Sentenced to Stigma: Segregation of HIV-Positive Prisoners - AL.com

Today, only three states place all HIV-positive prisoners into separate, specially designatedhousing units: Alabama, South Carolina and Mississippi, with the policy in Mississippi to bephased out. In each of these states, controversy and litigation have surrounded prisonofficials’ response to HIV. In 1987, the ACLU challenged Alabama’s segregation policy forHIV-positive prisoners on constitutional grounds as well as under the federal RehabilitationAct. The 11 th Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the segregation policy did not violate theprisoners’ constitutional rights to privacy and confidentiality as it was reasonably related tothe legitimate correctional goal of preventing the spread of disease. The Rehabilitation Actclaims were sent back to the trial court for further proceedings but ultimately dismissed bythe 11 th Circuit en banc. 21 In 2004, the Southern Center for Human Rights challenged theadequacy of medical care for HIV on behalf of prisoners at Limestone Correctional Facility inHarvest, Alabama. The case was settled in 2004, but compliance issues persistedthroughout the two year period of the settlement agreement. 22 Gradually, as a result of legalaction and intense advocacy efforts by the ACLU and other community leaders, access toprograms, jobs, and activities has improved significantly for prisoners living with HIV inAlabama. For example, in July 2009 a new corrections administration in Alabama changedthe work release policy to permit the participation of HIV-positive prisoners.In Mississippi, the ACLU pursued both litigation and advocacy to address medical care,conditions of confinement, and opportunities for programs for HIV-positive prisoners. 23 In1999, the ACLU-NPP won an injunction requiring the Mississippi Department of Correctionsto provide all HIV-positive prisoners with medical treatment consistent with federalguidelines. 24 In 2000-2001, at the urging of the ACLU and a coalition of state legislators,prisoners’ family members and local advocates, the Commissioner of the MississippiDepartment of Corrections convened a task force to study HIV-positive prisoners’ access toprograms, appointing the ACLU to serve along with officials from MDOC and the Mississippipublic health department. In May 2001, the Commissioner, adopting the Task Force’srecommendations, ordered that all in-prison programs other than food service jobs be21 Harris v. Thigpen, 941 F2d 1495 (11thCir. 1991), later Onishea v. Hopper, 171 F.3d 1289 (11 th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S.1114 (2000). Plaintiffs’ attempt to add claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act was dismissed by the trial court afterremand.22 Leatherwood v. Campbell, CV-02-BE-2812-W, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama (2004) . For a comprehensiveaccount of efforts to obtain adequate medical care in the HIV unit at Limestone, see B. Fleury-Steiner and C. Crowder, DyingInside: the HIV/AIDS Ward at Limestone Prison, (University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, 2008).23 Gates v. Collier, 4:71cv6, consolidated with Moore v. Fordice, 4:90cv-125. Prospective relief in Moore was terminated in2005 pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), based on the district court’s finding that constitutional violationswithin the purview of the case had been remedied. Portions of Gates, relating to conditions at Mississippi State Penitentiary,Unit 32 (Mississippi’s death row and super-maximum security facility) are ongoing; on November 18, 2009, the State moved toterminate under the PLRA.24 Moore v. Fordice, 4:90cv-125, (N.D. Miss. July 19, 1999)Sentenced to Stigma 14