Ford v. Clarke

• Citation: 746 F.Supp.2d 273
• Decision Date: 30 September 2010
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 07–11457–JGD.
• Parties: Albert FORD, Plaintiff,v.Harold CLARKE, et al., Defendants.
• Court: United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts

746 F.Supp.2d 273

Albert FORD, Plaintiff,

v.Harold CLARKE, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 07–11457–JGD.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

Sept. 30, 2010.

Lisa J. Pirozzolo, Emily R. Schulman, Dimple Chaudhary, Timothy D. Syrett, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, for Plaintiff.Julie E. Daniele, Department of Correction, Boston, MA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON PARTIES' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

DEIN, United States Magistrate Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

The plaintiff, Albert Ford (“Ford”), has brought this action challenging his confinement in the Departmental Disciplinary Unit (“DDU”) at MCI–Cedar Junction while a pretrial detainee and, later, as a convicted felon serving his sentence. The remaining defendants (collectively, the “DOC defendants”) are the Deputy Commissioner of Correction, James Bender (“Bender”), and the Superintendent of MCI–Cedar Junction, Peter St. Amand (“St. Amand”), in their official and individual capacities.¹ Presently before the court are Ford's claims in his First Amended Complaint (Docket No. 52) that his confinement in the DDU, first as a pretrial detainee and later as a convicted prisoner, deprived him of his federal and state substantive due process (Counts I and II), procedural due process (Counts III and IV), and equal protection rights (Counts VII and VIII), and violated the prohibition against “infamous punishment” found in Article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights (Count IX).

The matter is presently before the court on the “DOC Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment” (Docket No. 90) and on “Plaintiff Albert Ford's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment” (Docket No. 94). For all the reasons detailed below, each of the parties' motions for summary judgment is ALLOWED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, this court holds that Bender and St. Amand violated Ford's substantive due process rights (Counts I and II) by confining Ford in the DDU as a pretrial detainee as punishment for his 2003 conduct, and that Bender violated Ford's procedural due process rights (Counts III and IV) by confining Ford in the DDU without a hearing as a pretrial detainee and, later, as a convicted felon serving a sentence. Further, this court holds that Bender and St. Amand are not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Ford's confinement as a pretrial detainee, but that Bender is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Ford's subsequent confinement in the DDU as a convicted felon.

The defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the equal protection claims (Counts VII and VIII) is denied as there are material facts in dispute. Finally, the DOC defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Ford's claim of “infamous punishment.” (Count IX).

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS ²

The following material facts are undisputed unless otherwise indicated.

This case arises out of Ford's confinement by the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) in the DDU at MCI–Cedar Junction from January through March 2007, and from June 2007 to the present, pursuant to a disciplinary sanction that Ford received in 2003 while incarcerated for a prior conviction. ( See Am. Compl. (Docket No. 52) ¶¶ 16–24, 28). MCI–Cedar Junction is a maximum security facility located in Walpole, Massachusetts. (DF ¶ 4; PR ¶ 4). The DDU is “a restricted area or areas designated by the Commissioner [of Correction] to which an inmate has received a recommended sentence by a Special Hearing Officer.” 103 C.M.R. § 430.06. “Inmates can be sentenced to the DDU only after a disciplinary officer finds that such a sentence may be warranted and forwards a copy of the disciplinary report to a special hearing officer, the prisoner is notified of the possibility of a DDU sentence, and a hearing is held.” DuPont v. Comm'r of Corr., 448 Mass. 389, 392–93, 861 N.E.2d 744, 747–48 (2007) (citing 103 C.M.R. §§ 430.08, 430.09 & 430.11 (1995)). Moreover, an inmate may be confined there only after the Special Hearing Officer finds the inmate guilty of a disciplinary infraction warranting DDU placement. (PF ¶ 4; DR ¶ 4).

Defendant Bender is the Deputy Commissioner of the Prison Division of the DOC. (PF ¶ 1; DR ¶ 1). At all relevant times, his responsibilities included, but were not limited to, overseeing day-to-day operations at the DOC's correctional facilities, including the care and custody of convicted inmates, civilly committed inmates and pretrial detainees. ( See PF ¶ 2; DR ¶ 2). Defendant St. Amand has been the Superintendent at MCI–Cedar Junction since May 2007. (Pl. Ex. C at 17). In that capacity, St. Amand is responsible for overseeing the entire operation of the prison, including operations in the DDU, and is responsible for the care and custody of all inmates at the facility. ( Id. at 17–18).

