Case: Cole v. Collier
4:14-cv-01698 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
Filed Date: June 18, 2014
Closed Date: April 17, 2024
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
On June 18, 2014, four prisoners housed in the Wallace Pack Unit, a medical and geriatric prison operated by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), brought suit individually and on behalf of those similarly situated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Rehabilitation Act against TDCJ. The plaintiffs, represented by the Texas Civil Rights Project, the University of Texas School of Law Civil Rights Clinic, and private counsel, asked that TDCJ be required to provide safe housing conditions at the Pack Unit, claiming that the non-climate controlled interior of the Unit violated the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and plaintiffs' Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that the failure of TDCJ to provide air conditioning to inmates at the Pack Unit during the summer constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, and that TDCJ's failure further violated the ADA by failing to reasonably accommodate prisoners with heat-sensitive disabilities. The plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief.
The Wallace Pack Unit, operated by TDCJ, is located outside Houston, TX, in Navasota. Deep in the south of Texas, the Pack Unit is a medical facility housing geriatric prisoners, prisoners with disabilities, and prisoners with chronic mental problems. The Pack Unit dormitories, in which the vast majority of prisoners live, are not air conditioned or otherwise climate controlled. The interior of the prison in the summer regularly becomes so hot that inmates sleep on the floor, only marginally cooler than their beds, and the stainless steel tables in the dormitories become hot to the touch. Most of the prisoners at the Pack Unit who suffered heat-related illness were not working outside at the time of their illness, but were simply housed in the hot dormitories. Even the correctional officers' union made numerous public requests for the prison housing areas to be air conditioned. At the time of the complaint, TDCJ had refused to do so.
The plaintiffs (and many others at the medical and geriatric prison) suffered from disabilities, putting them at increased risk of heat-related injury or death. These disabilities are known to be exacerbated by heat, include hypertension, asthma, traumatic brain injury (TBI), COPD, and diabetes. Plaintiffs and others also took medications known to increase the risk of heat-related illness and death, including antihistamines (for allergies), Benztropine (to treat TBI), and diuretics. Several of the plaintiffs and many other inmates had suffered heat-related illness in the past.
After a year of discovery, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 6, 2015, a second amended complaint on May 9, 2016, and a third amended complaint on May 7, 2017. The court (Judge Keith P. Ellison) granted class certification on June 14, 2016. 2016 WL 3258345. He defined the certified class as, "All inmates who currently are, or in the future will be, incarcerated at the Pack Unit, and who are subjected to TDCJ's policy and practice of failing to regulate high indoor heat index temperatures in the housing areas." He also certified two subclasses, the "Heat-Sensitive Subclass" and the "Disability Subclass." The Fifth Circuit later upheld the district court's class certification decision. 868 F.3d 354.
On June 21, 2016, the Judge Ellison granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction requiring TDCJ to provide EPA-compliant drinking water through September 22, 2016. 2016 WL 3406439. Water at the Pack Unit had previously contained arsenic levels up to four-and-a-half times the level permitted by the EPA.
The defendants appealed the preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On July 21, 2016, the Fifth Circuit denied the defendants' motion for a stay of Judge Ellison's injunction pending appeal. It heard oral arguments on September 27, 2016, but then dismissed the appeal as moot because the injunction had expired. 677 F. App'x. 915.
Meanwhile, in District Court, the parties continued litigation over the temperature in the Pack Unit and plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees. On August 17, 2016, Judge Ellison denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Judge Ellison denied the plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees on December 7, 2016. He stated that the plaintiffs were not yet a prevailing party pending the Fifth Circuit's decision on the defendants' appeal of the preliminary injunction prohibiting arsenic laden water.
On May 1, 2017, the plaintiffs moved for another preliminary injunction to ensure relief for inmates during the upcoming summer months. Specifically, the plaintiffs sought an injunction ordering TDCJ to lower the temperatures inside the prison to 88 degrees and to develop a heat wave policy. In the alternative, the plaintiffs sought relief in the form of open windows, on-demand showers, monitoring of water consumption, respite areas, wellness checks, inmate trainings, portable cooling units, individual water coolers, and a transfer of heat-sensitive inmates into cooler housing.
