Voice of the Experienced v. LeBlanc

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

VOICE OF THE EXPERIENCED, A CIVIL ACTION

MEMBERSHIP ORGANIZATION ON

BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ITS

MEMBERS, ET AL.

VERSUS

JAMES LEBLANC, ET AL. NO. 23-01304-BAJ-EWD

RULING AND ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Application For A Preliminary Injunction

And Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 37), which requests that the Court

immediately enjoin all agricultural labor performed by incarcerated persons on the

Farm Line at the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Tunica, Louisiana, otherwise

known as “Angola” or “LSP,” when heat index values exceed eighty-eight degrees

Fahrenheit. Defendants have filed an Opposition, (Doc. 49), to which Plaintiffs filed

a reply, (Doc. 51). Considering these pleadings and the materials submitted in

support thereof, along with the statements offered by the parties at the June 18, 2024,

Oral Argument on Plaintiffs’ Motion, and for all of the reasons to follow, Plaintiffs’

Motion will be granted in part and denied in part. The Court will not enjoin labor on

the Farm Line at this time but will order Defendants to alter Farm Line working

conditions to preserve human health and safety.

I. BACKGROUND

At Angola, incarcerated persons are sometimes required to perform

agricultural labor for a variety of prison programs. The usefulness and sophistication

of the labor involved in the various programs allegedly differs substantially, with

some programs resembling modern-day farming operations and others, such as the

Farm Line, serving an almost purely penological function. At this time, Plaintiffs

have defined the Farm Line as those compulsory, punitive agricultural or farming

labor programs operated at Angola, including but not limited to Lines 15a, 15b, 24,

and 25.1 (Doc. 37-1 at p. 8 fn. 2). Plaintiffs request that the Court enjoin all operations

on the Farm Line when heat index values reach or exceed eighty-eight degrees

Fahrenheit.? According to Defendants, this definition of the Farm Line encapsulates

the work assignments for fewer than fifty inmates on any given day. (Doc. 49 at p. 4

fn. 11).

Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on December 15, 2028, seeking, among

other relief, certification of various classes; declaratory judgment in favor of Plaintiffs

finding that Defendants are violating the constitutional rights of the members of the

putative classes by forcing them to work on the Farm Line in unsafe and inhumane

conditions; declaratory judgment in favor of Plaintiffs that those incarcerated persons

convicted by non-unanimous juries may not be forced to work on the Farm Line under

the Thirteenth Amendment; declaratory judgment in favor of Plaintiffs declaring that

Defendants are violating the rights of each member of the putative disability class by

1 The pleadings and arguments contained therein do not identify the crops grown on these

Lines, or any other information outside of that which is provided.

2 The heat index is “[t]he perceived temperature in degrees Fahrenheit derived from a

combination of the temperature and humidity for the indicated hour.” (Doc. 37-88 at p. 2). It

is a more accurate portrayal of how conditions are felt by the human body, and is a metric

that has been accepted by numerous courts. E.g., Ball v. LeBlanc, 792 F.3d 584, 591-592 (5th

Cir. 2015); Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 328, 339 (5th Cir. 2004).

requiring them to labor on the Farm Line; and a permanent injunction enjoining

Defendants from conducting compulsory agricultural labor at Angola. (Doc. 21). The

Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ Thirteenth Amendment claims in its June 5 Ruling and

Order, finding that such claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477

(1994), and Edwards v. Vannoy, 598 U.S. 255 (2021). (Doc. 56). On May 18, 2024,

Plaintiffs filed a motion asking that the Court issue a temporary restraining order

and provide preliminary injunctive relief by enjoining Defendants from operating the

Farm Line when heat index values reach or exceed eighty-eight degrees Fahrenheit.

(Doc. 37). The Court held a Telephone Status Conference to discuss the motion with

the parties on May 16, 2024. At this Status Conference, the Court ordered additional

briefing from the parties. (Doc. 45). Defendants filed an Opposition, (Doc. 49), to

Plaintiffs’ request. Plaintiffs filed a Reply to Defendants’ Opposition. (Doc. 51). On

June 18, 2024, the Court heard Oral Argument on Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive

relief. (Doc. 62).

Il. THE PLAINTIFFS

The named Plaintiffs in this action comprise certain incarcerated persons who

have labored on the Farm Line at Angola, along with a grassroots nonprofit

organization, the Voice of the Experienced, which advocates for the civil,

constitutional, and human rights of its members. (Doc. 21 at pp. 4-8). The named

Plaintiffs are and allege as follows.

A. Myron Smith

Plaintiff Myron Smith is over fifty years old and has been incarcerated at

Angola since 1998. (Doc. 37-14 at § 1, hereinafter “Smith Declaration”). Smith avers,

based on his personal knowledge of Angola disciplinary policies and practices, that

nearly all incarcerated persons must work on the Farm Line when they first arrive

at Angola, and that anyone may be reassigned to and remain on the Farm Line as

punishment for a disciplinary infraction. (Id. at § 8).

Smith has served on the Farm Line three times, once when he arrived at

Angola in 1998, once when he received a disciplinary write-up in 2005, and finally

after receiving another disciplinary write-up in 2022. (Ud. at J 4-5, 7). Smith provides

that work on the Farm Line earns him as little as two cents an hour, or roughly one-

fourth and one-tenth of the wages from his previous prison work assignments as a

kitchen orderly and ranch hand. (/d. at {{ 5-6, 19). Smith is still working on Line 15b

of the Farm Line. (/d. at { 7). There, he works “in the fields from approximately 7

a.m. until mid-morning, and then again from around 11 a.m. to around 1:30 p.m.” (/d.

at § 8). The work consists of “pick[ing] crops, cut[ting] grass, and sometimes []

maintenance.” ([d.). While Smith is sometimes afforded tools such as “weed eaters,”

“other times [prisoners] are forced to use [their] hands.” Ud.). Smith declares that the

working conditions on the Farm line:

are harsh. The drinking water is dirty, in a moldy cooler that often

contains dead insects. There is no shade. Breaks are rare. Armed guards

patrol the fields, sometimes riding four-wheelers. My understanding is

that guards generally don’t use horses anymore because the weather is

too hot for them. There is often no place to use the bathroom. When there

are portapotties [sic], they are extremely unsanitary.

(Ud. at § 9). Smith alleges that due to the “unsanitary water,” he has had to purchase

his own water at “significant expense.” (/d. at { 10). To the best of Smith’s

recollection, he has “never been provided with sunscreen, proper work gloves, proper

work boots, sunglasses, or other safety equipment necessary to safely work in the

fields.” Ud.). Smith further avers that the “heat and humidity in the fields are

unbearable.” Ud. at {| 12). He provides that he “often feel[s] woozy, dehydrated, and □

dizzy.” Ud.). Smith described one such experience on the Farm Line as follows:

I was working on Line 15b when my muscles began locking up. I could

barely move. An emergency medical technician arrived and told me to

drink more water and rest. But instead of being taken inside to cool off,

I was forced to sit in the field, in the hot sun, for the rest of the shift.

(d.). Allegedly, on Line 15b, “heat advisories are ignored.” (/d. at § 13). Smith asserts

that despite the heat advisories being “clearly audible from the prison official’s

radios,” those advisories are “completely ignored,” and prisoners are forced to

continue working in the heat. (/d.).

Some of the tasks that Smith has been ordered to perform on the Farm Line

have been needlessly difficult. For instance, Smith asserts that:

[eJarlier this year, officials gave me a five[-|gallon bucket and a

[S]tyrofoam cup and forced me to hand-water rows of watermelons. This

was physically painful and difficult work, particularly given the extreme

heat and humidity in the fields. I have also been forced to hand-pick

grass. I could not refuse to do this make-work without risking

disciplinary action and serious harm.

Ud. at § 15). Smith reiterated his above claims via supplemental declaration on May

28, 2024. (Doc. 51-6, hereinafter “Smith Supplemental Declaration”). Therein, he

stated that after laboring on the Farm Line on May 16, 2024, a prison official

informed him that he would no longer be required to work in the field. (Id. at § 2). He

was not provided with an explanation for this change. (/d.). Smith again stated he

had never been issued adequate safety equipment for labor on the Farm Line, and

that he did “not recall ever being directed or permitted to take breaks every 30

minutes for five minutes.” (Id. at ¥ 7).

On May 23, 2023, Smith filed a Request for Administrative Remedy (ARP), in

which he restated the above, and alleged that prisoners working on the Farm Line

were not provided with shade, sanitary toilets, or proper safety equipment, including

gloves, work boots, sunscreen, hats, and safety glasses. (Doc. 37-61 at p. 3). Smith

stated that work on the Farm Line was “extremely dangerous,” in large part due to

the “extreme temperatures and high humidity.” (/d.). Smith requested that Angola

officials grant him a “permanent no duty status for all field work, including any future

assignment to the [FJarm [Lline,” that the Farm Line be ended, that all work at

Angola be made safe for persons with disabilities, and that persons laboring at Angola

be provided “safety equipment, adequate breaks and access to shade, clean drinking

water, and sanitary toilets.” (Ud. at pp. 3-4). Angola officials denied Smith’s ARP, and

asserted that his statements regarding working conditions on the Farm Line were

“false and untrue,” that toilets were provided to persons laboring on the Farm Line,

that work gloves were provided on request, that water, Gatorade, and breaks were

provided to all prisoners, and that all prisoners laboring on the Farm Line “have been

seen and cleared by medical personnel to work in that job.” Ud. at p. 5). Smith

contested this denial, and again asserted that no safety equipment had been provided

3 An ARP is a request for administrative relief submitted to LSP officials, and is generally

the first step in the process for an incarcerated person to challenge the legality of prison

policies, practices, or events.

to persons laboring on the Farm Line, and that heat advisories issued for the Farm

Line were not observed. (/d. at p. 6). Smith’s ARP was again denied. (/d. at p. 2).

Dr. Susi Vassallo, a licensed physician and an expert on thermoregulation,4

reviewed Smith’s medical records. (Doc. 54-1). She concludes that Smith’s medical

records reflect a significant history of physical injuries, “including a left humerus

fracture; ailments related to gunshot wounds in the back, knee, and foot ... and

injuries to the right ankle and left rib.” Ud. at p. 6). Angola medical personnel

prescribe or have prescribed Smith with a variety of medications relating to these

injuries, including “Benadryl []; methocarbamol, a muscle relaxant; Demerol [], an

opioid used to treat pain; loratadine, an antihistamine; and non-steroidal anti-

inflammatory drugs like Advil [], Toradol [], Dolobid [], Celebrex [], and meloxicam.”

(Id.). According to Dr. Vassallo, many of these medications affect the body’s ability to

regulate temperature, and place Smith “at greater risk of heatstroke and heat related

disorders.” (/d.). Dr. Vassallo also notes that Smith has a history of heat-stress

disorders, exhibited by an event in 2021 wherein Smith complained of stomach

cramps and was advised to drink more water to stay hydrated. According to Dr.

Vassallo, “[t]his symptom is consistent with heat-related illness. . . [and] ‘drink more

4 Dr. Vassallo has been admitted as an expert on thermoregulation, or the process by which

the human body regulates internal temperatures, on numerous occasions. See, e.g., Yates v.

Collier, 868 F.8d 354, 363-64 (5th Cir. 2017) (Dr. Vassallo is a licensed physician and a

recognized expert in the field of thermoregulation and hyperthermia, with over twenty-five

years treating heat stroke and heat related disorders. Dr. Vassallo has previously served as

an expert witness in lawsuits challenging prison conditions, and this court has (at least) twice

upheld district court findings that relied heavily on Dr. Vassallo’s testimony.”) (citations

omitted); Ball, 792 F.3d at 598; Gates, 376 F.3d at 339.

water’ 1s a nonspecific instruction that does not, on its own, mitigate the risk of heat-

related illness.” (/d. at p. 7).

B. Alvin Williams

Plaintiff Alvin Williams is a thirty-eight-year-old man who has been

incarcerated at Angola since 2009. (Doc. 37-17 at J§ 1-2, hereinafter “Alvin

Declaration”).5 Alvin likewise avers that “nearly all incarcerated people must work

on the Farm Line when they first arrive at Angola, and that anyone may be

reassigned to the Farm Line as punishment for a disciplinary infraction.” (Id. at § 3).

In 2022, due to a disciplinary write-up, Alvin was placed on Line 25 within the Farm

Line. (Id. at § 5). He has worked on the Farm Line ever since, a period of two years.

Alvin offers a similar account to Smith, and avers that on the Farm Line:

work in the fields [starts] around 7 a.m. Around 9 a.m., there will

sometimes be an announcement about whether there is a heat advisory

that day. A heat advisory means that the heat and humidity are

dangerously high. [Inmates] are still forced to work in the fields, even

when there is a heat advisory, until around 11:30 a.m.

(Id. at § 6). Laborers are paid two cents an hour. (/d. at § 19). Like Smith, Alvin has

been assigned such Sisyphean tasks as “goose picking” “where [he] [is] forced to pick

blades of grass, by hand, from the dirt.” Ud. at § 7). Alvin asserts that on the Farm

Line, “working conditions are harsh. The drinking water is dirty, in a moldy cooler

that often contains dead insects. There is no shade. [] [B]reaks are rare.” (Id. at § 8).

Alvin additionally asserts that he has “never been provided with sunscreen, proper

5 The Court would otherwise refer to Alvin Williams as “Mr. Williams” or “Williams,” but

because another named Plaintiff possesses the surname “Williams,” the Court will

respectfully refer to him as “Alvin.”

work gloves, proper work boots, sunglasses, a sunhat, or other safety equipment.” (Id.

at 9). Alvin provides that on several occasions, “prison officials threatened to punish

me if I stopped working, encouraged other incarcerated men to stop working,

complained about the unsafe work conditions, or failed to work ‘efficiently.” Ud. at §

18). Finally, Alvin declares that “[t]he heat and humidity in the fields are unbearable.

I often feel lightheaded and exhausted from doing manual labor... .I have felt my

heart racing and felt chilled, despite the heat. I often feel dehydrated. I have suffered

from blistered hands and feet, sunburns.” (Ud. at § 20). According to Alvin, the

allegations of Angola’s failure to provide sufficient protective equipment and the

sporadic and infrequent nature of breaks on the Farm Line were true as of at least

the week of May 18, 2024. (Doc. 51-4 at | 3, 5, hereinafter “Alvin Williams

Supplemental Declaration”). Alvin stated that he did “not recall ever being directed

or permitted to take breaks every 30 minutes for five minutes,” as Defendants claim.

Ud. at § 5).

Alvin submitted an ARP setting forth similar accusations on July 6, 2028. (Doc.

37-60 at p. 3). Alvin informed prison officials that Farm Line conditions have been

“horrible and unsafe” due to the “extreme heat conditions and high humidity.” (d.).

Alvin provided that he had been given “dangerous drinking water” with “black mold

inside the coolers.” (/d.). He additionally averred that laborers on the Farm Line have

“never” been given “proper breaks, shade, sanitary toilets, proper equipment, like

thick gloves and work boots, sunscreen and hats.” (/d.). Alvin further stated that he

had been “denied medical assistance” when he complained about suffering from

“dizziness, dehydration and body temperatures reaching high and unsafe

temperatures.” (/d.). Alvin closed his ARP by asking for relief identical to that

requested by Smith. (/d. at p. 5). Prison officials denied Alvin’s ARP, stating that his

claims were “false, and hold no merit,” and that Alvin had “not provided sufficient

evidence to substantiate [his] claim.” (/d. at p. 6). Alvin appealed this denial, and

prison officials again denied his claim. (/d. at p. 2).

