Folgueras v. Hassle

• Decision Date: 07 September 1971
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 252,K-26-71.
• Citation: 331 F. Supp. 615
• Parties: Donald FOLGUERAS et al., Plaintiffs, v. Joseph W. HASSLE et al., Defendants. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Joseph HASSLE, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

331 F. Supp. 615

Donald FOLGUERAS et al., Plaintiffs, v. Joseph W. HASSLE et al., Defendants.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Joseph HASSLE, Defendant.

Civ. A. Nos. 252, K-26-71.

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

September 7, 1971.

Ryan, McQuillan & Vander Ploeg, Thomas R. Fette, of counsel, Tat Parish, St. Joseph, Mich., Lawrence J. Sherman, Washington, D. C., Edward M. Yampolsky, St. Joseph, Mich., Robert Olson, Hartford, Mich., for plaintiffs.

John P. Milanowski, U. S. Atty., Grand Rapids, Mich., J. Jerry Kantor, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff United States.

Hartwig, Crow & Jones, Benton Harbor, Mich., J. D. Hartwig, Benton Harbor, Mich., of counsel, for defendants Hassle.

Luyendyk, Hainer, Karr & Edens, Grand Rapids, Mich., G. Anthony Edens, Grand Rapids, Mich., of counsel, for other defendants.

OPINION

FOX, Chief Judge.

FACTS

Plaintiffs Donald Folgueras, Violadelle Valdez, George Gutierrez and Alicia Gutierrez brought Civil Action No. 252 to recover damages for the denial of equal protection and the deprivation of their privileges and immunities of citizenship under color of law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs likewise allege a conspiracy to deprive them of equal protection of the laws under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. Finally, the plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment upholding their "constitutional, statutory, and common law right," to access to migrant labor camps on the defendant's property.

The plaintiffs in Folgueras, et al. v. Hassle, et al., moved for a partial summary judgment, requesting the court to declare the law relative to access rights to migrant workers labor camps. F.R. C.P., Rule 56. On June 30, 1971, this court issued an interim opinion in response to plaintiffs' motion indicating that a final opinion would be forthcoming. This is the court's final declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.

The plaintiff, United States, in United States v. Hassle, K-26-71 C.A., brought its action to enjoin the defendant from denying access to his labor camps to persons seeking to "inform migrant workers and their families about programs of assistance or to help them obtain benefits under the programs." The plaintiff sought, also, to enjoin the defendant from preventing entrance to persons invited onto the property by the migrants and others seeking to enter on reasonable terms and conditions.

The parties to United States v. Hassle were able to agree to a consent decree. A consent decree, when signed by the court, is a judicial act and possesses the same force and character as a judgment rendered following a contested trial. Siebring v. Hansen, 346 F.2d 474 (8th Cir. 1965), cert. denied 382 U.S. 943, 86 S.Ct. 400, 15 L.Ed.2d 352; Kiwi Coders Corp. v. Acro Tool and Die Works, 250 F.2d 562 (7th Cir. 1957); United States by Clark v. Gramer, 418 F.2d 692 (5th Cir. 1969). This court signed the consent decree making it its judgment. This opinion states the court's reasons for doing so.

These two cases present similar legal questions concerning the right of access to migrant labor camps located on the private property of an individual land owner. Because of this similarity this opinion covers both cases.

The facts of Donald Folgueras, et al. v. Joseph Hassle, et al., Civil Action No. 252, are undisputed. The defendant in both cases, Joseph Hassle, owns and operates fifteen agriculture labor camps in Western Michigan. These camps contain approximately 220 dwelling units, each 12 × 12 feet in dimension, and all used to house migratory workers employed by the defendant Hassle. All of these dwelling units are subject to licensing and inspection under state law.

The incidents giving rise to Donald Folgueras v. Joseph Hassle, took place in one such labor camp called the "Krohn Camp." The "Krohn Camp" may be characterized as a medium size labor camp consisting of some 35 wooden cabins nestled in dense foliage and bordered by a swamp. The camp is hidden from public view and accessible by a single private road leading to the cabins.

The Hassles provide numerous services to the residents of their labor camps, including: water, privies, sanitation, pickups, sewage and shower facilities, medical kits and fire extinguishers.

Nicholas Garza acted as a crew chief for the Hassle farm. His responsibilities included transportation of the crew to and from the fields, to health clinics and hospitals, and to town on the weekends. For most people in the camp, Garza, and those persons authorized to operate his buses and trucks, were the only means of transportation other than by foot. Garza's responsibilities included, also, the duty to maintain order in the camp.

