Mercer v. Mitchell

• Decision Date: 08 August 1990
• Docket Number: No. 89-8267,89-8267
• Citation: 908 F.2d 763
• Parties: Kenneth MERCER, Tom Tioran, David Tootle, Edward Koraski, pre-trial detainees in the Chatham County Jail, Indv. and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Walter MITCHELL, Indv. and in his capacity as Sheriff of Chatham County, Ga., Luke Simms, Indv. and in his capacity as Chief Jailer of the Chatham County Jail; J. Tom Coleman, Willie Brown, Frank O. Downing, Cleve Fountain, Walter Matthews, Robert L. McCorkle, George A. Mercer, III, J. Albert Sadler, and L. Scott Stell, Indv. and in their respective capacities as Commissioners of Chatham County, Georgia, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Page 763

908 F.2d 763

Kenneth MERCER, Tom Tioran, David Tootle, Edward Koraski pre-trial detainees in the Chatham County Jail Indv. and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Walter MITCHELL, Indv. and in his capacity as Sheriff of Chatham County, Ga., Luke Simms, Indv. and in his capacity as Chief Jailer of the Chatham County Jail; J. Tom Coleman Willie Brown, Frank O. Downing, Cleve Fountain, Walter Matthews, Robert L. McCorkle, George A. Mercer, III, J Albert Sadler, and L. Scott Stell, Indv. and in their respective capacities as Commissioners of Chatham County, Georgia, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 89-8267.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Aug. 8, 1990.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 4, 1990.

Emily E. Garrard, Savannah, Ga., for defendants-appellants.

James F. Bass, Jr., Savannah, Ga., for plaintiffs-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia.

Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, ANDERSON and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

TJOFLAT, Chief Judge:

The civil contempt power of the United States courts is limited to "the least possible power adequate to the end proposed." Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 204, 231, 5 L.Ed. 242 (1821). The appellants (the County) ¹ claim that the district court exceeded this power by fining the County $30,600 for operating a county jail in violation of prior court orders. Although we will vacate a district court's exercise of its contempt power only when we find that the court abused its discretion, see Sizzler Family Steak Houses v. Western Sizzlin Steak House, Inc., 793 F.2d 1529, 1534 n. 4 (11th Cir.1986), we agree with the County and conclude that the district court did abuse its discretion here. We therefore vacate the district court's judgment.

I.

This case began in 1974, when a group of prisoners filed a section 1983 class action suit, see 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1982), claiming that the Chatham County Jail was being operated in violation of the United States Constitution. According to the plaintiffs in that suit, the jail was extremely overcrowded, and the defendant (the County) essentially agreed. The County announced plans to build a new jail facility, and the litigation abated during construction of that facility.

When the facility was completed, the class of jail inmates (with appellee Mercer as one of the named plaintiffs) again challenged the constitutionality of conditions prevailing in the facility. The litigation ultimately resulted in a district court order of November 19, 1981, in which the court placed a temporary cap of 446 inmates on the jail and ordered county officials to reduce the jail population to a "manageable" level. Approximately one year later, the plaintiffs moved the court to exercise its civil contempt power in light of the County's failure to comply with the November 19, 1981 order. The court stated, in response to that motion, that it was not "convinced ... that, at this point, sanctions available upon a finding of civil contempt would ensure compliance with the law." (Emphasis in original.) The court therefore deferred ruling on the plaintiffs' motion.

One year later, the plaintiffs again requested the court to hold the County in contempt for failure to comply with the prior court orders on overcrowding. Again, the court refused to hold the County in contempt; it did, however, reduce the cap to 381, granting permission to exceed the cap only temporarily in bona fide emergencies.

Finally, on February 23, 1988, the court entered an order directing the County to show cause why it should not be held in contempt and sanctioned accordingly for failing to comply with the court-ordered cap on the jail population. After conducting a hearing on the matter, the court concluded that its order had been disregarded, "but not maliciously." The court then raised the cap to 389 (eight additional beds had been added) and stated that

[f]or any portion of a day that prisoners exceeding the cap [of 389] are in the jail, a fine of at least One Hundred Dollars The court concluded with an admonition: "The Order will be enforced." Significantly, however, the court never held the County in contempt.

($100) per prisoner will be assessed against the County Commissioners, and will be paid into this court as a fine; not to be refunded to the county.

