Jones et al v. Gusman et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LASHAWN JONES, ET AL 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 12-859
MARLIN GUSMAN, ET AL 	SECTION I
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office’s (“OPSO”) motion1 to
enforce this Court’s previous orders regarding funding. In this motion, OPSO brings
to the Court’s attention that the City of New Orleans’s (the “City”) 2026 budget
reduces OPSO’s appropriation by approximately twenty percent (20%) from its 2025
appropriation.2
According to OPSO, such reduced budget would fund “less than half of OPSO’s
established 	operational 	needs” 	and 	would, 	consequently, 	render 	constitutional
compliance with the Consent Judgment “impossible.”3 For example, OPSO submits
that 	its 	“2025 	personnel 	costs 	alone 	exceed 	the 	City’s 	entire 	proposed 	2026
appropriation” and that staffing issues have already been identified by the Court-
appointed monitors as contributing to noncompliance with the Consent Judgment.4
OPSO also states that the 2026 budget fails to allocate any funding toward the Phase
1 R. Doc. No. 1773.
2 Id. at 1.
3 Id.
4 R. Doc. No. 1773-8, at 2.
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1802 Filed 03/05/26 Page 1 of 7

2
III mental health facility.5 Without this funding, OPSO maintains that the Phase III
facility will not open “timely, safely, or constitutionally.”6
In addition, OPSO argues that the monthly allocation mechanism—in which
OPSO receives its appropriation from the City on a monthly basis—has caused, and
will continue to cause, cash-flow deficits.7 OPSO argues that this will inevitably lead
to an inability to meet its payroll obligations in the first quarter of 2026,8 which, in
turn, will exacerbate staffing issues.9 It is OPSO’s position that the 2026 budget
allocation is “unlawful,” because it “fails to provide the resources necessary to
maintain constitutional conditions inside the Orleans Justice Center.”10
OPSO asks the Court to:
1. 	Enjoin the City from implementing the fiscal year 2026 budget as it
relates to OPSO, including the twenty-percent reduction and the
monthly allocation mechanism;
2. 	Declare that the City’s fiscal year 2026 OPSO appropriation fails to
satisfy the City’s statutory obligations under Louisiana law and is
in violation of this court’s previous orders;
3. 	Order the City to adopt a supplemental appropriation, and deposit
into OPSO’s operational account, supplemental funding sufficient to
meet 	OPSO’s 	staffing, 	medical, 	mental-health, 	maintenance,
operational, and security needs, including the full implementation
and onboarding of Phase III;
5 See id.
6 R. Doc. No. 1773, at 2.
7 R. Doc. No. 1773-8, at 6.
8 R. Doc. No. 1773, at 2.
9 R. Doc. No. 1773-8, at 2 (“A twenty-percent reduction in funding will accelerate the
already dangerous staffing shortages documented in previous court monitor’s reports,
inevitably 	leading 	OPSO 	to 	violate 	suicide-watch 	requirements, 	mental-health
treatment obligations, security-post staffing, medical-care timeliness standards,
physical plant requirements and basic safety requirements.”).
10 Id. at 9.
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1802 Filed 03/05/26 Page 2 of 7

3
4. 	Require the City to provide monthly funding in advance sufficient
to meet payroll, physical plant needs, medical treatment and core
constitutional requirements;
5. 	Require monthly reporting demonstrating compliance with this
Court’s funding directives; and
6. 	Grant any additional relief this Court deems just, equitable, and
necessary to prevent constitutional violations.
The City filed a response11 in opposition in which it argues that OPSO’s request
is one for a “proverbial blank check.”12 According to the City, OPSO has not
demonstrated that the 2026 allocation is deficient or that it “genuinely needs the
additional funds.”13 The City also points out that OPSO has not shown that it has
exhausted all sources of revenue available to it—including funds OPSO may have
from its civil division or bonding capacity—prior to requesting more from the City.14
In short, it is the City’s position that OPSO has not supported its claim that the City’s
2026 allocation has made a constitutionally compliant jail impossible. The City asks
the Court to deny OPSO’s motion or, in the alternative, requests that it be allowed to
conduct limited discovery relating to OPSO’s finances.15
I. 	LAW & ANALYSIS
The authority of OPSO’s motion and requested relief rests upon this Court’s
previous orders regarding the respective roles and responsibilities of OPSO and the
City as it pertains to funding the jail.16
11 R. Doc. No. 1799.
12 Id. at 1.
13 Id. at 4.
14 Id. at 4–5.
15 Id. at 8.
16 See R. Doc. No. 1773-8, at 7–9.
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1802 Filed 03/05/26 Page 3 of 7

