Opinion
NO. 3:14-CV-1033-ALB
06-01-2020
Alexandria H. QUINN, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF TUSKEGEE, ALABAMA, and Levy Kelly, Defendants.
Algert Swanson Agricola, Jr., Barbara H. Agricola, Agricola Law, Opelika, AL, for Plaintiff. April Willis McKay, Ricky Allen Howard, Holtsford Gilliland Higgins Hitson & Howard, P.C., Montgomery, AL, Milton Carver Davis, Law Offices of Milton Carver Davis, Tuskegee, AL, for Defendant City of Tuskegee, Alabama. Susan Graham James, The James Firm, Montgomery, AL, for Defendant Levy Kelly. Levy Kelly, Pike Road, AL, pro se.
Algert Swanson Agricola, Jr., Barbara H. Agricola, Agricola Law, Opelika, AL, for Plaintiff.
April Willis McKay, Ricky Allen Howard, Holtsford Gilliland Higgins Hitson & Howard, P.C., Montgomery, AL, Milton Carver Davis, Law Offices of Milton Carver Davis, Tuskegee, AL, for Defendant City of Tuskegee, Alabama.
Susan Graham James, The James Firm, Montgomery, AL, for Defendant Levy Kelly.
Levy Kelly, Pike Road, AL, pro se.
ORDER
ANDREW L. BRASHER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter comes to the Court sua sponte.
Trial is currently set for today, June 1, 2020 in Opelika, Alabama.
This case was set to be the first federal civil trial in the country after courts closed for the coronavirus pandemic. When it set this case for trial during the coronavirus pandemic, the Court explained that it would continually evaluate the safety of conducting a trial and the usefulness of social distancing, mask-wearing, and other measures that would mitigate the risk of COVID-19. Jury trials cannot remain stalled indefinitely, and, based on that sentiment, the Court has denied two motions for a continuance. But, having tried everything--purchased personal protective equipment, implemented mitigation measures, consulted local and federal officials, and sought the advice of medical professionals--the Court has become convinced that a trial cannot be conducted as presently scheduled with the minimal degree of risk appropriate for a civil proceeding.
This is so for three reasons.
First, despite the best efforts of the Middle District, the courthouse is not ready to be configured in such a way as to comply with best practices for holding trials. Over the last few weeks, courts across the country have developed and published plans to hold trials during the midst of the coronavirus pandemic. Those best practices include several features that cannot be implemented in the present venue in the Opelika courthouse for this particular trial. Although the Court developed a successful plan to provide social distancing and personal protection equipment for prospective jurors and jurors, it is not possible to implement other best practices.
Second, counties in central Alabama have reported a surge in coronavirus cases over the last few days. Instead of decreasing or flattening, the curve for the State is on the upswing. State Health Officer Scott Harris was quoted on Friday: "We've had this week a couple of the highest days we've seen in number of cases, and that's certainly concerning to us." When the Court denied a motion to continue on the basis of the coronavirus, the daily incidence of cases in Alabama was decreasing or flat and the Governor's stay-home order was about to be lifted. Those positive developments have not lasted. Instead, the State's incidences of coronavirus are getting worse, which makes it more likely that a trial--a large indoor gathering that last several days--will spread the coronavirus to a large number of people.
Third, the CDC and other federal agencies have promulgated guidelines for reopening facilities. Because of the increasing incidences of coronavirus in Alabama generally and central Alabama in particular, these guidelines have not been met.
Although the mere existence of the coronavirus does not warrant continuing a proceeding, the Court finds that these specific circumstances do. The Court does not take this action lightly. A last-minute continuance is strongly disfavored. The Court deeply regrets it. But the Court must weigh, not only the interests of the parties and the Court in conducting this trial, but also the greater public interest in minimizing the spread of coronavirus. The public interest requires that this civil trial, like apparently every other civil trial in the country up to this point, be continued.
Accordingly, the Court orders that the trial currently set for June 1, 2020 is CONTINUED pending further order. This case will be reset for trial in a future order.
DONE this 1st day of June 2020.