Duran v. Elrod

• Decision Date: 06 October 1983
• Docket Number: No. 83-1574,83-1574
• Citation: 713 F.2d 292
• Parties: Dan DURAN, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Richard ELROD, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Page 292

713 F.2d 292

Dan DURAN, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Richard ELROD, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 83-1574.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued June 6, 1983.

Decided July 22, 1983.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Oct. 6, 1983.

Henry A. Hauser, Asst. State's Atty., Chicago, Ill., for defendants-appellants.

Richard Jay Hess, Sally T. Elson, Robert E. Lehrer, Phillip H. Snelling, Legal Asst. Foundation of Chicago, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs-appellees.

Before WOOD and CUDAHY, Circuit Judges, and GRANT, Senior District Judge. ^*

GRANT, Senior District Judge.

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are a certified class consisting of all pretrial detainees in the custody of the Cook County Department of Corrections. The Defendants-Appellants are Richard J. Elrod, the Sheriff of Cook County, Phillip T. Hardiman, the Executive Director of the Cook County Department of Corrections, the Cook County Board of Commissioners and its members in their official capacities and the Cook County Board of Corrections and its members in their official capacities (hereinafter "County officials" or "County defendants"). The plaintiff detainees filed this class action in 1974, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The detainees charged the defendant County officials with violations of their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by failing to provide safe and humane conditions of confinement. After extensive discovery and negotiations between the parties, a comprehensive Consent Decree was entered by the district court on April 9, 1982. This Decree called for the renovation and modernization of the county jail facilities; increasing of staff personnel; improvement in food services and provision of personal hygiene supplies; increased access to the law library; more physical exercise periods and increased hours for visitation. As part of the Consent Decree, the parties agreed that the John Howard Association (hereinafter "Monitor") should be appointed by the district court to review and evaluate the implementation of the Decree at set time intervals. The district court retained jurisdiction over the case in order to enforce as necessary the Decree. This case is presently before this Court on expedited appeal from a subsequent district court order.

On October 9, 1982, the John Howard Association submitted their first six month report regarding jail conditions. The Monitor found that the goals outlined in the Consent Decree had not been achieved. The Monitor reported that, by the second week of June 1982, among inmates assigned to Division II, 375 were not assigned a bed. The report continued that by September 27, 1982 the population in Division II had reached 1,285 men with 436 sleeping on the floor, a large number without mattresses or blankets. R. 15, Ex. B, p. 4. In Division V, 370 men were sleeping on the dayroom floors, many again without mattresses or blankets. In October 1982 in the Women's Division (Division III) from 15 to 50 women were sleeping on mattresses on cell floors. The Monitor reported that one of the contributory factors to the jail population was the retention of low-bond inmates for longer periods because of inability to raise a relatively small amount of bail. The report indicated that from 500 to 750 inmates could be released "if they had only $100." Id. at p. 5. As a result of the Monitor's report, the detainees filed a Petition for a Rule to Show Cause why the County defendants should not be held in contempt for violating the Consent Decree. That petition was granted.

Hearings were held, and on January 25, 1983, the district court ordered a "cap" on the population of Department of Corrections at 4500 inmates. This figure was arrived at to assure that each inmate would have a bed. The defendants were directed to file with the court by February 11, 1983 a report detailing (a) the method chosen to reduce the inmate population and (b) the results achieved in the reduction of the population. R. 19, p. 3.

On February 11, 1983, the defendant County officials filed a status report, including the Director's Log from January 21 to February 8, 1983, which indicated that on February 8, 1983 the jail population was 4,830 with 4,583 beds available. At the same time, the defendants filed a Motion for Relief from the population "cap" ordered on January 25, 1983 and a Motion for modification of the Consent Decree requesting double-bunking in Division I. At a March 2, 1983 status hearing, Judge Shadur called for the parties to submit criteria for the release of inmates in order to reach the "cap." The plaintiffs suggested on March 4, 1983 the use of the same criteria used by Judge Lasker in the New York case, Benjamin v. Malcolm, No. 75 C 3073 (S.D.N.Y. filed June 23, 1981), i.e., release on their own recognizance those persons in default of the lowest amount of bail, and among those held on an equal amount of bail, the ones who had been confined the longest. R. 27. The defendants failed to submit a criteria, contending that release of inmates was beyond their legal authority. R. 26, p. 2. On March 21, 1983, the district court's Minute entry denying the defendants' Motion to Modify the Consent Decree was docketed. The following day, March 22, 1983, the district court entered the Opinion and Order subject of this appeal. Judge Shadur held:

