingham, AL before US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam.. Signed by US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on 4/18/2013. (KAM, ) (Entered: 04/18/2013)
62 Brief Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion for Class Certification. (Stewart, Donald) (Entered: 05/31/2013)
ORDER resetting hearing. Hearing to determine adequacy of class counsel is reset for 6/26/2013 at 02:00 PM in the Hugo L Black US Courthouse, Birmingham, AL, Courtroom 3B before US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam. Signed by US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on 6/5/2013. (MDW). (Entered: 06/05/2013)
ORDER resetting hearing. Hearing to determine adequacy of class counsel is hereby reset for 6/27/2013 at 02:00 PM in the Hugo L Black US Courthouse, Birmingham, AL, Courtroom 3B before US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam. Signed by US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on 6/11/2013. (MDW). (Entered: 06/10/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam: Motion Hearing held on 6/27/2013 to determine adequacy of class counsel re 53 MOTION to Certify Class filed by John Mason, IV. (Court Reporter Julie Martin) (KWC) Modified text on 6/27/2013 (KWC) (Entered: 06/27/2013)
63 Third MOTION to Certify Class by John Mason, IV. (Lawes, John) (Entered: 07/15/2013)
64 MOTION Status Conference by John Mason, IV. (Lawes, John) (Entered: 09/26/2013)
65 ORDER granting 64 Motion for Status Conference. Status Conference set, IN CHAMBERS, for Thursday, November 7, 2013, 2:00 PM in Hugo L. Black United States Courthouse, Birmingham, Alabama, before US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam. Attorneys who wish to attend by telephone may do so by calling 866−933−0528 and entering the PIN number 3893. Signed by US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on October 30, 2013. (AMP) (Entered: 10/30/2013)
66 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Ishmael Gregory, John Mason, IV. (King, Dan) (Entered: 11/04/2013)
67 ORDER granting 66 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Dan C King, III terminated. Signed by US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on November 4, 2013. (AMP) (Entered: 11/04/2013)
68 NOTICE of Appearance by Kallie C Lunsford on behalf of Mike Hale (Lunsford, Kallie) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam: Status Conference held in Chambers and by telephone, on 11/7/2013−Court's preliminary remarks−Counsel's statements−WRITTEN ORDER to be entered by the Court. (Court Reporter, None.) (RLD) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
69 ORDER Certifiying a Class pursuant to FRCP 23(b)(2). Signed by US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on 11/19/2013. (KAM, ) (Entered: 11/19/2013)
ORDER In Chambers Conference SET for Thursday, February 6, 2014 at 10:00 AM in Hugo L Black US Courthouse, Birmingham, AL before US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam. Attorneys who are unable to attend in person may attend by telephone by calling 866−933−0528 and entering the PIN number 3893. Signed by US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on January 22, 2014. (AMP) (Entered: 01/22/2014)
ORDER In Chambers Conference set for Friday, March 14, 2014, at 10:00 AM in the Hugo L Black US Courthouse, Birmingham, AL before US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam. Signed by US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on February 6, 2014. (AMP) (Entered: 02/06/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam: Status Conference held, in Chambers, on 2/6/2014−Court's preliminary remarks−Counsel's statements−Court to schedule another conference for Friday, 03/14/2014, at 10:00 a.m.−WRITTEN ORDER to be entered by the Court. (Court

Case: 2:11-cv-3155 As of: 10/31/2017 01:55 PM CDT 10 of 11

03/13/2014 03/14/2014
03/14/2014 04/15/2014 04/15/2014 04/16/2014
05/21/2014 05/22/2014 05/30/2014 06/02/2014 06/04/2014 06/12/2014 06/12/2014 06/13/2014 06/16/2014