Alvin’s medical records show that while laboring on the Farm Line, he reported

to Angola medical personnel after exhibiting partial numbness in one of his

extremities. (Doc. 47-3 at p. 2). Several months prior to this, Alvin again placed a sick

call while staffed on the Farm Line. Medical personnel found that he suffered from

severe abdominal pain, associated high blood pressure, dizziness, and nausea. (Doc.

at pp. 7-9). Several weeks prior to this sick call, in mid-October 2023, Alvin

reported that he suffered from numbness in his extremities. Ud. at p. 13). Throughout

the entirety of these medical visits, Alvin repeatedly stressed that work on the Farm

Line was exacerbating his symptoms and that such work was especially difficult due

to what Alvin believed to be several ruptured tendons in his ankle. (See, e.g., id. at p.

14). In September 2023, Alvin again received medical treatment after laboring on the

Farm Line. Ud. at p. 17). The medical logs show that Alvin was brought to medical

personnel by prison officials after he was allegedly “dancing around in the field and

had had [sic] slurred speech so they think he is intoxicated.” Ud.). Alvin informed

medical personnel that he thought he was “dehydrated” and that he “got dizzy and

sat down.” (Ud.). Alvin exhibited a blood pressure consistent with Stage 2

10

hypertension at this medical visit. (/d.).6 Medical personnel at this visit noted that

Alvin was compliant and his speech was clear. (/d. at p. 19).

Dr. Vassallo reviewed Alvin’s medical records, and noted that his known

conditions included a history of high blood pressure, tuberculosis, and mobility

impairments. (Doc. 54-1 at p. 2). These conditions, according to Dr. Vassallo, put

Alvin at greater risk of heatstroke and heat related disorders. Ud. at pp. 2-3).

According to Dr. Vassallo, exacerbating these risks to Alvin are the prescribed

medications he is currently taking or has taken in the past. (ld. at p. 3). Those

medications include rifampin and dicyclomine, each of which inhibit the body’s ability

to self-regulate temperature. (/d.).

C. Darrius Williams

Plaintiff Darrius Williams is thirty-three-years old and has been incarcerated

at Angola since 2011. (Doc. 37-18 at 4 1-2, hereinafter “Darrius Declaration”).7

Darrius provides similar statements to those of Alvin and Smith, and states that

“nearly all incarcerated people must work on the Farm Line when they first arrive at

Angola, and that anyone may be reassigned to the Farm line as punishment for a

disciplinary infraction.” Ud. at { 3). Darrius asserts that he has been placed on the

Farm Line on three separate occasions, and that, in total, he has worked the Farm

Line off and on for around eight years. Ud. at {4 4-6). On the last occasion, Darrius

6 This blood pressure reading is associated with those at highest risk of cardiovascular events.

See Thomas D. Giles & Barry J. Materson, Treating Stage 2 Hypertension, J. of Clinical

Hypertension, 464 (2005).

7 For considerations previously provided in footnote 5, the Court will respectfully refer to

Darrius Williams as “Darrius.”

11

actually refused to go to the Farm Line because he was not provided with “sufficient

work boots, jeans, or work gloves,” and therefore believed that working on the Farm

Line would be unsafe. (/d. at {| 6). He was given a month in disciplinary segregation

for this refusal. (/d.). Darrius confirms that laborers on the Farm Line are paid two

cents an hour. (/d. at { 8). Darrius describes work on the Farm Line as follows:

[W]e arrived in the fields around 7 a.m., we would be told to pick crops,

like digging up sweet potatoes by hand. We were still forced to work,

even when there was a heat advisory. .. To the best of my recollection, I

have never been provided with sunscreen, proper work gloves, proper

work boots, sunglasses, a sunhat, or other safety equipment necessary

to safely work in the fields. Conditions in the field are brutal and unsafe.

There is no shade. The heat and humidity in the fields are unbearable.

It can get to 105 to 110 degrees outside. It’s so hot out in the corn fields

that it’s hard to breathe. I’ve had to make several medical calls. Once, I

was forced to work the Farm Line in the summer and was in the corn

fields. The temperature was over 100 degrees and I started feeling chills.

I was shaking, as though it was freezing. I started sweating profusely. I

started to feel dizzy. I lost control of limbs and fainted. Medical came

and reported that my blood pressure was very high. Despite all this,

prison officials sent me back out into the field the next day. I refused. I

was placed in lockdown.

Ud. at 4] 9-13). Additionally, Darrius provides that, like Alvin, on several occasions,

“prison officials threatened to punish me if I stopped working, encouraged other

incarcerated men to stop working, complained about the unsafe work conditions, or

failed to work “efficiently.” Ud. at | 17).

Like Smith and Alvin, Darrius submitted an ARP setting forth the above and

requesting that he be taken off Farm Line duties. (Doc. 37-40). Darrius informed

prison officials in this ARP of how he had fainted from the heat on a previous occasion,

how this fainting had required emergency medical care, and how his refusal to go out

into the fields the next day resulted in him being placed in lockdown. (Id. at p. 3).

12

Darrius also stated that laborers were “not given adequate safety equipment” and

were not given enough breaks. Ud. at { 8). Darrius’s ARP was denied because,

according to Defendants, his claims were deemed to be ‘false, and hold no merit”—

the form response also given to Smith and Alvin. (/d. at p. 5).

Darrius’s medical records show that he has reported to Angola medical

personnel with symptoms such as weakness and dizziness. (Doc. 47-52 at p. 23).

Darrius’s medical records also show that in December 2022, several months after

Darrius was placed on disciplinary segregation for refusing to report to the Farm Line

for unsafe conditions, he reported to medical personnel after suffering a cardiac event

in the early morning. (/d. at p. 41). Darrius is currently in “preventative

segregation.’8 (Doc. 49 at p. 10). Dr. Vassallo reviewed Darrius’s medical records and

noted that he has “a history of illness and symptoms consistent with heat-stress

disorders.” (Doc. 54-1 at p. 9). She states that “[a]s one example, his records indicate

that on October 11, 2018, [Darrius] |] presented to the ATU after working in the field,

complaining of weakness, tiredness, diarrhea, and vomiting.” (/d.). Dr. Vassallo also

opines that the medications currently or previously prescribed to Darrius have the

effect of weakening his ability to thermoregulate. ([d.).

D. Nate Walker

Plaintiff Nate Walker is forty-three-years old, and has been incarcerated at

Angola since 2009. (Doc. 37-16 at §/{ 1-2, hereinafter “Walker Declaration”). Walker

offers similar descriptions of the Farm Line to those given above. (/d.). Like Smith,

8 The Court has not been provided with a description of what preventative segregation is or

what preventative segregation is used for.

13

Alvin, and Darrius, Walker was placed on the Farm Line upon arriving at Angola and

was placed back on the Farm Line upon receiving disciplinary write-ups. Ud. at 3-

4). Walker has roughly thirteen years of experience laboring on the Farm Line. (Id.

at 4). He states that work on the Farm Line occurs from approximately “7.am. [sic]

until mid-morning, and then sometimes again from around 11 a.m. to around 3:00

p.m.” (Id. at § 5). Walker avers that recently, laborers were not allowed to go to lunch

until they met a work quota. (Ud. at { 6). Walker also swears that “working conditions

are harsh. The drinking water is dirty. There is no shade. Breaks are rare. .. There

is often no place to use the bathroom. When we have access to a port-a-potty [sic],

they are extremely unsanitary.” (/d. at { 7). He states that in his decades plus of labor

on the Farm Line, he has “never been provided with sunscreen, proper work gloves,

sunglasses, or other safety equipment necessary to safely work in the fields.” (Id. at

{| 8). Walker also asserts, like other named Plaintiffs, that “[t]he heat and humidity

in the fields are unbearable.” (/d. at § 9). Walker further provides that he underwent

a similar experience to Darrius. In his words:

“(I]n approximately 2017, I was working in the field on a hot day. I was

feeling weak and light headed [sic]. I notified the guards that I was not

feeling good, but I was ignored. I could barely stand or walk. When I

tried to walk, I began to sway. The guards called medical and told them

that I was intoxicated. I was arrested and received a disciplinary write-

up for intoxication. I was not intoxicated.”

(id.). Walker suffers from glaucoma, and working in the fields causes him “severe eye

pain.” (/d.). In addition to glaucoma, Walker asserts that he suffers from high blood

pressure, depression, thyroid cancer and other thyroid issues, stomach issues,

sleeping problems, and heart arrhythmia. (/d. at § 10). He is prescribed a variety of

14

medications to deal with these medical issues. (/d.). Walker avers that despite this,

Angola officials have refused to give him a permanent duty status that excuses him

from labor on the Farm Line. (/d. at § 11). In response, Defendants note that Walker

has a heat related duty status, but they have neglected to attach documentation

supporting this assertion. (Doc. 49 at p. 10).9 Regardless, Defendants claim that

Walker is now staffed on a line located at the “Raven dorms,” and that “Raven dorms

have not been out to the field since December 2021.” (Id.).

Walker submitted an ARP to Angola officials on June 1, 2023, wherein he set

forth the facts outlined above and requested to be permanently removed from

agricultural work, including work on the Farm Line. (Doc. 37-48). In this ARP,

Walker stated that he was forced to work the Farm Line as recently as April 2023,

that he has been called to work the Farm Line multiple times since, and that he was

disciplined for any refusal to do so. (/d. at p. 3). Like other Plaintiffs, Walker informed

Angola officials that conditions on the Farm Line were unsafe, primarily due to the

lack of shade, lack of protective equipment, lack of adequate breaks, and the high

heat and humidity. (/d.). He went on to report that he once fainted on the Farm Line

due to the heat, and that after he fainted, he was “punished and sent to the dungeon.”

Walker provided that he suffers from multiple disabilities under the ADA, and

that laboring on the Farm Line forces him to perform work that is beyond his physical

capabilities. Ud. at p. 4). Walker received the same form response as other named

Plaintiffs, denying his claims as false. (/d. at p. 6).

Defendants cite to “Exhibit B-10, Walker Heat Related Duty Status” to support this

assertion. A review of the record shows that no such exhibit has been provided to the Court.

lis

Walker’s medical records reflect that he was seen by Angola medical personnel

for emergency care in 2017 when he suffered from “H/S,” presumably referring to heat

syncope or fainting, along with feeling weak and dizzy, and being dehydrated. (Doc.

47-48 at p. 29). However, the Court notes that this occurred during or shortly after

Walker staged a hunger strike, wherein he did not eat from at least May 26, 2017, to

June 4, 2017. Ud. at p. 33). Dr. Vassallo reviewed Walker’s medical history, and

concluded that he suffers from borderline high blood pressure, hyperthyroidism, and

a variety of mental illnesses. (Doc. 54-1 at p. 9). She further noted that the

medications used to treat these conditions inhibit Walker’s ability to regulate his

bodily temperature. (/d.).

E. Kendrick Stevenson

Plaintiff Kendrick Stevenson is forty-five-years old and has been incarcerated

at Angola since 1999. (Doc. 37-15 at 4 1-2, hereinafter “Stevenson Declaration’).

Stevenson declares that conditions on the Farm Line are as represented by other

named Plaintiffs, and that the Farm Line is used as punishment for incarcerated

persons at Angola. (/d. at §] 4). Stevenson declares that he has worked the Farm Line

on and off since 2004. Ud. at § 5). Defendants provide that Stevenson received a heat

related duty status in March 2024 after being prescribed Zyprexa. (Doc. 49 at p. 10).1°

Stevenson avers that, while on the Farm Line and as recently as December 2023, he

was forced to hand-pick crops. (Stevenson Declaration at { 7). Stevenson says that

the work was “back-breaking. We had to squat and pluck grass with our fingers.”

10 Defendants cite to “Exhibit B-9, Stevenson Heat Related Duty Status” for this assertion. A

review of the record shows that no such exhibit has been provided to the Court.

16

Ud.). He also claims, like other named Plaintiffs, that prisoners were not given proper

safety equipment or tools to engage in this type of labor. (Id. at § 8). Stevenson further

found the heat and humidity experienced in the fields to be similarly “unbearable.”

Ud. at § 10). He states that prisoners were forced to continue laboring in the fields

after the issuance of heat advisories. (/d.). While working on the Farm Line,

Stevenson “often felt dehydrated, lightheaded, and dizzy.” His “muscles have locked

up, like a charley horse in my back and arms.” (/d.). Those symptoms worsen when

he labors in extreme heat. (/d.). Stevenson additionally alleges that on numerous

occasions, he has been disciplined for failing to work “efficiently” while on the Farm

Line. Ud. at § 15). Stevenson provided a supplemental declaration on May 28, 2024,

wherein he reiterated that he had never been issued adequate safety equipment, such

as lace-up boots, and that he did “not recall ever being directed or permitted to take

breaks every 30 minutes for five minutes,” as Defendants claim. (Doc. 51-5 at 6,

hereinafter “Stevenson Supplemental Declaration’).

Stevenson also submitted an ARP to prison officials that set forth the above.

(Doc. 37-64). Therein, Stevenson notified prison officials that laborers were not given

shade, sanitary toilets, adequate safety equipment, or enough breaks. (Id. at p. 2). He

also asserted that, in light of his disabilities, Angola required him to work beyond his

physical capabilities. Ud. at p. 3). Stevenson’s ARP was denied on procedural grounds.

(Doc. 87-48).14

11 The records provided to the Court indicate that Angola personnel denied Stevenson’s ARP

because Stevenson had an active preexisting ARP and “only one complaint may be addressed

at a time.” (Doc. 37-48).

17

Dr. Vassallo reviewed the medical chart for Stevenson and found that he had

a noted history of “paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia,” a heart condition

wherein those afflicted exhibit an elevated and irregular heartbeat, “pre-diabetes,

presbyopia, astigmatism, hyperopia, history of syncope [(fainting)], hypomagnesemia,

vitamin D deficiency, seasonal allergies, hyperlipidemia” and other afflictions that

raise the risk of Stevenson suffering heat-related injury. (Doc 54-1 at p. 5). Dr.

Vassallo notes that, according to the medical records provided by Defendants, on one

occasion in August 2023, Stevenson was laboring on the Farm Line when he exhibited

nausea, dry mouth, and abdominal pressure. (/d.). “He was sweating profusely, laying

in the field, and could not get up.” Ud.). He “had not urinated in 5-6 days. These

symptoms are consistent with heat distress.” (/d.). The Court notes that Stevenson

submitted a urine sample upon receiving medical treatment on this occasion which

registered as positive for the presence of various narcotics in his system. (Doc. 47-6

at p. 18). Stevenson has taken or continues to take approximately ten medications to

address the ailments listed above, many of which allegedly impair his ability to

regulate his bodily temperature. (Doc 54-1 at p. 6).

F. Damaris Jackson

Plaintiff Damaris Jackson is forty-three-years old, and has been incarcerated

at Angola since 2002. (Doc. 37-13 at Jf 1-2, hereinafter “Jackson Declaration”). His

Declaration is based on his personal knowledge and his intermittent experience on

the Farm Line from 2002 to 2028. Ud. at 4] 6, 17). According to Jackson, the Farm

Line is used to punish inmates at Angola. (Ud. at { 5). Work on the Farm Line begins

at 7:00 A.M., runs until 11:00 A.M. or 11:30 A.M., and prisoners are sometimes

18

required to perform a second shift in the afternoon. ([d. at {| 7). Those laboring on the

Farm Line are not provided with protective gear and equipment. (/d. at § 8). He often

feels dehydrated, lightheaded, and dizzy. (/d. at § 10). He has felt “chilled despite the

extreme heat and humidity.” Ud.). He “often” gets muscle aches and headaches. (/d.).

