Stewart v. Gates, CV 75-3075-WPG.

Decision Date03 May 1978
Docket NumberNo. CV 75-3075-WPG.,CV 75-3075-WPG.
PartiesJerry E. STEWART and Richard Eugene Smith et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Brad GATES et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Central District of California

Terry Smerling, Fred Okrand, Jill Jakes, Mark D. Rosenbaum, ACLU Foundation of Southern California, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiffs.

Adrian Kuyper, County Counsel, Arthur C. Wahlstedt, Jr., Asst. County Counsel, Santa Ana, Cal., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

WILLIAM P. GRAY, District Judge.

This class action, which raises constitutional challenges of practices and conditions of confinement of prisoners at the Orange County Central Jail in Santa Ana, California, has been tried, argued, briefed and submitted to this court for decision.

In my Memorandum to Counsel of January 26, 1978, I disposed of some of the issues of fact listed in the pretrial order, beginning at page 14. I shall undertake here to state my findings and conclusions with respect to the remaining issues.

In reaching such findings and conclusions, and in rendering judgment thereon, I have tried to be mindful of two well established principles. On the one hand, this court has the obligation to protect the constitutional rights of prisoners to due process and equal protection of the laws, and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. On the other hand, courts must be careful to refrain from imposing upon jail administrators their personal views as to how penal institutions should be operated and the conditions under which inmates should live.

It is not difficult to recognize and enter orders against extremely bad living conditions or harsh and cruel discipline as being in violation of constitutional rights. But the question of whether less onerous treatment that may be undesirable, or even deplorable, is bad enough to be termed a constitutional deprivation presents some very difficult problems. In undertaking to resolve these matters, this court has tried to limit its interference to situations in which a constitutional right is quite clearly involved. As to these matters, the court intends to make certain that the remedial actions that it directs are accomplished. However, there are a number of situations in which corrective measures appear desirable but the court refrains from issuing orders, in the belief that the problem involved does not reach constitutional proportions. Some of these instances are "borderline," and in withholding its hand the court takes considerable comfort in the conviction that the defendant Sheriff and his staff are genuinely desirous of administering the County Jail in such manner as to give all reasonable consideration to the comfort and sensibilities of the inmates. In accordance with such belief, this memorandum contains certain recommendations that counsel for the defendants are requested to transmit to his clients for their consideration.

The following paragraphs are numbered according to the similarly numbered issues of fact in the pretrial order to which they pertain.

5. The defendants do read, on a selective basis, prisoners' outgoing and incoming mail. This is done, not for the broad purpose of censorship, but in furtherance of "the substantial governmental interests of security, order, and rehabilitation", as these terms are used in Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 413, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 1811, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974). In light of that decision, this court cannot enjoin such process of examination. However, this court invites the attention of the defendants to the admonition in the opinion in Martinez that ". . . the limitation of First Amendment freedoms must be no greater than is necessary or essential to the protection of the particular governmental interest involved." (416 U.S. at 413, 94 S.Ct. at 1811). The opinion also suggested that ". . . the weight of professional opinion seems to be that inmate freedom to correspond with outsiders advances rather than retards the goal of rehabilitation . . .." (416 U.S. at 412, 94 S.Ct. at 1811).

Under these circumstances, the court commends to the defendants that they give consideration to the likelihood, or at least the possibility, that, except in unusual circumstances, outgoing mail need not be examined at all and that incoming mail should be checked only for contraband.

6. and 7. It is well established that public interest does require that some people accused of crime be held in custody pending trial. But pretrial prisoners have a right that no more restraints shall be placed upon their liberty than such custody reasonably entails. This clearly means that they must be allowed to communicate by telephone with members of their families, or with anyone else they choose, at all reasonable times. As the defendants suggest, there is always the possibility that plans concerning escape or importation of contraband may be hatched or developed through telephone conversations, and there is the ever present risk that fraudulently placed long distance calls may result in expense to Orange County. The existence of these dangers, which may be reduced by reasonable monitoring and supervision, cannot justify preventing or unduly limiting prisoners in their use of the telephone.

Telephone facilities available to inmates, as of January 26, 1978, are entirely inadequate and much too inaccessible. Not less than sixteen additional telephones should be installed in locations that the defendants shall determine to be most reasonably accessible. These telephones, and all other telephones installed for inmates' use, should be made available to the inmates for outgoing calls at reasonable times upon request, subject to priorities of emergency and rotation.

8. Visits to prisoners take place daily over periods of at least six hours, each inmate being allowed one visit of thirty minutes, five days per week. Minor children must be accompanied by adults, and former inmates may not be visitors within sixty days following their release from the jail. The defendants relate the latter restriction to the requirements of institutional security, and in this they must be upheld. In Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 94 S.Ct. 2800, 41 L.Ed.2d 495 (1974), the Court was confronted with a challenge to a similar regulation. The opinion stated:

"In this case the restriction takes the form of limiting visitations to individuals who have either a personal or professional relationship to the inmate — family, friends of prior acquaintance, legal counsel, and clergy. In the judgment of the state corrections officials, this visitation policy will permit inmates to have personal contact with those persons who will aid in their rehabilitation, while keeping visitations at a manageable level that will not compromise institutional security. Such considerations are peculiarly within the province and professional expertise of corrections officials, and, in the absence of substantial evidence in the record to indicate that the officials have exaggerated their response to these considerations, courts should ordinarily defer to their expert judgment in such matters. Courts cannot, of course, abdicate their constitutional responsibility to delineate and protect fundamental liberties. But when the issue involves a regulation limiting one of several means of communication by an inmate, the institutional objectives furthered by that regulation and the measure of judicial deference owed to corrections officials in their attempt to serve those interests are relevant in gauging the validity of the regulation." (417 U.S. at 827, 94 S.Ct. 2800 at 2806).