Conditions in the DDU ³

While in the DDU, inmates are held for approximately 23 hours a day in a cell measuring about 7 by 12 feet. (PF ¶ 5; DR ¶ 5). Each cell contains a cement bed, a cement desk, a cement stool, a small cement shelf, a mirror, a sink and a toilet. (PF ¶ 5; Pl. Supp. Ex. B at 30–31). There is a window in the cell's metal door and a window in the back of the cell that measure approximately 18 to 24 inches long and 8 to 10 inches wide. (PF ¶ 5; Pl. Supp. Ex. B at 31). Because the toilet is located toward the front of the cell, inmates using their toilets are visible through the window in the cell door. (PF ¶ 5; Pl. Supp. Ex. B at 32). Inmates are not allowed to cover the window. (PF ¶ 5; Pl. Supp. Ex. B at 32).

Inmates in the DDU must eat alone in their cells, after receiving food through a slot, and are given 20 minutes to finish their meals. (PF ¶ 7). In addition, they are allowed no more than 5 hours of exercise each week, which takes place outside their cells in a metal cage. (Pl. Supp. Ex. A at 179, 181; Pl. Supp. Ex. C at 27). Anytime a DDU inmate leaves his cell, he must submit to a strip search. (PF ¶ 9). He must also be placed in full restraints, including handcuffs and leg restraints. ( Id.).

Visits to the main law library at MCI–Cedar Junction are not available to DDU inmates, although they do have access to books, which are kept on a book cart located in the satellite library of the unit. (PF ¶ 10; Pl. Supp. Ex. B at 46–47). The book cart contains certain legal materials that are required to be made available by the State. (Pl. Supp. Ex. B at 46–47). DDU inmates also may request that additional legal materials be brought to the DDU from the main law library. ( Id.).

Individuals confined in the DDU begin to earn privileges after 30 days without a disciplinary report. ( See id. at 41). For example, after 30 days of good behavior, an inmate is eligible to receive a radio and also earns a one-hour visit and one thirty-minute telephone call for the upcoming month. ( Id. at 41–44). Inmates can earn up to four telephone calls and four visits per month if they continue to remain on good behavior. ( Id.). However, any visits with family and friends are non-contact, meaning that the inmate and the visitor must remain separated by a glass partition. ( Id. at 42).

Confinement in the DDU serves a number of purposes, including punishment for the commission of serious disciplinary infractions, deterrence from committing future disciplinary infractions, and maintenance of safety and security within the institution, including the safety and security of staff and the remaining inmate population. ( See PF ¶ 4; DR ¶ 4; Pl. Supp. Ex. A at 43–45). Pretrial detainees who are held in the DDU are treated no differently than convicted prisoners who are housed there. (PF ¶ 11).

Ford's Initial Period of Pretrial Confinement in the DDU

On January 17, 2003, while Ford was serving a criminal sentence at MCI–Cedar Junction, Ford received a sanction of 10 years confinement in the DDU. (PF ¶ 12; DR ¶ 12). The sanction, which constituted the maximum DDU sentence available, arose out of an incident where Ford allegedly committed an assault against prison staff. ( See Pl. Supp. Ex. H). The sanction was imposed by a Special Hearing Officer following a DOC disciplinary hearing, which Ford did not attend, and for which he was unable to obtain counsel. ( Id.). The Hearing Officer explained the reasons for her decision as follows:

The maximum DDU sentence has been imposed by this Hearing Officer due to the violent nature of this offense. A review of Inmate Ford's six part folder reveals that Inmate Ford has received five prior DDU sentences for offenses which include being in possession of a weapon, conspiring to introduce heroin and several for him conspiring to assault other inmates which was STG related. In fact, Inmate Ford committed this offense while residing in DDU. Clearly, Inmate Ford is a danger to staff and his continued placement in the Department's most secure setting is warranted. Not only did Inmate Ford violate [DOC] rules, he violated the laws of the Commonwealth as well. His type of assaultive behavior towards staff is totally unacceptable and will be dealt with accordingly. Serious injuries were sustained by the staff members involved in this incident.

( Id.). Subsequently, Ford was indicted in Norfolk County for armed assault with intent to murder arising from the same incident for which he had received the 10–year DDU sanction (the “Assault Charges”). (PF ¶ 13; DR ¶ 13; Docket No. 32 at Ex. K). Ford was still serving his original criminal sentence at the time of his indictment. ( See PF ¶ 14).

On January 2, 2007, four days prior to the expiration of Ford's original criminal sentence, the Norfolk County Sheriff's Office requested that the Norfolk County District Attorney's Office approve Ford's continued confinement in DOC custody pending his trial in Norfolk Superior Court on the Assault Charges. ( Id.). The request was made pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 276, § 52A (“Section 52A”), which provides as follows:

Persons held in jail for trial may, with the...