Dawson v. Kendrick
| Decision Date | 10 August 1981 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 78-1076. |
| Citation | 527 F. Supp. 1252 |
| Parties | Ronald DAWSON, Marlon Lee Hess, James L. Caldwell, William Burton, Garrett Norris, Charles Scott, Chris Dillard and James Martin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Earl G. KENDRICK, individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of Mercer County, West Virginia; Luther H. Byrd, individually and in his official capacity as Mercer County Commissioner and as representative of all other members of the Commission; Joe Coburn, individually and in his official capacity as Mercer County Commissioner and President of the Mercer County Commission, and as representative of all other members of the Commission; Clarence H. Six, individually and in his official capacity as Mercer County Commissioner, and as representative of all other members of the Commission; Mercer County Commission; Ricky Lee Lambert, individually and in his official capacity as jailer; and Harvey D. Wilson, individually and in his official capacity as Clerk of the Mercer County Commission, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Tobias J. Hirshman, Charleston, W. Va., for plaintiffs.
David W. Knight, Charles T. Cunningham, Princeton, W. Va., for defendants.
FINDINGS OF FACT
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CONTENTS
Introduction 1257
I. Findings of Fact
Generally 1259
Population and
Operational Costs 1261
Plumbing 1262
Lighting 1263
General Sanitary
& Health Conditions 1263
Deputy Sheriffs 1265
Fire Detection 1266
Sufficiency of
Housing & Supervision 1268
Classification 1270
Rules and Regulations 1271
Imposition of
Punishment 1271
Administrative
Segregation 1271
Clothing 1272
Toilet Articles 1272
Exercise 1272
Medical & Dental 1272
Nutrition 1273
Mail 1275
Telephones 1276
Visitation 1276
Reading Materials 1277
Rehab Programs 1277
Access to the
Courts 1279
Attorney/Client
Interview Facilities 1279
Possible Discrimination 1279
Other Conditions 1280
Conclusions 1280
II. Conclusions of Law ÔÇö
Generally
The Function of
Constitutional
Review 1280
Eight Amendment
and Fourteenth
Amendment 1282
State Statutory
Standards 1284
Totality of Conditions
& Discrete
Adjudication
Analyses 1285
Equal Protection 1286
III. Conclusions of Law ÔÇö
The Constitutionality
of Conditions and
Practices at the
Mercer County Jail
A. Plumbing 1287
B. Lighting 1288
C. Bedding, Clothing
& Toilet Articles 1288
D. Housekeeping 1289
E. Prisoner Safety 1289
F. Overcrowding 1294
G. Nutrition 1297
H. Exercise 1298
I. Discipline 1301
J. Medical Care 1306
K. Visitation 1308
L. Mail 1309
M. Access to the
Courts 1312
N. Segregated Confinement 1314
O. Rehab. & Reading
Materials 1315
P. Voting 1316
Q. Female Prisoners 1316
IV. ORDER 1318
The named plaintiffs in this civil action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ž 1983 are certain past and present inmates of the Mercer County Jail located in Princeton, West Virginia. Plaintiffs have asserted extensive denials of their various constitutional rights due to the conditions they allege exist at the jail. The complaint does not focus upon an isolated condition or even group of conditions. Rather, plaintiffs have launched a comprehensive assault upon all of the physical aspects of the jail and virtually every procedure by which the jail is operated and maintained.
The court has conditionally certified this case as a class action. The class is composed of all persons who have been, presently are, or shall in the future be confined in the jail, excluding those whose claims are barred by statutes of limitation or laches. The class is subdivided into two parts with one subclass being composed of all members of the class who are pre-trial detainees and the other being all members of the class who have been confined in the jail following trial or conviction for some crime.
The trial to the court of plaintiffs' requests for both a preliminary and a permanent injunction and for declaratory relief were consolidated for hearing. Trial of the damages issues has been postponed until adjudication of the requests for injunctive and declaratory relief.
The claims against the physical aspects of the jail allege inadequate plumbing and lighting; exposure to risk of injury or death by fire due to inadequate fire escape routes; the lack of adequate facilities and programs for indoor and outdoor exercise and recreation; the lack of light, toilet facilities, and showers in the solitary confinement cells; the lack of adequate facilities in which an inmate may consult with an attorney; and, the presence of unsanitary and unhealthful conditions in the jail in general such as filth and vermin. Plaintiffs complain as well of the manner in which the jail is operated and the lack of numerous necessary services, alleging: inadequate medical, dental and nursing care; nutritionally inadequate meals; the failure to provide clothing; the failure to furnish various toilet articles and grooming aids; insufficient numbers of guards and deputy sheriffs stationed in the jail so as to endanger the health and safety of the inmates; the lack of written rules to inform the inmates of their rights and responsibilities; the failure to provide vocational, educational, or other rehabilitative programs; the lack of an adequate classification system of the inmates, leading in turn to insufficient supervision and indiscriminate housing of the inmates; inadequate handling of inmate mail and access to telephones; the failure to provide sufficient reading materials; inadequate visitation schedules and poor facilities in which the inmates may meet with their visitors; the arbitrary imposition of punishment upon inmates who are alleged to have broken the unwritten jail rules without a hearing or other protection; and the general imposition of discriminatory treatment upon the inmates by the jailkeepers. Plaintiffs also assert that their access to the courts is being impinged upon because they are denied access to their attorneys and to various legal materials, including a law library. A separate claim of some of the inmates alleges the failure of the jailkeepers to adequately provide the lesser degree of incarceration to which pre-trial detainees are said to be entitled. The issues presented conclude with additional claims premised upon the alleged failure of the jailkeepers to comply with various statutory duties which repeat the items set forth above.1
In addition to the oral testimony and exhibits received during the trial and the view of the jail by the court during the course of the trial, the parties have entered into several stipulations of fact.2 The court adopts all of the stipulations of fact as its own and incorporates them in these findings by reference. The court's findings of fact, in addition to the stipulations, are set forth in the following discussion.
The Mercer County Jail is operated by the Mercer County Sheriff's Department and is financed by the Mercer County Commission. The jail, which is the only primarily adult detention center operated by the county, is located within the Mercer County Courthouse in Princeton, West Virginia. The courthouse is a three-story building plus a basement. The entrance to the jail is located at the basement level. The basement houses the jail control room, the kitchen facilities, the drunk tank, and the so-called juvenile area.3 The sheriff's office proper is located on the first floor of the courthouse. The main portion of the jail is located on the entire third floor of the building. Access to the jail facilities on the third floor is by three means: an elevator which rises from the basement to the third floor; a staircase rising from the basement to the third floor with an exit to the sheriff's office on the first floor and an exit into the prosecuting attorney's office; and a small elevator which stops at the third floor and at the second floor near the criminal courtroom on that floor. The small elevator does not continue downward past the second floor.
The entire courthouse was designed in 1929 and was built in 1930-31. General maintenance of the water, toilet, and lighting facilities has been undertaken from time to time in response to prisoner abuse and the aging of the building. Although routine maintenance checks are not made by a professional firm, the deputies report maintenance needs as they arise.
The one instance of major repair and maintenance work on the courthouse took place...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peart v. Seneca Cnty.
...(sodomized victim stated claim for deliberate indifference when guards failed to classify or regularly patrol); Dawson v. Kendrick, 527 F.Supp. 1252, 1294 (S.D.W.Va.1981). The Sixth Circuit has twice held that supervisors may be held liable when inmates' placements leave them vulnerable to ......
-
Groseclose v. Dutton, 3-84-0579.
...to the constitutionality of entire prison systems. See, e.g., Cody v. Hillard, 599 F.Supp. 1025 (D.S.D. 1984); Dawson v. Kendrick, 527 F.Supp. 1252 (S.D.W.Va.1981); Pugh v. Locke, 406 F.Supp. 318 (M.D.Ala.1976), aff'd sub nom. Newman v. Alabama, 559 F.2d 283 (5th Cir.1977), rev'd in part, 4......
-
N.E.W. v. Kennard
...or discriminatory Ford v. Beister, 657 F.Supp. 607 (D.M.D.Pa.1986) (visitation limitation on children under 18); Dawson v. Kendrick, 527 F.Supp. 1252 (D.S.D.W.Va. 1981) (children under 12); Navin v. Iowa Dept. of Corrections, 843 F.Supp. 500 (D.N.D.Iowa 1994) (children when accompanied by a......
-
Ruiz v. Estelle
...v. Henderson, 331 F.Supp. 1123, 1131 (E.D.La.1971)); Kirby v. Blackledge, 530 F.2d 583, 587 (4th Cir. 1976); Dawson v. Kendrick, 527 F.Supp. 1252, 1298 (S.D.W.Va.1981); Parnell v. Waldrep, 511 F.Supp. 764, 771 (W.D.N.C.1981); Feliciano v. Barcelo, 497 F.Supp. 14, 34 (D.P.R.1979). 174 See Pa......
-
Free-World Law Behind Bars.
...v. Ambroyer, 568 F. Supp. 245, 251 (E.D. Mich. 1983); Capps v. Atiyeh, 559 F. Supp. 894, 913-14 (D. Or. 1982); Dawson v. Kendrick, 527 F. Supp. 1252,1294-97 (S.D. W. Va. (35.) See Swain v. Junior, 961 F.3d 1276, 1287-89 (11th Cir. 2020); Mays v. Dart, 974 F.3d 810, 819-20 (7th Cir. 2020); s......
-
CONTESTING THE CARCERAL STATE WITH DISABILITY FRAMES: CHALLENGES AND POSSIBILITIES.
...to care for him adequately or that his condition is otherwise so extraordinary that it warrants a departure."); Dawson v. Kendrick, 527 F. Supp. 1252, 1280 (S.D. W. Va. 1981) ("The conditions existing at the jail serve to punish the pre-trial detainees and severely deprive the inmates, subj......
-
The mentally ill offender: a brighter tomorrow through the eyes of the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2004.
...(161) Id. (162) Id. at 102. (163) Id. (164) Pugh v. Locke, 406 F. Supp. 318, 333 (M.D. Ala. 1976). (165) Id. (166) Dawson v. Kendrick, 527 F. Supp. 1252, 1289 (D. W. Va. 1981). (167) Id. at 1289-90. (168) See Balla, 595 F. Supp. at 1578. (169) See id. (170) See id. (171) Coleman, 912 F. Sup......
-
MENSTRUAL EQUITY, ORGANIZING AND THE STRUGGLE FOR HUMAN DIGNITY AND GENDER EQUALITY IN PRISON.
..."deliberate indifference" can be inferred by the very fact that the risk of harm is obvious. Id. at 842. (72) Dawson v. Kendrick, 527 F. Supp. 1252, 1288-89 (S.D.W. Va. (73) Semelbauer v. Muskegon Cnty., No. 1:14-CV-1245, 2015 WL 9906265, at *9-10 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 11, 2015). (74) Complaint......