The Honor able Karl S

. For ester, Senior United States District J udg e for the Easter

n District * of Ke ntucky , sitti ng by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0633n.06 F iled: October 20, 2008 Nos. 07-2319, 07-2560 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
EVERETT HAD I X, et al., Pla int if fs -A pp e lla nts , v. PATRI CI A CARUSO, et al., De fe nd ants -A

pp e lle e s. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRICT COURT FOR THE WES TERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

Be fore : SUTTON and Mc KEAGU E, Circuit J udg es; and F ORESTER, District J udg e. *
SUT TO N, Cir c uit

Judg e . P lai nt if

fs , r e pr e se nti nga

c la ss o f i nma

te s in the Mic hig an St a te Prison sy stem, appea l the district court’s ter mination of injunctive relief reg arding the conditions of

c on fi ne me nt w ith in U nit s A and B of the Parn a ll Cor

re c tio na l F a c ili ty
. B e c a

us e the c ourt

c or re c tly deter mined that the Ha dix

c on se nt d e c re e do e s n ot a pp ly to t he se un its , w e a ff

ir m.
I.
I n 19 80 , a group o f i nmate s in the State Pr iso n o f S ou the rn Mic hig an s ue d s e ve ra l st a te pr iso n o ff ic ia ls, c la imi ngthey had vi olate d th e Un ite d St a te s Co ns tit uti on by su bje c tin g the m to inhumane conditions of conf inement. I n 1985, the district court e ntere d a conse nt decr ee a pproving the pa rt ie s’ se ttl e me nt a g re e me nt. Th e de c re e re qu ir e d th e State to ma ke nume ro us imp ro ve me nts to the conditions within t he “Stat e P rison of Southern Michig an Centra l Compl ex, including the Rece ption a

nd Guidance Center” (SPS M-CC). J A 396. When it enter ed the decr ee, the district court fo r t he Ea ste rn

Di str ic t of

Mic hig an e xpand e d th e de fi nit ion of the SPSM- CC, so that it inc lud e d “ a llNos. 07-2319, 07-2560

Ha dix v . Ca ru so

2 ar e a s w h i c h w i l l s u

p p l y s u p p o rt s e r v i c e s u n d e r t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s C o n s e n t Ju d g m e n t
. . . . ” JA 396–97 (interna l quotation marks omitted). The S t at e n o l o n ger operate s a fa cility known as the “State Prison of Southern Michig an,” but some are as of the for mer SPSM-CC are now par t of the Parnall Corre ctional Fa cility

. See Mic hig an D e pa rt m e nt o f C o r r e c t i o n s , P a

r n a ll Co rr e c tio na l F a c ili ty (SMT), http://www.michiga n.g ov/corre ctions/0,1607,7- 1 1 9 -1 3 8 1

_ 1 3 8 8 -5 3 3 9

– , 0 0

. h t m l (last viewe d Oct. 17, 2008).
I n 2005, afte r portions of the decr ee had been tr ansfe rre d to the Western District of Michig an, the cour t determined that fire sa fety hazards in Cell Block E ight of the forme r SPS M-CC violated the Cruel and U nusual Punishments C lause of t h e Eight Amendment. See Finding s of Fa ct and Conclusions of L aw ¶

¶ 388–90, No. 4:92-CV-110 ( W.D. Mich. Sept. 14, 2005). To redr ess the problem, state of

ficials proposed an amende d fire- safe ty plan, which c alled for

closing Bloc k Eig ht and tra nsfer ring its prisoners to Parnall Units A and B. The district cour t approve d the plan, af

ter which state officia ls tra

nsfer red the prisoners, a

nd the district court ter

minated its control over w hat be c a me an e mpt

y B loc k E ig ht. As part of its ruling that B lock Ei g ht was no longe r subj ect to its oversig ht, the district court conclude d that Parnall U n i t s A and B wer e “ de fac to Ha dix fa c ili tie s” and

su bje c t to its c on se ntdecr ee jur isdiction, J A 632 (May 14, 2007), y et the brie f orde r did not discuss whether Units A or B f ell within the decr ee’ s definition of the “SPSM-CC ,” JA 631–33

