Little v. Shelby County, Tenn.
| Citation | 384 F.Supp.2d 1169 |
| Decision Date | 16 June 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-2520 M1.,96-2520 M1. |
| Parties | Darius D. LITTLE, Plaintiff, v. SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee |
Robert L. Hutton, Adam F. Glankler, Glankler Brown, PLLC, Memphis, TN, for Plaintiff.
Don D. Strother, Shelby County Sheriff's Office Legal Advisor, Fred E. Jones, Jr., City Attorney's Office, Kathleen Spruill, County Attorney's Office, Memphis, TN, for Defendants.
ORDER AND OPINION PURGING DEFENDANTS OF CONTEMPT
On December 22, 2000, the Court issued an Opinion Finding Defendants in Contempt of Court for failing to implement specific steps ordered by Judge Turner in his orders of November 12, 1997, and November 24, 1999, to correct the unconstitutional conditions at the Shelby County Jail ("the Jail").1 Following the finding of contempt, Defendants created a new remedial scheme that was effectively adopted by the Court as the remedial plan to correct the unconstitutional conditions at the Jail. The Court held hearings in this case on April 15, 2005, and on April 19, 2005, to determine whether Defendants should no longer be held in contempt of Court.2
The long history of unconstitutional conditions at the Jail during the period between 1987 and 2001 was conceded by the Defendants. The following quote from the report of Defendants' expert, Dr. Jeffrey A. Schwartz, summarizes the conditions that were present at the Jail:
Prior to 2001, the Shelby County Jail had a twenty year history of abysmal leadership, mismanagement, nepotism and cronyism, low hiring standards and poor personnel practices, lack of staff training and other resources and a profound lack of concern, support or accountability from both the Sheriff's Office and the rest of the Shelby County government. These factors produced an overcrowded jail that was dangerous for inmates and staff alike, a jail in which the living units were largely controlled by gangs and in which assaults, rapes, stabbings, escapes and suicides were relatively commonplace events. The jail was filthy and in poor repair; staff were unprofessional with inmates and with each other and there was a well-established pattern of excessive force. Food service, medical and mental health services were deplorable and other services such as inmate classification and inmate programming were dysfunctional or simply lacking. The rest of the Shelby County Sheriff's Office had metaphorically disinherited the jail and its staff, routinely refusing to recognize them as part of the same organization. The jail had not been certified by the Tennessee Corrections Institute (TCI) for many years and it is difficult to imagine how the jail's image in the community could have been much worse.
(Jeffrey A. Schwartz, A Review of the Shelby County Jail, March 2005, ("Schwartz Report"), Hearing Ex. 2, at 7.) (Docket No. 810.) Until the December 22, 2000, Opinion Finding Defendants in Contempt of Court, Defendants failed to take steps to remedy these conditions. (Id. at 59-60.) Since the finding of contempt, Defendants have developed and taken steps to implement a new remedial scheme that has alleviated the unconstitutional conditions at the Jail. For the following reasons, the Court FINDS that Defendants have PURGED themselves of contempt through the implementation of this new remedial scheme.
Plaintiff Darius Little, while incarcerated in the Jail on September 27, 1995, was raped by three gang members who were also incarcerated in the Jail. No guard was present to prevent Plaintiff from being raped. In addition, during the time of Plaintiff's incarceration, guards were rarely present to observe the inmates.
The present case was filed on May 14, 1996, and alleged that Plaintiff's civil rights were violated under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.3 The case was originally assigned to the late Honorable Jerome Turner and was transferred to this Court on March 6, 2000. On September 12, 1996, Judge Turner issued a Consent Order in which Defendants stipulated to their liability under § 1983 for violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
On November 12, 1997, the Court issued an Order Granting Injunctive Relief to Remedy Unconstitutional Conditions in Shelby County Jail and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Support of Order Granting Injunctive Relief to Remedy Unconstitutional Conditions in the Shelby County Jail ("Findings of Fact"). ;
In his findings of fact, Judge Turner described the conditions at the Jail concerning population capacity, intake and classification of inmates, inmate supervision, noise level, gang activity, data collection and certification.4 Judge Turner found that the following factors would reduce the risk of violence and sexual assault in the Jail: (1) continual supervision of inmates; (2) properly classifying inmates, and separating inmates who are likely to assault other inmates; and (3) separating inmates who are likely to be victims of assault. (Id. at 5-6.) In addition, Judge Turner found that increased guard supervision would reduce the likelihood of physical and sexual assaults on inmates in the Jail and that continuous twenty-four hour supervision of the cell block should also reduce physical and sexual assaults in the Jail. (Id. at 6.)
