Baker v. Holden, Civ. No. 86-C-361G.
| Decision Date | 20 March 1992 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 86-C-361G. |
| Citation | 787 F. Supp. 1008 |
| Parties | Kenneth BAKER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Tamara HOLDEN, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Utah |
Brian M. Barnard, Utah Legal Clinic, Stephen Russell, Michael K. Mohrman, Richards, Brandt, Miller & Nelson, Salt Lake City, Kenneth L. Baker, Draper, Utah, for plaintiffs.
Paul Van Dam, Atty. Gen., Allan Larson, Craig L. Barlow, Kent Barry, Salt Lake City, Utah, for defendants.
These consolidated cases1 are before the court on defendants' Motion to Vacate Preliminary Injunctions maintaining the status quo and prohibiting the lodging of two inmates in one cell, referred to herein as "double celling" or "double bunking," in B, B North, C and D blocks within the Wasatch Unit of the Utah State Prison (USP) at Draper, Utah. These injunctions have been in effect since 1986 in the case of blocks B and C, and since 1988 as to blocks D and B North. A trial was held before the magistrate judge on August 6-10, 1990, and on September 24-25, 1990, following a period of extensive discovery and pre-trial proceedings. Thereafter, on March 18, 1991, an injunction was entered continuing the status quo until the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge could be presented and resolved. An extensive Report and Recommendation by the magistrate judge was rendered on October 25, 1991 (R & R). Defendants filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation, and although plaintiffs did not object they filed a Motion for Additional Findings. A further hearing was held on November 19, 1991, and on December 11, 1991, the magistrate judge issued a supplemental Report and Recommendation (Supp R & R). Thereafter defendants' motion to vacate the preliminary injunctions was renewed, and plaintiffs filed a response thereto on January 23, 1992. The matter was argued extensively to this court on February 5, 1992.
This court reviews Reports and Recommendations of the magistrate judge under references pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) de novo. Accordingly, the court has reviewed the record in this case and on February 11, 1992, conducted a personal inspection of the Wasatch facility at the Utah State Prison.
The Wasatch Unit was constructed in the 1950s and is the oldest of three USP facilities at Southpoint, Draper, Utah. The cells were designed for single inmate occupancy. Wasatch Unit is a medium security facility, composed of inmates classified as medium offenders. In prior litigation in the 1970s state officials entered into a consent decree which obligated them to avoid double bunking.2 That consent decree is not at issue herein, but the Utah Department of Corrections (UDC) officials have planned to double bunk B, B North, C and D blocks since 1986. Those plans were being implemented when the first injunction was issued in 1986. Since then some court approved double bunking was carried out on the first tier of B block and the second tier of C block, and for a very brief period of time on D block. At the present time only one cell on C block, second tier, remains double bunked. Block A is not involved in this litigation.
An extensive recitation of the factual background of this case is set forth in the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation of October 25, 1991, which includes a summary of evidence presented at the trial and proposed findings of fact. Among other things, the magistrate judge found:
Plans for Double Bunking
The Utah Department of Corrections (UDC) has had plans to increase the inmate population of the Wasatch Unit since 1986. The proposal includes double celling inmates in cell blocks C, D, B, and B North of the Wasatch Unit. The double celling plan is intended to "alleviate crowding problems at the prison and to allow some antiquated space to be vacated." R & R at 40.
The magistrate judge determined that plaintiffs carried their burden of proof at the trial against defendant UDC officials as to the mental requirement of "deliberate indifference" in connection with plans for double celling:
The defendants admitted that it has been the UDC's intent since 1986 to double cell the Wasatch unit. The defendants have installed additional bunks in various blocks to accomplish their plans. They began to double bunk cell blocks within the Wasatch unit without regard to conditions until plaintiffs and others brought suit to halt the practice. Further, the defendants were aware of the fact that some areas of the Wasatch unit, if double bunked, may be in violation of constitutional standards. Defendant, DeLand, in his letter to Craig Barlow, the Governor's agent expressly stated `We are going to be in a crisis situation for at least the next year and a half ...' The letter further states `Indeed it will be fortunate if this overcrowding does not lead to litigation which will be tough to defend.' (Emphasis added). DeLand stated he would not `feel comfortable running medium security double bunked at these levels as a permanent solution, given the design problems and limitations that we must deal with.' Thus, since 1986 the State of Utah has known it has serious overcrowding problems with its prison system.
