Franklin v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 94-0511(JHG).

Decision Date16 April 1997
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 94-0511(JHG).
PartiesRobert FRANKLIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Columbia

Jonathan Mark Smith, Aurie Talbor Hall, DC Prisoners' Legal Services Project, Inc., Richard Edward Wallace, Jr., Callie Georgeann Pappas, Kenneth Wellington Brothers, John Justin Rosenthal, Howrey & Simon, Washington, DC, for plaintiffs.

Maria Claudia Amato, Nancy S. Schultz, Jacques Philippe Lerner, Office of Corporation Counsel, D.C., Washington, DC, for defendant.


JOYCE HENS GREEN, District Judge.

The plaintiffs represent a class of Hispanic prisoners who are or who will be incarcerated in District of Columbia correctional institutions. In this suit, they seek injunctive and a declaratory relief for alleged violations of the First, Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d, 2000bb, and of D.C. law pendent to the constitutional violations.1

The plaintiffs allege that the defendant's failure to provide Spanish-speaking staff; interpreters and translators has violated their constitutional rights, because it effectively denies them adequate medical and mental health care and interferes with their right to privacy, obstructs their constitutional right to practice their religion, undermines their right to fair hearings and denies them access to vocational, educational and drug treatment programs. They also aver that the defendant has violated their rights by failing to offer religious, vocational and educational programs in the Spanish-language. And, the plaintiffs contend that the District of Columbia has discriminated against Hispanic prisoners by failing to protect them from racial violence and a racially hostile environment.2

The plaintiffs have met their burden to prove that the defendant has violated the plaintiff class' constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fifth Amendments, as alleged in Counts One through Four of the Amended Complaint, and, notwithstanding the "flurry of activity" on the eve of trial, the defendant has not taken meaningful action to remedy those violations. Accordingly, for the reasons stated below, upon considering all of the evidence introduced at trial and the testimony of the witnesses, including an evaluation of the credibility and demeanor of each witness, the Court will enter judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on Counts One (in part), Two, Three and Four of the Amended Complaint and in favor of the defendant on Counts One (in part), Five, Seven and Eight.3

I. Introduction

The five-day bench trial in this matter involved approximately 30 hours of trial time, evenly divided between both sides.4 In its case-in-chief, the plaintiffs presented five Limited-English-Proficient ("LEP") Hispanic inmate witnesses (William Alexander Lazo, Jose Mejia, Jose Bonilla, Martin Nunez, and Jose el Carmen Sandoval); Sister Maria Lapazaran (a Carmelite nun serving as a full-time volunteer with the Department of Corrections); Ottoniel Perez (a pastoral volunteer of the Catholic Archdiocese); Rosalyn Overstreet-Gonzalez (a staff attorney with the D.C. Public Defenders Service Prisoners' Rights Program); E. Eugene Miller (an expert on correctional issues); Sonia Oquendo, M.D. (an expert on correctional mental health issues); Joseph Fowlkes, M.D. (an expert on correctional medical issues); Vilma Iraheta-Oliva ("Iraheta") (a bilingual case manager with the Department of Corrections); and Laura Colon (the coordinator for the Limited-English-Proficient Program at the Department of Corrections). The plaintiffs also offered deposition designations and counterdesignations pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 32,5 and they introduced 296 exhibits at trial.6

In its case, the defendants offered trial testimony from three fact witnesses and from one expert: Bernard Braxton (Deputy Director of the Department of Corrections); Laura Colon (see supra); Michael Green (Director for the Division of Parole Determination Services); and Dr. John Clark (expert witness).7 The defendant offered deposition designations and counterdesignations,8 and it offered 381 exhibits.9

II. Findings of Fact

The District of Columbia Department of Corrections currently operates eight correctional facilities which house approximately 9,000 inmates.10 These institutions are:

D.C. Detention Facility ("D.C.Jail")—a high security facility that primarily holds inmates awaiting trial or transfer to one of the defendant's other correctional facilities. At the time of trial, there were 63 Hispanic inmates at the D.C. Jail.

Correctional Treatment Facility ("CTF")—a reception, diagnostic and treatment assessment center that is immediately adjacent to the D.C. Jail. At the time of trial, there were nine Hispanic inmates at CTF.

Central Facility ("Central")—a medium-security facility, which typically houses inmates within five years of release. At the time of trial, Central had 16 Hispanic inmates.

Maximum Facility ("Maximum")—a maximum-security facility. At the time of trial, Maximum held nine Hispanic inmates.

Medium Facility ("Medium")—a medium-security facility that normally houses inmates within five years of their release. At the time of trial, Medium had approximately 700 inmates, ten of which were Hispanic.

Minimum Facility ("Minimum")—the least restrictive of the facilities at Lorton, which at the time of trial, had seven Hispanic inmates.

Occoquan Facility ("Occoquan")—a high/medium-security facility. At the time of trial, Occoquan held 43 Hispanic inmates.

The Youth Center ("Youth Center")—a facility for Youth Rehabilitation Act offenders and other less violent young adults. At the time of trial, 30 Hispanic inmates were incarcerated at the Youth Center.

Through the testimony of the plaintiffs' correctional expert, Mr. Eugene Miller,11 the plaintiffs established that, as of the date of trial, 188 Hispanic prisoners were incarcerated in the various institutions of the Department of Corrections, and that the number of Hispanic inmates was expected to increase in future years.12 See Miller Direct Testimony ("Miller Test.") at 4-6. While this number represents approximately 2% of all inmates, it also represents a 33% increase in Hispanic inmates incarcerated within DCDC institutions since 1994. The majority of these Hispanic inmates are from Central America, which the evidence at trial established as significant: Unlike Hispanics from Puerto Rico, Hispanics from Central America typically have little or no exposure to English or the way of life in the United States.13 Even more problematic, of the Hispanic inmates in the D.C. Department of Corrections institutions, approximately eighty (80) percent do not speak English sufficient to function effectively on a daily basis.14 Miller Test. at 4 & 35; see also TR at 772 & 814 (testimony of Laura Colon).