4
Primarily, OPSO focuses on this Court’s order and reasons granting in part the
City’s motion for partial summary judgment regarding certain budgetary matters.17
In that order, the Court explained that “generally speaking, ‘the legislative scheme
dictates that the City of New Orleans bears the obligation of satisfying the expenses
of housing prisoners, while the sheriff has the duty of operating the facility.’”18 In
response to the City’s complaints about the cost of bringing OPP into compliance with
the Consent Judgment and constitutional standards, the Court noted in that order
that “it is well established that inadequate funding will not excuse the perpetuation
of unconstitutional conditions of confinement.”19 The specific language that OPSO
quotes and represents as being from that order—specifically, “[b]udgetary hardship
does not excuse constitutional violations”20—does not exist therein.21
In addition, OPSO’s motion cites a separate order in which this Court stated
that “should the Sheriff or the City anticipate a shortfall relative to funding deputy
salaries, either party shall file a motion relative to such a shortfall no less than
17 See R. Doc. No. 953.
18 Id. at 2 (quoting Broussard v. Foti, No. 00-2318, 2001 WL 258055, at *2 (E.D. La.
Mar. 14, 2001) (Vance, J.); see also Fairley v. Stalder, 294 F. App’x 805, 812 (5th Cir.
2008)).
19 Id. at 3 (citing Smith v. Sullivan, 611 F.2d 1039, 1043–44 (5th Cir. 1980) and Gates
v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291, 1322 (5th Cir. 1974) (“That it may be inconvenient or more
expensive for [the City] to run its prison in a constitutional fashion is neither a
defense to this action or a ground for modification of the judgment rendered in this
case.”)).
20 R. Doc. No. 1773-8, at 8; see also R. Doc. No. 1773, at 1 (quoting R. Doc. No. 953, at
3–4).
21 Compare R. Doc. No. 1773, at 1, with R. Doc. No. 953.
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1802 Filed 03/05/26 Page 4 of 7

5
7 weeks before the projected shortfall,” interpreting it to mean that “the City must
prevent budget shortfalls that would impair OPSO’s ability to operate safely.”22
Finally, OPSO cites to a third order of this Court in which the Court ordered
the City to pay the costs associated with a short-term solution for housing inmates
with acute and subacute mental health issues in 2014.23 That order was issued
following an evidentiary hearing and substantial briefing with respect to costs.24 Also,
the language quoted by OPSO in which the Court purportedly ordered that the City
“shall fully fund all staffing, operational, medical, and mental-health costs required
to operate Phase III,”25 does not exist therein.
Aside from misquoting this Court’s orders, OPSO also conveniently ignores
other pertinent language in those orders. For example, as is relevant to the present
dispute, this Court recognized that while the City cannot “defund or under-fund the
jail,” there is no caselaw to “suggest[] that the City must rubber-stamp the Sheriff’s
budget.”26 The Court has made its position clear with respect to adequate funding:
“As with so many other issues in this litigation, the devil will be in the details.”27
Merely pointing to the fact that the 2026 allocation is less than the 2025
allocation is not sufficient to establish that constitutional and Consent Judgment
compliance is unachievable with the current allocation. Nor does the fact that the
22 R. Doc. No. 651, at 1 (emphasis in original).
23 See R. Doc. No. 738.
24 See generally id.
25 R. Doc. No. 1773, at 1–2; R. Doc. No. 1773-8, at 6.
26 R. Doc. No. 953, at 9.
27 Id.
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1802 Filed 03/05/26 Page 5 of 7

6
projected 2025 personnel costs exceed the entire 2026 budget allocation invariably
lead to OPSO’s conclusion that it is impossible for it to meet its constitutional
obligations.28
OPSO represents that its personnel costs for 2025 are projected to total $46.7
million.29 That figure alone does not reveal whether OPSO has taken, or could take,
any cost-saving measures to reduce those costs and still ensure constitutional and
Consent Judgment compliance. With respect to the allegation that no funds were
allocated for Phase III, OPSO’s motion does not address the fact that the funds
currently being utilized for operation of the temporary detention center will become
available to fund the Phase III facility, seeing as the latter will replace the former.30
OPSO’s memorandum in support of its motion raises more questions than answers
regarding the amount and the timing of City funding.
To be sure, the Court expects the City to comply with its clear duty under state
and federal law to adequately fund the jail so that compliance with the Consent
Judgment can be attained.31 And the Court recognizes OPSO’s concern with respect
to staffing costs exceeding the current allocation; staffing issues have been a source
of concern for a long time. However, until the issue is adequately presented to the
Court, the relief that OPSO requests is premature. The Court will have a better idea
28 R. Doc. No. 1773-8, at 9 (“It is impossible—not merely difficult—for OPSO to meet
constitutional obligations when personnel costs exceed the appropriation by several
million dollars and total jail operations exceed the appropriation by even more.”).
29 Id. at 4.
30 See R. Doc. No. 1799, at 2–3.
31 See R. Doc. No. 953, at 9.
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1802 Filed 03/05/26 Page 6 of 7

7
of the amount needed to secure adequate staffing and Consent Judgment compliance
once the Sheriff-Elect takes office.32
IT IS ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, March 5, 2026.
_______________________________________
LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
32 The Court’s previous order appointing a transition monitor unmistakably supports
the Court’s disposition of this motion, as Sheriff-Elect Woodfork will now have a
better understanding of OPSO’s finances once she assumes office.
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1802 Filed 03/05/26 Page 7 of 7