The cell size varies in each of the blocks at the Wasatch Unit. In B North block, for example, the cells are 44 square feet, of which 24 square feet are unencumbered. If double celled, there would be 12 square feet of unencumbered space per inmate. In B block, cells are 53 to 54 square feet leaving 34 square feet of unencumbered space for a single inmate, and 17 square feet per inmate if double celled. In C block, second tier, cells are 84 square feet, and 71 feet excluding the toilet, sink and shower, leaving approximately 30 square feet per occupant if double celled. The cells in D block are 53 square feet, of which 22 feet are unencumbered space. If double celled two inmates would share 31 square feet. On the third tier of C block the cells are 51 square feet. R & R at 41.
The American Correctional Association (ACA) and recommend 35 square feet of unencumbered space per inmate. The American Public Health Association (APHA) call for 60 square feet per inmate of cell space if the cell is to be occupied ten or more hours a day. R & R at 41.
The cell areas and corridors are generally clean, and "there is no serious or even significant problem with mice or vermin" at the Wasatch Unit. R & R at 44.
The magistrate found the kitchen and dining facilities were such that "double bunking will not intrude significantly on food storage facilities or the quality or quantity of inmate food ...," and that "the kitchen facilities are adequate to absorb added inmate population." R & R at 46.
With regard to shower facilities on C block second tier, B North, and D blocks the magistrate found them "limited, but adequate." The shower facilities on B block were found to be "completely inadequate" so as to prevent double celling of any kind. R & R at 47.
The magistrate judge found that double bunking would add approximately 240 inmates and that such population increase "would not only reduce space available to inmates in cells, but would increase demands on central facilities such as the library, gymnasium, kitchen, laundry and cell block inmate employment." R & R at 43.
The magistrate concluded: R & R at 48.
The magistrate found that inmate tension in the Wasatch Unit is currently minimal, and that the "risk of violence and aggression is not as great as in the past." Moreover, that "the correctional staff have found no significant increase in aggression and violence with double celling in other parts of the prison with inmates whose classification is not aggressive." R & R at 44.
The magistrate determined that increased staff would be necessitated by double bunking:
If double bunking were implemented the number of staff would have to be increased for inmate safety from violence and fire, as well as assuring minimal services. No double bunked cell area should be without at a minimum of two staff at night to attend to safety and other inmate problems, with some possible exception for a smaller unit.
The magistrate judge was particularly concerned about fire safety in the event of double bunking in B North and the third tier of C block:
Fire safety is a matter of substantial concern. Until this litigation, fire exits and corridors were not marked or were inadequately marked. Fire danger and exit facilities are inadequate in the Wasatch unit because of the old construction of the unit. The problem is acute with regard to the third tier area of C block and also with regard to B North.
At the time of trial about forty percent of the inmates of Wasatch Unit were unemployed. The magistrate expressed concern about the impact of double bunking in connection with anticipated increase of unemployment and inmate idleness, but found that "it can be anticipated there will be an increase in the number of idle inmates but not necessarily a significant increase in the percentage of idle inmates." R & R at 43.
The magistrate noted that the Wasatch Unit offers a variety of programs for inmates including rehabilitation programs for alcohol and drug treatment, bible study courses as well as courses offering college and high school credit. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Counce v. Goings, 90-3363-DES.
...requires showing "a knowledge of a need and an unwillingness to act on the part of the prison officials." Baker v. Holden, 787 F.Supp. 1008, 1018 (D.Utah 1992). Here, plaintiff can do neither. Plaintiff never complained of threatened harm, and never requested protective custody. Given the u......
-
Hebert v. Raemisch
...as a whole. Id. at 66-68. Although not cited by Hebert, the Court also finds instructive a District of Utah decision, Baker v. Holden, 787 F. Supp. 1008 (D. Utah 1992). Baker addressed conditions in the "Wasatch Unit" of the Utah State Prison. Id. at 1008-09. "The Wasatch Unit was construct......
-
Baker v. Haun, 2:86 CV 361 JTG.
...Block may be permitted by further Order of the Court upon a showing of specified renovation and construction. See Baker et al. v. Holden et al., 787 F.Supp. 1008 (D.Utah 1992). The required renovation and construction was accomplished and completed so as to remove the prohibition against do......