Opinion ID: 398947
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Dismissal of the State Defendants

Text: 10 The district court dismissed the suit against all of the state officials named as defendants on the ground that, under the applicable Mississippi statutes, the state officials sued by the plaintiffs have no authority over the maintenance, administration or operation of county jails and that no judgment against them could effectuate the relief sought by plaintiffs. 87 F.R.D. at 768. This was not a proper ground for dismissing the state officials. 11 Several of the named plaintiffs, and thousands of the putative class members, are state prisoners committed to the custody of the Mississippi Board of Corrections. The district court's holding would allow the defendant state officials to relegate their prisoners to cruel and unusual punishment so long as they have no power to change the conditions of confinement in county jails. We reject this theory. This court has consistently held that state officials cannot disclaim responsibility for cruel and unusual conditions of confinement of prisoners in their custody on the ground that it is beyond their power to effect the changes necessary to bring the conditions up to minimal standards. See, e.g., Smith v. Sullivan, 553 F.2d 373, 378 (5th Cir. 1977) (claim of lack of funds); Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291, 1319-20 (5th Cir. 1974) (claim that state legislature was a necessary party). Even if the district court were correct in deciding that the defendant state officials have no authority to make changes in county jails, 9 the district court could have ordered the state officials to remove prisoners in their custody from any county jail found constitutionally inadequate, or, in the alternative, offered them the opportunity to assist the county in making the necessary changes in order to continue using the jail to incarcerate state prisoners. 12 Since issuing its decision in this case, the court below has apparently recognized that state officials cannot shed their constitutional obligations by putting state prisoners in county jails. That court has entered an order in Gates v. Collier redefining the Gates class to include all felony offenders committed ... to the custody of the (state) ... wherever now housed a(nd) hereafter to be housed within the state, thereby entitling all state prisoners to the relief granted in Gates. 10 Gates v. Collier, No. GC 71-6-K (N.D.Miss. May 20, 1981). 13 Although we hold that the dismissal of the state defendants was error, we do not think that this conclusion requires reversal of the district court's order denying certification, because we do not believe that the presence or absence of the state defendants has any relevance to the ground on which we uphold that denial. To that order we now turn.