Austin v. Wilkinson, No. 4:01-CV-71.
| Citation | 189 F.Supp.2d 719 |
| Decision Date | 25 February 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 4:01-CV-71. |
| Parties | Charles E. AUSTIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Reginald WILKINSON, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
Alice Lynd, Law Office of Staughton & Alice Lynd, Niles, Bill Goodman, Center for Constitutional Rights, New York, NY, Jillian S. Davis, American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, Cleveland, Jules L. Lobel, Pittsburgh, PA, Michael J. Benza, Law Office of Jeffry F. Kelleher, Raymond V. Vasvari, Jr., American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, Cleveland, Staughton Lynd, Law Office of Staughton & Alice Lynd, Niles, Terry H. Gilbert, Friedman & Gilbert, Cleveland, for Michael Benge, Alonzo L. Bonner, Plaintiffs.
Carol H. O'Brien, Office of the Attorney General, State of Ohio, Corrections Litigation Section, Jeffrey A. Stankunas, Isaac, Brant, Ledman & Teetor, Joseph M. Mancini, Office of the Attorney General, State of Ohio, Corrections Litigation Section, Columbus, Marianne Pressman, Office of the Attorney General, State of Ohio, Corrections Litigation Section, Cincinnati, Mark Landes, Isaac, Brant, Ledman & Teetor, Columbus, for Stephen J Huffman, Bernard J. Ryznar, Todd E. Ishee, Bruce A. Martin, Defendants.
In this case, a class of current and former prisoners at the Ohio State Penitentiary ("OSP") says the defendants, all employees of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (the "Department"), violated their constitutional rights by denying them due process in their placement and retention at the OSP. The plaintiffs say conditions at the OSP give rise to a liberty interest because they impose an atypical and significant hardship on the prisoners in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995). Despite the existence of this liberty interest, the plaintiff prisoners claim the procedures used by the defendants in transferring them to the OSP and retaining them at the institution deny them due process.
Responding, the defendants deny that conditions at the OSP are atypical or impose a significant hardship. In major part, the defendants argue that the Court should compare the plaintiffs' conditions to those of other inmates at the OSP or to inmates in similar facilities in other states when determining whether the conditions are atypical. The defendants alternatively argue that, if a liberty interest is found, they afford sufficient process to the inmates.
From January 2, 2002 through January 10, 2002, the Court conducted a bench trial on this matter at which it heard from twenty witnesses and accepted over one thousand pages of exhibits. After considering all of the evidence, and as hereinafter described, the Court finds that the nature and duration of restrictions at the OSP are conditions not expected by those serving similar incarcerations. The Court makes this determination despite finding that the current operation of the OSP, under the progressive stewardship of Warden Todd Ishee, has greatly improved inmates' treatment. Instead, the Court finds that inmates at the OSP face an atypical and significant hardship even under Warden Ishee's sensible leadership.
In laying out its decision, the Court first describes the conditions at the OSP. Next, the Court discusses its holding that confinement at the OSP is an atypical and significant hardship in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. After discussing the nature of the confinement at OSP, the Court considers the process afforded to inmates in challenging their initial placement and subsequent retention at the OSP. Finally, the Court discusses the appropriate remedy for the constitutional violation that it finds.
In this case, the plaintiffs represent a class of current and former inmates at the OSP. They sue certain state officials for violation of their constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 The plaintiffs sue the named defendants in their official capacities only for purposes of injunctive relief. Originally, the plaintiffs' suit alleged that the defendants operation of the OSP was a violation of a number of the inmates' Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The parties have settled most of the claims. The only claim left at trial was the plaintiffs' claim that the defendants violated their right to due process in the selection and retention of inmates for the OSP.
The OSP is a high maximum security facility, also known as a "supermax" facility, located in Hubbard, Ohio, near the city of Youngstown.2 Constructed in reaction to the April 1993 riot at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility at Lucasville, the OSP supermax prison first received inmates in May 1998. The OSP was designed to house 504 male inmates in single-inmate cells. The OSP was designed as "a more secure facility, to handle prisoners who were hellbent on disrupting the orderly operation of our correctional institutions." (Wilkinson Dep. at 8). Ohio intended the OSP be "a location in the state that we can separate the most predatory and dangerous prisoners from the rest of the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction's general population." (Wilkinson Dep. at 24-25).
The OSP carries out this goal primarily through solitary confinement — extended periods of incarceration in which the inmate is kept alone in his cell and has minimal contact with the outside world. In other prisons, this type of confinement is commonly referred to as "segregation." The stark conditions and psychological consequences of solitary confinement at the OSP are noticeably different than at other Ohio prisons.
Before describing the conditions at the OSP, the Court notes that it was presented with evidence at trial suggesting that Ohio does not need a high maximum security prison or does not need one with the capacity of the OSP. Peter Davis, a member of the Ohio Parole Board and former executive director of the Correctional Institution Inspection Committee of the Ohio General Assembly, testified about the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction's use of the J-1 cellblock at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility. The Southern Ohio Correctional Facility is Ohio's only maximum security prison, the security level immediately below the OSP's high maximum security level.3 The J-1 area is a self-contained cellblock of twenty cells that has tighter access requirements and allows less movement of inmates than a typical maximum security cell at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility. The J-1 cellblock is the most restrictive cellblock within the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility. Before the OSP opened, the J-1 cellblock was the most restrictive and isolated cellblock in the Ohio prison system. (Davis Test. at 117-19).