Reporter, None.) (RLD) (Entered: 02/06/2014)
70 ORDER re In Chambers Conference set for Friday, March 14, 2014. Attorneys who are unable to attend in person may attend by telephone by calling 866−933−0528 and entering PIN number 3895. Signed by US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on March 13, 2014. (AMP) (Entered: 03/13/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam: Status Conference held in Chambers and by telephone, on 3/14/2014−Court's preliminary remarks−Counsel's statements−Court scheduled another status conference for Tuesday, 04/15/2014, at 10:00 a.m.−WRITTEN ORDER to be entered by the Court. (Court Reporter, None.) (RLD) (Entered: 03/14/2014)
ORDER In Chambers Conference set for Tuesday, April 15, 2014 at 10:00 AM in the Hugo L Black US Courthouse, Birmingham, AL before US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam. Signed by US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on March 14, 2014. (AMP) (Entered: 03/14/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam: Status Conference held, in Chambers, on 4/15/2014−Court's preliminary remarks−Counsel's statements−WRITTEN ORDER to be entered by the Court. (Court Reporter, None.) (RLD) (Entered: 04/15/2014)
71 Joint MOTION for Settlement Approval by John Mason, IV. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2)(Stewart, Donald) (Entered: 04/15/2014)
72 ORDER: Settlement Conference set for 6/16/2014 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3B of the Hugo L Black US Courthouse, Birmingham, AL before US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam. Within 10 days of the date of this Order, counsel for plaintiff class members shall arrange for class members to be provided notice (doc. 71−2) of the proposed settlement (doc. 71−1), by posting the notice in a common, accessible area of the Jefferson County Jail (the Jail), and by providing a copy of the notice to class members who are unable to access common areas of the Jail. Signed by US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on 4/16/2014. (MSN) (Entered: 04/16/2014)
73 NOTICE by non−party of Objection to Proposed Class Action Settlement, Document 71−2, Filed 4/15/2014 filed by Kelly Patrick Riggs (MSN) (Entered: 05/22/2014)
74 NOTICE by non−party of Objection to Proposed Class Action Settlement, Document 71−2, Filed 4/15/2014, filed by Joshua D. Stanley(MSN) (Entered: 05/23/2014)
75 NOTICE by non−party of Objection to Proposed Class Action Settlement, Document 71−2, Filed 4/15/2014, filed by Terrell E. Tucker. (MSN) (Entered: 05/30/2014)
76 MOTION by Non−Party for Leave to Amend and Join Class Action filed by Timothy Caver. (MSN) (Entered: 06/04/2014)
77 NOTICE of Appearance by Shawnna H Smith on behalf of George Bowman, Sandra Little Brown, David Carrington, Mike Hale, Jefferson County Alabama, Jefferson County Commission, The, Joe Knight, Jimmie Stephens (Smith, Shawnna) (Entered: 06/04/2014)
78 MOTION to Withdraw by George Bowman, Sandra Little Brown, David Carrington, Jefferson County Alabama, Jefferson County Commission, The, Joe Knight, Jimmie Stephens. (Smith, Shawnna) (Entered: 06/12/2014)
79 ORDER granting 78 Motion to Withdraw. Signed by US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on June 12, 2014. (AMP) (Entered: 06/12/2014)
80 STIPULATION REGARDING SETTLEMENT by Mike Hale. filed by Mike Hale (Murrill, James) (Entered: 06/13/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam: Settlement Conference (Fairness Hearing) held on 6/16/2014−Court's preliminary remarks−Counsel's statements−WRITTEN ORDER, approving the settlement, to be entered by the Court. (Court Reporter, Margaret Wasmund.) (RLD) (Entered: 06/16/2014)

Case: 2:11-cv-3155 As of: 10/31/2017 01:55 PM CDT 11 of 11

06/19/2014
12/15/2015 01/04/2016 01/05/2016

81 ORDER Approving Class Settlement: the court finds that the proposed settlement agreement is a fair and reasonable resolution of potentially unconstitutional conditions in the Jefferson County Jail in Birmingham, and it is due to be and hereby is APPROVED and the parties are DIRECTED to proceed with implementation of the provisions of the agreement. It is, therefore, further ORDERED, that proceedings in this case are hereby STAYED until a motion to lift the stay is filed by a party or until January 2, 2016, whichever event first occurs. Please see order for instructions further set out. Signed by US Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on 6/19/2014. (MSN) (Entered: 06/19/2014)
82 TEXT ORDER. Telephone Conference set for Monday, January 4, 2016, at 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam. Parties may call into the conference by dialing 888−636−3807 and enter Access Code 3676046. Signed by Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on December 15, 2015. (AMP) (Entered: 12/15/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam: Telephone Conference held on 1/4/2016. (Court Reporter none.) (ASL) (Entered: 01/04/2016)
83 ORDER OF DISMISSAL− Pursuant to the Order Approving Class Settlement, the court finds that no further proceedings are necessary to address conditions in the Jail, and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on 1/5/16. (MRR, ) (Entered: 01/05/2016)