Work on the Farm Line is especially difficult for Jackson because he alleges that he

suffers from a disability, namely high blood pressure. (/d. at { 11). Based on this

disability, Jackson asserts that laboring on the Farm Line exceeds his physical

capabilities. (/d.). Jackson refused to work the Farm Line in June 2023, because of

its unsafe nature and because it served “no rehabilitative purpose.” (Id. at J 18-19).

Jackson avers, like other named Plaintiffs, that on numerous occasions prison

officials have threatened to punish him if he stops working while on the Farm Line.

dd. at § 21). Defendants provide that Jackson does not currently have a job

assignment. (Doc. 49 at p. 10).

Jackson filed an ARP on June 12, 2023, which set forth similar allegations to

the above. (Doc. 37-51). He informed prison officials that conditions on the Farm Line

were unsafe, primarily due to the lack of shade, safety equipment, and adequate

breaks. Ud. at p. 3). Jackson also notified prison officials through his ARP that he

suffers from high blood pressure, and that he was taking medication to combat this

infirmity. (Id. at pp. 4-5). Because of these limitations, Jackson asserted that laboring

on the Farm Line was beyond his physical capabilities. Ud. at p. 5). Jackson received

the same form denial as other named Plaintiffs. Ud. at p. 7).

19

A review of Jackson’s medical records shows that he has often complained to

Angola medical personnel that he experiences lower extremity swelling and

numbness while laboring on the Farm Line. (Doc. 47-4 at p. 7). In addition, Jackson

reported to Angola emergency medical with lightheadedness and vomiting after

laboring in the fields on August 14, 2023. Ud. at p. 11). On the date in question,

Angola experienced heat indices ranging from 95 degrees Fahrenheit to 107 degrees

Fahrenheit. (Doc. 49-10 at p. 30). Prior to this, in July 2021, Jackson filed a request

for medical treatment wherein he reported that he was suffering from excessive

sweating, loose bowels, stomach cramps, headaches, blurry vision, inability to keep

food down, and dizziness upon standing. (Doc. 47-4 at p. 23). In addition to these two

events, Jackson received emergency medical treatment while working on the Farm

Line in 2010, when he reported experiencing weak and dizzy. (Id. at p. 39).

Dr. Vassallo reviewed Jackson’s provided medical records, and concludes that

he has exhibited a history of illness and symptoms consistent with heat-stress

disorders. (Doc. 54-1 at p. 4). Contributing to this history are the lingering conditions

found in Jackson’s medical history, which include high blood pressure, depression,

arthritis, and localized swelling and pain in his right ankle. U/d.). For these ailments,

Jackson takes a variety of medications that Dr. Vassallo finds inhibit the body’s

ability to combat overheating. (Id. at p. 5).

G. Kevias Hicks

Plaintiff Kevias Hicks is thirty-three-years old and has been incarcerated at

Angola since 2018. (Doc. 37-12 at §{ 1-2, hereinafter “Hicks Declaration”). Hicks

corroborates the accounts of the Farm Line given above. He states that his crew

20

worked on the Farm Line “from about 7:30 until 11:30 a.m., even when there was a

heat advisory. We rarely got breaks. There is not always drinking water or

portapotties [sic].” dd. at 4). Hicks also avers that “[r]ecently, I was forced to pick

rotten watermelons with my hands. My understanding is that the temperature [was]

so hot in the fields that the watermelons [were] rotting on the vine. We are forced to

pick vegetables, goosepick grass, and sometimes dig ditches.” (Id. at § 5). Hicks says

that because of the extreme heat, he has “seen people pass out in the sun.” (/d. at ¢

6). He declares that he once saw a man have a seizure. (/d.). Hicks states that he

commonly feels light-headed and dizzy while in the fields, and often suffers from

headaches and muscle cramps. (/d.). In addition, Hicks provides that his feet often

swell. Ud.). Hicks attributes some of these maladies to Angola’s failure to provide him

and his fellow inmates with sufficient safety equipment. (/d. at § 7). Similar to other

named Plaintiffs, Hicks states that he is not at liberty to stop working while on the

Farm Line. Ud. at § 8). When he has done so, or when he has slowed down or

otherwise failed to meet work quotas, he has been disciplined. (/d.). Additionally,

Hicks asserts that he has been diagnosed with several disabilities, including

depression and anxiety, and that working on the Farm Line exceeds his physical

capabilities. Ud. at § 11). Hicks has been prescribed medication for his mental

conditions. Ud.). Defendants report that Hicks is now stationed as a “Grounds

Keeper,” and is no longer staffed on the Farm Line. (Doc. 49 at p. 10).

Based on the above allegations, Hicks submitted an ARP on June 8, 20238. At

that time, Hicks was laboring on Lines 24/25 of the Farm Line. (Doc. 37-42). In his

21

ARP, Hicks notified prison officials that prisoners working on the Farm Line were

not given adequate safety equipment or enough breaks. (Id. at p. 3). Hicks likewise

stated that because of his disabilities, and the medications he was taking for

treatment, laboring in the high heat on the Farm Line was especially dangerous for

him. (Id. at p. 4). Hicks received the same form denial as other named Plaintiffs. (Id.

at p. 6).

A review of Hicks’s medical records shows that he reported for an emergency

medical visit from the Farm Line on June 9, 2021, after exhibiting cramping and

dehydration. (Doc. 47-8 at p. 2). Dr. Vassallo also reviewed Hicks’s medical records

and noted both that he suffers from a history of depression and that the medications

he takes to address this illness weaken his body’s ability to regulate temperature.

(Doc. 54-1 at p. 7). Dr. Vassallo also noted that, based on the medical records provided

by Defendants, Hicks had “a history of symptoms consistent with heat-stress

disorders, like upset stomach diarrhea, and rashes.” (Id.).

H. Joseph Guillory

Plaintiff Joseph Guillory is forty years old, and has been incarcerated at

Angola since 2005. (Doc. 37-11 at 1-2, hereinafter “Guillory Declaration”). Guillory

was required to work the Farm Line in the summer of 2023. (Id. at § 2). He affirms

the accounts of the Farm Line given above. He states that his crew generally works

for “about five hours a day, five days a week. ... We can work long hours and be

forced to labor in extreme heat without food for long stretches of time.” (Id. at 9 5-

6). Guillory claims that he has “never been provided with proper work boots, proper

work gloves, sunscreen, sunglasses, a sunhat, or other safety equipment necessary to

22

safely work in the fields.” Ud. at § 7). Instead, Farm Line workers are expected to “do

all the field work by hand.” (/d.). As to the conditions on the Farm Line itself, Guillory

concludes that they are “brutal and unsafe.” (/d. at § 11). In his words:

There is no shade. Sometimes there was a portable toilet in the field for

everyone to share. It is often overflowing with human waste... The

drinking water was often dirty. The coolers are covered in mildew and

there [sic] are often bug infested. When I have asked about the mildew

or bugs in the water, the guards threatened to send me to the dungeon.

In the triple-digit heat, the prison officials know we'll drink it no matter

what.

Ud. at 9 11-12). Guillory further states that “[o]ther men on the Farm Line have

been written up for complaining about the unsafe and unsanitary working conditions

on the Farm Line.” Ud. at § 13). While working on the Farm Line, he has contracted

“heat rashes and poison ivy rashes” due to the “unbearable” heat and humidity. (Ud.

at 14). Guillory avows that work on the Farm Line is especially dangerous for him

due to his hyperthyroidism, for which he takes medication. (/d. at { 15). Despite this,

he has not been granted a permanent duty status preventing him from working on

the Farm Line. (/d. at { 16). Defendants claim that Guillory is presently staffed on

Line 10, which has not been to the fields since 2021. (Doc. 49 at p. 10).

Guillory filed an ARP setting forth the above on August 2, 2023. (Doc. 37-41).

Therein, he asserted that the conditions on the Farm Line are unsafe because of the

heat, the humidity, and the inadequate measures put in place by Defendants to

address both. (/d.). Guillory claims in his ARP that he was given access to one cooler

with electrolytes, and several others with ice water. (Ud. at p. 4). However, Guillory

states that those coolers were “infested” with bugs, mildew, and trash. Ud.). Guillory

23

avers that laborers on the Farm Line are not provided with adequate protective gear.

Guillory’s ARP was denied. (Id. at p. 7).

A review of Guillory’s medical records shows that despite his thyroid issues

spanning multiple years and his associated prescriptions being well documented, he

was on “regular duty” with “no restrictions” as of July 3, 2023. (Doc. 47-10 at p. 28).

Dr. Vassallo noted in her review of Guillory’s medical records that he possesses a

history of hypothyroidism, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, asthma, and allergies. (Doc.

54-1 at p. 8). These conditions, according to Dr. Vassallo, weaken Guillory’s ability to

remain cool in high temperatures. (/d.). Dr. Vassallo also notes that Guillory has been

prescribed a variety of medications that impair Guillory’s ability to regulate his bodily

temperature efficiently. Ud.). Finally, Dr. Vassallo notes that Guillory’s medical

records show that he has presented with “chest pains, shortness of breath, and

accelerated heart rate and tightness of chest and difficulty breathing. These

symptoms may be consistent with heat-stress illness.” (d.).

I. Additional Allegations

In addition to the foregoing, Plaintiffs have provided the Court with two ARPS

submitted on behalf of Dexter Vassar and Patrick Ramirez, both of whom have

labored on the Farm Line. (Docs. 37-44, 37-46). Vassar’s ARP alleges that on July 11,

2023, he received emergency medical treatment after laboring on the Farm Line when

he exhibited symptoms of dizziness when standing, elevated heart rate, fatigue,

shortness of breath, and pain in the neck and back. (Doc. 37-44 at pp. 7-12). The

materials in support of Vassar’s ARP provide that at the time of incident, he was a

24

forty-seven-year-old man with a body mass index (BMI) of 33.37.12 (Id. at p. 8). As a

result of this event, Vassar was instructed to remain on bed rest for one week. (Id. at

p. 3). Vassar claims in his ARP that the lack of shade was a major contributing factor

to his overheating. (/d.). Vassar’s ARP was denied. (Id. at p. 2). On the date of Vassar’s

injury, records show that the heat index at Angola was anywhere from 96 degrees

Fahrenheit to 122 degrees Fahrenheit. (Doc. 49-10 at p. 21).

Ramirez’s ARP sets forth similar allegations to those of the named Plaintiffs,

and states that persons laboring on the Farm Line are not given adequate protective

gear. (Doc. 37-46). Ramirez's ARP was denied. (Id. at p. 2).

Plaintiffs have also provided a declaration from Damion Thompson, who has

been incarcerated at Angola since 2022. (Doc. 37-19 at 1-2, hereinafter “Thompson

Declaration”). Thompson, like named Plaintiffs, avers that those working on the

Farm Lines do not receive adequate safety equipment, clean drinking water, shade,

or adequate breaks. (Ud. at 7-8). Thompson alleges that he “often” feels dizzy and

nauseous. Ud. at § 18). Work on the Farm Lines is especially difficult for Thompson

because he suffered nerve damage to his legs after sustaining a gunshot wound. (Id.

at 17). Because of this, Thompson provides that he is an individual with an ADA

disability, and that laboring on the Farm Line is beyond his physical capabilities. (Id.

at 19-20). Thompson submitted an ARP setting forth the above, which was denied

in July 2023. Ud. at § 20).

12 A BMI over 30 is considered obese. See Bout Adult BMI, Center for Disease Control,

https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/adult_bmi/index.htm]l#InterpretedAdults

(last visited on June 24, 2024),

25

WI. POLICIES AND PRACTICES AT ANGOLA

There are essentially three policies at Angola which are at issue here. First,

and most importantly, is Directive No. 13.067.

A. Directive No. 13.067

Effective as of March 21, 2019, this policy’s stated purpose is “to establish

provisions for the reduction of heat pathology and to reduce the exposure to offenders

identified as more vulnerable to heat.” (Doc. 37-38 at p. 2). Heat pathology is defined

as “[h]leat induced syndromes, such as heat stroke, muscle cramps and heat

exhaustion, due to a failure of the heat regulating mechanisms of the body.” (/d. at p.

3). The policy applies to all Louisiana State Penitentiary security staff and medical

staff. dd. at p. 2). It is provided that:

It is the Warden’s policy that Louisiana State Penitentiary shall have a

mechanism to identify offenders more vulnerable to heat and to enforce

provisions to reduce heat pathology among all offenders. Offenders on

certain types of medications may have increased sensitivity to heat and

sunlight and are at a higher risk for developing heat pathology. In

addition, offenders with specific chronic illnesses, such as morbid

obesity, cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease and diabetes

mellitus, may have a higher risk of heat pathology.

(d.). According to Directive No. 18.067, when heat index values reach or exceed

elghty-eight degrees Fahrenheit, a “heat alert” is triggered. ([d.). Directive No. 13.067

provides that those prisoners “identified by a healthcare practitioner with a chronic

illness that may be affected by heat or those prescribed medication that may impact

sensitivity to heat shall be evaluated and educated for potential adverse reactions

concerning heat.” (Ud. at p. 3). The policy does not detail when this evaluation is to

take place. Ud.). Those incarcerated persons that fall within this provision’s ambit

26

are to be given a “heat precaution duty status.” (/d.). A heat precaution duty status

means that, from the period of May 1 through October 31, inmates with such status

are to be brought indoors once heat index values reach or exceed eighty-eight degrees

Fahrenheit. Ud. at p. 4). Once indoors, those offenders are to be provided with cold

water and/or ice, cool showers and/or cool wet towels, and increased ventilation where

possible. Ud.).

To maintain awareness on when heat alerts need to be issued, Directive No.

13.067 mandates that prison officials monitor outdoor temperatures using

information from the National Weather Center and record such temperatures every

two hours. These records are to be reviewed and approved “by the Warden or [a]

designee.” (/d. at p. 5). For those incarcerated persons who have not been given a heat

precaution duty status, upon the announcement of a heat alert, “the following

measures shall be provided while working outdoors: (a) Water and ice is available at

least every 30 minutes; and (b) A rest break at least 5 minutes long is offered every

30 minutes.” (/d.). These measures are to be documented and such records are to be

maintained by prison officials. U/d.). In addition to these procedures, incarcerated

persons laboring outdoors are to:

[R]eceive heat pathology education that includes, but is not limited to, the

following:

(1) Increased consumption of liquids;

(2) Avoidance of undue exposure to the sun;

(3) Signs and symptoms of dehydration;

(4) Signs and symptoms of dermatological conditions secondary to

photosensitivity including sunburn and rashes;

(5) Signs and symptoms of medication toxicity (any altered mental

status); and

(6) Avoidance of excessive exhausting activities in high temperatures.

27

Ud. at p. 6). Incarcerated persons who receive such education are to “document

receipt” thereof on Form HC-45-A. (/d.). The Court has not been provided with any

such documentation from Defendants.

In addition to the mandated offender training, Directive No. 13.067 requires

all prison staff to attend an annual training on “the signs and symptoms and

prevention of heat pathology as outlined in Heat Pathology Staff Training

(Attachment B) and the provisions of this directive. Documentation of this training

shall be maintained at the unit.” Ud.). The Court has not been provided with any such

training documentation from Defendants.

