Cousins v. Oliver
| Decision Date | 14 January 1974 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 73-480-R. |
| Citation | 369 F. Supp. 553 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
| Parties | Donald Lee COUSINS v. R. M. OLIVER, Superintendent of the Virginia State Farm. |
Donald Lee Cousins, pro se.
William A. Carter, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richmond, Va., for defendant.
Plaintiff, a Virginia prisoner incarcerated at the State Farm Southside, alleges constitutional deprivations by the defendant penal authorities for which he seeks monetary and injunctive relief.
Jurisdiction is attained pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343. The parties are presently before the Court pursuant to the defendant's motion for summary judgment and the matter is ripe for disposition.
The uncontroverted facts are as follows:
The plaintiff is a recidivist who has violated two previous paroles and is currently serving a term for statutory burglary committed while on parole.
On June 3, 1973, while a resident of the State Farm, Northside, he was charged with and admitted engaging in homosexual behavior, in violation of prison regulations. In a hearing held on June 5, 1973, an Institutional Adjustment Committee sentenced the plaintiff to 15 days in isolation and recommended a loss of 20 days good time. The Adjustment Committee also referred the plaintiff to the Institutional Classification Committee (ICC) for possible security reclassification.
Also on June 3, 1973, while being searched pursuant to being placed on detention because of the homosexual behavior charge, a guard reported finding a sharpened kitchen knife and a sharpened nail file on plaintiff's person. Disciplinary charges were also brought against the plaintiff for the possession of weapons and plaintiff again admitted to the charges. At the hearing held on June 5, 1973, the prison Adjustment Committee sentenced the plaintiff to a loss of 30 days good conduct time on this charge and referred the plaintiff to the ICC for possible security reclassification.
On June 19, 1973, the ICC, apparently without a hearing, conducted a general review of the plaintiff's record. In addition to the violations already discussed, plaintiff's record included reports of four other occasions on which plaintiff had been found guilty of rule violations by an Adjustment Committee and one occasion on which charges had been brought and dismissed after hearing. Reportedly because of this pattern of incorrigible behavior, the ICC assigned the plaintiff to maximum security.1
On June 26, 1973, the plaintiff's case was again reviewed by the ICC because of plaintiff's representations that there was friction between himself and another inmate, W. Pleasants, who was also housed in the maximum security building. As a result the plaintiff was placed on padlock status.2 This was purportedly for plaintiff's own protection. On September 21, 1973, shortly after the plaintiff's antagonist, Pleasants, had been transferred to another penal facility, the plaintiff was taken off padlock status.
The gravamen of plaintiff's complaint is the following:
1. That his removal from the general population and placement on maximum security was arbitrary and/or punitive.
2. The fact that the ICC decision to place him in maximum security was based on incidents for which he had already been punished by the Adjustment Committee resulted in his being twice jeopardized for the same offenses.
3. The fact that the ICC action taken was without a hearing denied him of due process.
4. The decision to place him on padlock status for part of the time he was housed in the maximum security building was arbitrary and capricious.
Before proceeding with the analysis of plaintiff's claims, the Court would make the following observations regarding the Virginia system of penal administration. The function of dealing with inmate behavioral problems is split between the Institutional Adjustment Committees and the Institutional Classification Committees (ICC) at the various state penal institutions.
When an inmate is reported for misbehavior and disciplinary charges are brought against him, an Adjustment Committee hearing is held to determine the fact of guilt or innocence and, assuming a finding of guilt, the Adjustment Committee determines the appropriate disciplinary action to be taken.3 Previous decisions by this Court have recognized the penal nature of Adjustment Committee actions and have established specific procedural requirements with respect to such actions. See e. g., Landman v. Royster, 333 F.Supp. 620 (E.D.Va.1971).
An inmate's misconduct may also serve as the basis for a security reclassification by an ICC, whether or not disciplinary proceedings or criminal charges have also been brought against the inmate for the same misconduct. The theory is that such proceedings are not punitive in nature, but are used to determine the appropriate security classification for an inmate whose alleged behavior has raised a question regarding his trustworthiness. Previous decisions by this Court have recognized the theoretical non-punitive nature of ICC proceedings and have developed more flexible precedural requirements with respect to such proceedings than with respect to disciplinary proceedings by an Adjustment Committee. See e. g., Wesson v. Moore, 365 F.Supp. 1262 at p. 1266 n. 8, (E.D.Va.1973). Also relying on the theoretical non-punitive nature of ICC proceedings, previous decisions by this Court have dismissed the suggestion that disciplinary action by an Adjustment Committee, followed by an ICC security reclassification based on the same misconduct, might raise double jeopardy problems. See, e. g., Almanza v. Oliver, 368 F.Supp. 981 at p. 984 n. 3, (E.D.Va.1973). It goes almost without saying, however, that an ICC proceeding found to be punitive, in fact, will be tested against the same due process standards applicable to an Adjustment Committee disciplinary proceeding. Cf. Ferrell v. Huffman, 350 F. Supp. 164 (E.D.Va.1972).
Regarding the procedures employed by an ICC in making a security reclassification determination, the administrative regulations clearly provide for an informal evidentiary hearing where there has been no previous inquiry into the inmate's factual guilt or innocence by an Adjustment Committee in a disciplinary proceeding.4 However, where the fact of the inmate's guilt has previously been determined by an Adjustment Committee in connection with a disciplinary proceeding, the regulations apparently do not provide for any hearing before the ICC at which the inmate is permitted to attend and participate.5
Assuming that the responsible penal officials had applied appropriate procedures with respect to the action taken against the plaintiff, the Court would have little hesitancy in dismissing his substantive claims, numbered one, two and four above. With respect to the plaintiff's first numbered claim, his record of incorrigible behavior was clearly such as to raise a legitimate concern as to institutional security; and the action taken (placement in maximum security) was such as could reasonably have been calculated to remedy the problems envisioned. See Wesson v. Moore, supra, 365 F.Supp. 1262, at p. 1266 n. 7, (E.D.Va.1973). Cf. Cary v. Slayton, mem. decis., ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Benfield v. Bounds
...Judge Merhige, well in advance of Wolff, required procedural due process in a prison disciplinary setting. In Cousins v. Oliver, 369 F.Supp. 553 (E.D.Va.1974), Judge Merhige held that even though the prisoner-plaintiff had been afforded an appropriate hearing by an institutional adjustment ......
-
Carlo v. Gunter, 75-1163
...not absolve defendants of their duty to afford them a hearing on the ground that the result would be a foregone conclusion, see Cousins v. Oliver, supra at 557, nor does it forever disentitle plaintiffs from the protection of due process under the clean hands doctrine, see Braxton v. Carlso......
-
Davis v. Fisher
...prosecuting a person twice for the same crime by the same authority. It does not apply to the facts as alleged. See Cousins v. Oliver, 369 F. Supp. 553, 556 (E.D. Va. 1974) (claim that reclassification to higher security based on the same evidence used to prove violation of an institutional......