Collins v. Schoonfield

• Decision Date: 15 May 1972
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 71-500-K.
• Citation: 344 F. Supp. 257
• Parties: Vernon COLLINS et al. v. Hiram L. SCHOONFIELD, Warden, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

344 F. Supp. 257

Vernon COLLINS et al. v. Hiram L. SCHOONFIELD, Warden, et al.

Civ. No. 71-500-K.

United States District Court, D. Maryland.

May 15, 1972.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Stephen H. Sachs, Joseph A. Matera, Michael A. Millemann, Michael Elder, Luther C. West, Baltimore, Md., and Stanley Bass, New York City, for plaintiffs.

George L. Russell, Jr., City Sol., Ambrose T. Hartman, Deputy City Sol., William Hughes, Carol S. Sugar and Neil J. Lewis, Asst. City Sol., Baltimore, Md., for defendants.

FRANK A. KAUFMAN, District Judge.

On May 7, 1971, this suit was instituted by eight pre-trial detainees then in the Baltimore City Jail. Prior to the commencement of trial on January 10, 1972, an amended complaint was filed by seven of the original named plaintiffs¹ plus one additional plaintiff, also a pre-trial detainee. By the time of trial, several of the original and continuing plaintiffs had been tried and either released from, or continued in post-trial, confinement in the Jail. Defendants are the Jail's Warden and two Deputy Wardens, and the President, Secretary, two members and an ex-officio member of the Baltimore City Jail Board.² Equitable and declaratory relief is sought by all plaintiffs against all defendants. Monetary damages are claimed by seven of the eight current plaintiffs against the Warden and the two Deputy Wardens.³ Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S. C. § 1343, the jurisdictional counterpart of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.⁴

Eleven equitable issues are presented herein, as follows:

1. The constitutionality of solitary confinement including the constitutionality of:

a. Isolation cells which are barren of any internal furnishings;

b. Isolation cells which have only a combination sink/toilet as a furnishing 2. The constitutionality of maximum security confinement, confinement in a cell without release for recreation, outside exercise, showers, commissary privileges, visits, etc.;

3. The constitutionality of summary ex parte punishment or denial of privileges without observing minimal rudiments of procedural due process;

4. The constitutionality of policies which require or authorize the censoring, reading and/or photocopying of mail between inmates and their attorneys, judges and judicial officers, legislators and public officials, friends, family members and newsmen or representatives of the media;

5. Whether or not there is a denial or significant delay in medical services and health care delivery to inmates denying them constitutional rights;

6. Whether or not the food and diet afforded plaintiffs and the method of delivering that diet denies them basic constitutional rights;

7. Whether or not policies which restrict both legal and non-legal visits deny plaintiffs constitutional rights;

8. Whether or not the aggregate conditions and policies at the jail so substantially impede trial preparation as to deny plaintiffs constitutional rights;

9. Whether or not policies and practices at the jail regarding the access of inmates to literature and their ability to receive literature, including books, newspapers, magazines, etc., denies plaintiffs constitutional rights;

10. Whether or not the practices and policies of the Baltimore City Jail governing the frequency with which inmates may attend religious services or receive visits from clergymen denies plaintiffs constitutional rights;

11. Whether or not the confinement of plaintiffs under the aggregate conditions and policies in this case denies them equal protection of the laws.⁵

The parties agreed that the equitable issues should be tried separately from the damage claims and that the former should be tried first. The plaintiffs have not asked for a jury trial of the damage or any other claims. However, the Warden and the two Deputy Wardens, from whom monetary damages are sought, have reserved their respective individual rights to a jury trial of the damage claims. In advance of trial of the equitable issues counsel for both sides agreed that the first equitable issue, i. e., the constitutionality of solitary confinement in the Jail, and the damage claims growing out of specific alleged instances of such confinement, might pose for determination common questions of disputed fact and that under the principles set forth in Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469, 82 S.Ct. 894, 8 L.Ed.2d 44 (1962), and its progeny,⁶ the Warden and the two Deputy Wardens have the right not to have any disputed fact found in a non-jury trial of the first equitable issue which would be relevant and material in the later trial of the damage claims.⁷ Additionally, during trial, it became apparent to Court and counsel that the non-jury trial of equitable issues 2-10, inclusive, might also require the finding of facts which might not be entirely unconnected with disputed factual areas presented by the solitary confinement issue and/or the monetary damage claims. For that reason, counsel and each of the parties have agreed that no facts found by this Court in this opinion will be used as evidence in the trial still to be held, nor will the transcript of the trial, which has been held, "be used, in any manner, by any party to this litigation" during the trial still to be held though none of the parties are prohibited from seeking to introduce in that future trial "any evidence" used in the trial which has been held.⁸