Finally, the policy provides that “[t]he DPS&C [(Department of Public Safety

and Corrections)] Pharmacy and Therapeutics (P&T) Committee shall be responsible

for annually reviewing and updating Heat Pathology Medications (Attachment A) as

needed.” (/d.). Plaintiffs contend that this policy, and those below, are not adhered to

by Defendants. According to Plaintiffs, Defendants do not accurately record the heat

index, do not issue heat alerts as they arise, do not allow incarcerated persons to take

breaks every thirty minutes, and fail to identify and accommodate those who are

issued a heat precaution duty status. (Doc. 37-1 at p. 15). As support for these

assertions, Plaintiffs have provided the Court with documents that purport to show

the daily high heat index values for May 1, 2023, through October 1, 2023, along with

dates within this period when heat alerts were issued and breaks were given to those

laboring on the Farm Line. (Docs. 37-5, 37-50). At least part of this data, specifically

the information relating to whether breaks were taken, was pulled from Defendants’

28

own records and not the National Weather Service. (Doc. 37-1 at p. 25 (citing Doc. 37-

62)). Defendants contest the accuracy of the materials provided by Plaintiffs, and

contest Plaintiffs’ conclusions as to the number of days on which breaks were given.

(Doc. 49 at p. 16).

B. Health Care Policy No. HCP8

HCP8, effective as of August 21, 2018, sets forth identical obligations to

Directive No. 18.067. (Doc. 37-39). It lists as references a publication from the

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and a publication from the

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (Ud. at p. 2). HCP8 applies to every

DPS&C facility. Ud.).

Attachment A to HCP8 is the “Heat Pathology Medications” list, which

contains twenty-two different medications. (Doc. 37-63 at p. 2). The Heat Pathology

Medications list provides the same effective date as HCP8, August 21, 2018, yet the

Court cannot, at this stage, confirm whether the list has been changed or updated

since it became effective. Ud.). Attachment B to HCP8 provides educational material

on the prevalence and dangers of heat-related conditions and heat death. (Doc. 51-

11). It asserts that “around 618 people in the United States are killed by extreme heat

every year,’ and lists ten factors that increase a person’s risk of developing a heat-

related illness, including high levels of humidity, obesity, fever, dehydration,

prescription drug use, heart disease, mental illness, poor circulation, sunburn, and

alcohol use. Ud.). The materials warn that older adults and people with mental illness

and chronic disease are at the highest risk of succumbing to heat-related conditions.

29

(Ud. at p. 3). Some of those conditions include heat cramps, predominately felt in the

abdomen, arms, or legs, heat exhaustion, heat rash, and heat stroke. (Ud. at pp. 3-4).

The materials suggest that to avoid such heat-related illnesses, persons should

take “frequent drink breaks and ‘wet down’ or mist [themselves] with a spray bottle

to avoid becoming overheated.” (/d. at p. 4). Additionally, persons should “[d]ress in

lightweight, light-colored, loose-fitting clothing on hot days... take rest periods in

shady or cool areas. . . protect [themselves] from the sun by wearing a hat and

sunglasses; [and] use a sunscreen that is at least SPF 15.” Ud.). The materials also

suggest that persons spend as much time indoors as possible on hot and humid days,

and to monitor for extreme heat alerts. /d.). Attachment B relies on OSHA and CDC

guidelines for some of its conclusions. (/d.). Finally, various symptoms of heat stroke,

heat exhaustion, heat rash, and other heat-related conditions are described, along

with recommended mitigation tactics. Ud. at pp. 5-7). For each of the various heat-

related conditions, it is recommended that those afflicted be moved to a cool location.

(Id.). The Court assumes that Attachments A and B referred to in Directive No.

13.067 are the same as those HCP8 attachments outlined above.!

C. Directive No. 19.004

Directive No. 19.004, effective June 7, 2028, establishes “procedures for the

issuance of leather work gloves and plastic drinking cups to those inmates assigned

13 The Court assumes that Attachments A and B are functionally the same in both HCP8 and

Directive No. 13.067 because Directive No. 13.067 is substantively a verbatim copy of HCP8,

and because both policies refer to these attachments in the same manner. (Compare Doc. □□□□

38 and Doc. 37-389). Defendants have not provided the Court with the attachments to

Directive No. 13.067.

30

to field operations at Louisiana State Penitentiary.” (Doc. 51-10 at p. 2). Incarcerated

persons laboring on the Farm Line are to be issued leather work gloves once every six

months. (/d.). As to the plastic drinking cups, the “inmate’s farm line supervisor shall

be responsible” for their issuance. (U/d.). “When the inmate reports to his assigned line

on the first day he shall be issued a plastic drinking cup.” Ud. at p. 3). “The inmate is

responsible for maintaining his drinking cup and only receive[s] one every six months,

if needed.” (/d.).

D. Additional Policies at Angola

The classification procedures at Angola appear to be governed by Directive

Nos. 18.068, 18.002, and 19.008. Directive No. 138.063 establishes that all

incarcerated persons at Angola are assigned a permanent duty status on their arrival

to the facility. (Doc. 49-6 at p. 1). A prisoner’s work status may be changed based on

“objective evidence of physical defects, limitations, injuries or illnesses,” and may only

be changed by Angola medical personnel. Ud. at pp. 1-2). Directive No. 18.002

provides procedures for the classification of offenders upon their arrival to Angola,

and mandates that those decisions be made by “Classification Boards,” which must

include a staff member from the “Classification, Social Services, Medical/Mental

Health” category and a staff member from the “Security” category. (Doc. 49-3 at p. 2).

“Offenders who disagree with classification decisions may file a grievance through

the Administrative Remedy Procedure.” (/d.). Directive No. 19.0003 provides

substantially similar guidance to the above policies, and indicates that incarcerated

persons may apply for a reclassification of job status, but actual reclassification

remains at the discretion of prison officials. (Doc. 49-4 at p. 1). It further states that

31

“Telvery offender will be assigned to some form of job assignment in the institution. .

. . Offenders are assigned to job assignments based on [their] physical ability to

perform the task. ... Those offenders who are deemed mentally or physically disabled

may be assigned to” less taxing job assignments. (/d. at p. 2).

The other operative equipment policy at Angola appears to be Department

Regulation No. IS-A-3. (Doc. 87-51 at p. 25). This policy, effective as of January 2,

2022, provides that incarcerated persons shall be issued “standard” work boots, which

shall not be “steel toe, military or fatigue type, army issue, or pointed toe,” have a

heel over 2 inches, or be insulated. Ud. at p. 28). The policy does not mandate the

issuance of sunhats, and only provides for the provision of regular caps of the

“baseball type” or “knit type.” Ud. at pp. 28-29). Sunglasses are to be provided to

incarcerated persons, but only by purchase at the canteen and not at the cost of the

state. Ud. at p. 29).

E. Practices at Angola

Defendants daim that the following practices are taken at Angola through the

declarations of the following individuals.

(i) Maghen Gagnard

Maghen Gagnard is employed at Angola as an Executive Management Officer,

and claims to have personal knowledge of operations at Angola. (Doc. 49-1 at 4 1,

hereinafter “Gagnard Declaration”). Gagnard states that all inmates at Angola “are

assigned a job, subject to that inmate’s duty status as determined by a health care

provider. When an inmate arrives at LSP, LSP will conduct an Initial Classification

Board to determine the inmate’s custody status, housing assignment and job

B2.

assignment.” Ud. at § 4). “Upon intake, inmates are issued the necessary clothing,

footwear and/or supplies necessary to perform their assigned job duties. They are

provided with tennis shoes, shower shoes, rubber boots, lace[-]up boots and gloves if

their work assignment requires.” (/d. at § 5). As to labor performed outdoors, when

ambient temperatures often exceed eighty-eight degrees Fahrenheit, “a heat alert is

issued and recorded on the Station logs... . Officers are notified via radio and the

field operation officers implement the organized breaks every 30 minutes.” (Id. at J

6). Gagnard also avers that all inmates who are prescribed medications on the Heat

Pathology Medications list are given heat precaution duty statuses, and that other

incarcerated persons may acquire a heat precaution duty status upon determination

by a health care practitioner. (/d. at { 7). Finally, Gagnard asserts that “[i]f operation

of the Farm Line was shut down, LSP would suffer immediate harm,” and estimates

that “it would cost LSP $8,645,373 ...a year to purchase meal compliments to

substitute [the] fresh vegetables and fruit” harvested from the Farm Line for inmate

consumption. Ud. at § 8). She further states that “[t]he cost to maintain landscaping,

hay fields, and cattle operations throughout the 18,000[-Jacre facility is not capable

of being enumerated at this time.” (/d.).

The Court notes that this final assertion confirms that Gagnard is addressing

the economic harm that Angola would suffer if all agricultural labor was enjoined,

and not, specifically, Farm Line labor, which, as defined by Plaintiffs, encompasses

at present four individual lines, and is staffed by no more than fifty incarcerated

33

persons at a time.!4 (Docs. 37-1 at p. 8 fn. 2, 49 at p.4 fn. 11). Further, Gagnard

appears to not take into consideration that Plaintiffs request that only the Farm Line

be enjoined when heat index values reach or exceed eighty-eight degrees Fahrenheit.

Gi) Ashli Oliveaux

Ashli Oliveaux is employed as a Deputy Warden of Quality Management and

Assurance at Angola. (Doc. 49-12 at § 1, hereinafter “Oliveaux Declaration”). She

asserts that an inmate may declare a medical emergency at “any time” while laboring

on the Farm Line, at which point a health care professional will be dispatched to

assess the inmate and “call the ATU” as necessary. (/d. at { 3). Oliveaux avers that

incarcerated persons working on the Farm Line routinely use the emergency sick-call

procedures, “even for minor complaints.” (/d. at ¥ 4). “Of all the sick calls [(from April

1, 2024, to May 15, 2024)], one inmate experienced chest pains and was immediately

sent to the ATU,” another “complained of dizziness and was allowed to rest in the

shade and not work the remaining 45 minutes of his shift,” and “[t]he remaining sick

calls involved back pain, shoulder pain, abrasions, etc.” Ud.). Oliveaux’s implication

on this final point appears to be that those sick calls involving “back pain, shoulder

pain, abrasions, etc.” are not related to heat conditions on the Farm Line. (/d.). As

14 Were Gagnard to be referring to the Farm Line as presently defined by Plaintiffs, Gagnard

would be stating that it is her belief that approximately fifty inmates, generally laboring for

anywhere between four and five hours a day, will or have produced $8,645,373 in crops

annually, primarily without the use of any sort of tool save for the inmate’s own hands. The

Court does not doubt that inmates sent to the Farm Line work diligently, but this would be

a feat of Herculean proportions.

15 The “ATU” refers to the “Acute Treatment Unit.” Lewis v. Cain, No. CV 15-318-SDD-RLB,

2023 WL 7299130, at *5 (M.D. La. Nov. 6, 20238).

34

noted by Dr. Vassallo in Section IV(A) of this Ruling and Order, Oliveaux’s

implication is not necessarily correct.

An independent review of these sick calls by the Court reveals that on April

26, 2024, an inmate with a history of pre-diabetes and hypertension exhibited back

pain while working his job assignment. (Doc. 49-18 at pp. 8-4). On May 7, 2024, a

forty-one-year-old inmate lodged an emergency medical request after exhibiting flank

pain. (Ud. at p. 14). This inmate had a standing blood pressure reading of 168 over 98,

values consistent with Stage 2 hypertension. (/d.). Despite this, his chart reflects that

he was assigned a regular duty status with no restrictions. (/d. at p. 15). On May 15,

2024, a thirty-five-year-old inmate was sent to the ATU after exhibiting sharp chest

pain while laboring in “the field.” Ud. at p. 16). The man also reported dizziness. (Id.).

The medical report details that he was working in the field in a sweatshirt. ([d.). Also

on May 15, 2024, another inmate lodged an emergency medical request after

displaying rashes on both arms. (Doc. 49-13 at p. 17). The medical report provides

that this inmate exhibited a history of abdominal pain, rash, dysthymia, panic

disorder, acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), vitamin D deficiency, and

hyperlipidemia, among other ailments. Ud. at p. 18). Despite this, the medical record

show that this man had a regular duty status with no restrictions. (/d.). In addition,

a third emergency sick call was placed on May 15, 2024, regarding a fifty-three-year-

old man who requested emergency medical attention from “the field” after

experiencing dizziness for an hour. (/d. at pp. 20-21). This man has a history of pre-

diabetes, fainting, knee pain, asthma, and osteoarthritis, among other ailments. □□□□

35

at p. 21). Prison officials assigned him a regular duty status with no restrictions. (Id.).

On the incident in question, he was instructed to “rest in the shade” for the remainder

of his shift. (/d.).

(iii) Gabriel Hebert

Gabriel Hebert is employed as a Field Operations Colonel at Angola. (Doc. 49-

23 at J 1, hereinafter “Hebert Declaration”). He avers that he has personal knowledge

of Farm Line operations. (/d. at § 2). Hebert claims that agricultural programs at

Angola are used to cultivate crops that then feed the inmate population. (Id. at § 3).

He further states that “LSP utilizes modern day agricultural practices that are

common amongst all farmers.” (/d.). It is not clear what materials or expertise Hebert

relies on to reach to this conclusion. Hebert asserts that the Farm Line laborers either

work in the morning, take a lunch break, and perform a second afternoon shift, or

work only a morning shift with approximate times of “about 8:00-11:40” A.M. (Ud. at

p. 2). Hebert further states that “[a]ll inmates that work on the grass crews or in the

field work at their own pace. There are no quota requirements. LSP only asks that

the inmates keep up with their fellow workers. Inmates may take breaks and/or get

water at any point.” (/d. at § 9). As to conditions on the Farm Line, Hebert states that

“[a]ll lines are provided with large water coolers that are brought to the work site

every day. These water coolers have tops and remain closed in the field. They are

brought in every day and cleaned and sanitized.” (Id. at § 10). Hebert additionally

states that prisoners laboring on the Farm Line are “assigned a drinking cup and

gloves. Inmates can also request a sun hat. In my experience inmates do not use the

hats even when they request them.” (/d. at {| 12). Further:

36

“fijf a heat alert is issued, officers are notified via radio. Even though

inmates may take breaks when they need them, once a heat alert is

issued, organized 5-minute breaks are given every 30 minutes. LSP also

provides Gatorade to the lines during the hot months. Further, officers

ensure once a heat alert is issued, offenders with a heat precaution duty

status are brought indoors in accordance with Directive 13.067.”

dd. at § 13). Hebert further asserts that the “Daily Line Counts are internal

documents that LSP officers fill out. These documents are not required by anyone,

and LSP does not necessarily maintain these documents per any schedule.” (/d. at J

14). On the Daily Line Counts, “[o]fficers are not instructed to document all breaks

that are given. Inmates can work at their own pace so documenting breaks would not

be feasible.” Ud. at 14). Hebert’s understanding of Angola’s policies appears to

conflict with the language of Directive No. 13.067, which states that the heat

prevention measures outlined therein, including allowing inmates to take breaks

every thirty minutes upon the issuance of a heat alert, must be “documented and

maintained at the facility.” (Doc. 37-38 at p. 5). The Court was also unable to confirm

that there is any explicit policy at Angola suggesting that incarcerated persons may

take breaks while performing a job assignment whenever they wish.

IV. HEAT AND HEALTH

Put simply, “[iJt gets real hot down in Louisiana”!® — and it is only getting

hotter. The summer of 2028, according to Ben Schott, the lead meteorologist at the

National Weather Service’s New Orleans Station, was Louisiana’s hottest one to date.

