Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Eisenstadt, 73-1377.

Decision Date08 April 1974
Docket NumberNo. 73-1377.,73-1377.
PartiesINMATES OF the SUFFOLK COUNTY JAIL et al., Plaintiffs, Appellees, v. Thomas S. EISENSTADT, etc., et al., Defendants, Appellees, Frank A. Hall, Defendant, Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

Terence P. O'Malley, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom Robert H. Quinn, Atty. Gen., and Walter H. Mayo, III, Asst. Atty. Gen. were on brief, for appellant.

Max D. Stern, Boston, Mass., with whom Burnham, Stern & Shapiro, Matthew Feinberg, Boston, Mass., and Stanley A. Bass, NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, New York City, were on brief, for Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, appellees.

Lawrence J. Ball, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Boston, Mass., with whom Kevin F. Moloney, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Boston, Mass., was on brief, for Sheriff of Suffolk County, and others, appellees.

Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, ALDRICH and CAMPBELL, Circuit Judges.

LEVIN H. CAMPBELL, Circuit Judge.

The Massachusetts Commissioner of Correction appeals from an order of the district court entered in aid of its judgment rendered in an action brought by inmates of Boston's Charles Street Jail (the "Jail"). 360 F.Supp. 676 (D.Mass. 1973). The inmates had sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaining of unconstitutional conditions at the Jail, and the court, after extended proceedings, had found that the "quality of incarceration at Charles Street is `punishment' of such a nature and degree that it cannot be justified by the state's interest in holding defendants for trial; and therefore it violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." Id. 360 F. Supp. at 686. Defendants in the inmates' action were the Commissioner and officials of Suffolk County, including the sheriff, master of the Jail, and county commissioners. Though the Jail is administered by the county rather than the state, the Commissioner holds significant statutory responsibilities and powers relevant to the Jail, infra.

In the court's judgment entered June 20, 1973, from which they took no appeal, all defendants, including the Commissioner, were enjoined from housing in any cell at the Jail after November 30, 1973, more than one inmate awaiting trial. The court remarked in its opinion that achieving single cell occupancy would likely require a reduction in the population, and that defendants should consider transferring inmates to other state and county institutions. Id. 360 F.Supp. at 690. The transfer of women inmates to the Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Framingham, a state facility for women controlled by the Commissioner, was mentioned as a means to free additional cells, the women's section at Charles Street being underutilized.

By mid-November, the court had been advised by the Suffolk County officials that they could not comply with the November 30 deadline for ending multiple cell occupancy since there was no place under their control to put the surplus inmates. Appellant Commissioner, doubtless hard pressed by budgetary and other constraints, offered no cooperation; yet it had become apparent that the unconstitutional crowding at the Jail could be relieved immediately only through the use of space and facilities outside Suffolk County which the Commissioner alone had the statutory power to command.1

Faced with the County's dilemma, the district court ordered the Commissioner to cooperate with the sheriff to arrange for a transfer of female inmates from the Jail to other institutions. The situation remained static, however, and four days later the court, after calculating the maximum number that could be accommodated at the Jail under a single cell plan, and after ascertaining that there were sufficient vacancies elsewhere for the overflow, entered the order from which the Commissioner has appealed. It requires the Commissioner to transfer all women confined at the Jail to the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Framingham, or to any other state or county facility for the detention of women inmates, pursuant to his statutory authority to effect state-wide transfers. The order also requires male detainees with state felony records to be transferred to other state or county institutions whenever needed to ensure single cell occupancy at the Jail. In its memorandum accompanying the order, the court stated that the Commissioner was "the only person in the Commonwealth" in a position to arrange for the confinement of the women inmates elsewhere than at the Jail; and likewise that only the Commissioner had the necessary authority to transfer male detainees.

Appeal from the order was taken solely by the Commissioner. Suffolk County officials support it. We hold the order to be valid.

Appellant does not argue to us that unconstitutional conditions at the Jail could be better relieved by a different plan, or that facilities exist in Suffolk County for the surplus inmates. Indeed, he could scarcely do so, since the court entered the order only after the Commissioner and other defendants were unable to come up with any reasonable alternative. Nor does appellant claim that compliance is impossible.

Appellant's contention is simply that the district court lacked power to order him to make transfers "without a showing of unconstitutional conduct on his part." However, appellant underestimates his own statutory duties respecting the Jail and its inmates, as well as the district court's equitable powers to remedy violations of the Constitution. See, e. g., Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 15, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971).

When the inmates' complaint was filed, the Commissioner, besides his unique state-wide transfer powers, had "general supervision of jails and houses of correction," M.G.L. c. 124, § 1(a). This has recently been sharpened to present language directing him to "establish . . . minimum standards for the care and custody of all persons committed to county correctional facilities",2 and to secure compliance with such standards. M.G.L. c. 127, § 1A. See also M.G.L....

To continue reading

Request your trial
77 cases
  • Palmigiano v. Garrahy
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island
    • August 10, 1977
    ...F.2d 183, 190 (5th Cir. 1971); Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Eisenstadt, 360 F.Supp. 676, 685-86 (D.Mass.1973), order aff'd, 494 F.2d 1196 (1st Cir. 1974); Smith v. Sampson, 349 F.Supp. 268, 271 (D.N.H.1972); Note, Constitutional Limitations on the Conditions of Pretrial Detention, 79 Y......
  • Nadeau v. Helgemoe
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Hampshire
    • December 6, 1976
    ...at 611-12, 626-27 (one hour daily); Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Eisenstadt, 360 F.Supp. 676, 692 (D.Mass.1973), aff'd, 494 F.2d 1196 (1st Cir. 1974). In the instant case, plaintiffs are allowed on the tier two hours per day and in an outdoor recreation area five times in three weeks f......
  • Dawson v. Kendrick
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • August 10, 1981
    ...401 F.Supp. 835, 878 (M.D.Fla.1975); Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Eisenstadt, 360 F.Supp. 676, 691 (D.Mass.1973), aff'd, 494 F.2d 1196 (1st Cir. 1974); Hamilton v. Landrieu, 351 F.Supp. 549, 550 (E.D.La.1972); Jones v. Wittenberg, 330 F.Supp. 707, 718 (N.D.Ohio 1971), aff'd sub nom. Jo......
  • Miller v. Carson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • July 17, 1975
    ...they have committed against society." Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Eisenstadt, 360 F.Supp. 676, 686 (D.Mass.1973), affirmed 494 F. 2d 1196 (1st Cir. 1974), quoting Hamilton v. Love, 328 F.Supp. 1182, 1191 (E. D.Ark.1971). See also Jones v. Wittenberg, 323 F.Supp. 93, 100 (N.D.Ohio 1971......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Recasting prosecutorial discretion.
    • United States
    • Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 86 No. 3, March 1996
    • March 22, 1996
    ...disciplinary procedures and parole. (165) In Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Eisenstadt, 360 F. Supp. 676 (D. Mass 1973) aff'd, 494 F.2d 1196 (1st Cir. 1974), the court issued an injunction covering almost every aspect of prison life including the wattage of light bulbs. See also Rhem v. ......
  • Jail (e)mail: Free Speech Implications of Granting Inmates Access to Electronic Messaging Services
    • United States
    • University of Whashington School of Law Journal of Law, Technology & Arts No. 11-4, January 2016
    • Invalid date
    ...v. Footman, 215 F.3d 145, 155 (1st Cir. 2000). 63. Inmates of Suffolk Cnty. Jail v. Eisenstadt, 360 F. Supp. 676 (D. Mass. 1973), aff'd, 494 F.2d 1196 (1st Cir. 64. Grayson v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 5:11cv2, 2012 WL 380426, at *3 (N.D. W. Va. Feb. 6, 2012) ("[P]risoners have no First A......

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