It is understandable that the defendants are reluctant to receive unaccompanied minors as visitors at the jail. On the other hand, a prisoner may have teenage children that are fully capable of coming alone and who otherwise would be unable to visit their parent. Accordingly, inmates should be permitted, upon prior request, to receive unaccompanied visits from their minor children.

10. The defendants now allow visitors to bring books, magazines and newspapers that are delivered to inmates after inspection. However, prisoners are not permitted to receive such material through the mail, other than from publishers or other dealers whose identities can be recognized from the packages. The court is aware that to allow prisoners to receive any packages through the mail creates substantial and somewhat expensive problems of inspection, in order to minimize the risks that explosives or other contraband may be involved. However, the court believes that the right of a prisoner to receive reading material of his own selection is so strong that it outweighs the resulting burden upon the defendants. The family or friends of some inmates may live so far from the jail that it is not feasible for them to hand carry books or magazines from their personal libraries. The mail should be available for such delivery, subject to reasonable inspection.

12. The defendants have presented schedules to support their contention that the general inmate population at the men's jail is allowed two hours and twenty minutes of outdoor roof recreation per week. The court is inclined to accept the defendants' assurance in this respect and finds that, under all of the circumstances, such an amount of time for exercise is barely sufficient. Accordingly, no order on this subject will be rendered.

However, based upon the testimony of several inmates, it appears likely that in some instances the actual stay on the roof is less than two hours and twenty minutes per week, due to occasional shaving of schedules and underestimation of the time spent in transit between cell and roof. It is recommended to the Sheriff that he monitor the exercise program in order to make certain that the full two hours and twenty minutes per week are allowed, and to see if this minimal time cannot be expanded.

14. The six-man cells and the four-man cells...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Alexander S. v. Boyd
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • February 17, 1995
    ...cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1042, 103 S.Ct. 1438, 75 L.Ed.2d 795 (1983); Williams v. Edwards, 547 F.2d 1206 (5th Cir.1977); Stewart v. Gates, 450 F.Supp. 583 (C.D.Cal. 1978); Rutherford v. Pitchess, 457 F.Supp. 104 (C.D.Cal.1978); Jordan v. Wolke, 460 F.Supp. 1080 (E.D.Wis.1978), rev'd, 615 F.2d......
  • Pierce v. Cnty. of Orange
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • March 2, 2012
    ...eventually encompassed allegations that the County was violating fourteen existing injunctions entered in Stewart v. Gates, 450 F.Supp. 583 (C.D.Cal.1978) (the “Stewart injunctions”), which set standards for pre-trial detention in Orange County jails. Plaintiffs also sought relief for the s......
  • Pierce v. County of Orange
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • March 24, 2008
    ...Plaintiffs further assert that they have been deprived of a number of the federal rights previously recognized in Stewart v. Gates, 450 F.Supp. 583 (C.D.Cal.1978) ("Stewart") — a decision and resulting injunctive orders ("the Stewart orders" or "the Stewart injunction") that established......
  • Pierce v. County of Orange
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • March 24, 2008
    ...Plaintiffs further assert that they have been deprived of a number of the federal rights previously recognized in Stewart v. Gates, 450 F.Supp. 583 (C.D.Cal.1978) ("Stewart")—a decision and resulting injunctive orders ("the Stewart orders" or "the Stewart injunction") that established s......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • No Bond, No Body, and No Return of Service: the Failure to Honor Misdemeanor and Gross Misdemeanor Warrants in the State of Washington
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 26-03, March 2003
    • Invalid date
    ...caps. 62. Gates v. Mun. Court for Dist. of Orange County, 9 Cal. App. 4th 45, 11 Cal. Rptr. 2d 439 (1992). 63. Stewart v. Gates, 450 F. Supp. 583, 590 (C.D. Cal. 1978). 64. Gates, 9 Cal. App. at 49. 65. Id. 66. Id. at 49-50. 67. Id. at 51. Cf. Kent County Prosecuting Attorney v. Kent County......
  • Jail Litigation in California: An Empirical Assessment
    • United States
    • Prison Journal, The No. 71-1, March 1991
    • March 1, 1991
    ...Cases), Crim. No. 22427 (Cal. Sup. Ct., filed September 20,1984) Rliodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 377 (1981). Stewart et al. v. Gates et al. 450 F. Supp. 583 (C.D. Cal. 1978) Wilson v. Szcperior Court (Branson), 240 Cal. Rptr. 131 (1987). Yancey v. Rainey, No. 29868 (Cal. Super. Ct., County of ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT