Brenneman v. Madigan

• Decision Date: 12 May 1972
• Docket Number: No. C-70 1911.,C-70 1911.
• Citation: 343 F. Supp. 128
• Parties: Danny BRENNEMAN et al., Plaintiffs, v. Frank I. MADIGAN et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California

343 F. Supp. 128

Danny BRENNEMAN et al., Plaintiffs, v. Frank I. MADIGAN et al., Defendants.

No. C-70 1911.

United States District Court, N. D. California.

May 12, 1972.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Richard Berg, Legal Aid Society of Alameda County, Oakland, Cal., for plaintiffs.

Richard J. Moore, County Counsel, Thomas J. Fennone, Kelvin H. Booty, Jr., Deputy County Counsels, Oakland, Cal., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ZIRPOLI, District Judge.

On September 8, 1970, five named plaintiffs filed this civil rights action on behalf of themselves and all others incarcerated in the Greystone section of the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center, one of Alameda County's jail facilities, while awaiting trial. The complaint alleges that plaintiffs, and the class they represent, are confined solely because they are unable to post bail; yet even as pre-trial detainees, presumed innocent of the charges against them, they nonetheless suffer cruel and unusual punishment in violation, inter alia, of their rights to due process and equal protection of the laws secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The named defendants are the Sheriff and the members of the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County. The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343(3), 2201, 2202 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

This case raises two fundamental issues. The first issue, plaintiffs' claim that they could not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, initially provided the dramatic focus for the court's inquiry into the prevailing practices and procedures at the county jail. However, the second issue, plaintiffs' claim that they could not be subjected to any punishment whatsoever, ultimately determined the course of this litigation and the scope of the strategic confrontation between the parties. In the interest of clarity, the court will discuss these issues in the order they arose.

The federal courts do not sit to superintend the administration of the county jail system; but what they do sit to do, and what they must do, is insure that those who administer that system comply with the requirements of the Constitution: The duty to confront and resolve constitutional questions, regardless of their difficulty or magnitude, is the very essence of the judicial responsibility. While the federal courts must be sensitive to the problems created by unwarranted judicial interference with the administration of state penal institutions, Smith v. Schneckloth, 414 F.2d 680 (9th Cir. 1969); Walker v. Blackwell, 360 F.2d 66 (5th Cir. 1966); Walker v. Pate, 356 F.2d 502 (7th Cir.), cert. denied 384 U.S. 966, 86 S.Ct. 1598, 16 L.Ed.2d 678 (1966), when questions of constitutional dimension arise, the courts cannot simply abdicate their function out of misplaced deference to some sort of "hands off" doctrine. See, e. g., Barnett v. Rodgers, 133 U.S.App. D.C. 296, 410 F.2d 995 (1969); Jackson v. Godwin, 400 F.2d 529 (5th Cir. 1969); Wright v. McMann, 387 F.2d 519 (2d Cir. 1967); Rivers v. Royster, 360 F.2d 592 (4th Cir. 1966). "We yet like to believe that wherever the Federal courts sit, human rights under the Federal Constitution are always a proper subject for adjudication . . . ." Stapleton v. Mitchell, 60 F.Supp. 51, 55 (D.Kan.1945), quoted with approval in Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241, 248, 88 S.Ct. 391, 19 L.Ed.2d 444 (1967), and McNeese v. Board of Education, 373 U. S. 688, 674 n. 6, 83 S.Ct. 1433, 10 L.Ed. 2d 622 (1963).

"Lawful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights, a retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system." Price v. Johnston, 334 U.S. 266, 285, 68 S.Ct. 1049, 1060, 92 L.Ed. 1356 (1948). Notwithstanding that imprisonment may deprive the convict of certain rights which would otherwise be his to enjoy, "A prisoner retains all the rights of an ordinary citizen except those expressly, or by necessary implication, taken from him by law." Coffin v. Reichard, 143 F.2d 443, 445 (6th Cir. 1944), cert. denied, 325 U.S. 887, 65 S.Ct. 1568, 89 L. Ed. 2001 (1945); Sewell v. Pegelow, 291 F.2d 196, 198 (4th Cir. 1961). Thus, it has long been recognized that imprisonment cannot deprive him of the protection of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

"It is well established that prisoners do not lose all their constitutional rights and that the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment follow them into prison and protect them there from unconstitutional action on the part of prison authorities carried out under color of state law." Washington v. Lee, 263 F.Supp. 327, 331 (M.D.Ala. 1966), aff'd per curiam 390 U.S. 333, 88 S.Ct. 994, 19 L.Ed.2d 1212 (1968).

See also Cooper v. Pate, 378 U.S. 546, 84 S.Ct. 1733, 12 L.Ed.2d 1030 (1964); Dowd v. Cook, 340 U.S. 206, 71 S.Ct. 262, 95 L.Ed. 215 (1951); Ex parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546, 61 S.Ct. 640, 85 L. Ed. 1034 (1941).

In appraising the sufficiency of civil rights complaints from state prisoners that challenge the conditions of confinement, the courts have tried to discriminate between matters of administration which are appropriately committed to the discretion of custodial personnel and issues of constitutional dimension which are properly amenable to judicial intervention. Conceptually, such complaints, and the judicial responses they provoke, fall into three broad categories.

As a rule, the courts uniformly refrain from considering challenges to routine administrative assignments. Certainly confinement of a prisoner in one section of a prison instead of another, Hanvey v. Pinto, 441 F.2d 1154, 1155 (3d Cir. 1971); Gray v. Creamer, 329 F.Supp. 418, 420 (W.D.Pa.1971), or in one institution instead of another, United States ex rel. Stuart v. Yeager, 293 F.Supp. 1079 (D.N.J.1968), aff'd 419 F. 2d 126 (3d Cir.), cert. denied 397 U.S. 1055, 90 S.Ct. 1400, 25 L.Ed.2d 673 (1969); Lewis v. Gladden, 230 F.Supp. 786 (D.Or.1964); Siegel v. Ragen, 180 F.2d 785 (7th Cir.), cert. denied 339 U. S. 990, 70 S.Ct. 1015, 94 L.Ed. 1391, rehearing denied 340 U.S. 847, 71 S.Ct. 12, 95 L.Ed. 621 (1950), does not ordinarily violate any constitutional right. Institutional placement in the nature of classification is peculiarly within the competence of prison officials, and the courts do not interfere absent unusual circumstances. But see Morris v. Travisono, 310 F.Supp. 857 (D.R.I.1970).

Recent challenges to confine-than the prison population suffers generally have split the courts. Some courts take the position that punitive confinement, whether or not it is labelled as "punishment," requires some semblance of due process. See, e. g., Sostre v. McGinnis, 442 F.2d 178, 198 (2d Cir. 1971); Nolan v. Scafati, 430 F.2d 548, 550 (1st Cir. 1970); Howard v. Smyth, 365 F.2d 428, 429-430 (4th Cir.), cert. denied 385 U.S. 988, 87 S.Ct. 599, 17 L.Ed.2d 449 (1966). See also Urbano v. McCorkle, 334 F.Supp. 161 (D.N.J.1971); Landman v. Royster, 333 F.Supp. 621 (E.D. Va.1971); Clutchette v. Procunier, 328 F.Supp. 767 (N.D.Cal.1971); Bundy v. Cannon, 328 F.Supp. 165 (D.Md.1971); Carter v. McGinnis, 320 F.Supp. 1092 (W.D.N.Y.1970); Smoake v. Fritz, 320 F.Supp. 609 (S.D.N.Y.1970); Kritsky v. McGinnis, 313 F.Supp. 1247 (N.D.N.Y. 1970). Other courts flatly refuse to subject prison disciplinary proceedings to judicial scrutiny in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. See, e. g., Young v. Wainwright, 449 F.2d 338 (5th Cir. 1971); Burns v. Swenson, 430 F.2d 711 (8th Cir. 1970); Courtney v. Bishop, 409 F.2d 1185 (8th Cir. 1969); United States ex rel. Knight v. Ragen, 337 F.2d 425 (7th Cir. 1964). Most recent cases, even those denying relief, at least implicitly recognize the principle that rudimentary due process requires the authorities to confront the prisoner with an accusation, inform him of the evidence against him, and afford him a reasonable opportunity to present his version of the facts. See, e. g., Tyree v. Fitzpatrick, 325 F.Supp. 554 (D.Mass. 1971), aff'd 445 F.2d 627 (8th Cir. 1971). Although the courts must accord prison officials considerable latitude in matters of internal discipline, the courts must also endeavor to distinguish mere matters of discipline from arbitrary and capricious disregard of human rights. Even convicted criminals cannot be constitutionally subjected to a regime under which their rights are dependent on the actions of prison officials wholly unaccountable in the exercise of their power.

The courts are unanimous in providing a federal forum for attacks on conditions of confinement alleged to violate the explicit constitutional mandate against cruel and unusual punishment. In our own times, the courts have not hesitated to import the Eighth Amendment into the prison context to vindicate those civilized standards of humanity and decency which circumscribe the power of the State to punish those who transgress its laws. See, e. g., Sostre v. Rockefeller, 312 F.Supp. 863 (S.D.N.Y. 1970); Hancock v. Avery, 301 F.Supp. 786 (M.D.Tenn.1969); Fulwood v. Clemmer, 206 F.Supp. 370 (D.D.C.1962). Although the Supreme Court has not detailed the scope of the proscription against cruel and unusual punishment, which applies to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 82 S.Ct. 1417, 8 L.Ed.2d 758 (1962), it has observed that "the basic concept underlying the Eighth Amendment is nothing less than the dignity of man." Certainly its scope is not static; rather, it "must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 100-101, 78 S.Ct. 590, 597, 2 L.Ed.2d 630 (1958).

The initial thrust of this case was the plaintiffs' complaint that the conditions of their confinement violated the Eighth Amendment. Because the content of what may be called, for want of a better phrase, the reality of confinement is so elusive, ...