Capps v. Atiyeh, Civ. No. 80-141

• Citation: 495 F. Supp. 802
• Decision Date: 22 August 1980
• Docket Number: 80-6014.,Civ. No. 80-141
• Parties: Tom CAPPS et al., Plaintiffs, v. Victor ATIYEH, Defendant. Joe WEST et al., Plaintiffs, v. Victor ATIYEH et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Oregon

495 F. Supp. 802

Tom CAPPS et al., Plaintiffs, v. Victor ATIYEH, Defendant.

Joe WEST et al., Plaintiffs, v. Victor ATIYEH et al., Defendants.

Civ. Nos. 80-141, 80-6014.

United States District Court, D. Oregon.

August 22, 1980.

Roy S. Haber, Prisoners' Legal Services, of Oregon, Salem, Or., for plaintiffs.

John R. McCulloch, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, Or., for defendant.

OPINION

JAMES M. BURNS, Chief Judge.

This matter came on for hearing at the request of plaintiffs for injunctive relief requiring defendants to reduce the inmate population at Oregon State Penitentiary, the Farm Annex, and Oregon State Correctional Institution to the design capacity of each facility; restraining defendants from housing more than one inmate in cells designed for single occupancy; and restraining defendants from housing inmates under conditions which provide less than 50 square feet of floor area per inmate. The basis of plaintiffs' complaint and request for relief is set forth in Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law which are being filed with this opinion.

The severity of the overcrowded conditions at these facilities was recognized by the responsible corrections officials before these actions were filed. In December, 1979, the Administrator of the Corrections Division made three proposals to the Parole Board by which the crowded conditions at the prisons could be mitigated. In January, 1980, the Parole Board agreed to consider all prisoners against whom detainers had been lodged for possible release to and further incarceration by the authorities that had lodged the detainers. It also agreed to accelerate by two months the release dates of certain lesser offenders who, in the Board's judgment, would be least likely to commit further crimes upon their release. While these actions resulted in the release of 224 prisoners, because of new commitments to the prisons, the net population reduction was insignificant.

Three additional proposals were made in March, 1980, by the Administrator of the Corrections Division to his superior in an effort to reduce the prison population. None was immediately adopted.

Efforts to arrive at settlement through the use of a mediator were made on June 3-5, 1980, but proved unsuccessful.¹

On June 27, 1980, I issued a bench ruling, supplemented or supplanted by written Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, declaring that the overcrowded conditions at OSP, the Annex, and OSCI violate the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The matter addressed here is the proper form of injunctive relief.

REMEDIAL POWERS

Federal courts have extensive powers in fashioning relief for constitutional violations. A wide range of approaches have been used by courts in remedying unconstitutional overcrowding at prisons, including limiting the prison population to design capacity and prohibiting the acceptance of new prisoners until that goal is reached, Pugh v. Locke, 406 F.Supp. 318 (M.D.Ala. 1976), aff'd in part and modified in part sub nom., Newman v. Alabama, 559 F.2d 283 (5th Cir. 1977), remanded on other grounds sub nom., Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 98 S.Ct. 3057, 57 L.Ed.2d 1114 (1978); Costello v. Wainwright, 397 F.Supp. 20 (M.D. Fla.1975), aff'd, 525 F.2d 1239, on rehearing vacated and remanded, 539 F.2d 547 (5th Cir. 1976), rev'd and remanded, 430 U.S. 325, 97 S.Ct. 1191, 51 L.Ed.2d 372 (1977); and Williams v. Edwards, 547 F.2d 1206 (5th Cir. 1977); reclassification of prisoners to reduce the population at maximum security facilities, Palmigiano v. Garrahy, 443 F.Supp. 956 (D.R.I.1977), remanded on other grounds, 599 F.2d 17 (1st Cir. 1979); accelerating parole dates and construction of new facilities, Johnson v. Levine, 588 F.2d 1378 (4th Cir. 1978); and imposing specific cell space requirements, Gates v. Collier, 390 F.Supp. 482 (N.D.Miss.1975), aff'd, 525 F.2d 965 (5th Cir. 1976); Battle v. Anderson, 447 F.Supp. 516 (E.D.Okla.1977), aff'd, 564 F.2d 388 (10th Cir. 1977); and Palmigiano v. Garrahy, supra.

When I issued my bench ruling, I indicated (or tried my best to indicate) the extreme reluctance of this court to intervene in the administration of state prison facilities. The reasons for this reluctance are two-fold. The first is the traditionally strong belief of this court in the principles of comity and the necessity of preserving a healthy state-federal relationship. Second is the recognition that the problems of the criminal justice system are complex and not readily susceptible to resolution by judicial decree. Particularly is this so where legislative action or voter approval (or both) may be necessary to accomplish specific objectives.

This court is sympathetic to the ever increasing demands made on citizens of the state to deal with social problems. The court is also aware of the efforts already made by prison administrators and the Parole Board to mitigate the problem. But good will, political considerations or budgetary constraints do not define the scope of constitutional protections or the duty of the courts to assure those protections to all persons who possess them. As stated on June 27, if the state seeks (as it must) to operate a prison system, it must do so in a constitutionally permissible manner.

I also stated, however, that I believed it was appropriate that the state be given an opportunity to put its own house in order. Therefore, rather than issuing a decree of injunctive relief, I asked that defendants submit by July 30, 1980, a plan by which with reasonable and realistic immediacy, the populations at each facility could be reduced to design capacity. Defendants were asked to have their plan include both the means by which and a time table when the reductions were to be accomplished, and for the plan to suggest mechanisms by which compliance with a decree of injunctive relief could be assured.

THE PLAN

The plan submitted by the defendants contemplates four short-term administrative actions, one short-term legislative action, and several long-term legislative actions. They are essentially as follows:

(1) The Parole Board will retroactively apply the new parole matrix. The new matrix originally applicable to prisoners committed after May 1, 1980, essentially lengthens time for persons convicted of the most serious offenses and shortens time for persons convicted of the more minor offenses. The defendants estimate that application of the matrix to persons committed before May 1, 1980, will result in the release of 150 persons by October, 1980.

(2) The prisons will no longer accept persons accused of parole violations prior to their parole revocation hearings. The defendants estimate this will reduce the demand for beds by 120 by December, 1980. These persons, however, would not necessarily be released from custody but rather would ordinarily be held in county jails until the date of their parole revocation hearings. It should be noted that, if implemented, this procedure would transfer inmates from the overcrowded state prisons to county jails which may already be, or as a result of the transfers could become, overcrowded. Clearly, the appropriate solution to a problem of a constitutional dimension is not achieved by a mere shift of the situation from one level of government to another.

(3) The capacity of the prison forest camp will be expanded by reactivating vacant cabins. This would provide an additional 20 beds by December, 1980.

(4) The Corrections Division will transfer 25 women prisoners from the Corrections Division Release Center to a vacant work release center, freeing the space in which they are being housed for use by 75 male inmates. This action could be accomplished by October, 1980.

The combined effect of these actions would be to either remove from or refuse to accept into the crowded facilities a total of 365 persons by December, 1980. The actions, however, would not necessarily result in a net population reduction of 365 because new commitments may well exceed normal releases.

(5) The defendants have also sought (and have now achieved) legislative modification of ORS 421.165, which would permit prisoners to be granted temporary leave for up to 90 days to search for and secure jobs immediately prior to their release on parole.

Currently about 225 inmates are apparently eligible for work release prior to their parole. But the Corrections Division can accommodate only 100 persons at its residential work release centers. The Division believes that persons eligible for work release need not be detained in residential centers but rather can return to their homes, provided they are under close supervision. The plan provides that, upon amendment to ORS 421.165, the Corrections Division will close the residential work release centers and release the 225 inmates eligible for work release to their homes. The current staff at the work release centers would then supervise the persons released. The net impact of the measure would be to free an additional 125 beds at the prisons.²

(6) The defendants also propose a long-term construction and financing program. The defendants submitted to the Special Session of the legislature a joint resolution that the state constitution be amended to authorize $120 million in bonded indebtedness for the construction or improvement and operation of state, regional or county correction facilities. This measure would require voter approval, which will be sought in November, 1980. The proposed plan includes construction and operation of three minimum security forest work camps to house a total of 150 inmates; additions to county jails totaling 600 beds, which would be used by the state until the counties required their use; and construction of two regional correctional facilities, which would provide an additional 1070 beds. These measures would be implemented between 1982 and 1986.

This part of the plan, as it emerged from the...