Suggestive that Ohio never needed the 504-inmate capacity of the OSP, before the OSP was built, Ohio did not fill the J-1 cells at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility. (Davis Test. at 119). Instead, Ohio faced a different problem. It did not have a sufficient number of maximum security cells, the level below the OSP's high maximum security cells. The deficit of maximum security cells and the surplus of high maximum cells causes an imbalance in assigning inmates to appropriate confinement.
In December 1998, a Department of Rehabilitation and Correction quality review team made up entirely of correctional officials reviewed the operations at the OSP.4 The quality review report supports the plaintiffs' claim that no clear standard describes which inmates would be placed at the OSP:
When asked about the inmate population for which OSP is intended most all respondents cite "the worst of the worst." This concept has proven difficult to operationalize, particularly when we go beyond the 200 or so inmates who are clearly OSP material. Identifying those inmates who represent the "lighter" end of high maximum has become clouded by the overlap and similarity in characteristics among high close, maximum, maximum A.C. and high maximum inmates.
The Department of Rehabilitation and Correction assigns inmates to the OSP from a conflicted position. The opening of the OSP has created too much capacity for the highest level of security. At the same time, Ohio lacks sufficient capacity at maximum security, the level of confinement below the OSP's high maximum security level. After the huge investment in the OSP, Ohio risks having a "because we have built it, they will come" mind set. As a result, the defendants consider inmates for placement at the OSP who do not need its level of restrictions.
Conditions at the OSP are significantly more restrictive than at other correctional facilities of the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. First, inmates at the OSP are kept in their single cells for twenty-three hours a day. An inmate's cell measures approximately 89.7 square feet and is sealed with a solid metal door. The cell door has a small, thick glass window. The door also has a "food slot" or "cuff port" that an officer may unlock to insert food or mail, and that is also used to put handcuffs on the prisoner before the door is opened. Inmates eat all meals alone in their cells.
The Department has made the cells more isolated by installing metal strips to the bottom and sides of the cells doors at the end of 2000. Before installation of the metal strips, the doors had half-inch gaps along the sides and two- to three-inch gaps along the bottom. The Department installed the strips ostensibly to stop the throwing of urine or feces, although the defendants did not give specific testimony of the frequency of such incidents. The Department does not use these metal strips at any other institution.
The OSP cells have a narrow outside window that cannot be opened. These small windows do not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kane v. Winn
...system's procedures for making transfer decisions violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Austin v. Wilkinson, 189 F.Supp.2d 719, 754 (N.D.Ohio 2002); see also Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (holding that a state prisoner......
-
Porter v. Clarke
...control" unit as "a highly restrictive form of solitary confinement," id. at 214, 125 S.Ct. 2384 (citing Austin v. Wilkinson , 189 F.Supp.2d 719, 724–25 & n.5 (N.D. Ohio 2002) ). Notably, the conditions of confinement for Ohio inmates housed in administrative control were materially less is......
-
Austin v. Wilkinson
...the high-maximum-security requirements, contrary to both corrections policy and constitutional norms. See Austin v. Wilkinson (Austin I), 189 F.Supp.2d 719, 724 (N.D.Ohio 2002). When the OSP first received inmates in May 1998, it did so in a concededly problematic and confused manner. Appel......
-
STATE EX REL. v. Dept. of Military Affairs
...requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard "at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner."`" Austin v. Wilkinson, 189 F.Supp.2d 719, 747 (N.D.Ohio 2002) (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333, 96 S.Ct. 893, 902, 47 L.Ed.2d 18, 32 (1976) (quoting Armstrong v. Manzo......
-
Correctional Case Law: 2004-2005
...about the next. University of Chicago Law Review, 70, 1-22. Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir. 5-14-05)Austin v. Wilkinson, 189 F.Supp.2d 719 (N.D. Ohio 2-25-02)Bass v. Singletary, 143 F.3d 1442 (11th Cir. 6-19-98)Beck, A. J., & Hughes, T. A. (2005). Sexual violence reported by corr......
-
Participatory Litigation: A New Framework for Impact Lawyering.
...https://perma.cc/3BQ5-4MVV. (118.) All of these facts are from my own experience as counsel for plaintiffs in Austin v. Wilkinson, 189 F. Supp. 2d 719 (N.D. Ohio (119.) Austin, 189 F. Supp. 2d at 754. Judge Gwin relied in part on the prisoners' testimony. See id. at 741. (120.) Austin v. Wi......
-
Recent Legal Developments
...414-428.Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000), vacated as moot, 235 F.3d 1054 (8th Cir. 2000).Austin v. Wilkinson,189 F. Supp. 2d 719, 732 (N. D. Ohio 2002), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 372 F.3d 246 (6thCir. 2004), rev’d, 125 S. Ct. 2384 (2005).Barbour v. Haley, 471 F.......
-
38. Rules & regulations-prisoner.
...were acting in their individual capacities. (Virginia Department of Corrections) U.S. District Court CUSTODY LEVEL Austin v. Wilkinson, 189 F.Supp.2d 719 (N.D.Ohio 2002). A class of current and former prisoners at a high maximum security prison brought a [section] 1983 action seeking injunc......