This Court therefore orders (as did Judge Lasker) [Benjamin v. Malcolm, supra] that if compliance with the Order requires a reduction in inmate population at the D of C at any time after April 15, 1983 and if no Illinois state court of competent jurisdiction has then specified a different method of selecting the persons to be released to accomplish such reduction, Sheriff Elrod and Director Hardiman are directed to release on their own recognizance the persons held in default of the lowest amount of bail, and among persons held on the same amount of bail the ones who have been confined for the longest time. This order leaves the primary and direct responsibility with the state court judiciary, where both the litigants and this Court agree it belongs.

This order also confirms the denial of defendants' motion for double celling of Division I at the D of C. That would represent a step backward from the salutary provisions to which defendants agreed when they co-authored the Decree.

R. 31.

The County defendants immediately appealed from that March 22 Memorandum Opinion and Order docketed March 29, 1983. R. 32. A stay of the district court Order was granted by this Court on April 15, 1983.

Upon appeal, the following issues were raised:

1. Whether the district court incorrectly denied the County officials' Rule 60(b) Motion to modify the Consent Decree to permit double-bunking in Division I;

2. Whether the district court in its March 22, 1983 Opinion and Order exceeded its authority in directing the release of low-bond pretrial detainees.

I. Motion to Modify Consent Decree

It must initially be noted that the detainees argue that this Court is without jurisdiction to review this issue as the Notice of Appeal failed to designate an appeal from the February 11 Order denying modification of the Decree. The Minute entry was dated February 11, 1983, the date the County officials filed their Motion to modify, but the entry was not docketed until March 21, 1983. The March 22, 1983 Opinion and Order stated in conclusion "[t]his order also confirms the denial of defendants' motion for double celling of Division I at the D of C."

Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1) provides:

(a) Appeals in Civil cases.

(1) In a civil case in which an appeal is permitted by law as of right from a district court to a court of appeals the notice of appeal required by Rule 3 shall be filed with the clerk of the district court within 30 days after the date of entry of the judgment or order appealed from; ...

(emphasis added). The date of entry has been defined as occurring:

... when the essentials of a judgment or order are set forth in a written document separate from the court's opinion or memorandum and when the substance of this separate document is reflected in an appropriate notation on the docket sheet assigned to the action in the district court. This dual requirement is established by Civil Rule 58, Entry of Judgment, which states that "[e]very judgment shall be set forth on a separate document" and that "[a] judgment is effective only when so set forth and when entered as provided in Rule 79(a)." Rule 4(a), which is derived without change in substance from a former civil rule, incorporates both of these standards.

Caperton v. Beatrice Pocahontas Coal Co., 585 F.2d 683, 688 (4th Cir.1978) (footnotes omitted).

In this instance, the date of entry of the initial denial of the Motion to modify was March 21, 1983. This was confirmed by the Order of March 22, 1983. The notice of appeal was filed March 30, 1983.

The requirements of Fed.R.App.P. 3(c) that a notice of appeal "shall designate the judgment, order or part thereof appealed from ..." have been given liberal interpretation by federal appellate courts. It is unmistakable that the defendants intended to appeal both the opinion ordering release of low-bond detainees to meet the "cap" and the denial of the modification requested. Both issues were addressed in the Opinion, a final appealable order. The release order became necessary when the request for modification was denied.

The rule is now well settled that a mistake in designating the judgment, or in designating the part appealed from if only a part is designated should not result in loss of the appeal as long as the intent to appeal from a specific judgment can be fairly inferred from the notice and the appellee is not misled by the mistake.

9 Moore's Federal Practice p 203.18, p. 3-76-77 (1983) (footnotes omitted).

As the Supreme Court pointed out in Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 181-2, 83 S.Ct. 227, 229-30, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962):

It is...