(Doc. 387-54 at p. 2). As of August 28, 2023, there were 4,766 heat-related emergency

16 The Oak Ridge Boys, Leaving Louisiana in the Broad Daylight, on The Oak Ridge Boys

Have Arrived (ABC Records 1979).

37

visits in the state since April 1. Ud.). This was almost double the annual average and

prompted former Governor John Bel Edwards to declare a state of emergency on

August 11, 2023. (Doc. 37-53 at pp. 2-3). This heat wave caused, as of August 28,

2028, at least twenty-five heat-related deaths. (Doc. 37-36 at p. 3). Stephen Russo,

then Secretary to the Louisiana Department of Health, was quoted as saying, “[h]eat-

related illness and death are preventable, and I encourage Louisiana residents to

know the signs of heat-related illness, stay indoors with air conditioning if possible,

and remember to hydrate, rest and stay in the shade if they must be outdoors.” (Id.).

The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) predicted that

there is a “one-in-three chance” that 2024 will be even hotter. (Doc. 37-87 at p. 2).

NOAA further warned that there was a “99% chance [2024] [will] rank among the

five warmest [years] on record.” Ud. at p. 3). The Louisiana Department of Health

has stated that “[hleat exposure is intensifying as the frequency, severity, and

duration of extreme heat events increases due to climate change. These changes are

of concern in Louisiana because the state experiences some of the highest average

summer temperatures in the nation.” (Doc. 37-45 at p. 7). These high temperatures

are “compounded by high humidity” which “worsens the impact of heat by impairing

the body’s ability to cool by evaporation.” (/d.). The Louisiana Department of Health

has further advised that those who work in outdoor settings are especially at risk of

developing heat-related conditions, along with those suffer from chronic health

conditions. (/d. at pp. 8, 18). The CDC notes that those who are exposed to extreme

heat are at risk of suffering heat stroke, which requires immediate emergency

38

medical attention and can cause death or permanent disability if such treatment is

not provided. (Doc. 37-59 at p. 2). In addition to heat stroke, the CDC provides that

victims of other heat-related conditions should seek cool, shady areas and that

generally persons should avoid the outdoors in high heat. Ud. at pp. 2-6). The

National Weather Service (NWS) issues excessive heat warnings when the heat index

reaches 113 degrees Fahrenheit, or the temperature reaches 105 degrees Fahrenheit.

(Doc. 21 at p. 18 (citing NWS LIX - Watch, Warning, Advisory Criteria, National

Weather Service, available at

https://www.weather.gov/lix/wwa_criteria#Heat%20Products)). The NWS issued a

record-breaking number of excessive heat warnings across the state in 2023, with

New Orleans alone suffering from seventeen excessive heat warnings as of August 6,

2023.17 According to Defendants’ temperature logs, conditions at Angola qualified for

an excessive heat warning approximately twenty-four times over the summer

months, and conditions qualified for a heat alert on roughly 145 days over the same

period. (Doc. 49-10).

A. Dr. Susi Vassallo

According to Dr. Vassallo, an expert in thermoregulation and the effects of

drugs and illnesses on thermoregulation, heat kills. (Doc. 37-3 at p. 20 (extreme heat

is “the most common cause of weather-related death in the U[nited] S|tates], killing

more people each year than hurricanes, lightning, tornados, floods and earthquakes

17 See Excessive Heat Warnings Continue Through August, The City of New Orleans: NOLA

Ready (Aug. 6, 2023, 11:45 AM), https://ready.nola.gov/incident/summer-heat-2023/august-

heat-warning-(1)/..

39

combined”)). Thermoregulation refers to the “process by which the human body

maintains its temperature within a safe physiological range.” (Ud. at p. 7).

Thermoregulation is an essential bodily process, and “[i]nability to thermoregulate

properly impairs the function of multiple bodily systems, including but not limited to

the nervous system, pulmonary system, cardiovascular system, gastrointestinal

system, and kidney function.” (/d.). The human body uses “two primary mechanisms

to cool itself: perspiration (sweating) and cutaneous vasodilation (dilation of blood

vessels close to the skin).” Ud. at p. 8). Both processes depend on neurotransmission

and adequate cardiac function. (/d.). Similarly, in hotter environments the heart

must pump “harder and faster in order to pump more blood through the body to

maintain blood pressure and cooling.” (/d.). Sweating depletes the body of water and

salt, and leads to dehydration without adequate measures in response. (Id. at p. 9).

Dehydration can cause “light-headedness or dizziness, a lack of energy, low blood

pressure, weakness, and increased heart rate.” (/d.). “If fluids are not replaced, core

temperature will rise, and hyperthermia will result. Hyperthermia occurs when the

body’s natural thermoregulatory processes are insufficient and overwhelmed.” (/d.).

Dehydration and hyperthermia can “both be deadly.” Ud.). Any medication that

impacts cardiac function or limits sweat responses will have “profound” effects on the

body’s ability to thermoregulate. ([d.).

Dr. Vassallo reports that “[hleat-related disorders occur when the body’s

temperature control system is overloaded, and the body is unable to adequately

dissipate heat.” Ud. at p. 10). Further, the “risk for heat stroke and heat-related

40

disorders increases sharply when the heat index exceeds 88 degrees Fahrenheit.”

Some heat-related disorders include “heat syncope (fainting), heat cramps, heat

exhaustion, and heat stroke.” Ud.). Heat exhaustion and heat stroke can manifest in

similar ways, including through light-headedness, thirst, nausea, weakness, fainting,

irregular heartbeat, and abdominal cramps, because heat exhaustion can precede

heat stroke. Ud. at p. 11). Heat strokes can occur rapidly and without warning. (/d.

at p. 12). In fact, two-thirds of victims “experience symptoms for less than one day

before being hospitalized or being found dead.” (/d.). Victims may also be physically

or mentally incapable of calling for help, as heat stroke can lead to feelings of

confusion and alter the afflicted’s mental status. Ud.). Heat stroke “carries a

significant risk of death and permanent disability.” Ud. at p. 18). Dr. Vassallo points

out that “[s]tudies have shown heat stroke mortality rates ranging from 30-80%.

Survivors of heat stroke may have significant heat-related morbidity, such as

permanent inability to walk and talk.” Ud.). Further, “[plermanent neurological

damage occurs in up to 17% of survivors.” (/d.).

Dr. Vassallo opines that “[a]ll people, including healthy people with no known

medical problems, are at risk for heat related disorders during persistent exposure to

a heat index above 88 degrees Fahrenheit.” (/d. at pp. 19-20). “In addition to causing

dehydration and heat stroke, extreme heat can ‘affect otherwise healthy people’s

kidneys, liver, heart, brain, and lungs, which may cause renal failure, heat attack,

and stroke.” Ud. at p. 21 (citing Robert Pistone, Violations of the Eighth Amendment:

How Climate Change Is Creating Cruel and Unusual Punishment, 28 Hastings Envt’l

Al

L.J. 218, 224 (2022))). Further, “deaths due to heat alone, due to cardiovascular

disease alone, and due to heat and cardiovascular disease combined, increase with

the number of cumulative days of heat exposure.” (/d. at p. 27). In other words, the

risk of death from both heat-related diseases and facially unrelated diseases

increases with the temperature.

While heat-related disorders are dangerous for everyone, “[c]lertain people are

at greater risk” of developing them. (/d. at p. 15). Such people include “(a) people with

chronic illnesses or medical conditions that impair thermoregulation; (b) people with

psychiatric or mental health disorders; and/or (c) people taking drugs or medications

that impair thermoregulation.” (/d.). Based on her review of the medical records of

named Plaintiffs, Dr. Vassallo concludes that Defendants have assigned numerous

Plaintiffs who are especially susceptible to high heat to labor on the Farm Line. (Doc.

54-1). Those chronic illnesses or medical conditions that render the afflicted more at

risk of heat stroke include hypertension, diabetes or pre-diabetes, “heart disease [and

heart conditions], obesity, and respiratory diseases like asthma or chronic obstructive

pulmonary disease.” (Doc. 37-3 at pp. 15-16). Those psychiatric or mental health

disorders that can impair thermoregulation include, most commonly, depression and

anxiety. (7d. at p. 17). Those medications that impair thermoregulation include, but

are not lmited to, most medications used to treat mental illness, “including

Synthroid, Benadryl, Zyprexa, Zyrtec, Losartan, [and] Elavil,” “Vistaril,”

“Topiramate;” most medications that treat hypertension; “sympathomimetic drugs”

commonly used to treat congestion and the cold; diuretics; and “anticholinergic drugs”

42

used to address insomnia, allergies, itching, and gastrointestinal disorders. (Id. at pp.

17-18, 29). A review of Angola’s Heat Pathology Medications list shows that of these

eight named medications, only one has been listed. (Doc. 87-68 at p. 2). In addition to

these medicines, antipsychotic medications and selective serotonin reuptake

inhibitors, commonly prescribed for persons suffering from depression, inhibit

thermoregulation. (Doc. 37-3 at p. 19).

Dr. Vassallo has reviewed “the complaint and other case filings in this case,

including the sworn declarations of named plaintiffs,” as well as the “Department of

Public Safety and Corrections’ heat pathology policies, directives, and regulations,”

and opines that with a “reasonable degree of medical certainty” “[t]he incarcerated

men who perform agricultural labor on Angola’s Farm Line are at substantial risk of

serious physical and psychological harm due to their extensive and continued

exposure to high temperatures and heat index.” (/d. at p. 6). Dr. Vassallo bases this

opinion in part on the heat-related conditions experienced by named Plaintiffs. (Id.

at p. 24).

According to her review of the materials provided, Dr. Vassallo does not believe

that Defendants’ heat-related policies are facially adequate or followed. (Id. at p. 28).

She notes that HCP8-a, the education provided to incarcerated persons laboring on

the Farm Line, provides that offenders “should avoid excessive exhausting activities

in high temperatures” and that it is impossible for inmates to comply with this advice.

Further, Defendants’ policies do not allow for inmates to take breaks in the

43

shade or otherwise cool areas, despite this being one of the “only way|s] to. . -avoid

or effectively mitigate the detrimental impacts of extreme heat.” (Ud. at pp. 22, 29).

In short, Dr. Vassallo concludes that the Angola’s “practice of forcing men to

perform strenuous manual labor in the fields in conditions of extreme heat and

humidity, without adequate rest and recovery periods, water intake, protective

clothing, or modern tools or equipment” places all such men at “substantial risk of

serious heat-related disorders” that can lead to “death or permanent physical injury.”

Ud. at p. 6).

B. Dr. Randy Lavespere

In response, Defendants offer a sworn statement from Dr. Randy Lavespere.

(Doc. 49-24). Dr. Lavespere is the Chief Medical Officer of the Department of

Corrections, and has served in this position for three years. (/d. at p. 1). Prior to this,

he was the Medical Director at Angola for approximately seven years. (/d.). Dr. .

Lavespere is familiar with HCP8 and its various requirements. (/d. at p. 2). Further,

the Heat Pathology Medications list was “created, evaluated and approved” by Dr.

Lavespere, along with a Dr. Gamble and a Dr. Herman Soong. (/d. at p. 3). Dr.

Lavespere avers that “[t]he medication list is annually reviewed by the DPS&C

Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee, which includes all institutional Medical

Directors and the two Chief Pharmacists.” (Ud.). Dr. Lavespere disagrees with Dr.

Vassallo’s opinion that the Heat Pathology Medications list is underinclusive. (/d.).

Dr. Lavespere also states, blankly and in part based on the legal ruling in Ball v.

LeBlanc, 792 F.3d 584, 599 (5th Cir. 2015), that “the current policy of required 5-

minute breaks every 30 minutes and access to water is sufficient to reduce heat

44

pathology among all offenders.” (d.). Dr. Lavespere concludes by asserting that,

despite recent opinions by courts to the contrary, the “current emergency care at LSP

is adequate.” ([d. at pp. 3-4).18

There are numerous factors that significantly weigh against the

persuasiveness of Dr. Lavespere’s account. First, Defendants have failed to show that

Dr. Lavespere has any sort of expertise in the field of thermoregulation. Second, Dr.

Lavespere has failed to cite to any materials, facts, medical authorities, treatises, or

processes that underly any of his conclusions. Third, specifically relating to Dr.

Lavespere’s contention that the Heat Pathology Medications list is sufficient because

numerous medical personnel have been involved in creating it, receiving more input

from potentially unqualified or uninformed sources does not necessarily imply that

the list is medically sufficient. The Court has been offered no proof as to credentials

and expertise of any of the medical personnel consulted for the list, and therefore has

no basis to conclude that such review makes it substantially more likely that the Heat

Pathology Medications list is adequate. Fourth, the conclusion that the present

policies in place are sufficient to reduce heat stroke because of Angola has “required”

breaks every thirty minutes after the issuance of a heat alert misstates the plain

language of Directive No. 13.067, which provides that such breaks are optional, not

mandatory.

18 To the contrary, this Court recently examined “detailed and extensive findings of the

callous and wanton disregard for the medical care of inmates at Angola.” See Lewis v. Cain,

20238 WL 7299130, at *12 (M.D. La. Nov. 6, 2028); see also Lewis v. Cain, 2021 WL 1219988,

at *6 (M.D. La. Mar. 31, 2021).

45

V. AGRICULTURAL LABOR STANDARDS

The Court has conducted a review of operative federal and state requirements

for heat safety in agricultural settings, and preliminarily concludes that Angola fails

to meet the minimum standards set forth by such regulations.

For instance, according to the Louisiana Department of Health, and under

OSHA regulations generally, “[a]t a minimum, employers should provide adequate

cool water, rest breaks, and shade or a cool rest area for employees.” Working In

Extreme Heat: What Employers and Workers Need To Know, Louisiana Department

of Health, https:/\dh.la.gov/page/la-heat (emphasis added) (“Employers have a legal

and moral duty to protect workers against heat.”). Additionally, employers should

“[glive new or returning employees the chance to gradually acclimatize (or become

used to working in hot temperatures), to be trained and plan for emergencies, and to

monitor for heat signs/symptoms.” Id. The CDC further recommends that should

persons working in hot environment become lightheaded, confused, weak, or faint,

they “STOP all activity,” “get into a cool area,” and “rest.” (Doc. 37-59 at p. 6)

(emphasis in original).

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has also

published criteria for a recommended standard for occupational heat stress, which

includes advice to employers for how to prevent heat-related illnesses from

developing in workers exposed to hot and humid environments. NIOSH suggests that:

Employers should have an acclimatization plan for new and returning

workers, because lack of acclimatization has been shown to be a major

factor associated with worker heat-related illness and death. NIOSH

recommends that employers provide the means for appropriate

hydration and encourage their workers to hydrate themselves with

46

potable water <15°C (59°F) made accessible near the work area.

Workers in heat <2 hours and involved in moderate work activities

should drink 1 cup (8 oz.) of water every 15-20 minutes, but during

prolonged sweating lasting several hours, they should drink sports

drinks containing balanced electrolytes. In addition, employers should

implement a work/rest schedule and provide a cool area (e.g., air-

conditioned or shaded) for workers to rest and recover. These elements

are intended to protect the health of workers from heat stress in a variety

of hot environments.

BRENDA JACKLITSCH, ET AL., CRITERIA FOR A RECOMMENDED STANDARD:

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO HEAT AND Hot ENVIRONMENTS, NIOSH, viii (2016)

(available at https://www.osha.gov/heat-exposure/standards) (emphasis added).