The November 12, 1997, order required the Jail to make several changes with respect to the manner in which it was operated:5
1. Classification. Within 90 days of the entry of this order, each inmate admitted to the Shelby County Jail will be confidentially interviewed by classification staff prior to such inmate's cell assignment to determine if such inmate has known enemies from whom he should be separated; protective custody needs; or gang involvement. Information will be collected during the initial classification interview to determine if such inmate has assaulted other inmates during prior incarcerations, or has been a victim of an assault by another inmate during prior incarcerations, or fears he may be victimized by another inmate, or has gang affiliations or previous conviction for violent crimes. This information shall become part of an automated inmate information system, which shall be developed and implemented as soon as practicable, using good faith efforts but no later than nine months from the entry of this order to insure that potential victims are separated from known predators (i.e., inmates who have assaulted other inmates.) All housing unit assignments will be made by classification staff only. Within six months after the entry of this order, all staff assigned to classification will complete a course of classification interviewing training designed to insure compliance with this order.
2. Housing. Any inmate who is classified as violent (a level V, VI, or VII on the current classification scale) shall never be housed in a cell with more than one other inmate. Whenever it becomes necessary to assign two inmates to the same cell, classification officers will not house potential victims with known predators. Furthermore, inmates classified as violent (i.e., those indicated by a red dot on the wrist band under the current classification system), and inmates with a known history of violence, will not be housed with inmates classified as nonviolent (indicated by a blue, green, or yellow dot on the wristband, under the current classifications). When a compatible housing assignment cannot be made, the inmate shall be housed in a single cell. As soon as reasonably possible, but no later than nine months after the entry of this order, the facility shall implement a policy requiring single-celling for those inmates who have not yet been fully classified.
3. Inmates Supervision. A separate cell block officer shall be continuously assigned to each of the cell blocks in which inmates are incarcerated, on the lower level of the current jail facility whenever any of the cells in such cell block house two or more inmates. Each cell block officer shall monitor the cell block to he/she is assigned continuously to assure the inmates housed together in the same cell are housed compatibly. Only under documented emergencies involving risk of safety to cell block officers or inmates will cell block officers supervise more than two adjacent cell blocks at a time, and shall only do so for the time period necessary to resolve such emergency. The continuous monitoring required by this order shall be implemented as soon as reasonably possible, but no later than nine months from the date of entry of this order.
4. Cell Block officers assigned to housing duties on floors 2, 3 and 4 of the current jail facility will also continuously supervise individual cell blocks in which inmates are incarcerated to assure compatibility. Cell block officers may only be removed from their assigned cell blocks for documented emergencies involving risks of safety to cell block officers or inmates, and then only for the time period necessary to resolve such emergency. Under no circumstances shall a cell block officer supervise more than two adjacent cell blocks at a time. It is the intent of this order that there shall be a separate cell block officer assigned at all times to supervise each cell block in the current facility on floors 2, 3 and 4, when such cell block houses inmates and are not totally locked down for the entire shift. Every cell block shall have its own cell block officer continuously supervising such cell block except...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe v. Shelby Cnty. Gov't
...also points to statements by the Shelby County Sheriff in 2008 admitting that there is a problem of sex in jails, along with the Little v. Shelby County Consent Order. (Id. at PageID 9-11.) These articles certainly outline the problems at Shelby County in the past, but do not point to a "cl......