Background
Plaintiffs, a class of inmates at the Louisiana State Penitentiary, sued the warden and other officials alleging unconstitutional conditions and violations of the Eighth Amendment, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The district court held trials on liability and remedies, finding violations but entering a Judgment that awarded no relief and a Remedial Order directing the appointment of special masters to develop future plans.
The court’s reasoning
The court analyzed whether the district court had entered a final decision appealable under Section twelve hundred and ninety-one or an injunction appealable under Section twelve hundred and ninety-two, subsection A, one. It concluded that the district court had not disassociated itself from the case because the Remedial Order expressly contemplated future proceedings to appoint special masters and approve remedial plans. The court further determined that the order did not impose immediate substantive obligations or define specific injunctive relief, but rather established a framework for future litigation steps.
The dissent
I respectfully dissent from the panel’s improper dismissal of this appeal.
Edith Hollan Jones
What it means going forward
The appeal is dismissed, and the stay of the Remedial Order is vacated. The district court retains jurisdiction to oversee the appointment of special masters and the development of remedial plans.