On July 19, 2017, Judge Ellison granted the preliminary injunction in a 100-page opinion stating, "[p]risoners are human beings with spouses and children who worry about them and miss them. Some of them will likely someday be shown to have been innocent of the crimes of which they are accused. But, even those admittedly guilty of the most heinous crimes must not be denied their constitutional rights. We diminish the Constitution for all of us to the extent we deny it to anyone." He ordered TDCJ to implement a functioning respite program for the young and healthy inmates; to reduce temperatures in dormitories housing heat-sensitive inmates to 88 degrees; to place insect guards on the windows so inmates may cool down from the outdoor breeze without letting insects into their dormitories; and to develop a heat-wave policy for the Pack Unit. The preliminary injunction was to remain in place for 90 days. 2017 WL 3049540.
On August 8, 2017, Judge Ellison issued an order specifically outlining the steps the defendants were to take to satisfy the preliminary injunction. The defendants appealed this order to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on August 18.
In late August, Hurricane Harvey hit the gulf and cause severe damage to the Houston area.. In light of the hurricane, and the subsequent relocation of prisoners from the Wallace Pack Unit, the defendants moved to modify the preliminary injunction.
Judge Ellison denied this motion on September 14, 2017 holding that the risk to the class members remained and the defendants had several avenues to stay in compliance with the preliminary injunction, notwithstanding the hurricane.
On October 11, 2017, Judge Ellison granted the plaintiffs' unopposed motion to extend the preliminary injunction to October 30th, given the expected heat of 88 °F through the month. The plaintiffs moved to make the order permanent on October 30th. Judge Ellison again granted an unopposed motion to extent the preliminary injunction to the summer of 2018 in January 2018.
Meanwhile, several class members had sent letters to the court requesting to be removed from the class because their transfer to air-conditioned units (in compliance with the preliminary injunction) had lead to a loss of access to services, such as substance abuse classes. Judge Ellison granted these requests on January 29, noting "many of the conditions causing the individuals to ask to leave the class exist because of TDCJ's own decisions about how to implement the court's second preliminary injunction. Nevertheless, class members may choose to be removed from the lawsuit."
The parties reached a settlement agreement on January 31, 2018 and proposed it to the court on March 6, 2018. The agreement included a settlement class defined as, "[a]ll inmates who currently are, or in the future will be, incarcerated at the Pack Unit, and who are subjected to TDCJ's policy and practice of failing to regulate high indoor heat index temperatures in the housing areas." This class included two subclasses - a 'heat sensitive' subclass and a 'disability' subclass. This settlement class narrowed the previous litigation class based on the dates in which individual class members were held at the Pack Unit.
The proposed settlement would require the prison to ensure air conditioning for class members during the summer months, a guarantee of air conditioning if class members were moved to other units, and air conditioning while being transported in vehicles. It also included $4.5 million for attorney's fees and costs. The court would maintain jurisdiction to ensure compliance until the legislature passed a bill for the installation of permanent air conditioning (temporary air conditioning would be used if the legislature did not pass a bill for permanent air conditioning).
That same day, several class members moved to stay the case, asked for independent counsel, and sought declaratory relief. They expressed concern that they had not been given input as to the settlement agreement, fear that the proposed class definition might exclude them, and frustration with the $4.5 million attorney fee award proposal.
On March 12, 2018, Judge Ellison entered an order regarding a proposed notice for class members who would no longer be a part of the class under the new class definition—specifically to notify those who become a part of the class during the injunction phase, but are not part of the class under the proposed settlement.
On March 23, 2018, Judge Ellison granted the plaintiffs' unopposed motion to extend the preliminary injunction, requiring TDCJ to comply with the proposed settlement agreement by maintaining a heat index at the Pack Unit housing areas at no greater than 88 degrees.
On March 27, 2018, Judge Ellison granted the amended certification of the Class and Subclass, but only for the purposes of effectuating the settlement, expressly stating that if the settlement was terminated or not completed, then the amended class certification was null and void. He also approved the Class Action Notice and Opt Out Form.
On April 5, 2018, 192 prisoners appealed to the 5th Circuit (189 of whom were not members of the settlement class), stating that they were members of the original class and/or subclass members who were excluded from the class and settlement. Docket No. 18-20216. The 5th Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on March 25, 2019, since the appellants were non-class members and were therefore not affected by the settlement in a way that would allow jurisdiction. The court advised the appellants that they could vindicate their constitutional rights by bringing separate legal challenges to TDCJ practices.
On June 8, 2018, Judge Ellison entered an order approving the settlement agreement, despite multiple filed objections. The court retained jurisdiction on all matters pertaining to the settlement agreement. Following this order, Judge Ellison granted various motions of class members wishing to opt out of the settlement agreement.