In addition to this publication, NIOSH has circulated a “Work/Rest Schedules

Fact Sheet,” which provides heat-dependent recommended rest times. Heat Stress:

Work/ Rest Schedules, NIOSH, available at

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/heatstress/recommendations.html. According to

NIOSH, for light work conducted in 84-degree weather, with no clouds and with

humidity over 60%, employers should give employees 15 minutes rest per 45 minutes

of work. Jd. Should the temperature reach 85 degrees under like conditions, rest

should be increased to 20 minutes. Id. At 88 degrees with no clouds and high

humidity, 15 minutes work per 45 minutes work. Jd. Any higher than that, NIOSH

provides that employers must use “extreme caution” because the “risk for heat injury

is high in this situation.” [d. Those various tasks that Plaintiffs are alleged to have

been ordered to complete on the Farm Line, such as picking crops and cutting grass,

are not “light work.” See id. (describing light work as activities such as “[o]perating

equipment,” “[i]nspection work,” and “[w]alking on flat, level ground”).

AT

Other states have adopted their own labor regulations. For instance,

Colorado’s Agricultural Labor Conditions Rules require employers to provide shade

when temperatures reach 80 degrees Fahrenheit. It is stated therein that:

For employee use during rest, meal, cool-down, and other breaks, employers

shall provide access to adequate shade located as close as practicable to the

worksite, which may be artificial or natural, but does not qualify if:

(A)any source yields additional heat in the shaded area, such as

exhaust, running machinery, heat-radiating structures, or heat in a

non-air-conditioned vehicle;

(B) the shaded area is located further than 0.25 miles from the worksite

for employees accessing the shade by foot, or otherwise too far to

reasonably access during rest and meal periods;

(C)the shaded area is too small for employees to sit fully shaded in

normal posture, without touching one another;

(D)the shaded area is neither ventilated nor open to the air; or

(EK) the area has unsafe, unhealthy, unsanitary, or other conditions (e.g.,

noxious odor from rot or garbage) that deter or discourage accessing

or using the shade.

Agricultural Labor Conditions Rules, 7 CCR 1108-15 §§ 3.1, 3.38. California, Oregon,

and Washington have similar shade requirements. See T. 8 § 3395 Heat Illness

Prevention In Outdoor Places of Employment; see also Oregon Occupational Safety

and Health Division Rules 487-004-1131 (8); see also Safety Standards for

Agriculture, 296-307-09735 WAC.

A. Marguerite Green

Plaintiffs offer a declaration from Marguerite Green, a farmer with “significant

experience” operating specialty farms, that concludes that farming operations at

Angola do not meet industry standards. (Doc. 37-7 at p. 1). Green received her

Bachelor of Science in Agriculture and Plant and Soil Systems from Louisiana State

University in 2011. (d.). She has since obtained a horticulture license, which has

expired, from the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry and a teaching

48

certificate from the Louisiana Department of Education. Ud. at p. 2). Green served as

a farm instructor for a summer program at the LSU Agriculture Center’s Burden

Research Station for two years, and was a “farm manager and program director” of a

farming operation in New Orleans between 2013 and 2020. (Ud.). Green avers that

she has “significant” experience with “prison garden programs,” and earned a

“Horticulture Therapy Certificate” from the “Chicago and New York Botanical

Gardens” in 2019. Ud.). Currently, she serves as the executive director of SPROUT,

“an organization based in New Orleans that provides technical assistance and

training to specialty crop farmers throughout Louisiana.” (/d.). In this role, Green

advises and trains “private and institutional parties, including the United States

Department of Agriculture (USDA), Feeding Louisiana,!® and academic institutions

like LSU.” Cd. at pp. 2-8).

Plaintiffs assert that Green possesses “significant expertise” on the impact of

the various seasons, and has trained hundreds of specialty crop farmers on the impact

of changing climate on farm production. (/d. at p. 3). In this role, Green has provided

training and technical assistance for workplace safety and management issues within

agricultural organizations, and has taught farmers on “how to protect field workers

from injuries, including those associated with chemical and sun exposure, by using

personal protective equipment (PPE) and other best practices promulgated by

[OSHA].” Ud. at pp. 3-4). During the course of Green’s career, she has served on

19 Feeding Louisiana is a non-profit organization that represents the state’s various food

banks and associated networks. Who We Are, Feeding Louisiana,

https://www.feedinglouisiana.org/about (last visited on July 1, 2024).

49

“numerous boards and committees, including the Specialty Crop Subcommittee of the

USDA National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics

Advisory Board (2021-2023),” among others. (Id. at p. 4).

Green reviewed the policies and practices in place at Angola, the Amended

Complaint, Plaintiffs’ various declarations, and “relevant literature, including a

survey of agricultural workplace safety practices promulgated by several federal and

state agencies’ to arrive at her evaluation as to the adequacy of Angola’s heat-related

policies on the Farm Line. (/d. at p. 5). Green concludes that based on these materials

and her experience and expertise, the “Farm Line operates in a manner inconsistent

with industry customs and practices routinely observed on specialty farms in

Louisiana.” (/d.). She further opines that “the Farm Line does not meet basic work,

health, or safety standards applicable to agricultural labor, particularly in conditions

of excessive heat and humidity.” (/d.).

Green bases her conclusions on the following observations. The use of

incarcerated persons to hand-water crops, including by “dipping Styrofoam cups in a

bucket,” is “extremely inefficient and labor-intensive.” (Ud. at p. 7). Further,

“[wleeding by hand is inefficient, expensive, and highly labor intensive. Hand pulling

may not extract all the roots, leaving a weed to grow back. This method is physically

demanding and can cause injuries.” (/d.). Hand weeding is “especially inefficient and

dangerous in conditions of extreme heat and humidity.” (Ud.). In Green’s opinion,

“TbJasic PPE” such as “a [long-sleeved] shirt, long pants, lace-up work boots, socks,

gloves, eye protection, and a sun hat” can prevent “some injuries.” (/d. at p. 8).

50

However, such clothing, while presenting benefits through its “impermeab[ility],” will

also “prevent heat exchange (i.e., sweat evaporation) from the body to the external

environment.” (d.). This then requires supervisory persons to take “extra safety

precautions” for workers wearing such equipment in hot environments. (Id. at p. 9).

It is further appropriate practice in the agricultural sector for employers to

provide workers with sunscreen. (/d. at p. 12). Also, according to Green, “[r]ubber

boots are not safe for daily fieldwork.” (/d.). After reviewing the materials described

above, Green concludes that inmates assigned to the Farm Line are not assigned the

types of PPE that are “standard among agricultural workers in Louisiana.” (Id.).

As to the adequacy of the heat-related policies at Angola, Green notes that they

conflict with the various guidelines put forth by NIOSH and OSHA, as discussed

above, and further stresses that NIOSH advises employers to suspend all “work that

is not urgent” upon the issuance of a heat alert. (/d. at p. 11). This is not contrary to

industry standards, as, according to Green, “[m]any private farms cease operations

in the summer, in part to protect workers and in part because crop yield is generally

low during the hottest months.” (Ud. at p. 12). Finally, “[t]o avoid dehydration and

heat exhaustion/stroke, farm workers should be given frequent breaks. . . in a cool

location... . The length and frequency of breaks should increase as heat intensifies.”

Ud. at p. 13). Green concludes that these practices are not followed at Angola. (/d. at

p. 14).

51

B. Tommy Guilino

Defendants respond to Green’s conclusion with the declaration of Tommy

Guilino, an Angola employee with twenty-five years of farm experience. (Doc. 49-21

at p. 1). According to Guilino, the Farm Line is operated using industry standards

and utilizes “modern day agricultural practices ... that are common amongst all

farmers.” Ud. at pp. 2-3). Guilino appears to arrive at this conclusion solely on the

basis of his own personal experience. He does not provide a description of what

“modern day agricultural practices” he is referring to, or even how he would know

what modern day agricultural practices are within the private sector, since he avers

that he has been exclusively employed by Angola for the past twenty-two years. □□□□

at pp. 1-8).

VI. STATEMENT OF LAW

A. Preliminary Injunctive Relief

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 65(b) sets forth the requirements that

must be met before the Court may issue a TRO. It provides:

(1) Issuing Without Notice. The court may issue a temporary

restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or

its attorney only if:

(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that

immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the

movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and

(B) the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give

notice and the reasons why it should not be required.

52

(2) Contents; Expiration. Every temporary restraining order issued

without notice must state the date and hour it was issued; describe the

injury and state why it is irreparable; state why the order was issued

without notice; and be promptly filed in the clerk's office and entered in

the record.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)-(2). Additionally, the party requesting the TRO must provide

“security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages

sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 65(c).

A TRO is simply a highly accelerated and temporary form of preliminary

injunctive relief, requiring that the movant establish the same four elements for

obtaining a preliminary injunction: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the

merits, (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not issued, (8)

that the threatened injury if the injunction is denied outweighs any harm that will

result if the injunction is granted, and (4) that the grant of an injunction will not

disserve the public interest. See Janvey v. Alguire, 647 F.3d 585, 595 (5th Cir. 2011).

In applying the four-factor analysis, a court must consider the factors on a “sliding

scale’—-a greater threat of irreparable injury may justify issuance of preliminary

relief in a situation with a less certain likelihood of success, and vice versa. Planned

Parenthood Gulf Coast, Inc. v. Kliebert, 141 F. Supp. 3d 604, 685 (M.D. La. 2015).

To establish a likelihood of success on the merits, a plaintiff “need not show

that success is an absolute certainty. He need only make a showing that the

probability of his prevailing is better than fifty percent.” Kng v. Smith, 849 F.2d 80,

82 (2d Cir. 1988). Irreparable injury is harm that “cannot be undone through

monetary damages’—that is, harm for which money damages are inadequate or for

53

which money damages are “especially difficult” to compute. Deerfield Med. Ctr. v.

City of Deerfield Beach, 661 F.2d 328, 338 (5th Cir. 1981); Allied Marketing Group,

Ine. v. CDL Marketing, Inc., 878 F.2d 806, 810 n.1 (5th Cir. 1989).

B. Eighth Amendment

The Eighth Amendment provides that “[e]xcessive bail shall not be required,

nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” U.S.

Const. amend. VIII. To establish an Eighth Amendment violation for conditions of

confinement, “an inmate must show that the alleged violation was sufficiently

serious, 1.e., that it deprived him of the most minimal level of life’s necessities, and

that prison officials acted with deliberate indifference to his health or safety.” Hewitt

v. Henderson, 271 F. App’x 426, 428 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511

U.S. 825, 884, 847 (1994); Wilson v. Setter, 501 U.S. 294, 303 (1991)). In other words:

A prison official has violated the Eighth Amendment when he 1) shows

a subjective deliberate indifference to 2) conditions posing a substantial

risk of serious harm to the inmate. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833-34. Whether

a prison official had the requisite knowledge of a substantial risk is a

question of fact subject to demonstration in the usual ways, including

inference from circumstantial evidence, and a factfinder may conclude

that a prison official knew of a substantial risk from the very fact that

the risk was obvious. Id. at 842.

Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 328, 338 (5th Cir. 2004). Further, “[c]onditions of confinement

may establish an Eighth Amendment violation ‘in combination’ when each would not

do so alone, but only when they have a mutually enforcing effect that produces the

deprivation of a single, identifiable human need.” Jd. (citing Wilson, 501 U.S. at 304).

“The standard against which a court measures prison conditions are ‘the evolving

standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society’ and not the

54

standards in effect during the time of the drafting of the Eighth Amendment.” Gates,

376 F.3d at 333 (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102 (1976)).

“(T]he unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain... constitutes cruel and

unusual punishment forbidden by the Eighth Amendment.” Whitley v. Albers, 475

U.S. 812, 319 (1986) (some internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court

has held that “[aJmong ‘unnecessary and wanton’ inflictions of pain are those that are

‘totally without penological justification.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 346

(1981). “In making this determination in the context of prison conditions, [the Court]

must ascertain whether the officials involved acted with “deliberate indifference” to

the inmates’ health or safety.” Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 737 (2002) (quoting

Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8 (1992)). Courts “may infer the existence of this

subjective state of mind from the fact that the risk of harm is obvious.” Jd. (citing

Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842).

Subjecting incarcerated persons to high heat conditions for sustained periods

of time, with inadequate procedures to mitigate the risks inherent in such high heat,

is a violation of the Eighth Amendment when prison officials are “deliberately

indifferent” to such risks. See, e.g., Hinojosa v. Livingston, 807 F.3d 657, 670 (th Cir.

2015) “inmates have a right, under the Eighth Amendment, not to be subjected to

extreme temperatures without adequate remedial measures”); Ball, 792 F.3d at 596

(“[W]e affirm the district court’s conclusion that housing these prisoners in very hot

cells without sufficient access to heat-relief measures, while knowing that each

‘suffers from conditions that render him extremely vulnerable to serious heat-related

55

injury, violates the Eighth Amendment’); Cole v. Collier, No. 4:14-CV-1698, 2017 WL

3049540, at *389 (S.D. Tex. July 19, 2017) (finding that, due to continued occurrence

of high heat and the inadequacy of efforts to mitigate such heat, “[t]he conditions of

confinement at the Pack Unit,” a prison operated by the Texas Department of

Criminal Justice, “violate the Eighth Amendment”).?°

Further, “prison work requirements which compel inmates to perform physical

labor, which is beyond their strength, endangers their lives, or causes undue pain

constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219 (6th

Cir. 1988); see also Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 194 (5th Cir. 1998) (“To be

sure, if prison officials assign an inmate to a work detail and they know that such an

assignment could exacerbate a serious physical ailment, then such a decision could

constitute deliberate indifference”); Calhoun v. Hargrove, 312 F.3d 730, 734-35 (5th

Cir. 2002) (finding claim sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss where prison official

purportedly knew about a four-hour medical work restriction but forced inmate to

work long hours, which raised blood pressure to dangerously high levels).

20 See also Hope, 536 U.S. at 738 (Eighth Amendment violation was “obvious” in part because

plaintiff was subjected to “unnecessary exposure to the heat of the sun”); Gates, 376 F.3d at

340 (holding that the probability of heat-related illness based on the conditions of

confinement in a certain cellblock and the open and obvious nature of the risk thereof

amounted to an Eighth Amendment violation); Valigura v. Mendoza, 265 F. App’x 232, 235

(5th Cir. 2008) (“We have held that temperatures [within confinement] consistently in the

nineties without remedial measures, such as fans, ice water, and showers, sufficiently

increase the probability of death and serious illness so as to violate the Kighth Amendment”);

McCollum v. Livingston, No. 4:14-CV-3253, 2017 WL 608665, at *18 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 3, 2017)

(noting that Fifth Circuit precedent provides “that, in the face of extreme heat, prison officials

must fashion adequate mitigating measures”).

56

The adequacy of procedures is a fact-specific question that courts have

routinely turned to experts for help answering. See, e.g., Gates, 376 F.3d at 339

(upholding the issuance of injunctive relief that relied on Dr. Vassallo’s testimony

that the conditions of confinement were such that it was “very likely” that

incarcerated persons in the relevant facility would die from heat stroke or some other

heat-related condition); Ball, 792 F.3d at 593 (affirming the district court finding

that, based mainly on Dr. Vassallo’s testimony, the heat conditions and procedures

in place within the relevant prison put incarcerated persons at substantial risk of

serious harm); Collier, 2017 WL 3049540, at *30 (relying on Dr. Vassallo’s testimony

to find that a particular heat-related prison policy was ineffective).