. S t at e o ff i cials moved for

re co n s i d er at i on of this aspec t of the cour t’s decision. See Mot. to Terminate Injunctive Relief Reg arding Parnall C orre ctional Facility ’s (S MT) A Unit, No. 4:92-CV-110, at 3–4 (W.D. Mich Oct 5, 20 07 ); Mo t. to Te rm inate the Ct. ’s Juri sd ic tio n E xten de d O ve r S MT ’s B Un it , No. 4:92-CV-110, at 2–3 (W.D. Mich. J uly

11, 2007). The c ourt then t erminate d all injunctive relief as to Units A and B on the g ro un d th a t th e se un its we re no t su pp lying“ su

pp or t se rv ic e s” to the or ig ina l SPSM -C CNos. 07-2319, 07-2560

Ha dix v . Ca ru so

3 fac ility within the meaning of the c onsent d ec ree and henc e we re outside of that decr ee’ s scope. Ha dix v . Ca ru so , No. 4:92-CV-110, 2007 WL2701972, at *3–4 (W.D. Mi ch

. S ep t
. 10, 2007) (“ Hadix II I ” ) (t e rm inatin g inj un c tiv e re lie f a s to Un it B ); Ha dix v . Ca ru so , No. 4:92-CV-110, Or der at 2 (W.D. Mich. Nov

. 2 , 2 0 0 7 ) (rely ing on Hadix II I to terminate injunctive re lief as to Unit A). Th e pr iso ne rs a

pp e a l th e se de c isi on s.
II.
The c onsent dec ree define s the scope of its rel i ef as follows: “The pr ovisions contained here in are i n t ended by

the par ties to assure the c onstitut ionality of the c onditions under which prisoners a

re in ca rc erated at SPSM-CC .” JA 342. The order implementing the c onsent dec ree de sc ri be s it s a

pp lic a tio n to SPSM- CC a s f oll ow s:
Du e to a nti c ipate d s tr

uc tur a l c ha

ng e s w hic h may resul t in re namin g of

c e rt a in po rt ion s o f t

he fa c ili ty a t is su e in t

his laws uit , [th e SPSM- CC] sh a ll b e de fi ne d a s “ a ll are a s w ith in t

he wa lls of the State Pr iso n o f S ou the rn Mic hig an at th e tim e thi s c a us e commence d and all are as which will supply support service s under the pr ovisions of this Cons ent J udg ment

, e.g ., food ser

vice a nd Boiler Plant operations . . . .”
J A 396–97. Consis t ent wit h these orde rs, the SPSM -CC facility consists of the ar eas w ithin the

wa lls of the or ig ina l c omp lex pl us any are a s th a t “ su

pp ly su pp or t se rv ic e s und e r t

he [De c re e ’s ] provisions . . . .” Id. Th e pr iso ne rs do no t argue that Un its A or B are or ig ina l Hadix fac iliti es; they

c on te nd on ly that th e y are su pp or t f a c ili tie s.
We d isa g re e . B y

any c on ve nti on a l def

ini tio n of the te rm s, it is dif fi c ult to s e e ho w U nit s A or B are “supply [i ng ] support services” to Ha dix fac iliti es g iven that these units do not provide a

s i n gl e s er v i ce t o an y

ex i s t i n g Ha dix fac ility

. Nor is the re any meaning ful risk that this is a ruse— that the State plans to retur n the prisoner s back to B lock Eig h t

— b ec au s e that ce ll block has bee nNos. 07-2319, 07-2560

Ha dix v . Ca ru so

4 closed. Ne ither par

ty sug g ests any

possibili ty that the prisoners in Units A and B w ill be returne d to any other Ha dix

fac ility in the future. T hese t wo Units, by any measure , thus do not provide

“ s u p p o rt ” t o an y p o rt i o no f

t h e o r i g i n a l S P S M

- C C f

a c i l i t y. The prisone rs counter

that Units A and B are support fac iliti es beca use they “re place d . . . the fu nc tio ns of an o ri g ina l Ha dix cellblock,” Br

. at 17, by servingas “r eplac ement housing ,” Reply Br

. a t 4. B ut ho w c an on e fa c ili ty pr ov ide “ su pp or t se rv ic e s” un le ss the re is ano the r fa c ili ty to s up po rt ? One of our prior opinions in this case, whic h considere d whether the di strict court e rre d by requiring independe nt monitoring of the me ntal health ca re pr ovided to Ha dix

class m em b ers in fa cilities

ou tsi de of the or ig ina l SPSM -C C, a pp re c ia te d a

nd re lie d u po n th is d ist inc tio n:
I t sh ou ld b e ma de e xplic it that mo nit or ing ou tsi de the SPSM- CC d oe s n ot a pp ly to transfe rs base d on secur ity or saf ety conce rns or for

other a dminist rative r easons, but applies only

to Hadix pr iso ne rs wh o ar e se nt out sid e the c on fi ne s of the SPSM- CC temporarily for the pur

pose of r ece iving menta l health ca re, with t he anticipation that the ywill re tur n to theSP

SM -C C on c e tre atm e nt i

s c om ple te
. Hadix v. J ohnson , Nos. 93-1551, 93-1555, 93- 1559, 93-1560, 93-1642, 93- 1643, 1995 WL 559372, at *8 (6th Cir. Sept. 20, 1995) (“ Hadix I ”) ( second a

nd third emphases a dded).
This disti nction also has the c ommon-sense be nefit of c onfining this deca des-longlitigation to a re a so na ble sc op e . “ [T]he pr iso n p op ulatio n is tr ans ie nt[, ] an d .

. . tr ans fer s b a se d o n s e c ur ity and saf ety conce rns ar e made with some fre quency .” Id

. I f the consent decr ee wer e to a pply to ever

y fac ility to which a f

ormer Ha dix

prisoner mig ht be transf

er re d , M i ch iga

n would be fa ced w ith an

un te na ble c ho ic e : E ith e r t

he State c ou ld k e e p th e e nti re c la ss h ou se d in th e same se t of bu ild ing s, de sp ite the ir

a c c e le ratin g de c re pit

ud e and de sp ite the a dv isa bil ity of se c ur ity -r e la te d tr ans fe rs , or it

c ou ld m ov e th e p r i s o n e r s o u t i n t o t h e s y s t e m , s l o w l y e xp an d i n g t h e r e a c h o f t h e d e c r e e u n t i l i t isNos. 07-2319, 07-2560

Ha dix v . Ca ru so

5 “extrude[d] . . . amoeba-l i k e t h roug hout the Michig an prison sy stem.” Id. at *6. Nothing in the consent de cre e re quires us to g ive it such a broa d, uncer tain and eve r-lasting scope.
Th e pr iso ne rs se pa

rate ly argue that Hadix v. J

ohnson , 367 F.3d 513, 515–17 (6th Cir. 2004) (“ Hadix II ” ) , r e qu i r e s u s t o h o l d t h a tU n i t s A a n d B c o m e w i t h i nt h e c o n s e n td e c r e e . N o ts o . In Hadix II , we uphe ld the district court’s determination that “B locks 1 [and] 2 of Eg eler [C orre ctional Fa cility ]” wer e support fac iliti es, but this determination was ba sed on the uncontested district court fi nd ingthat th e se B loc ks we re “ de liv e r[i ng ] . . . su pp or t se rv ic e s. ” 36 7 F .3 d at 51 7– 18 (“ De fe nd a nts have pr esente d us with no arg uments .
. . as to why it was an a

buse of discr etion to conclude that Bloc ks 1 and 2 ar e ar eas which will supply support service s.”) (internal quotation m arks omitted). The B locks, moreove r, wer e supply ing support service s in this sense: Eg eler “houses a

nd provides service s for prisone rs from throug hout the State who ar e re ceivings h o rt -t er m medical tre atment rende red throug h Duane L . Waters Hospital [it self a Hadix- s u p p o rtf a c i l i t y] , an d

p r o v i d e s c u s t o dy,
sec u ri t y an d s u p p ort servic es for the hospital.” Hadix v. J ohnson , 45 F. Supp. 2d 584, 586 (E.D. Mic h. 19 99 ); see H

adix I , 1995 WL 559372, at *6–7 (noting that Duane Waters Hospital provides mental
- he a lthse rvi ces to SPSM- CC in ma te s) . T hat si mpl y is n ot t he c a se he re , w hic h h e lps to explain why

state off icials would conc ede that support service s were being s u p p l ied in the one setting but not the other

. Also unconvincing is plaintiffs’ relianc e on Glover v . Johnson , 934 F.2d 703, 709 (6th Cir. 1991)

