Source: https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=544&amp;search=
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 23:53:05+00:00

Document:
In 1972, Alabama prisoners filed a class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the State of Alabama in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. The plaintiffs, who were represented by court appointed attorney Joe Phelps, asked the Court to grant them declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that their constitutional rights had been violated by inadequate medical care.
On October 4, 1972, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama (Judge Frank M. Johnson) found 8th and 14th Amendment violations relating to the inadequate medical care and treatment of state inmates. The Court granted declaratory and injunctive relief, finding that approximately 10% of the inmate population was psychotic and another 60% mentally disturbed enough to require treatment and ordering the Board of Corrections to undertake extensive changes in its present practices in order to provide adequate medical care to inmates. The Court also awarded the plaintiffs their attorney fees. Newman v. State of Alabama, 349 F.Supp. 278 (M.D.Ala. 1972). The defendants appealed.
On January 13, 1976, in the class action lawsuit Pugh v. Locke, the District Court (Judge Johnson) found Alabama's prison system's living conditions to be unconstitutional in violation of the 8th and 14th Amendments. The District Court enjoined the State of Alabama and the Board of Corrections from maintaining a prison system not in compliance with constitutional standards, appointing a 39-member Human Rights Committee for the Alabama Prison System (with Rod Nachman as chair) to monitor implementation of the court order. Pugh v. Locke, 406 F. Supp. 318 (M.D.Ala. 1976).
The defendants appealed, and on September 16, 1977, the Fifth Circuit consolidated Pugh v. Lock with Newman v. Alabama and with a third case named James v. Wallace, where Alabama inmates were challenging the conditions of their confinement. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court's finding of constitutional violations, but they dissolved the 39-member Human Rights Committee ordering that their functions would terminate and remanding the case to the District Court to appoint a separate monitor for each prison. Newman v. Alabama, 559 F.2d 283 (5th Cir. 1977).
On May 18, 1981, the District Court held a hearing, where it was stipulated that Alabama prisons had not met deadlines set by the federal court order, and that the overcrowding situation had actually gotten worse. On July 15, 1981, the District Court ordered the defendants to release 400 inmates, whose names were to be specified 9 days later.
Before the names of the inmates to be released were specified, Attorney General Graddick sought to intervene and filed a notice of appeal with the Fifth Circuit, requesting that they stay the District Court's order until the appeal was settled. On July 23, 1981, the Fifth Circuit refused to stay the District Court's order. Pursuant to the order of the District Court, 400 inmates were to be released at midnight on July 24, 1981, but this was halted when the U.S. Supreme Court (Justice Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr.) granted a temporary stay. Attorney General Graddick requested a permanent stay, but the Supreme Court declined. Graddick v. Newman, No. A-72, 1981 WL 381035 (U.S. July 25, 1981). On September 2, 1981, Graddick's reapplication for a stay, which was filed with the Chief Justice, was denied by the full Supreme Court. Graddick v. Newman, 453 U.S. 928 (1981).
On August 9, 1982, the Fifth Circuit (Judge Robert Varner) ruled on the appeal, holding that the District Court erred in ordering the defendants to reduce unconstitutional overcrowding by releasing prisoners. The Fifth Circuit found that the District Court had abused its discretion, ordering relief that was "impermissibly intrusive on State's prerogative to administer its prison and parole system." Newman v. Alabama, 683 F. 2d 1312 (11th Cir. 1982).
On January 18, 1983, the District Court entered a consent decree in the case, and the Commissioner of Corrections began to submit quarterly compliance reports. On September 6, 1983, the plaintiffs filed a motion for additional relief, claiming that the prisons were still overcrowded and asking the District Court to enjoin the defendants from holding more prisoners than the prisons were equipped to handle. On November 4, 1983, the District Court issued an order restraining the defendants from enforcing a separate State court order (concerning which we have no information) and ordered the defendants to release enough prisoners to bring the prisons back within their proper occupancy levels. The District Court ordered Commissioner Smith to continue implementation of the quarterly reporting program and held Graddick in contempt of court. On December 7, 1983, the District Court issued a further order holding Commissioner Smith in contempt for his refusal to release prisoners. Both Graddick and Smith appealed.
On September 10, 1984, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, reviewed the orders issued by the District Court and reversed the findings of contempt against Graddick and Smith. The Eleventh Circuit also held that the District Court erred in ordering release of inmates without allowing a showing that conditions of confinement were no longer unconstitutional. Newman v. Graddick, 740 F. 2d 1513 (11th Cir. 1984).
On November 27, 1984, the District Court (Judge Varner) dismissed the case without prejudice pursuant to a consent order of dismissal that had been jointly filed by all parties.
On December 29, 1987, the Implementation Committee, which was created for monitoring purposes, reported to the District Court that overcrowding was still a big problem in the Alabama prisons. The next day, the District Court reactivated the case so that the Court could conduct further review of the prisons. The Committee the filed a further report with the Court, in which it concluded that even though constitutional violations may occur in the future, "future claims of constitutional violations should be resolved in other litigation properly presented to the courts," and that this case should be dismissed. On December 28, 1988, the District Court (Judge Varner) dismissed the case with prejudice.
Plaintiff Description Inmates within the Alabama Penal System.

References: § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.