Dominguez v. Figel, Civ. No. F 85-250.

• Decision Date: 23 January 1986
• Docket Number: Civ. No. F 85-250.
• Citation: 626 F. Supp. 368
• Parties: John M. DOMINGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. Dan FIGEL, Sheriff of Allen County; and Donald Crick, Deputy Chief, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana

626 F. Supp. 368

John M. DOMINGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. Dan FIGEL, Sheriff of Allen County; and Donald Crick, Deputy Chief, Defendants.

Civ. No. F 85-250.

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division.

January 23, 1986.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Joseph W. Ruppert, Bowman, Crowell & Teeters, Fort Wayne, Ind., for plaintiff.

William F. McNagny, Barrett, Barrett & McNagny, Fort Wayne, Ind., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

WILLIAM C. LEE, District Judge.

This matter is before the court for a decision on the merits following a bench trial. This case was brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of the plaintiff's first and eighth amendment rights arising out of plaintiff being restricted to his cell at the Allen County Jail for five days. Having examined and considered the entire record, having determined the credibility of the witnesses after viewing their demeanor and considering their interests, and being duly advised, the court hereby enters the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pursuant to Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Findings of Fact

The plaintiff, John M. Dominguez ("Dominguez"), is a resident of Fort Wayne, Indiana. During May, 1985, he was confined as a inmate in the Allen County Jail, which is under the control of defendant Daniel Figel, the Sheriff of Allen County, Indiana. Co-defendant Donald Crick is a Deputy Chief in the Allen County Sheriff's Department ("Sheriff's Department") and is the Commander of the jail.

In early May, 1985, the Sheriff's Department became aware of a serious drug problem in the Allen County Jail. Several inmates filed a written complaint that Dominguez had reneged on an agreement to supply them with marijuana in exchange for cigarettes. The Sheriff's Department then cultivated an informant among the inmates, who obtained drugs from Dominguez. These drugs were turned over to Inspector Joseph Squadrito, who had them tested. Squadrito, of the Sheriff Department's Internal Affairs Division, had been investigating the jail's drug problem, attempting to ascertain whether any jail staff member had been involved. Squadrito's investigation had already uncovered that Dominguez' fiance and the wife of Jerry Landis ("Landis"), Dominguez' cellmate, were involved in drug dealing outside the jail.

When the informant turned over the drugs to Squadrito, a decision was made with Crick's approval to conduct a search, or "shakedown," of Dominguez' cell on Friday, May 17, 1985. The search uncovered a small quantity of marijuana. Dominguez and Landis were ordered placed on "lockdown" status, with the added restriction that they not be allowed to leave their cell at any time. The decision to restrict Dominguez and Landis to their cell was made both to protect the Sheriff Department's informant, as well as to isolate Dominguez and Landis in order to discover how drugs got into the jail.

The lockdown was ordered late Friday afternoon, May 17, 1985. Jail regulations require that a locked down prisoner be given a disciplinary hearing within seventy-two hours. However, Crick testified that Saturdays and Sundays are excluded in calculating such time. Because of the lateness of the time on Friday, this time did not effectively begin to run until Monday. A disciplinary hearing for Dominguez was held on Thursday, May 23, 1985, at 2:00 p.m.

Jail regulations also require that a prisoner on lockdown be given one hour of exercise out of his cell each day. Although Dominguez was confined to his cell generally, he exercised in his cell. He testified that he always exercised in his cell, and thus the restriction to his cell did not disrupt or impair his ability to exercise during the five days he was on lockdown.

The jail had a Sunday religious service which inmates could attend. In addition, the Jail Chaplain, Rev. Warren Doyle Staton, was available for individual consultations with inmates. On Sunday, May 19, 1985, Dominguez requested that he be allowed to attend the religious services. He was let out of his cell and allowed to visit with Rev. Staton for approximately an hour. During that conversation, Dominguez revealed that he wanted to sue the jail and its officials.

On May 23, 1985, a disciplinary hearing was held, at which Dominguez signed a form accepting the findings of the disciplinary committee and accepting as punishment the five days of lockdown and a loss of commissary privileges.

Conclusions of Law

This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court has jurisdiction over this cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343, and jurisdiction has been conceded by counsel.

Dominguez argues that the lockdown and restriction against leaving his cell violated his first and eighth amendment rights. The court considers each of these claims in turn.