On August 9, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement, due to the fact that TDCJ was imprisoning at least 37 class members in the LeBlanc Unit in Beaumont—which was supposed to be air conditioned, but was being kept at temperatures over 90 degrees—violating the terms of the settlement agreement. That same day Judge Ellison entered an order finding that the defendants were in breach of the settlement agreement and directing that the class members be moved somewhere that complied with the settlement.
On September 15, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion for contempt, order to show cause, and sanctions due to the defendants' repeated violations of the settlement agreement and misrepresentation of conditions that violated the settlement, which prevented discovery of violations of the agreements. On December 11, 2019, Judge Ellison entered an order granting limited discovery relating to the violations of the settlement agreement and the misrepresentations, but deferred judgment on the plaintiffs' motion for contempt. 2019 WL 6733002
Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel on April 10, 2020, seeking complete responses from Defendants. Defendants filed a Motion for Protective Order along with their Response Brief, seeking protection from discovery of personnel files, and of matters that happened before the relevant time period.
Judge Ellison granted in part and denied in part both motions on May 28, 2020. Judge Ellison ordered Defendants to produce the privileged documents to the court for in camera review and ordered Defendants to supplement their responses and productions. The court granted in part Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order as relevant to the personnel files and as to discovery from prior to May 15, 2019 and after December 31, 2019.
On May 27, 2022, Defendants filed an unopposed motion to terminate the sanctions and contempt proceedings. The motion set forth the actions Defendants had taken following the discovered non-compliance and the additional steps Defendants took after discussion with Plaintiff's Counsel. Four days later, on May 31, the court granted the motion, but also ordered Defendants to adopt specific training on the settlement agreement and have an independent engineering expert ensure that air conditioning was functioning. Additionally, the court ordered Defendants to pay $370,247.10 in attorneys' fees incurred by class counsel in connection with the sanctions and contempt proceedings.
On December 29, 2022, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss in regards to Plaintiffs raising a claim as to potential retaliation against class members. On February 10, 2023, the Court directed parties to conduct limited discovery on the issue in order to investigate Plaintiffs claims that Defendants were retaliating against non-wheelchair-bound class members by providing them unsafe transportation.
Over the last several years, as this litigation has been proceeding, several motions have been filed claiming violations of the settlement agreement, or a need for emergency intervention, or motions for emergency protections orders, but all were dismissed without prejudice, usually for failure to follow the complaint procedures set forth in the settlement agreement.
The parties began working towards an agreed order of dismissal pursuant to the court’s directive from a status conference held on May 24, 2023.
As of October 10, 2023, an agreed order of dismissal has not yet been reached but the parties continue to report that they are working in good faith towards one.
Summary Authors
Kevin Nomura (2/10/2015)
Virginia Weeks (10/17/2016)
Gabriela Hybel (3/21/2018)
Caitlin Kierum (3/29/2020)
Nina Leeds (10/10/2023)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4393944/parties/cole-v-collier-bfont-colorred-filings-submitted-by-pro-se/
Adams, Jeffrey R. (Texas)
Addiego, Joseph Edward (Texas)
Ahn, Joan E (Texas)
Anderson, Austin W. (Texas)
Amir-Sharif, Lakeith R. (Texas)
Addiego, Joseph Edward (Texas)
Ceriello, Colin Mccann (Texas)
Coggeshall, Jeanine Marie (Texas)
Kamenick, Thomas Claire (Texas)
Kammerlocher, Derek Josef (Texas)
Moczygemba, Kevin Andrew (Texas)
Neuhoff, Daniel Christopher (Texas)
Reynolds, Jeremiah Tracy (Texas)
Rosenberg, Christina Liu (Texas)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4393944/cole-v-collier-bfont-colorred-filings-submitted-by-pro-se/
Last updated May 6, 2026, 12:49 p.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Post-WalMart decisions on class certification
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 18, 2014
Closing Date: April 17, 2024
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
All inmates who currently are, or in the future will be, incarcerated at the Pack Unit, and who are subjected to TDCJ's policy and practice of failing to regulate high indoor heat index temperatures in the housing areas
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
State
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Other Dockets:
Southern District of Texas 4:14-cv-01698
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 16-20505
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 18-20216
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Amount Defendant Pays: $4,870,247.10
Issues
General/Misc.:
Sanitation / living conditions
Disability and Disability Rights:
Discrimination Basis:
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
Medical/Mental Health Care:
Case Summary of Cole v. Collier, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, http://www.dev.clearinghouse.net/case/14090/ (last updated 10/10/2023).