Monmouth County Correctional Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro

Decision Date25 November 1987
Docket NumberNo. 86-5527,86-5527
Citation834 F.2d 326
Parties, 56 USLW 2363 MONMOUTH COUNTY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONAL INMATES, Kevin Michael Fitzgerald, Joseph Ricciardi, Raymond Ciccone, Michael A. Michael, Darrell Kelly, Edmund J. Spies, Jr., John Paul Clayton, John Joseph Wilburn, Louis D. Hughes, Kenneth A. Van Note, Lawrence (Tony) Hester, Albert Maddocks, Tom Forsythe, Tom Visicaro, Robert Thacker, Robert Thomas, and Leslie Greene, on behalf of themselves and all others persons similarly situated v. William LANZARO, Monmouth County Sheriff; Nelson Stiles, Warden, Monmouth County Correctional Inst.; Jacob Lewis, Physician, Monmouth County Correctional Inst.; Harry Larrison, Jr., Director, Monmouth County Board of Chosen Freeholders; Clement V. Sommers, Frank A. Self, Thomas G. Powers, and Ray Kramer, Members, Monmouth County Board of Chosen Freeholders, and their successors in office, all in their official capacities, and individually, and William H. Fauver, Commissioner, New Jersey State Department of Corrections, and his successor in office, in his official capacity, and individually, Appellants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

Malcolm V. Carton (argued), Carton and Faccone, Avon, N.J., for appellants.

Catherine A. Hanssens (argued), Audrey Bomse, Dept. of the Public Advocate, Office of Inmate Advocacy, Trenton, N.J., for appellees.

Charles H. Jones, Jr., Rutgers Law School Prison Law Clinic, Newark, N.J., for amicus New Jersey Ass'n on Correction.

Janet Benshoof, Reproductive Freedom Project, American Civil Liberties Union, New York City, for amici The American Civil Liberties Union and The American Public Health Ass'n.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, MANSMANN and ROSENN, Circuit Judges.

A. LEON HIGGINBOTHAM, Jr., Circuit Judge.

OPINION OF THE COURT

This appeal arises from the order of the district court preliminarily enjoining appellants Monmouth County ("the County") from requiring women prisoners to secure court-ordered releases and their own financing in order to obtain an abortion while in the County's custody. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(a)(1) (1982). For the reasons set forth below, we will affirm in part and modify in part the judgment and order of the district court.

I. Facts and Procedural History

The genesis of this appeal is a class action instituted by inmates of Monmouth County Correctional Institution ("MCCI" or "the Institution") against MCCI administrators and various county and state officials 1 challenging overcrowding and other conditions and practices at the Institution, including the adequacy of health care services. On October 10, 1984, the district court issued its opinion and order granting constitutionally-mandated relief from the overcrowding and other conditions of confinement challenged by the inmates. 2 Monmouth County Correctional Inst. Inmates v. Lanzaro, 595 F.Supp. 1417 (D.N.J.1984) ("MCCI Inmates I "). Subsequently, MCCI inmates applied for an Order to Show Cause, seeking additional preliminary injunctive relief specifically pertaining to the health care needs of pregnant inmates. By Consent Judgment dated March 8, 1985, the parties agreed to resolve "the most emergent of those issues having [an] impact on pregnant female inmates." Joint Supplemental Appendix and Addendum to Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellees ("SA") at 1. Those issues, which concerned certain prenatal, medication and dietary needs of pregnant inmates, 3 did not, however, concern any services related to the termination of pregnancies. This latter issue--abortion-related services for pregnant inmates--is the subject of this appeal.

On February 19, 1986, Jane Doe was incarcerated at MCCI. Seven days later, a pregnancy test was administered to Doe and returned positive. On or about March 3, 1986, Doe informed MCCI medical staff that she desired to terminate her pregnancy. Doe was advised by MCCI authorities, however, that, pursuant to the Institution's policy of providing abortions only where a medical emergency presents a life-threatening situation to the mother, 4 the Institution would neither provide Doe with access to nor fund an abortion in the absence of a court order. See Appendix of Appellants ("App.") at A18, p 5; A20, p 3. Consequently, on or about April 4, 1986, MCCI inmates again applied for temporary and preliminary injunctive relief. Specifically, the inmates requested that the County be ordered to provide Doe, then approximately nine weeks pregnant, and other members of the class with certain medical care and services to facilitate their decisions to terminate their pregnancies.

The inmates' application for temporary restraints was accompanied by affidavits of two physicians supporting Doe's decision to terminate her pregnancy. Dr. John Josimovich concluded that "abortion [wa]s especially appropriate ... because Jane Doe [was] ... a chronic drug abuser." SA at 7. Dr. Susan Neshin maintained that Jane Doe was not emotionally equipped to carry a child to term, see SA at 10, and thus concluded "that the only medically sound and humane alternative [wa]s to grant Ms. Doe the therapeutic abortion she desires." SA at 11.

Pending resolution of the inmates' application for injunctive relief, Jane Doe was released to secure an abortion. Doe's release did not occur, however,--due to MCCI officials' insistence that she first obtain a court order--until more than a month after her initial request to terminate her pregnancy. Following Doe's release, the district court denied the inmates' application for a temporary restraining order and set a date for the preliminary injunctive hearing. Prior to that hearing, a second inmate, Mary Smith, 5 requested and was denied access to and funding for an abortion by MCCI officials.

On April 8, 1986, the district court ordered the County to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue enjoining the County from refusing to provide necessary medical care to all pregnant inmates at MCCI, including (1) access to counseling, which would include discussion of the woman's option to terminate or continue her pregnancy; (2) access to medical facilities for the purpose of obtaining an abortion; and (3) funding for abortions on the same basis as is provided for any other medically necessary procedure. MCCI inmates argued that the Institution's policy of requiring pregnant inmates who want an abortion to apply for court-ordered release constituted an unconstitutional infringement of their right to privacy under Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973). The inmates also alleged that the County's refusal to provide pregnant inmates with all necessary medical care related to their pregnancies--including abortion-related services--constituted a deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs and deprived them of equal protection of the law in violation of the eighth and fourteenth amendments to the federal Constitution, respectively. Finally, MCCI inmates maintained that the County's discriminatory practices were in violation of the New Jersey Constitution. In response, the County argued that its obligation to its inmates was limited to assurance of "essential" medical care, 6 and that the provision of "purely elective medical procedures" would pose insurmountable administrative and financial burdens on the County. See Letter Brief from Malcolm V. Carton, Esq. to Hon. Harold A. Ackerman 2 (Apr. 25, 1986) reprinted in App. at A25. The County further maintained that the restriction of certain rights and privileges was a necessary and legitimate incident to the lawful incarceration of MCCI inmates.

After the hearing, the district court on May 29, 1986, granted the inmates' application on the ground that the prerequisites for preliminary injunctive relief had been met. Monmouth County Correctional Inst. Inmates v. Lanzaro, 643 F.Supp. 1217 (D.N.J. 1986) ("MCCI Inmates II "); see Oburn v. Shapp, 521 F.2d 142, 147 (3d Cir.1975); see also Morton v. Beyer, 822 F.2d 364, 367 (3d Cir.1987) (moving party must demonstrate likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm; district court may also consider the possibility of harm to others and the public interest).

With respect to the challenge to the court-ordered release requirement, the district court held that the inmates had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits under both federal and state law. The district court observed that "regulations limiting [fundamental] rights may be justified only by a 'compelling state interest' " under federal law, MCCI Inmates II, 643 F.Supp. at 1222 (quoting Roe, 410 U.S. at 155, 93 S.Ct. at 728), or by a "governmental interest [that] could be deemed overriding" under New Jersey law. Id. at 1223 (citing Farhi v. Commissioners of the Borough of Deal, 204 N.J.Super. 575, 583, 499 A.2d 559, 563 (Law Div.1985)). Moreover, the district court noted that prison officials must adopt "the least restrictive means consistent with the maintenance of prison discipline," MCCI Inmates II, 643 F.Supp. at 1223, in order both to protect the legitimate state interest and to preserve, to the extent possible, the inmates' fundamental rights. Applying these precepts, the district court concluded that, at the threshold, the County had failed to establish that any such compelling interest exists. Even presuming a compelling state interest, the district court held that the challenged regulation did not constitute the least restrictive alternative to protect that interest, and that, therefore, the significant burden imposed by the court-ordered release requirement upon pregnant inmates could not legally be tolerated. See id.

