Jones v. City of Gary Controller's Office
| Decision Date | 12 December 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-3720,89-3720 |
| Citation | 931 F.2d 895 |
| Parties | UNPUBLISHED DISPOSITION NOTICE: Seventh Circuit Rule 53(b)(2) states unpublished orders shall not be cited or used as precedent except to support a claim of res judicata, collateral estoppel or law of the case in any federal court within the circuit. Anthony Bernard JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF GARY CONTROLLER'S OFFICE, Chief of the Gary Police Department, Officer Braobich, Officer Keller, Officer C. Stevens, Officer G. Bradley, Officer Rivera, and Officer Cupler, of the Gary Police Department, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Before POSNER, RIPPLE and KANNE, Circuit Judges.
Anthony Jones proceeded without counsel in a civil jury trial against the Gary Controller's Office, the Gary Chief of Police and various officers of the Gary Police Department. In his case, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, Jones submitted evidence that he had been held for eight days in a Gary city jail cell which had broken windows. During his September stay in 1983 he had not been issued any sheets or blankets and the temperature dropped to near fifty degrees. He also submitted proof that his family members were denied visitation. At that point, however, Jones concluded his evidence. On a motion for a directed verdict the district court found that Jones had failed to establish that the Chief of Police knew of or condoned the conditions in Jones' cell, or that the controller's office or individually named police officers were responsible for the conditions in the Gary city jail. The court entered a directed verdict in favor of all defendants. We affirm.
Early in the morning of September 13, 1983, several Gary police officers arrested Jones on charges of battery following a shooting incident. After being booked on the first floor of the Gary police station two of the arresting officers, Keller and Rivera, left Jones with a "turn-key" or warden who escorted him to the third floor jail.
Later on the morning of Jones' arrest, two investigating officers, Cleo Stevens and George Bradley, came to his cell and questioned him about the shooting incident. The officers asked Jones about the location of a gun involved in the shooting. Jones gave them a description of the vicinity of where he thought the weapon was located. Later that day, unable to find the gun, the officers returned and asked Jones to accompany them in their search. Jones left the jail in the company of the officers and with his assistance the gun was found and Jones was returned to the police station. The officers then interviewed Jones in an interrogation room where Jones told them that he wanted cigarettes, that he was cold in his jail cell and that he did not have a blanket. Jones testified that Officer Stevens "was basically asking about the case" but that Stevens also "told us that even though it would get cold in there that we are not to rip open the plastic mattress or else we would get in trouble." Following the interrogation, a turnkey then returned Jones to his jail cell.
A private attorney retained to represent Jones met with him in the jail on the evening of his arrest. Jones asked his attorney to make arrangements for him to receive a coat. Some time later a coat was provided to Jones.
Two days later on September 15, Officers Stevens and Bradley talked to Jones in the jail to inform him of a warrant issued for him based on a manslaughter charge filed that day in state court. On the next day, September 16, Jones was taken from the jail for an appearance in the Gary City Court on his initial charge of intimidation. His attorney, together with his mother and father were present with Jones in the courtroom. Five days later Jones was transferred from the Gary city jail to the Lake County jail where he was ultimately released on bail.
Notwithstanding interrogatories introduced into evidence by Jones which indicated that the Gary city jail was adequately maintained, Jones testified that his cell had broken windows which allowed the rain in and that the temperature in the cell reached the low fifties. He also testified that his bed contained no sheets or blankets. In addition, Jones stated that the toilet and sink in the cell gave off a strong stench and the cell was infested with cockroaches. Moreover, Jones asserted that he was not provided with a change of clothes, soap, toothpaste, a towel, or a wash cloth.
On the day of his arrest, Jones' mother and father, accompanied by Jones' attorney, went to the police station. However, while the attorney was able to visit with Jones, his parents were not allowed to see him. Members of Jones' family attempted to visit him on three other occasions but were turned away by a desk sergeant. They were told either that Jones was not being held at the jail or that they could not see him because their names were not on the visitor's list. Jones' brother, Claude, testified that when he spoke with Jones from the street below the police station he noticed that about half of the windows on that side of the building were broken, "like somebody had a rock throwing party."
At the close of the plaintiff's case, the district court directed a verdict in favor of all of the defendants. As to the City Controller's Office, the court found that Jones had produced no evidence which indicated any involvement by that office with the operation of the Gary jail. The court noted that as Jones indicated he had sued it only because that department would have to issue the check for any damage award. With regard to the Gary Police Department, the court determined that there was no evidence as to who, if anyone, within the department sanctioned the conditions in the city jail. Furthermore, there was no indication that anyone above the level of an unidentified desk officer knew of the denied family visits. Finally, with respect to the named police officers who arrested Jones and investigated the case, the court found that none had any responsibility for the operation or condition of the Gary jail or the policies involving visitation with prisoners.
We assume that the conditions in the Gary city jail in September of 1983 were as Jones described them, for we take the evidence produced by Jones, the non-moving party, in the light most favorable to him. Warrington v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Ry. Co., 901 F.2d 88, 90 (7th Cir.1990).
In the case of pretrial detainees, if conditions of confinement constitute punishment or are not incident to any legitimate governmental purpose those conditions may be constitutionally impermissible. Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576, 584, 104 S.Ct. 3227, 3231 (1984); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 538, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1873 (1979). No rational fact finder could determine that the conditions of confinement in the Gary city jail were incident to any legitimate government purpose. The fact is that the failure to provide a pretrial detainee with...
To continue reading
Request your trial