Courts will issue preliminary or emergency injunctive relief to command that

prisons modify their conditions of confinement so as to preserve human life. See, e.g.,

Collier, 2017 WL 3049540, at *46; Tiede v. Collier, No. 1:23-CV-1004-RP, 2023 WL

6345966, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2023). That being said, in doing so courts remain

“barred from enjoining the state to follow its own laws and procedures.” Valentine v.

Collier, 956 F.3d 797, 802 (5th Cir. 2020).

C. Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

Incarcerated persons may bring claims against their jailors for disability

discrimination under Title IT of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

Cleveland v. Gautreaux, 198 F. Supp. 3d 717, 736 (M.D. La. 2016) (citing Pa. Dep’t of

Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 209-10 (1998)). “[A] plaintiff proceeding under Title II

must ‘show that: (1) he or she is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) he or she

57

is being excluded from participation in, or being denied the benefits of some service,

program, or activity by reason of his or her disability; and (8) the entity which

provides the service, program or activity is a public entity.” Id. (quoting Douglas v.

Gusman, 567 F. Supp. 2d 877, 889 (E.D. La. 2008)). Within the prison context, this

equates to a requirement that prisons make “reasonable modifications” to its policies,

practices, or procedures so that a disabled prisoner can have “meaningful access to

existing public services or programs.” Id. (quoting Borum v. Swisher Cnty., No. 2:14—

CV-127—J, 2015 WL 327508, at *9 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 26, 2015)).

Additionally, “in the context of the ADA, if not for purposes of the Eighth

Amendment, ‘international discrimination against the disabled does not require

personal animosity or ill will’; ‘it may be inferred when a policymaker acted with at

least deliberate indifference to the strong likelihood that a violation of federally

protected rights will result from the implementation of the challenged policy ... or

custom.” Id. (quoting Bartlett v. N.Y. State Bd. of Law Examiners, 156 F.3d 321, 331

(2d Cir. 1998)). “Where a claim is based on the failure to provide reasonable

accommodations, the ADA and R[ehabilitation] A[ct] are identical in scope.” Godbey

v. Iredell Mem'l Hosp., Inc., No. 5:12—cv—-00004-RLV—DSC, 2013 WL 4494708, at *3

n. 7 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 19, 2018).

VII. ANALYSIS

After examining the factual record at length, and based on the analysis

provided below, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief must

be granted, at least in part. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied each

requisite element for such relief, and that injunctive relief is required to preserve and

58

protect human health and safety, especially as the summer heat arrives in full force.

At this stage, the evidence shows that it is likely that Angola’s present heat-related

Farm Line policies do not adequately mitigate the risk of heat-related disorders

among those laboring thereon, whether they be especially susceptible to suffering

from such maladies or not. While the “sliding scale” on which the Court considers the

various elements necessary for injunctive relief favors special emphasis on this point,

because it is apparent that the immediate threat of irreparable harm amounts to

death and permanent injury for incarcerated persons laboring on the Farm Line, see

Kliebert, 141 F. Supp. 3d at 635, Plaintiffs have also shown a substantial likelihood

of showing that Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to such risks.

Further, in response to Defendants’ contention that injunctive relief at this

juncture is premature because Plaintiffs have yet to move for class certification, such

an argument is without merit. Defendants have cited to no case law for this

proposition, and while the Court has yet to address the issue of class certification,

this possibility does not preclude the Court from issuing a preliminary injunction that

grants relief to any putative class member. See Alex A. v. Edwards, 2022 WL 3701169,

at *8 (M.D. La. Aug. 26, 2022); see also Gooch v. Life Inus. Ins. Co. of Am., 672 F.3d

402 (6th Cir. 2012); Yang v. Kellner, 458 F. Supp. 3d 199, 218 n.5 (S.D.N.Y. 2020),

affd, 960 F.8d 119 (2d Cir. 2020). Put differently, [t]he lack of formal class

certification does not create an obstacle to classwide preliminary injunctive relief

when activities of the defendant are directed generally against a class of persons.”

59

Alex A., 2022 WL 3701169, at *8. Defendants do not contest that their policies apply

in equal measure to all putative class members.

A. Substantial Likelihood of Prevailing on the Merits

To show a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits of their Eighth

Amendment claims, Plaintiffs must first show that conditions on the Farm Line

render incarcerated persons at substantial risk of suffering serious harm. Plaintiffs

must then show that Defendants have likely been deliberately indifferent to such

risks. For the following reasons, the Court finds that both tests have been satisfied,

and that Plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the

merits of their claims.

i. Substantial Risk of Serious Harm

A substantial risk of harm may be found when prison conditions are such that

they deprive an inmate of “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Wilson,

501 U.S. at 298 (quoting Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347). As noted above, subjecting

incarcerated persons to high heat conditions without adequate mitigatory procedures

satisfies the substantial risk of serious injury or death element of an Eighth

Amendment claim. Hinojosa, 807 F.3d at 670 (“[I]Jnmates have a right, under the

Eighth Amendment, not to be subjected to extreme temperatures without adequate

remedial measures’).

According to experts like Dr. Vassallo, exposure to heat indexes in excess of

elghty-eight degrees Fahrenheit leads to a sharp increase in risk for exposed persons

to develop serious, and potentially fatal, injuries that can occur suddenly. (Doc. 37-3

at pp. 10-13). Strenuous labor exacerbates such risks, as do certain medical conditions

60

and the taking of specific medications. ([d. at p. 15). Those risks have been proven to

be present in both prison settings and in civilian life.

Dr. Vassallo’s Declaration, (Doc. 37-3), her Supplemental Declaration, (Doc.

54-1), and the Court’s independent review of the medical records for each of the

named Plaintiffs, shows that each Plaintiff has suffered from symptoms consistent

with significant to severe heat-related illness, including fainting, cardiac events, heat

chills, loss of bodily control, vomiting, dizziness, blurry vision, rashes, and

dehydration. Named Plaintiffs further allege that they have seen other persons

suffering from severe heat-related conditions while laboring on the Farm Line, (see,

e.g., Hicks Declaration at { 6), and the emergency sick call records provided by

Defendants for the period of April 2024 to May 15, 2024, show that numerous sick

calls were placed wherein inmates suffered from symptoms consistent with heat-

related illness, as identified by Dr. Vassallo, the CDC, OSHA, NIOSH, and

Defendants’ own educational materials, (Doc. 49-13). The additional declaration from

Damion Thompson and the ARPs submitted by Dexter Vassar and Patrick Ramirez

support such a conclusion. (Docs. 37-44, 37-46; Thompson Declaration).

Moreover, the medical records reviewed by the Court support Dr. Vassallo’s

conclusion that Angola does not maintain an adequate Heat Pathology Medications

list or issue heat precaution duty statuses to those with qualifying pre-existing

conditions. Of the named Plaintiffs, two have been provided with heat precaution

duty statuses. (Doc. 49 at p. 10). Yet each named Plaintiff either possesses a chronic

illness or takes a medication that inhibits their ability to thermoregulate. (Doc. 54-

61

1). Further, the Court’s review of the emergency sick-call medical records provided

by Defendants for the period of April 2024 to May 15, 2024, shows that multiple

inmates with serious illnesses or pre-existing conditions were laboring in the field

under no work restrictions. (Doc. 49-18). One of these men suffered from acquired

immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), and another was a fifty-three-year-old man with

a history of pre-diabetes, fainting, knee pain, asthma, and osteoarthritis. (Id. at pp.

18, 20-21). Defendants own educational materials, supposedly provided and reviewed

by prison officials annually, state that such persons are at greater risk of developing

heat-related conditions. (Doc. 51-11).

The wealth of evidence here shows that incarcerated persons laboring on the

Farm Line are not provided with shade, sunscreen, or required rest breaks. Further,

the declarations from named Plaintiffs uniformly provide that breaks are seldomly

given, that the water provided is dirty, that they are required to work beyond their

physical capacities, and that they are not provided with other necessary protective

equipment, like lace-up boots or sunhats. Defendants contest these claims, but not

persuasively. As to the rest breaks, Defendants admit that they do not record them,

but nonetheless assert that they are regularly taken and that inmates may rest

whenever they like. There is nothing in Angola’s policies which indicates that breaks

may be taken at will, and Plaintiffs again uniformly aver that the failure to continue

working or failure to work efficiently on the Farm Line subjects them to discipline.

Further, Defendants’ assertion as to why breaks have not been diligently recorded is

contradicted by those dates in their records when breaks have been sporadically

62

recorded, (see, e.g., Doc. 37-62 at p. 143), and by the plain language of Directive No.

13.067, (Doc. 37-38).

Lastly, Defendants provided the declarations of Gagnard and Hebert in

support of their assertion that breaks are given along the Farm Line. Yet while each

declarant avers to have personal knowledge of the Farm Line, both serve in

managerial roles within Angola, and do not appear to actually be responsible for

personal and contemporaneous supervision of the taking of breaks on the Farm Line

on a day-to-day basis. (See Gagnard Declaration; see also Hebert Declaration). As

such, their statements carry less weight than those of Plaintiffs, who have been

physically present and working the Farm Line at the relevant locations and times.

Regarding the protective equipment, there 1s nothing in Defendants’ heat-

related or general equipment policies that confirms the provision of such gear.

Defendants’ equipment policy does not appear to specifically provide for lace-up boots,

only “work boots,” which Plaintiffs have asserted refers to rubber boots that are

allegedly unsafe for field labor. (Docs. 37-51 at p. 28, 37-7 at p. 12).

Dr. Vassallo has reviewed Angola’s heat-related policies and concludes that

they do not adequately reduce the serious risk of heat stroke and other heat-related

conditions for those laboring on the Farm Line. (Doc. 37-3 at p. 6). Dr. Vassallo fears

that, without significant changes, “a person forced to labor on the Farm Line will

deteriorate or die.” (U/d.). Dr. Vassallo’s fears are compounded by the sometimes

“callous and wanton disregard” for the safety of those incarcerated at Angola by

63

medical personnel. Lewis v. Cain, No. CV 15-318-SDD-RLB, 2023 WL 7299130, at *1

(M.D. La. Nov. 6, 2028) (Dick, C.J.).

The Court’s review of agricultural labor guideline materials from various

national and state agencies supports the conclusions of Dr. Vassallo. OSHA, NIOSH,

the CDC, Colorado, California, and Oregon all require that agricultural workers

laboring in hot environments be provided with shade and adequate rest. The

Louisiana Department of Health itself recommends that “[a]t a minimum, employers

should provide adequate cool water, rest breaks, and shade or a cool rest area for

employees.” Working In Extreme Heat: What Employers and Workers Need To Know,

Louisiana Department of Health, https://l\dh.la.gov/page/la-heat. NIOSH

recommends rest/break schedules that exceed those currently in place at Angola, and

provides materials suggesting that the risk of heat injury on the Farm Line during

the summer months is “high.” See Heat Stress: Work/Rest Schedules, NIOSH,

available at https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/heatstress/recommendations. html.

Further, Marguerite Green opines that, based on her extensive experience in

agricultural management and workplace safety, Angola’s Farm Line policies do not

meet “basic work, health, or safety standards applicable to agricultural labor,

particularly in conditions of excess heat and humidity,” because inmates are not

provided with frequent breaks in cool locations. (Doc. 37-7 at p. 13). Curiously,

Defendant's own educational materials also recommend, in contrast to actual

practices at present, that persons take “frequent drink breaks and ‘wet down’ or mist

[themselves] with a spray bottle to avoid becoming overheated.” (Doc. 51-11 at p. 4).

64

Additionally, persons should, but allegedly are not able to, “[d]ress in lightweight,

hght-colored, loose-fitting clothing on hot days... take rest periods in shady or cool

areas ... protect [themselves] from the sun by wearing a hat and sunglasses; [and]

use a sunscreen that is at least SPF 15.” Ud.). The materials also suggest that persons

spend as much time possible indoors on hot and humid days, that local news be

monitored for extreme heat alerts and safety tips, and that those with a medical

condition or that are taking medications consult with their doctor. (/d.).

Compounding these factors is the worsening climate situation in Louisiana

generally and Angola specifically. As noted above, Defendants’ own temperature logs

for the period of May 2023 to October 2023 indicated that heat alerts were or should

have been issued on approximately 145 days. (Doc. 49-10). Further, heat index values

exceeded 113 degrees Fahrenheit on twenty-four of those days. Ud.). During this

period, the heat caused numerous deaths throughout the state, and thousands of

related emergency medical visits. (Doc. 37-36). State officials recommended that all

persons remain indoors if possible. (/d.). Angola’s own educational materials provide

that “extreme heat kills 618 people in the United States every year.” (Doc. 51-11).

This summer could be hotter, and will almost certainly be one of the hottest ones in

recorded history. (Doc. 37-37). Adequately dealing with the heat in Louisiana has

become a matter of life and death, and, according to Dr. Vassallo, that death can

arrive suddenly and without warning. (Doc. 37-8).

The only way to prevent heat stroke and heat-related conditions is to

“effectively mitigate the detrimental impacts of extreme heat.” Ud. at p. 29). Based

65

on the medical records and declarations provided thus far, which detail a consistent

pattern of medically susceptible persons and non-medically susceptible persons

developing severe heat-related conditions on the Farm Line, review of Angola’s heat-

related policies, the opinion of expert medical professional Dr. Susi Vassallo, general

labor guidelines from around the country, including Louisiana, Defendants’ own

educational materials, the opinion of Marguerite Green, the increased occurrence of

heat-related conditions statewide and the historic temperatures experienced

throughout the South, the Court concludes that Defendants’ policies do not appear to

provide sufficient mitigation, and that Plaintiffs have shown a substantial likelihood

of prevailing on the merits of the first element of their Eighth Amendment claims.

ii. Deliberate Indifference

Plaintiffs must additionally show that Defendants acted with deliberate

indifference to the substantial risk of serious harm addressed above. “Deliberate

indifference is defined as a failure to act where prison officials have knowledge of a

substantial risk of serious harm to inmate health or safety.” Collier, 2017 WL

3049540, at *40 (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837)). It is an “extremely high” standard

to meet. Domino v. Texas Dep't of Criminal Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001).

“Whether a prison official had the requisite knowledge of a substantial risk is a

question of fact subject to demonstration in the usual ways, including inference from

circumstantial evidence.” Ball, 792 F.3d at 594. On this point, “a prison official’s

knowledge of a substantial risk of harm may be inferred if the risk was obvious.”

Collier, 2017 WL 3049540, at *40 (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 829)). Despite this high

standard, Plaintiffs have provided enough evidence for the Court to determine that

66

they are likewise substantially likely to prevail on this element of their Eighth

Amendment claims.

“In cases asserting deliberate indifference by prison officials where there is

excessive heat, the Fifth Circuit has found deliberate indifference where prison

officials ignored complaints ‘of heat stroke or some other heat-related illness.” Ball,

792 F.3d at 673 (quoting Gates, 376 F.3d at 839); see also Blackmon v. Garza, 484 F.

App’x 866, 872-73 (5th Cir. 2012). Here, Plaintiffs submitted at least eleven separate

ARPs to Defendants regarding heat-related working conditions on the Farm Line,

essentially all of which were denied in summary fashion by Defendants with the same

stated reasons, those being that the claims made in each ARP were “false” and held

“no merit.” (Docs. 37-40, 37-41, 37-42, 37-48, 87-44, 37-46, 37-48, 37-51, 37-60, 37-61,

37-64). This weighs in favor of a finding of deliberate indifference.

Courts have also found that “deliberate indifference may [] be ‘demonstrated

straightforwardly, through direct evidence that an administrator was aware of

serious systemic deficiencies and failed to correct them.” Cain, 2023 WL 7299130, at

*48 (M.D. La. Nov. 6, 2023) (quoting Dunn v. Dunn, 219 F. Supp. 8d 1100, 1129 (M.D.

Ala. 2016)); see also Collier, 2017 WL 3049540, at *40 (finding that defendants knew

that a risk of serious harm existed after nearly two dozen men died of heat-related

illnesses, and when inmates and correctional officers regularly experienced heat-

related illnesses). As noted in the Court’s analysis in Section VII(A)(), the medical

records provided to the Court thus far are replete with inmates laboring on the Farm

Line alleging symptoms of heat stroke or other heat-related illness. Also, as noted in

67

Section VIT(A)G), the vast majority of those afflicted prisoners had previously been

diagnosed with pre-existing conditions or were taking medications that, according to

Dr. Vassallo, inhibited their thermoregulation. The medical records examined

spanned multiple years, and each emergency medical visit, or at least the sum total

of all such visits, was direct evidence to Defendants of “serious systemic deficiencies”

within their heat-related protocols. Id. Accordingly, this too weighs in favor of a

finding of deliberate indifference.

Defendants’ own policies can, and in this case do, help to establish Plaintiffs’

case for deliberate indifference. See Collier, 2017 WL 3049540, at *40 (“[The prison’s]

own policies reflect the known danger of the heat in Texas”). As Defendants note,

Directive No. 13.067 and HCP8 mandate certain heat-related mitigation efforts. (Doc.

49 at p. 21). Such policies make it clear that Defendants are cognizant of the threats

that high heat imposes to human life and safety, both for the regular population of

inmates and those exhibiting enhanced heat-susceptibility.

However, Defendants’ policies are inadequate, and even conflict with their own

educational materials. Attachment B to the HCP8 policy includes descriptions of the

serious and sometimes fatal nature of heat-related conditions; notes that certain

people that take medication and/or possess pre-existing conditions are more

vulnerable to developing heat-related illness; and advises that persons laboring

outdoors on hot days should be provided with adequate protective gear, including

sunscreen, and be allowed to rest in shady or cool areas. (Doc. 51-11). Attachment B

is reviewed by all prison officials annually according to HCP8, and therefore it

68

appears likely that Defendants have subjective knowledge of the necessity of, for

example, shade and sunscreen, which mitigate the dangers of heat-related conditions.

Additionally, Attachment B to HCP8 provides references to OSHA and CDC

guidelines, which recommend and require similar heat-prevention measures. (Id.).

The acknowledgement of the dangers that heat has to incarcerated persons working

outdoors within Defendants’ policies, coupled with the ignored advice contained in

their own educational materials, further supports a finding of deliberate indifference.

Finally, Defendants’ policies appear, to some degree, irrational. As noted by

Plaintiffs, Directive No. 18.067 requires that for those indoors, in the absence of air

conditioning, cool showers and cool wet towels be made available, and ventilation be

increased as much as possible. (Doc. 37-38). Yet as to those laboring outdoors, who

are more at risk of suffering from heat-related conditions insofar as they are

performing various physical tasks, the only protections provided are water, ice, and

an optional five-minute break every thirty minutes. (/d.).

Further, Angola’s relatively static policies support Plaintiffs’ case for

deliberate indifference, as Plaintiffs suffered numerous heat-related injuries on the

Farm Line, injuries which are described more thoroughly in Section VII(A)(i). See

Collier, 2017 WL 3049540, at *42 (“What [defendant] did not do in the face of the

substantial risk of harm is also relevant to the Court’s [deliberate indifference]

analysis”). The chief policies at issue here have been in place since at least 2019.

(Docs. 37-38, 37-39). Even being limited to a relatively select sample size of medical

records, the Court and Dr. Vassallo have noted numerous serious heat-related

69

injuries that have occurred over the past three years alone. (See Doc. 54-1). Each of

these events placed Defendants on notice that their policies were potentially

insufficient, yet Defendants appear to have taken no mitigating action. The Court

therefore deems this inaction to weigh in favor of a finding of deliberate indifference.

Finally, and alternatively, the Court finds that based on the entirety of the

evidence before it, including but not limited to the various statewide heat-related

warnings, the historic temperatures recorded in Louisiana over the summer of 2023

and the likely reoccurrence of such temperatures in the summer of 2024, the various

news articles attesting to the dangers of such temperatures, general agricultural

labor guidelines from around the country, including Louisiana, Defendants’ own

educational materials, and the increased occurrence of heat-related conditions

statewide, that the dangers for incarcerated persons working in high-heat

environments on the Farm Line is open and obvious, and therefore it is substantially

likely that Defendants were deliberately indifferent in refusing to adopt additional

mitigatory policies that account for the documented heat increases. See Hinojosa, 807

F.3d at 665 (finding that “evidence showing that a substantial risk ... was

longstanding, pervasive, well-documented, or expressly noted by prison officials in

the past, and the circumstances suggest that the defendant-official being sued had

been exposed to the information concerning the risk and thus ‘must have known about

it” supports a finding of deliberate indifference). As in Gates, “the open and obvious

nature of the dangerously hot conditions” here supports a finding that Plaintiffs have

shown a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the deliberate indifference element of

70

their Eighth Amendment claims. 376 F.3d at 340. The Court, for this reason and

those provided above, concludes that Plaintiffs have sufficiently carried their burden

under the preliminary injunction standard as to both elements of their Eighth

Amendment claims.

B. Immediate Risk of Irreparable Harm

Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that, at this stage, Plaintiffs have

shown that conditions on the Farm Line “create a substantial risk of injury or death.”

Collier, 2017 WL 3049540, at *48. Irreparable harm is generally “one for which there

is no adequate remedy at law.” Book People, Inc. v. Wong, 91 F.4th 318, 340 (5th Cir.

2024) (quoting All. for Hippocratic Med. v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 78 F.4th 210,

251 (5th Cir. 2023) Gnternal quotations omitted)). There is no adequate remedy at

law for non-economic injuries like death or serious physical injury, and so Plaintiffs

have satisfied this element. See, e.g., Vazquez Barrera v. Wolf, 455 F. Supp. 3d 330,

340 (S.D. Tex. 2020) (finding that allegations that plaintiffs “face[d] a heightened risk

of dying or suffering from serious illness” constituted “imminent and irreparable”

harm); Hast v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Louisiana, No. 3:14-CV-00115-BAJ, 2014

WL 8332136, at *2 (M.D. La. Feb. 24, 2014).

Additionally, and alternatively, “[w]hen an alleged deprivation of a

constitutional right is involved, most courts hold that no further showing of

irreparable injury is necessary.” Opulent Life Church v. City of Holly Springs, Miss.,

697 F.3d 279, 295 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting 11A WRIGHT & MILLER, FEDERAL

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE, § 2948.1 (8d ed. 1998)). Plaintiffs have shown that they

71

are likely being denied their Eighth Amendment rights. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have

shown an immediate risk of irreparable injury.

C. Balance of Interests

In determining whether to grant injunctive relief, “a court must balance the

competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of the granting

or withholding of the requested relief.” Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, AK, 480

U.S. 581, 542 (1987). In other words, plaintiffs must establish “that the threatened

injury if the injunction is denied outweighs any harm that will result if the injunction

is granted.” Janvey, 647 F.3d at 595. Plaintiffs must also establish “that the grant of

an injunction will not disserve the public interest.” [d. However, “[t]hese factors

merge when the Government is the opposing party.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418,

435 (2009).

Plainly, “the public interest supports the protection of Eighth Amendment

rights.” Marlowe v. LeBlanc, 2020 WL 1983915, at *2 (M.D. La. Apr. 27, 2020); see

also Jackson Women’s Health Org. v. Currier, 760 F.8d 448, 458 fn. 9 (5th Cir. 2014).

As noted, it is likely that Plaintiffs will succeed on their Eighth Amendment claims,

and so the public interest favors an injunction.

Defendants’ assertion that they would suffer economic injuries in excess of

eight million dollars should work on the Farm Line be enjoined is based on an

erroneous understanding of Plaintiffs’ requested relief. Plaintiffs’ definition of the

Farm Line does not include all agricultural work conducted at Angola at all times,

but rather, at this time, includes only Lines 15a, 15b, 24, and 25, which are staffed

72

by approximately fifty incarcerated persons at any given time. Plaintiffs also only

seek injunctive relief for those times when heat alerts are issued. (Doc. 51 at p. 12).

Further, even were such a request for injunctive relief before the Court,

“inadequate resources can never be an adequate justification for depriving any person

of his constitutional rights.” Udey v. Kastner, 805 F.2d 1218, 1220 (5th Cir. 1986)

Independent of the foregoing, the potential harms suffered by Plaintiffs far

exceeds any harm suffered by Defendants by the issuance of injunctive relief, as the

potential harms alleged by Plaintiffs are serious and potentially life-threatening. See

Collier, 2017 WL 3049540, at *43 (“[I]f the Court were to fail to order remedies in this

lawsuit, Plaintiffs’ safety would be severely undermined, leading to a substantial risk

of irreparable injury”); Harding v. Edwards, 487 F. Supp. 3d 498, 527 (M.D. La. 2020)

(Dick, C.J.) “Even though Plaintiffs’ serious illness or death is not an inevitable result

... the increased risk of such is still more detrimental than the abstract injury the

state would suffer’). Accordingly, the balance of interests favors the issuance of

injunctive relief.

D. Bond Requirements

Courts may waive the bond requirement provided in Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 65(c) when appropriate. City of Atlanta v. Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit

Auth., 636 F.2d 1084, 1094 (5th Cir. 1981); Corrigan Dispatch Co. v. Casa Guzman,

S.A., 569 F.2d 300, 303 (5th Cir. 1978); Collier, 2017 WL 3049540, at *44 (S.D. Tex.

July 19, 2017). The Court will do so here, and no bond shall be imposed. The majority

of Plaintiffs are incarcerated persons with limited resources, and “Plaintiffs have

brought this suit to enforce constitutional rights,” a factor which weighs in favor of

73

waiving the bond requirement. See Collier, 2017 WL 3049540, at *44 (S.D. Tex. July

19, 2017) (citing City of Atlanta, 636 F.2d at 1094).

E. Remedies

Plaintiffs request that the Court enjoin Defendants’ operation of the Farm Line

whenever the heat index is at or above eighty-eight degrees Fahrenheit. For reasons

provided below, the Court will issue preliminary injunctive relief that falls short of

Plaintiffs’ request.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) provides that:

[ijn any civil action with respect to prison conditions, to the extent

otherwise authorized by law, the court may enter a temporary

restraining order or an order for preliminary injunctive relief.

Preliminary injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further

than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary

relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm.

The court shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public

safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the

preliminary relief and shall respect the principles of comity set out in

paragraph (1)(B) in tailoring any preliminary relief. Preliminary

injunctive relief shall automatically expire on the date that is 90 days

after its entry, unless the court makes the findings required under

subsection (a)(1) for the entry of prospective relief and makes the order

final before the expiration of the 90-day period.

18 U.S.C.A. § 3626(a)(2) (emphasis added). Paragraph (1)(B) of the PLRA provides

that:

“The court shall not order any prospective relief that requires or permits

a government official to exceed his or her authority under State or local

law or otherwise violates State or local law, unless —

(i) Federal law requires such relief to be ordered in violation

of State or local law;

(ii) the relief is necessary to correct the violation of a Federal

right; and

Gii) no other relief will correct the violation of the Federal Right.

74

Collier, 2017 WL 3049540, at *44 (quoting 18 U.S.C.A. § 3626(a)(1)(B)). Within

Eighth Amendment cases, “plaintiffs can only obtain a remedy that reduces the risk

of harm to a socially acceptable level.” Ball, 792 F.3d at 599.

As Defendants note, agricultural labor does not cease across the South when

heat index values reach eighty-eight degrees Fahrenheit. (Doc. 49 at p. 26). Further,

while some of the guidelines and materials reviewed by the Court recommended that

persons stay indoors and avoid outdoor labor in high heat, none offered a broad

declaration that there were no remedies sufficient to reduce the risks of agricultural

laborers developing heat-related maladies. The Court therefore concludes that at this

juncture, Plaintiffs’ requested relief is overbroad, and that granting such relief would

be contrary to the mandate set forth under the PLRA.

Instead, the Court will order that Defendants take immediate measures to

correct the glaring deficiencies in their heat-related policies. Such deficiencies include

the failure to provide adequate shade, rest, sunscreen, and other protective

equipment, as well as the failure to provide accommodations for those incarcerated

persons suffering from an illness or ailment that significantly inhibits

thermoregulation, and the failure to provide similar accommodations to those

inmates who take prescribed medicine that likewise impairs their ability to regulate

body temperature. Correcting these deficiencies will bring Angola into accord with

consensus opinion on the necessary actions to take in response to high heat

conditions. Such relief is well-within Defendants’ ability to provide, and will not

significantly alter operations on the Farm Line.

75

While “normally” for injunctive relief issued pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, a court must “describe, in reasonable detail, the acts

required by its injunction,” in disputes involving state prisons, “a district court must

give ‘adequate consideration to the views of state prison authorities.” Collier, 2017

WL 3049540, at *46 (quoting Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 348, 362 (1996)). The Court

therefore concludes that rather than “dictat[ing] precisely” what actions Defendants

must follow, the appropriate next step is to require that Defendants provide the Court

with proposed remedies that comply with the findings herein. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 362.

Given the serious nature of interests at stake here, Defendants shall propose such

remedies within seven (7) days of the entry of this Ruling and Order. Defendants’

proposal shall contain estimated dates for the implementation of its terms and

Defendants shall make every effort to provide for immediate implementation.

Plaintiffs’ response to Defendants’ proposals shall be due seven (7) days thereafter. A

hearing to address the proposed remedies may be required. The remainder of

Plaintiffs’ claims, and the entry of any permanent injunctive relief or declaratory

judgment, shall be addressed in due course.

VII. CONCLUSION

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Application For A Preliminary

Injunction And Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 37) be and is hereby

GRANTED IN PART, and that a temporary restraining order be and is hereby

ENTERED, ORDERING Defendants James LeBlanc, in his official capacity as

Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, Timothy

76

Hooper, in his official capacity as Warden of Louisiana State Penitentiary, Misty

Stagg, in her official capacity as Director of Prison Enterprises, Inc., the Louisiana

Department of Public Safety and Corrections, and Prison Enterprises, Inc. to

immediately:

1. Correct the deficiencies of Directive No. 13.067 noted herein, including the

lack of shade and adequate rest provided to incarcerated persons laboring

on the Farm Line;

2. Correct the problems with Defendants’ equipment policies noted herein,

including the failure to provide sunscreen and other necessary protective

clothing and equipment to those laboring on the Farm Line;

3. Submit a revised and expanded Heat Pathology Medications list;

4. Create a procedure to ensure that all incarcerated persons suffering from

health conditions that significantly inhibit thermoregulation are assessed

by medical personnel and are granted heat precaution duty status; and

5. Develop an additional heat-related policy to protect those laboring outdoors

when heat index values reach or exceed 113 degrees Fahrenheit, the

temperature at which the National Weather Service issues excessive heat

warnings.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall submit a memorandum

containing their proposed remedies within seven (7) days of the entry of this Ruling

and Order. Plaintiffs’ response to Defendants’ proposed remedies shall be submitted

77

to the Court seven (7) days thereafter.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this®- of July, 2024

Ao Q .

JUDGE BRIAN A. J. ON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA