|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A judge Monday heard the state’s argument to dismiss a lawsuit filed by six incarcerated individuals alleging involuntary servitude in Alabama prisons.
The lawsuit filed in Montgomery circuit court is separate from a similar federal lawsuit filed around the same timeframe at the federal level; this lawsuit deals purely with violations of the newly revised Alabama constitution instead of the U.S. Constitution.
“This is a challenge to Alabama officials’ brazen failure to heed the will of the people of this state, who voted in 2022 to ratify a new state constitution that bans slavery and involuntary servitude in all its forms, with no exceptions,” the plaintiffs stated in their initial complaint.
In a motion to dismiss the suit. the state wrote that the plaintiffs “attempt to use this linguistic modernization (of the Alabama constitution) to challenge the entire incentive structure of Alabama’s prison system.”
Judge James Anderson heard both sides in open court Monday on that motion to dismiss.
Counsel for the state contended that the suit should be thrown out for lack of standing on behalf of the plaintiffs and due to state immunity, but said there is “an even clearer path on the merits. Plaintiffs say they are ‘forced by the State of Alabama to labor against their will for the Alabama Department of Corrections (‘ADOC’) and for private employers in violation’ of (law),” the state wrote in its motion to dismiss. “But they only complain of performing chores at their assigned correctional facilities, voluntarily laboring on public work projects, and voluntarily working for private employers on work release. And—unsurprisingly—the relief they seek is not an injunction ordering Defendants to shut down the work release and community work programs. To the contrary, Plaintiffs want to live in a community-based facility and enjoy the privileges that come with participating in the work release program.
“Instead, Plaintiffs sue for an injunction prohibiting State officials from disciplining them in accordance with State law when they refuse to work or get fired from their jobs for cause. In other words, Plaintiffs want a court order permitting them to abandon their posts on a day-by-day (or per- haps an hour-by-hour) basis no matter how legitimate the reason.”
Counsel for the plaintiffs argue that those disciplinary measures, which can include solitary confinement and restricting telephone or commissary access, go beyond the workplace discipline workers typically face if they fail to report to work.
Anderson is now considering the state’s motion to dismiss or whether to move ahead with the suit.
