Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

614 F.2d 42

Docket No. 78-2035.

Adams v. Mathis

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided March 17, 1980.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1980-03-17

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently August 1992

11 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

4 counsel of record

Relies on Williams v. Edwards · 458 F. Supp. 302 - Adams v. Mathis

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1980-03-17

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*43Robert S. Lamar, Jr., Montgomery, Ala., W. Scears Barnes, Jr., Alexander City, Ala., for defendants-appellants.

¶2Joel M. Nomberg, Daleville, Ala., for Ronald Paul Adams.

¶3Drew S. Days, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Civ. Rights Div., John B. Oakley, Barry E. Teague, U. S. Atty., Montgomery, Ala., Kenneth E. Vines, Asst. U. S. Atty., Dept. of Justice, Walter W. Barnett, Joan F. Hartman, Attys., Appellate Section, Civ. Rights Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for the U. S.

¶4Charles H. Barnes, State Dept. of Ins., David E. Allred, Montgomery, Ala., for Roy L. Thornell, State Fire Marshal.

¶5Before AINSWORTH and HENDERSON, Circuit Judges, and HUNTER,* District Judge.

¶7PER CURIAM:

¶8This class litigation was instituted by the filing of a pro se complaint alleging serious constitutional violations in the operation of the Houston County Jail in Dothan, Alabama. In March 1975 the Court granted the motion of the United States to intervene and subsequently certified a class of plaintiffs consisting of all inmates of the jail at any time since the suit was filed, as well as all future inmates to be confined in that facility.

¶9The District Court found that the jail was seriously overcrowded, posed a health hazard, was psychologically debilitating to inmates, did not adequately protect inmates from harm, had no classification system, and did not adequately separate male and female inmates. The District Judge’s order of extensive relief was commensurate in scope with that of the infirmities discerned.1Williams v. Edwards, 547 F. 2d 1206 (5th Cir. 1977); Newman v. Alabama, 503 F.2d at 1320 (5th Cir. 1974). We affirm on the basis of the District Court’s opinion at 458 F.Supp. 302.

¶10AFFIRMED.

/614/f2d/42 · .json · Public domain