Mr. Hassle, however, maintained close personal control over his labor camps and visited them almost daily. At times he visited the camps several times a day.

The Gutierrez family worked on the Hassle farm and lived in one of the cabins in the "Krohn Camp." The Gutierrezes were in especially bad financial condition upon their arrival at the Hassle farm. Garza provided the family's transportation to Michigan and apparently advanced living expenses as well. Garza therefore deducted these debts from the family's early wages. The Gutierrezes were unable to obtain food stamps after their arrival in Michigan because the Hassles refused to sign the necessary forms. Thus, the Gutierrezes turned to United Migrants for Opportunity, Inc. (UMOI) for emergency food assistance.

UMOI employed Folgueras and Valdez as "student coordinators" during the summer of 1969. Their duties with UMOI included providing social services to residents of agricultural labor camps and gathering research information relating to working conditions and living conditions in migrant camps.

The summer of 1969 brought numerous complaints to the Hassles concerning minimum wage payments and a legal action arising from injury to a crew worker. Crew leaders reported to the Hassles that visitors were responsible for the discontent in the camps and Mr. Hassle responded by directing the crew leaders to have visitors arrested for trespass.

On July 22, 1969, Joseph Hassle forcibly evicted plaintiff Folgueras from the "Krohn Camp" for taking a water sample.

On July 23, 1969, Violadelle Valdez went to the "Krohn Camp" at the invitation of plaintiff Gutierrez. Her purpose was to assist the Gutierrezes with their sick children; Folgueras accompanied her on this visit.

Defendant Hassle observed Valdez and Folgueras driving to the camp and arrived at the camp shortly after them. Hassle immediately attacked Folgueras, knocking him to the ground at least twice and kicking him while he searched on the ground for his glasses. Hassle kept Folgueras pinned on the ground for approximately two hours with a shotgun that may, or may not, have been loaded. This occurred in front of numerous witnesses.

At this point Mrs. Hassle called her babysitter who in turn called the sheriff's office. Two deputy sheriffs, Johnson and Pullen, arrived at the camp and conducted an investigation. The deputy sheriffs conferred with the Hassles and Valdez and Folgueras, but never with the Gutierrez family. After giving Valdez and Folgueras the opportunity to leave, the deputy sheriffs arrested them for criminal trespass.

The plaintiffs in this action seek a declaratory judgment of their right to access to migrant camps. They further seek compensatory damages for defendant Hassle's physical attack on Folgueras and his threats to both Folgueras and Valdez, and for the denial of access itself. The plaintiffs also seek punitive damages for defendant's conduct.

The United States brought United States v. Hassle, K-26-71 C.A., to enjoin the defendant from barring access to his labor camps to representatives of federal, state, local and private assistance programs. The State of Michigan later joined as plaintiff in this request. UMOI later intervened as amicus curiae.

Pursuant to Acts of Congress the United States has established programs designed to assist migrant farm workers. Title III-B of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. §§ 2861-2862) provides for financial assistance to state, local and private agencies designed to improve the living conditions and skills of the migrant farm laborer. Specifically the act provides:

Congressional statement of purpose

The purpose of this part is to assist migrant and seasonal farmworkers and their families to improve their living conditions and develop skills necessary for a productive and self-sufficient life in an increasingly complex and technological society. 42 U.S.C. § 2861

Financial Assistance

(a) The Director may provide financial assistance to assist State and local agencies, private nonprofit institutions and cooperatives in developing and carrying out programs to fulfill the purpose of this part.

(b) Programs assisted under this part may include projects or activities —

(1) to meet the immediate needs of migrant and seasonal farmworkers and their families, such as day care for children, education, health services, improved housing and sanitation (including the provision and maintenance of emergency and temporary housing and sanitation facilities), legal advice and representation, and consumer training and counseling;

(2) to promote increased community acceptance of migrant and seasonal farmworkers and their families; and

(3) to equip unskilled migrant and seasonal farmworkers and members of their families as appropriate through education and training to meet the changing demands in agricultural employment brought about by technological advancement and to take advantage of opportunities available to improve their well-being and self-sufficiency by gaining regular or permanent employment or by participating in available Government training programs.

42 U.S.C. § 2862

Title II of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2809) establishes programs intended to meet the critical needs of the poor. The Act...