Plaintiffs, in connection with their claims for equitable and declaratory but not for monitary relief, sought, and have been permitted by this Court, to bring this case as a class action under Federal Civil Rule 23(b) (2).⁹ Defendants, however, challenged the jurisdiction of this Court and moved to dismiss this case under Federal Civil Rule 12(b) upon that ground and also for failure of the complaint, as originally filed and as amended, to allege any violation of the Federal Constitution or of any federal statute and thus to state any cause of action, for equitable, declaratory or monetary relief, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Treating that motion as a motion for summary judgment under Federal Civil Rule 56 because of the existence of pre-trial factual stipulations and the presentation of documents outside of the pleadings (see Federal Civil Rule 12(b)), this Court, prior to trial, denied the defendants' motion without prejudice to the right of the defendants to reassert subsequently, during or after trial, any of the contentions set forth in the motion. Also, prior to trial, the defendants filed an answer denying any conduct by them in violation of any federal constitutional or statutory provision.

Plaintiffs' allegations claim, inter alia, violations by defendants of the proscription of the Eighth Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment, of the guarantees of the First and Sixth Amendments, and of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.¹⁰ While federal courts have historically been loathe to interfere in the operation of state and local prisons, they have long since recognized that a person entering a non-federal confinement institution does not leave all of his constitutional rights behind him,¹¹ even though those rights are obviously subject to great curtailment in post-conviction confinement and to a lesser extent in pre-trial confinement. And in an increasing number of suits, the federal courts have entertained complaints of prisoners in non-federal institutions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, without requiring exhaustion of state court remedies and without abstaining in order to permit a state court proceeding to be filed and prosecuted.¹² Nevertheless, a federal court may only invalidate such practices of a state institution if those practices constitute violations of federally guaranteed rights. Accordingly, this Court, no matter how completely it may be convinced by the testimony of expert witnesses concerning the lack of wisdom and the inadequacy of certain practices at the Jail, or the superiority of alternative methods, may only require the cessation of such practices as are violative of federal constitutional precepts. In this case, the evidence establishes the merit of some of plaintiffs' allegations of denial of constitutional rights. Defendants have defended, at least in part, by noting their oft-expressed requests for additional money to employ and provide more and better trained personnel, physical facilities, programs, and the like. But constitutional deficiencies are not obliterated by such apologia.¹³

There are certain minimum standards below which today's society cannot sink in its treatment of those of its members who must, for one reason or another, be confined in jails and prisons. Those minimums must be read within the constitutional setting of 1972, not that of 1789. Conditions of confinement which may have been acceptable in that earlier year do not necessarily pass current constitutional muster.¹⁴ But it is only that failure which constitutes violation of today's minimum requirements which a federal court can proscribe in a case such as this. Over a federally operated confinement institution, a federal court may perhaps have supervisory power, as may a state court in Maryland or in any other state, over the operation of its own state institutions.¹⁵ But this Court has no supervisory power as such over the Baltimore City Jail.¹⁶ Thus, each of plaintiffs' complaints herein must be weighed and considered in terms of whether they violate the minimal standards established by the guarantees and the proscriptions of our Federal Constitution, not in terms of what this Court might or might not think is the best or the better practice.

It is also necessary at the outset of this opinion to differentiate between pre-trial detainees and those confined after conviction.¹⁷ The latter are subject to such measures as are justifiable in order to achieve the purposes of confining persons found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of commission of crime. Those purposes encompass the...