The defendant's awareness of issues in the Hispanic community generally and of Hispanic issues in its correctional institutions in particular was substantially heightened in May of 1991 as a result of a civil disturbance in the Adams Morgan and Mount Pleasant areas of the District of Columbia. Shortly thereafter, the Department of Corrections organized its Task Force on Ethnic Minority Population to address the services to the Latino population within the D.C. correctional institutions. On July 15, 1991, the DCDC Task Force issued its report, finding:

Recognizing the potential increase in the population that may exist, it is important to insure that programs are either expanded or new ones developed to meet the basic health. mental health. and educational needs.

Effective communications with each ethnic minority group, especially Latinos, is necessary to facilitate a rehabilitation process. The need for comprehensive and standardized language and cultural programming opportunities is evident. Appropriate programming will enhance staff and inmate sensitivity and minimize misrepresentation and the risk of confrontation based on misinterpretation. Thus, greater focus will be given to this group.

DCDC Task Force Report at 2 (emphasis added).

The Task Force recognized that "limited English speaking inmates are not afforded the opportunity to participate because of the language barrier and the lack of sensitivity to their needs by the system." Id. at 3. The major operational concerns identified in the DCDC Task Force Report included:

•the ability to fully participate in the Department's orientation program;

•the ability to identify the specific needs of the limited-english proficient inmate;

•the ability of the LEP inmate to seek appropriate mental health services because of the lack of bilingual psychiatric staff;

•the ability of the LEP to seek medical appropriate medical services because of the lack of bilingual medical personnel;

•the ability of the LEP inmate to participate in educational and vocational programs because of the lack of bilingual staff and materials;

•the ability of the LEP inmate to have their spiritual needs addressed; and

•the ability of the LEP inmate to participate fully in institutional and community-based programs due to language barriers.

Id. at 3.

Also in response to the Mount Pleasant disturbance, the defendant formed the D.C. Latino Civil Rights Task Force. In October of 1991, this task force issued its report and final recommendations, entitled "The Latino Blueprint for Act." See PE 26 ("Latino Blueprint"); TR at 787. In this report, the Latino Civil Rights Task Force identified the lack of services provided to the Latino community and specifically pointed out the failure to recruit and hire bilingual/latino personnel in agencies of the D.C. government. See PE 26, Latino Blueprint at 12.

Pursuant to the mayor's direction, each agency of the District of Columbia provided an assessment and a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Franklin v. District of Columbia
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • March 22, 1999
    ...reviewed the trial record. See Humane Society v. Babbitt, 46 F.3d 93, 96 (D.C.Cir.1995). Five inmates gave live testimony. Franklin, 960 F.Supp. at 399. Of these, three were serving time for committing felonies (Lazo, Bonilla, Nunez); the remaining two (Sandoval, Mejia) offered no testimony......
  • United States v. Maricopa Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Arizona
    • December 12, 2012
    ...not cover LEP individuals under Title VI: Mumid v. Abraham Lincoln High Sch., 618 F.3d 789 (8th Cir.2010), and Franklin v. District of Columbia, 960 F.Supp. 394 (D.D.C.1997), rev'd on other grounds,163 F.3d 625 (D.C.Cir.1998). In Mumid, the school delayed special education testing of LEP st......
  • Martinez v. Hall, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5:17-cv-119
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia
    • March 5, 2020
    ...However—and critical to this case—language proficiency is not interchangeable with national origin or race. Franklin v. District of Columbia, 960 F. Supp. 394, 432 (D.D.C. 1997), rev'd in part and vacated in part on other grounds, 163 F.3d 625 (D.C. Cir. 1998). Indeed, many courts have foun......
  • Son v. Inch
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • June 8, 2021
    ...implicate a suspect class. See Santiago-Lebron, 767 F. Supp. 2d at 1349; Portales, 2017 WL 4402534, at *2-*3; Franklin v. District of Columbia, 960 F. Supp. 394, 432 (D.D.C. 1997), rev'd in part and vacated in part on other grounds, 163 F.3d 625 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (finding language proficienc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Making language access to health care meaningful: the need for a federal health care interpreters' statute.
    • United States
    • Journal of Law and Health Vol. 24 No. 1, March 2011
    • March 22, 2011
    ...list/ocr/docs/lau 1970.html. (49) Ahmad, supra note 8, at 1086 (contrasting Lau, 414 U.S. at 563, to Franklin v. District of Columbia, 960 F. Supp. 394 (D.D.C. 1997) (holding that the disqualification of Hispanic inmates from certain prison programs was due to their limited English proficie......
  • Getting real about race and prisoner rights.
    • United States
    • Fordham Urban Law Journal Vol. 36 No. 1, January 2009
    • January 1, 2009
    ...discriminatory taint; and (2) there was no allegation of racial discrimination at the time of the reenactment. See id. at 1224-27. (59.) 960 F. Supp. 394 (D.D.C. (60.) See id. at 427-28. (61.) SASHA ABRAMSKY, ILL-EQUIPPED: U.S. PRISONS AND OFFENDERS WITH MENTAL ILLNESS 85 (2003); Angela Dav......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT