Colligan v. United States

• Decision Date: 22 September 1972
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 37587.
• Citation: 349 F. Supp. 1233
• Parties: John D. COLLIGAN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, C. J. Hughes, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Milan, Michigan, Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

349 F. Supp. 1233

John D. COLLIGAN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, C. J. Hughes, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Milan, Michigan, Respondents.

Civ. A. No. 37587.

United States District Court, E. D. Michigan, S. D.

September 22, 1972.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Martin Reisig, Detroit, Mich., for petitioner.

Ralph B. Guy, Jr., U. S. Atty., Barry Blyveis, Asst. U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., for respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

FEIKENS, District Judge.

John Colligan, petitioner, is an inmate of the Federal Correctional Institution at Milan, Michigan. Respondents are C. J. Hughes, Warden of that institution, and the United States of America.

Petitioner submitted a handwritten petition to this court, denominated as a "Motion for a Writ to Show Cause," alleging that authorities at the institution had violated his constitutional rights in punishing him for alleged violations of institutional rules. The court treats the pleading as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Prisoner petitions are to be liberally construed. Corby v. Conboy, 457 F.2d 251 (2nd Cir. 1972). See also Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 935, 92 S.Ct. 290, 30 L.Ed.2d 248 (1972), and Kregger v. Posner, 248 F. Supp. 804 (E.D.Mich.1966).

Petitioner's specific claims are:

1. That without a hearing with adequate procedural safeguards, he was subjected to substantial punishment; namely, being placed in segregation for a two month period and being denied a date certain which had been set for his parole, and that these restrictions of his liberty constitute denial of due process of law;

2. That the conditions in the segregation unit in which he was placed constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

Since petitioner alleged the violation of what must be considered a fundamental right, due process, the court held an evidentiary hearing to ascertain the facts.

As noted by then Circuit Judge Blackmun:

". . . . The federal courts, including this one, entertain a natural reluctance to interfere with a prison's internal discipline. This is true with respect to federal institutions citations omitted, as well as to state prisons citations omitted."

"However, the courts, including this one, have not hesitated to entertain petitions asserting violations of fundamental rights and, where indicated, to grant relief." Jackson v. Bishop, 404 F.2d 571, 577 (8th Cir. 1968).

This court finds the facts to be as follows:

Colligan was due to be released on parole on December 10, 1971. On Friday, November 26, 1971, he was awakened before breakfast by an officer and informed that Corrections Supervisor (Lieutenant) Laird wanted to see him. Laird questioned petitioner as to a disturbance that had occurred the previous night, and about the possibility of a continuation of the disturbance that day at breakfast. Laird, apparently not satisfied with petitioner's answers, ordered Colligan "put in the hole."

On Monday, November 29, 1971, he was taken before "the adjustment committee." The exact makeup of the adjustment committee in petitioner's case is not known, but Chief Corrections Supervisor (Captain) Ralston was a member, and a caseworker was a member. The identity of the third member is uncertain, but Lt. Laird was present when Colligan was brought before the committee and may have been the third member.

The committee began questioning Colligan concerning the "disturbance" which occurred the previous Thursday night. When Colligan replied that he had not participated, the committee changed the subject of the questioning to Colligan's alleged participation in drug traffic within the institution. At this point Colligan testified that he thought he'd better "clam up." The committee also questioned Colligan concerning $2.00 in United States Currency contraband within the institution allegedly found in Colligan's jacket pocket. The jacket, among Colligan's belongings which were collected from his dormitory when he was sent to solitary, was found on Colligan's bed in the large dormitory room where Colligan was housed with a number of other inmates. Colligan was not wearing the jacket at the time; he was not there when it was found; and he was not shown the money that was allegedly found in his jacket.

When Colligan refused to answer any more questions, Captain Ralston ordered him returned to solitary and told Colligan he would have to remain there until he (Ralston) found out what was going on. Petitioner was in punitive segregation for almost a week and then in administrative segregation until January 28, 1972.

Mr. Gene Freeman, Chief of Case Management at Milan, testified that he was the caseworker who sat on petitioner's adjustment committee. Freeman testified that it was his recollection that the charge was possession of contraband. Upon reviewing the file in court, however, Mr. Freeman advised the court that the charge was actually that of creating a disturbance. So, while Colligan was questioned regarding three separate charges, then, and there was some confusion among members of the committee as to what the charges were, only the charge of creating a disturbance was actually before the committee and it was apparently on the basis of that charge alone that Colligan was punished.

As a result of the charges and petitioner's being placed in segregation, the institution recommended that the parole date be rescinded. The Parole Board did so order, and petitioner was not released.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Petitioner's contention that being placed in segregation constituted cruel and unusual punishment need not be reached. If called upon to decide the question, the court would not find the physical surroundings are so lacking in humaneness as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment. See Jones v. Wittenberg, 323 F.Supp. 93 (N.D.Ohio 1971), aff'd, sub nom. Jones v. Metzger, 456 F.2d 854 (6th Cir. 1972).

The major thrust of petitioner's complaint is the lack of procedural due process in the adjustment committee "hearing."

Prison inmates are, without question, entitled to protection by the courts.

"Prisoners do not lose all of their constitutional rights when they enter a penal institution. Rather they retain all of their constitutional rights except for those which must be impinged upon for security or rehabilitative purposes." Jones v. Wittenberg, supra at 98, cited with approval in Jones v. Metzger, supra.

See also Sharp v. Sigler, 408 F.2d 966 (8th Cir. 1969). The recent trend has been for federal courts to apply due process of law principles in penal institutions. See: Clutchette v. Procunier, 328 F.Supp. 767 (N.D.Calif.1971); Landman v. Royster, 333 F.Supp. 621 (E.D.Va.1971); and Lathrop v. Brewer, 340 F.Supp. 873 (S.D.Iowa 1972).

Colligan was not notified, either orally or in writing, as to the charges against him at any time prior to the hearing. He was in fact confronted with two charges of which he had no advance warning. There was no disclosure to him of the evidence against him. He was not even told who made the charges, or what tangible or testimonial evidence there was. The alleged contraband was not produced in petitioner's presence, and no explanation or accounting for the money was made by prison officials during the evidentiary hearing. Petitioner was not allowed to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him, since he did not know who they were. And while he was allowed to make a statement as to his version of the facts, he was not allowed to present witnesses or prepare and present any documentary evidence.

He was not informed of his right against self-incrimination. He was not allowed counsel or counsel-substitute. He was not allowed to summon witnesses in his own behalf.

There were no written findings as to what Colligan was sent "to the hole" for. The prison authorities apparently "sentenced" Colligan for being accused, not upon a finding that he did any of the three things he was questioned about. The Board of Parole, too, unquestioningly accepted the institution's recommendation that the parole date be rescinded without any finding that Colligan violated institutional rules.

That petitioner suffered a loss is without question. He was placed in "segregation" in the Milan institution —a condition that, while not in and of itself cruel and unusual punishment, is a substantially more restricted and less pleasant condition than being in the general prison population. As a result of the actions of institutional authorities ratified by the Board of Parole, Colligan was denied a date certain for release on parole and has served an additional nine months since that date. The court has been informed that there is little likelihood of release for petitioner prior to his normal release date. These are substantial deprivations. United States ex rel. Walker v. Mancusi, 338 F. Supp. 311 (W.D.N.Y.1971).

It remains for this court to determine what process is due. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972).

This court does not, and will not, hold that the full panoply of due process that is accorded in a criminal trial need be accorded a prisoner accused of a violation of prison regulations. Due process in a prison context is not, and cannot be, as extensive as due process in the context of a criminal trial, but prison authority must function within the bounds of constitutional responsibility. See Gilmore v. Lynch, 319 F.Supp. 105 (N.D.Cal.1970).

The question of what is minimal due process under similar circumstances has faced the courts before. Landman v. Royster, supra; Clutchette v. Procunier, supra; Bundy v. Cannon, 328 F.Supp. 165 (D.Md.1971). See also Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L. Ed.2d 287 (1970); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972); Kritsky v. McGinnis, 313 F.Supp. 1247 (N.D.N.Y.1970); Smoake v. Fritz, 320 F.Supp. 609 (S.D.N.Y. 1970); Carter v. McGinnis, 320 F.Supp. 1092 (W.D.N.Y.1970).

This court, therefore, is not without guidance as to what...