On October 6, 1988, the jail population reached 393. By the end of the day, however, jail officials managed to reduce the population to comply with the cap of 389. In response to this temporary increase in inmate population, the plaintiffs moved the court to hold the County in civil contempt of court and impose sanctions. The court conducted a hearing and imposed a fine of $100 per day for each of the four prisoners held in excess of the cap. In its order of November 9, 1988, however, the court never found the County to be in contempt; it merely imposed a fine "in accordance with" its order of February 24, 1988.

During the weeks following the November 9 order, the jail population exceeded the cap several times. On January 25, 1989, the plaintiffs again moved the court to find the County in contempt and to impose sanctions. The court did not enter an order directing the defendants to show cause why they should not be held in contempt, nor did it conduct a hearing on the matter. Instead, on February 7, 1989, the court ordered the County to pay a fine of $200 per day (or every part thereof) for every prisoner held in violation of the cap. The court never mentioned whether it was holding the County in contempt; it merely directed the parties to submit a statement to the court indicating the number of prisoners held in violation of the cap. Although the court discussed the efforts made by county officials to resolve the overcrowding problem, it concluded with a notable statement: "The Court will accept no excuses for not complying with its Order."

On February 8, counsel for the plaintiffs certified to the court the number of prisoners held in violation of the cap. On February 9, the Chatham County Board of Commissioners met to discuss plans to alleviate the overcrowding situation and, on February 10, approved an expenditure of $175,000 to accelerate completion of a new jail facility. On the same day, at 10:47 a.m., the court imposed a fine of $30,600 based on the plaintiffs' certification. The court did not give the County an opportunity to show cause why it should not be held in contempt.

That afternoon, the County moved the court to modify the cap. The court held an in-chambers hearing, during which it determined that the County could safely accommodate thirty more prisoners for short-term periods. The court therefore entered an order allowing the County to exceed the cap by thirty prisoners during weekends and in emergency situations, provided that, within forty-eight hours of the next weekday, the population was reduced to 389. The court noted that this measure was temporary and would expire on May 8, 1989--after the new jail facility was due to be completed.

On February 22, 1989, the County moved the court to reconsider its order imposing the fine of $30,600. The County argued that, had the court known of the Board of Commissioners' decision on February 10 to expend an additional $175,000 to expedite completion of the new jail facility, the court would not have imposed the fine that same day. The court denied that motion, and the County now appeals the court's judgment embodied in the orders of February 7, 1989 and February 10, 1989. We conclude that the court imposed the fine without providing the County due process of the law. We therefore vacate the court's judgment imposing the fine and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

II.

Although a district court has a certain amount of discretion in fashioning civil contempt sanctions and the procedure by which those sanctions are imposed, the court must stay within the bounds of due process. When the purportedly contumacious conduct occurs outside the presence Every civil contempt proceeding is brought to enforce a court order that requires the defendant to act in some defined manner. The defendant then allegedly acts, or refuses to act, in violation of the order. The plaintiff would like the defendant to obey the court order and requests the court to order the defendant to show cause why he should not be held in contempt and sanctioned until he complies. See In re Birmingham Reverse Discrimination Employment Litig., 833 F.2d 1492, 1501 (11th Cir.1987), aff'd sub nom. Martin v. Wilks, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 2180, 104 L.Ed.2d 835 (1989). If the court finds that the conduct as alleged would violate the prior order, it enters an order requiring the defendant to show cause why he should not be held in contempt and conducts a hearing on the matter. See Newman v. State of Ala., 683 F.2d 1312, 1318 (11th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1083, 103 S.Ct. 1773, 76 L.Ed.2d 346 (1983).

                of the court, 2 due process requires, with very few exceptions, 3 that the defendant 4 (1) be informed, through a show-cause order, 5 of his purportedly contumacious conduct, and (2) be given a hearing at which he can be represented by counsel, call witnesses, and testify in order to show cause why he should not be held in contempt.  See In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 275, 68 S.Ct. 499, 508, 92 L.Ed. 682 (1948);  Cooke v. United States, 267 U.S. 517, 537, 45 S.Ct. 390, 395, 69 L.Ed. 767 (1925).  From these skeletal requirements, courts have fashioned a typical (although by no means exclusive) contempt proceeding. 6   We outline that proceeding to show that the district court below substantially departed both from the model and from the requirements of due process. 7
                

At the hearing, the defendant is allowed to show either that he did not violate the court order or that he was excused from complying. See id. Typically, a defendant will argue that he should not be held in contempt because...