A. First Amendment — Freedom of Religion

Dominguez argues that his freedom of religion was violated by the refusal to let him leave his cell to attend religious services on Sunday, May 20, 1985. As an initial matter, the court finds that there is no factual predicate to this claim. The facts of this case indicate that Dominguez in fact left his cell and visited with Rev. Staton for nearly an hour. During such a visit, Dominguez had the opportunity to exercise his religion with the assistance of Rev. Staton. Thus, the court finds that Dominguez was not denied his right to religious freedom during his five days in "lockdown" status. The defendants are entitled to judgment on this ground alone.

Even if Dominguez' factual assertions were correct, the court finds that Dominguez would not make out a first amendment claim. It is true that "convicted prisoners do not forfeit all constitutional protections by reason of their conviction and confinement in prison." Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 545, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1877, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). Courts which have examined the regulation of the right to worship in prison settings have generally recognized that the regulations must be "reasonably and substantially justified by considerations of prison discipline and order." Gallahan v. Hollyfield, 670 F.2d 1345, 1346 (4th Cir.1982), quoting Sweet v. South Carolina Dept. of Corrections, 529 F.2d 854, 863 (4th Cir.1975); Teterud v. Burns, 522 F.2d 357 (8th Cir.1975). See Dreibelbis v. Marks, 742 F.2d 792, 794 (3d Cir.1984) (right to practice religion may be reasonably restricted in order to facilitate the maintenance of proper discipline in prison). The Seventh Circuit has formulated a two part test for measuring the constitutional propriety of restrictions on the exercise of religion:

Prison rules that incidentally restrain the free exercise of religion are justified only "if the state regulation has an important objective and the restraint on religious liberty is reasonably adapted to achieving that objective."

Madyun v. Franzen, 704 F.2d 954, 959-60 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 996, 104 S.Ct. 493, 78 L.Ed.2d 687 (1983), quoting La Reau v. MacDougall, 473 F.2d 974, 979 (2d Cir.1976).

Here, the Sheriff Department's objective was two-fold: to protect the informant working in the jail population, as well as to isolate Dominguez as part of the continuing investigation into how drugs got into the jail. Restricting Dominguez to his cell was reasonably and substantially justified by these two interests, which relate directly to prison order and discipline. Under the Seventh Circuit standard, the Department's objectives are "important" precisely because they sought to maintain prison order and discipline through preventing Dominguez from harming the informant and by stopping the flow of drugs into the jail. Further, the confinement was "reasonably adapted" to achieving those objectives. Precisely because the maintenance of discipline and order are within the province of prison or jail officials, wide-ranging deference should be given to their discretionary judgments. Bell, 441 U.S. at 547, 99 S.Ct. at 1877; Jones v. N.C. Prisoners' Labor Union, Inc., 433 U.S. 119, 132, 97 S.Ct. 2532, 2541, 53 L.Ed.2d 629 (1977). The Sheriff's Department believed that Dominguez posed a threat to prison order and discipline, and their decision to confine him was reasonable. Thus, the confinement of Dominguez in his cell for one Sunday is constitutionally justified even if it prevented Dominguez from exercising his religion for one day. In short, Dominguez cannot make out a first amendment claim even if his factual assertions were correct.

The court therefore finds that judgment for the defendants on Dominguez' first amendment claim is justified by both the law and the facts.

B. Eighth Amendment — Failure to Allow Exercise

Dominguez' second claim is that the failure to let him out of his cell to exercise constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Once again, the facts of this case indicate that Dominguez has no claim. Dominguez testified that he exercised in his cell during the time on "lockdown." On cross-examination, he also admitted that he never exercised in any area outside of his cell when he was not on lockdown — in effect admitting that the only place he ever exercised was in his cell. Thus, the fact that he was confined to his cell during the lockdown could not have had any effect on his exercise routine, and thus could not have constituted some kind of infringement on his right to exercise. Once again, the facts make it clear that the defendants are entitled to judgment.

The legal basis for the claim is likewise unpersuasive. As the Seventh Circuit has noted: "Various prison conditions do not exist in isolation. Rather, challenged conditions must be viewed in light of other prison conditions that may aggravate or mitigate the effect of the challenged conditions." Wellman v. Faulkner, 715 F.2d 269, 274 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. 3587, 82 L.Ed.2d 885 (1984). In analyzing claims based on restrictions on exercise, a court must "look at the totality of the...