Battle v. Anderson, s. 82-1065
| Decision Date | 06 May 1983 |
| Docket Number | 82-1884,Nos. 82-1065,82-2264,82-1379,82-2325 and 82-2492,82-1762,s. 82-1065 |
| Citation | 708 F.2d 1523 |
| Parties | Bobby BATTLE, et al., a class action, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Cross-Appellants, United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. Park ANDERSON, his successor, Richard Crisp, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, McAlester, Oklahoma, and his successor; J.M. Sunderland, Warden, Oklahoma State Reformatory, Granite, Oklahoma, and his successor; Department of Corrections, F. Warren Benton, Director, his successor; and the current State Board of Corrections, Frank E. Carey, Jr., President; Leroy W. Kirk, Patricia Montgomery, Gary M. Cook, Chester T. Curtin, Seth Millington, William Thompson, as members and their successors, Defendants-Appellants, Cross-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Louis W. Bullock, Tulsa, Okl., for Bobby Battle, et al.
Louise A. Lerner, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C. (Wm. Bradford Reynolds, Asst. Atty. Gen., Walter W. Barnett, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., and Gary L. Richardson, U.S. Atty., Oklahoma City, Okl., with her on the brief), for United States of America.
Robert A. Nance, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Okl. , for State of Oklahoma.
Michael Avant-Pybas, Chief Atty., Oklahoma Dept. of Corrections, Oklahoma City, Okl., for Oklahoma Dept. of Corrections.
Before BARRETT, DOYLE and McKAY, Circuit Judges.
The decision of the district court is affirmed. The opinion of this court consists of Parts I and II of Judge Barrett's opinion, in which Judge Doyle and Judge McKay join, and the opinion of Judge McKay, in which Judge Doyle joins.
These consolidated cases come to us on appeal as part of a 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1983 action initially filed by Bobby Battle (Battle), appearing pro se, in 1972. Before Battle's complaint challenging conditions of confinement was heard, a disastrous riot occurred at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary located at McAlester. In Battle v. Anderson, 564 F.2d 388 (10th Cir.1977) we quoted the district court relative to the conditions then prevailing:
The conditions which precipitated and caused the disastrous riot of 1973 at McAlester now prevail throughout the system. In the hearings ... the court heard the shocking details of the conditions existing prior to the riot and became convinced that the neglect, apathy and deliberate disregard for human decency and rights contributed directly to the tragic loss of lives and $20 million in state property damages. It is now equally clear that the inmate conditions now existing present an immediate and intolerable threat to the safety and security of the inmates, prison personnel and the people of the State of Oklahoma ....
The deteriorated condition of the penal facilities, coupled with a serious problem of overcrowding, was found to constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This court affirmed that finding on appeal. Thereafter, the district court pursued a number of compliance hearings in order to assure that the Oklahoma penal institutions would meet constitutional muster. These hearings involved testimony from various penal experts. It was generally conceded by all parties that the overall conditions existing in 1973 were unconstitutional and intolerable. Not only were the prison facilities overcrowded, but these facilities were decadent, filthy, and without proper plumbing or ventilation. Inmates were found to be without meaningful recreation, religious freedom, and access to the courts. The institutions were understaffed and ill-staffed. Prisoners were found to be without adequate medical care.
On May 4, 1979, the State of Oklahoma, through its highest elective and appointive officials, presented to the district court a detailed plan which involved the construction of new penal facilities, modern in design and well equipped. Further, the plan provided for well trained correctional personnel and many additional professionals. Those inmates occupying single cells were to be accorded not less than 60 square feet and those housed in dormitories were to be afforded not less than 75 square feet. Once the State's plan was approved by the district court, the court appointed its fact finder to oversee or audit the degree of progress and compliance with stipulated standards. Tremendous progress has been made by the State of Oklahoma as will be more specifically described hereafter. Suffice to say, the Governor and the State Legislature responded to the crisis with dispatch and outstanding leadership. However, even with the new institutions, and their increased capacity, the tremendous increase in the incidence of crime has resulted in a prison population much in excess of that envisioned under the State's plan. This condition required the State to apply to the district court for authority to double cell the inmates.
For convenience, hereafter plaintiffs below, Bobby Battle, et al, will be referred to as Battle and defendants below, Park Anderson, et al, will be referred to as State of Oklahoma or State.
These consolidated appeals challenge certain findings and conclusions in the district court's order of January 12, 1982 (No. 82-1065) as supplemented on January 27, 1982 (No. 82-1379). The relevant undisputed facts will be summarized.
On December 1, 1981, the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (Department), by formal Department resolution, declared that an emergency existed in respect to the housing of inmates within Oklahoma's penal institutions. Within this resolution, the Department requested the Oklahoma Attorney General to petition the district court for modification of existing orders precluding double celling and for permission to temporarily permit double celling in 310 units at four Oklahoma prisons.
On December 9, 1981, in accordance with the Department's request, the Oklahoma Attorney General moved for immediate Board authority to temporarily double cell "not more than two inmates in not more than 310 cells" located in four Oklahoma prisons, to-wit: Joseph Harp Correctional Center, Lexington Assessment and Reception Center, Conner Correctional Center and Mabel Bassett Correctional Center. This motion was heard on December 22 and 23, 1981.
During the course of the December 23, 1981, hearing, the district court ruled that the State of Oklahoma would be fined $1,000 for each day that inmates were double celled in Oklahoma prisons. Additional hearings on the motion were conducted on December 31, 1981 and January 8, 1982. During the course of the January 8, 1982 hearing, the district court withdrew the $1,000 daily fine for double celling.
On January 12, 1982, the district court entered an order permitting double celling in accordance with the Oklahoma Attorney General's motion at the four specified prisons. In so doing, however, the district court found, inter alia: the conditions under which double celling will be effectuated in Oklahoma differ significantly from the conditions which existed in Ohio at the time the Supreme Court of the United States upheld double celling in Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981); and, the conditions in the four Oklahoma penal institutions utilizing double celling "will be unconstitutional for a temporary period of time, until double celling is no longer used". On January 27, 1982, the district court supplemented its January 12, 1982 order with additional specific findings relative to incarceration in Oklahoma's penal institutions, sua sponte, following an order of this court striking the district court's finding of unconstitutionality by virtue of double celling, per se.
On April 6, 1982, the Oklahoma Attorney General filed a motion seeking immediate and permanent relief from the prohibitions against double celling throughout the Oklahoma penal system then housing inmates. On April 23, 1982, the district court ordered:
1. The Court finds and holds that the Defendants should have and do hereby have the authority indefinitely but not permanently to double-cell where necessary. This Court's Order of January 12, 1982, is hereby vacated in part to permit indefinite double-celling throughout the Oklahoma Department of Corrections consistent with constitutional requirements.
It is to be observed that the district court's April 23, 1982, order authorized double celling not only at the initially approved four (4) penal institutions, but throughout the entire Oklahoma penal system on an "indefinite" basis providing that constitutional requirements are met.
On appeal the State of Oklahoma contends: (1) the district court's conclusion that double celling at four of Oklahoma's correctional institutions would be unconstitutional is contrary to law and Rhodes v. Chapman, supra; (2) the district court's finding that the four Oklahoma facilities at which the Department sought to double cell represented a different situation than that presented in Rhodes v. Chapman, supra, is clearly erroneous; (3) the $1,000 daily fine imposed by the district court was not a proper exercise of the court's equitable remedial power; and (4) the district court has been too intrusive into the legitimate state activity of prison management. We hold that the State of Oklahoma's appeals must be dismissed as moot. All of the issues presented, however, are addressed in Part III of this opinion, except (3).
28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1291 provides for appeal only "from the final decisions of the district courts," except where direct appeal to the Supreme Court is provided. United States v. Feeney, 641 F.2d 821 (10th Cir.1981). This requirement promotes judicial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ginest v. Board of County Com'Rs. of Carbon County, C86-310J.
...have been discontinued and that there is no reasonable expectation that unconstitutional practices will recur." Battle v. Anderson, 708 F.2d 1523, 1538 (10th Cir.1983). The burden is on the defendant to demonstrate that "there is no reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated," a......
-
Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, Denver, Colo.
...Keyes XIV, but rather emanate from and supplement that opinion's ruling that the school district is not unitary. Cf. Battle v. Anderson, 708 F.2d 1523, 1527 (10th Cir.1983), cert. dismissed sub. nom. Meachum v. Battle, 465 U.S. 1014, 104 S.Ct. 1019, 79 L.Ed.2d 248 (1984). The appeal from Ke......
-
Dowell by Dowell v. Board of Educ. of Oklahoma City Public Schools, Independent Dist. No. 89, Oklahoma City, Okl.
...Tex.L.Rev. 1101, 1105. For this reason, the court's jurisdiction extends beyond the termination of the wrongdoing, Battle v. Anderson, 708 F.2d 1523, 1538 (10th Cir.1983), because an injunction seeks to stabilize a factual setting with a judicial ordering and maintain that condition which t......
-
Muhammad v. Workman
...846 (1976). The Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights have also been protected by the Court of Appeals decisions in Battle v. Anderson, 708 F.2d 1523, 1537Page 58(10th Cir. 1983)(per curiam), cert. dismissed, 465 U.S. 1014 (1984); Battle v. Anderson, 788 F.2d 1421, 1426-1429 (10th Cir. 1986).......