Motions heard in jail lawsuit
By Lesley Jenkins
star staff
ljenkins@starhq.com
GREENEVILLE -- Attorneys for the Davis
v. Carter County lawsuit appeared before Magistrate Judge
Dennis H. Inman on Monday morning for a hearing to certify
class-action status of the lawsuit, to determine jurisdiction
for the case, and to set a date for preliminary injunction.
One of the plaintiffs' attorneys, John Eldridge,
appeared in U.S. District Court with John Duffy, the attorney
representing Carter County and Sheriff John Henson. A second
attorney for the plaintiffs, Scott Pratt, did not attend the
hearing.
In reference to the preliminary injunction and
the jurisdiction for the case, Inman and the attorneys debated
the interpretation of the Prison Litigation Reform Act which
states that, in order to request a prison release order, the
order must be heard by a three-judge panel instead of a single
district judge.
"This is a matter for the district judge (Honorable
Judge Ronnie Greer) from the get-go," Eldridge said.
Eldridge also said that, if his client, Tony
Berry, and Pratt's clients, Micheal T. Davis and Donna Wells,
agreed to amend the injunction request and drop the request
for prison release order, there would be no need for the three-judge
panel.
The attorneys set a conference date to be held
before the previously scheduled June 1 date for an evidentiary
hearing for injunctive relief to discuss the need for a hearing.
If Pratt and Eldridge decide against the June 1 hearing, a
contingent date for the evidentiary hearing is scheduled for
July 15.
Duffy said that Carter County officials have
made significant steps in easing the overcrowded jail for
a short term of three years. This added time gives county
commissioners and the Carter County Sheriff's Department time
to review a needs assessment study conducted by Barge, Waggoner,
Sumner and Cannon and make a decision for the county's long
term jail needs.
Since the evidentiary hearing would need to focus
on the jail's present conditions at the time of the hearing,
if the hearing is held on June 1 before the county has portable
facilities in place to add 92 beds to the jail's capacity,
Duffy said statistics would change throughout the process
unless the hearing is scheduled after the portable facilities
are in place.
"It's pointless. The conditions are going to
be different by July. There will be 92 less prisoners and
half of the population in the existing facility," he said.
Carter County commissioners approved the purchase
of a portable facility to be located in the north end of the
existing parking lot and approved renovations to the current
facility. The $1.8 million short term solution will add 92
beds and is planned to be in place by July.
The June 1 date remains in place in the event
that Eldridge and Pratt decide against amending the injunction
request.
The judge said the situation was "in a nebulous
mode" and said a conference date will be set for the week
before June 1 "to see where things are moving."
"It encourages me that both of you (Eldridge
and Duffy) are being so cooperative," Inman said. "It really
seems like everyone is working toward common goals."
The lawsuit alleges that conditions at the jail
are, and have been for some time, inhumane for inmates confined
at the detention facility. "The plaintiffs contend that the
totality of conditions at the Carter County Jail fall beneath
the minimum standards for human decency, inflict cruel and
needless punishment on all of the inmates, and create an environment
that takes a tremendous toll on the inmates' physical and
emotional well-being," the complaint states.
Violations of inmates' first, fourth, fifth,
sixth, eighth, ninth and fourteenth amendment rights also
occurred, according to the lawsuit.
The complaint claims that the defendants in the
case, Carter County and Henson, are responsible for the conditions
at the jail "by their policies, procedures and customs" and
have failed to improve them.
Other individuals may join the jail lawsuit now
that it has received class-action status.