Next, focusing on the inmates' claim that the County's refusal to appropriate funds for non-life-threatening inmate abortions was unconstitutional, the district court held that, while valid under the fourteenth amendment to the federal Constitution, the County's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2228 cases
  • Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Northern District of Mississippi
    • 1 Marzo 1993
    ...likelihood' of suicide must be `so obvious that a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for' preventive action, MCCI v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326 at 347 3d Cir. 1987; the risk of self-inflicted injury must be not only great, but also sufficiently apparent that a lay custodian's failur......
  • Mathews v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, Civil Action No. 14-00024
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. Western District of Pennsylvania
    • 14 Enero 2015
    ...that a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor's attention." Monmouth County Correctional Inst. Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 347 (3d Cir. 1987). Deliberate indifference to a serious medical need involves the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain." Estelle, 429......
  • Rivera v. Chester Cnty.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • 28 Marzo 2017
    ...that a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor's attention.'" Monmouth Cnty. Corr. Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 347 (3d Cir. 1987), quoting Pace v. Fauver, 479 F. Supp. 456, 458 (D.N.J. 1979), aff'd, 649 F.2d 860 (3d Cir. 1981); see also Pearson v. Pr......
  • Little v. Lycoming County, Civ. No. 4: CV-95-399.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • 18 Enero 1996
    ...the part of the prison officials and 2) it requires the prisoner's medical needs to be serious. Monmouth County Correctional Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 346 (3d Cir.1987) cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1006, 108 S.Ct. 1731, 100 L.Ed.2d 195 Deliberate indifference is more than in......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Procreation and the prisoner: does the right to procreate survive incarceration and do legitimate penological interests justify restrictions on the exercise of the right.
    • United States
    • Fordham Urban Law Journal Vol. 29 No. 6, August 2002
    • 1 Agosto 2002
    ...(79.) Id. at 817. (80.) Id. at 824. (81.) Id. at 824-25. (82.) Id. at 825. (83.) Id. (84.) Monmouth County Corr. Inst. Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326 (3d Cir. (85.) Id. at 333-34. (86.) Id. (holding that the right to have an abortion survived incarceration; finding no legitimate penologic......
  • Correctional facilities
    • United States
    • Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law No. XXIV-2, January 2023
    • 1 Enero 2023
    ...104, 106 (1976). 214. See Gibson v. Matthews, 926 F.2d 532, 536 (6th Cir. 1991); Monmouth Cnty. Corr. Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 349 (3d Cir. 1987). 215. Gibson , 926 F.2d at 536. Incarcerated Women’s Abortion Access Limited by Varying Policies and Practices , GUTTMACHE......
  • Prisoners' Rights
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • 1 Agosto 2022
    ...while in prison is fundamentally inconsistent with incarceration”). But see, e.g., Monmouth Cty. Corr. Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 344-49 (3d Cir. 1987) (14th Amendment violation where prison required court order for elective abortions because interfered with prisoners’ ......
  • The prisoner's ombudsman: protecting constitutional rights and fostering justice in American corrections.
    • United States
    • Ave Maria Law Review Vol. 6 No. 2, March 2008
    • 22 Marzo 2008
    ...1987). (100.) See, e.g., Victoria W. v. Larpenter, 369 F.3d 475, 485-89 (5th Cir. 2004); Monmouth County Corr. Inst. Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 344-49 (3d Cir. (101.) Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 472, 484 (1995) (returning to the due process principles elaborated upon in Wolff, 41......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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