. Although the consent decr ee in that c ase made an express mention only of ce rtain enume rate d women’s pr isons, see G lover v . Johnson , 510 F. S u p p . 1019, 1020–25 (E.D. Mich. 1981) , we
ne ve rt he le ss a pp lie d it to a su bs e q u e nt l y o p e n e d w ome n’ s p ri so n, be c a us e “ the sp e c if

ic a tio n b y name of the on ly ins tit uti on s th e n h ou sin g fe ma le inm a te s . . . c e rt a inl y wa s n ot i nte nd e d to e xclu de tho se fema le inmates who . . . would be housed at a new loca tion,” g iven that the plaintiffs re prese nted aNos. 07-2319, 07-2560

Ha dix v . Ca ru so

6 class of “ all fema le inmates in Michig an i n cl u d i n g al l future inmates,” Glover , 934 F.3d at 709. Today ’s class of plaintiffs, howeve r, is define d not as all fema le (or f or that matter a ll male) inmates but “all prisoner s who are , or will be , confine d at the State Prison of Michiga n—Central Complex .” Hadi x II I , 2007 WL 2701972, at *3. The Glover c o n s e n t d e c r e e g a v e th e c o u rt a h an dh o ld

for applying the decr ee to a ll prisons housing female inmates due to the overlap betwe en the de finition of the c lass and the de fini t i o n o f the scope of the c onsent dec ree , while the Ha dix consent de cre e of fe rs no sim ila

r purc ha se , b e c a

us e the c la ss is co mpo se d only of “ a ll pr iso ne rs wh o ar e no w or wi ll be conf ined within [ the SPS M-CC] .” JA 342. The inmates insist that by

“[a]ll owing Def

endants to de stroy

the class by

simply transfe rring all the p ri so ne rs ,” we wo uld “ de pr ive the dis tr ic t c ourt of its inh e re nt p ow e r t o p re se rv e its jurisdiction and enfor ce its judg ment.” B r. at 20. We acc ept for the sake of argument that a district court c ould indeed re spond if it found that the s tate officials wer e transferr ing pr isoners aw ay from SPS M-CC in a bad-faith effort to evade the conse nt decr ee. See P eacoc k v. Thomas , 516 U.S. 349, 35 6 ( 19 96 ) ( fe de ra l c ourt s p os se ss i nh e re nt p ow e r to enfo rce the ir or de rs ); Hadix I

, 1 9 9 5 WL 559372, at *6 (“[D]efenda nts may not evade the barg ained- for r equire ments of the dec ree simply by

. . . transfe rringprisoners out of the Ha dix fac ility to avoid t he nee d for tre atment and monitoring .”); Hadix II I , 2007 WL 2701972, at *4. But there is no evidenc e that any such sleig ht of hand is g oing

o nh e r e . T h e d i s t r i c tc o u rtf o u n d t h a t t h e t r an s f

e r w a s a g o o d

- f a i t h a t t e mp tb y t h e S t a t e t o “ p art i a l [ l y] fulfill[ ] . . . t he fire safe ty aspec t of the Consent Dec ree ” and that “[t] here is no indication here that Def endants a re ma nufac turing a pre text for their fac ility closure a nd prisoner tra

nsfer plan.” Ha dix III , 2007 WL 2701972, at *4. Nor have t he prisoners—who di d not oppose the transf ers, see B r. in Opp. To De fs.’ Marc h Alternative Plan f or Fire Safety , No. 4:92-CV-110, at 20 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 4, 20 06 ); cf. Br

. in Supp. of Def s.’ Req. For Add’l Time to File Alter native Plan, No. 4:92-CV-110 , a t 3 ( W.D . M ic h. Jan. 25 , 2 00 6) —o ff e re d a ny e vid e nc e sh ow ingthat th is f in ding wa s c le a rl yNos. 07-2319, 07-2560

Ha dix v . Ca ru so

7 err oneous. I n the abse nce of conduct by the State desig ned to thwar t the objectives of the consent de c re e , or so me oth e r m a te ri a l c ha ng e in c ir c ums tanc e s, the dis tr ic t c ourt c or re c tly re je c te d e ff or ts to expand its jurisdiction over the c ase. See Firefighters Local Un ion No. 17 84 v . S tot ts , 4 67 U. S. 56 1, 57 4 ( 19 84 ) (n oti ng that “th e sc op e of a c on se nt de c re e mus t be dis c e rn e d w ith in i ts f our c or ne rs , and n o t b y re ference to what might satisfy the purposes of

one of the parties to it”) ( internal quotation marks omitted).
III

. F or the se re a so ns , w e a ff

ir m.