Franklin v. Shields

• Decision Date: 05 August 1975
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 74-C-214-R(C),74-C-215-R (C),74-C-230-R(C) and 74-C-109-H(C).
• Citation: 399 F. Supp. 309
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
• Parties: Lynell FRANKLIN et al., Plaintiffs, v. Pleasant C. SHIELDS et al., Defendants.

399 F. Supp. 309

Lynell FRANKLIN et al., Plaintiffs, v. Pleasant C. SHIELDS et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. Nos. 74-C-214-R(C), 74-C-215-R (C), 74-C-230-R(C) and 74-C-109-H(C).

United States District Court, W. D. Virginia.

August 5, 1975.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Stephen Saltzburg, University of Virginia School of Law, Charlottesville, Va., for plaintiffs.

Linwood T. Wells, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Richmond, Va., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER

TURK, Chief Judge.

In the consolidated cases of Bradford v. Weinstein,¹ and Jenkins v. Tyler, 519 F.2d 728 (1974) the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to parole eligibility hearings and remanded the cases to the district courts for determination of "how much process is `due.'" At the time of these decisions or shortly thereafter this court received pro se complaints from the four named plaintiffs herein, each of whom is a Virginia prisoner who was eligible for parole and had been denied parole at least once. Since each of the plaintiffs challenged the procedures by which they had been denied parole, the four cases were consolidated, counsel was appointed and leave to file an amended complaint was granted. By amended complaint plaintiffs sued the five current members of the Virginia Probation and Parole Board (hereinafter "the Board") in their individual and representative capacities seeking both monetary damages and injunctive relief.

With respect to their claim for injunctive relief plaintiffs have asked that the suit be treated as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They seek certification of a class consisting of all prisoners and potential prisoners in Virginia who are now, or who hereafter may become eligible for parole. The defendants have agreed that a class action is appropriate with respect to the claim for injunctive relief. Because this court finds that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b) (2) have been met with respect to the proposed class, certification of the class is accordingly granted.

Plaintiffs submit that as a matter of constitutionally required due process of law, prisoners are entitled to the following procedural protections with respect to parole determinations:

(1) written notice or access to written notice of the standards and criteria used by the Board in determining whether parole will be granted;

(2) a hearing and personal appearance before the Board regarding the parole decision in their cases;

(3) an opportunity to inspect their prison files which are utilized by the Board in determining whether parole will be granted;

(4) an opportunity at the parole hearing to call witnesses and present evidence in support of a favorable parole decision, and an opportunity to cross-examine persons who have provided information to the Board which adversely affects their chances for parole;

(5) appointed counsel or appropriate counsel substitutes at the hearing when specific facts are in dispute or when counsel is needed to assist them in communicating; and

(6) a statement of reasons for the denial of parole that are substantially related to the criteria used by the Board in making parole determinations and an indication of the changes in attitudes, habits, etc. which will be required before parole will be granted.

Trial of these consolidated cases was held in Charlottesville, Virginia on March 21 and 22, 1975, and on the basis of the evidence there presented and the earlier Stipulations agreed upon by the parties, the court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

FINDINGS OF FACT

On January 6, 1975 the defendants formally adopted standards and criteria governing parole decisions. Prior to this time, no formal standards and criteria existed. Following the adoption of these standards, the Board requested that copies be posted at each penal institution and be given to incoming inmates. The plaintiffs agree that the standards and criteria adopted on January 6, 1975 are constitutionally adequate. Defendants, however, deny that any such standards are constitutionally required although they concede that they are useful and indicate that they have no intention of withdrawing those now in effect.²

Since January 1, 1975, as a matter of Board policy, all eligible inmates are personally interviewed by at least two members of the Board before a parole decision is made. These two members and at least one other member of the Board then make the parole decision. Prior to January 1, 1975, the Board on occasion would consider an inmate for parole without the benefit of a hearing. This was done when an inmate was not present at a particular institution on the day the Board held parole hearings at such institution. Three of the named plaintiffs were in the past considered for and denied parole without a hearing. Although as a matter of policy, the Board no longer denies inmates personal appearances, it challenges the plaintiffs' contention that such hearings are constitutionally required.

In the past and under present procedures inmates are not permitted access to their prison classification files which are used by the Board in making parole decisions. Two of the named plaintiffs — Vette and Wilson — sought and were denied access to their files in the past. It is generally understood by inmates that such files are not available to them. These files contain such things as presentence reports, psychiatric and medical reports, disciplinary reports, reports from inmate counselors and parole officers, letters from an inmate's relatives, former employers, law-enforcement officers, judges, etc., and letters from the inmate to the Board or prison officials. Most of the information in the files could be revealed to the inmates without the risk of adverse effects; however, inmate access to certain information in the files would present serious problems. For example, some information in the files has been supplied by persons with the understanding that such information would remain confidential, and if that confidence were breached a danger of reprisal would exist. Also, psychiatric and psychological information in the files could easily be misunderstood by an inmate and thereby hinder his readjustment.

With respect to the psychological information, the evidence indicated that inmate files routinely contain the results of intelligence tests and a summary of a clinical interview conducted by a psychologist employed by the state. Some files also contain the results of "projective tests" which attempt to measure personality traits. An inmate's intelligence quotient is expressed in his file in terms of a numerical figure together with a characterization, e.g., "superior", "bright normal", "borderline", "moderate retardation". Such characterizations and psychological evaluations, if not explained, could be misleading and detrimental to inmates. Although only one of the Board members has any formal psychological training, through experience the psychological information and intelligence characterizations and psychological evaluations can be fairly understood by them.

There exists at least two copies of an inmate's file. One is maintained by the Department of Corrections in Richmond and is used by the Board in making parole determinations. A second file follows the inmate from institution to institution. In addition, a medical file is maintained on each inmate. The named plaintiffs have demonstrated that some of the information in their files is factually erroneous and that the Board does not undertake to verify the information contained therein in the absence of obvious error. Although the Board will read and consider information offered by inmates on their own behalf, it does not as a matter of course file such information.

To comply with the plaintiffs' claim that inmates should have access to their files prior to a parole hearing, the state would have to insure that the information filed in the Division of Correction's file in Richmond would also be contained in the file which follows the inmate. Since both files now apparently contain much of the same information, a minimal burden would be imposed in this regard. The administrative burden imposed in removing confidential or detrimental information from such files would be more substantial due to the difficulty in determining exactly what information should be removed and how to present such information to an inmate in a manner which would not be harmful to him and would not breach confidential sources. Another burden would be imposed by having to release the files to inmates for a reasonable period of time prior to their hearing in order that they could be reviewed. This burden would appear to be minimal because inmates are familiar with most of the information in their files and could review them in a few hours. Furthermore, since duplicate files exist it is unlikely that destruction or alteration of documents is a realistic threat.

The primary advantage of allowing prisoners access to their files would be that errors in files could be corrected and adverse information explained with the result that the parole decision-making process would be improved. A second advantage would be that the inmates affected by adverse parole decisions would perhaps view the system as fairer and more accurate than at present, which in turn could aid in their adjustment.

In Virginia persons convicted of felonies are eligible for parole after serving one fourth of their sentence. Va.Code Ann. § 53-251 (1974 Repl.Vol.). The Board is required to "review the case of each prisoner as he becomes eligible for parole and at least annually thereafter until he is released on parole or otherwise." Va.Code Ann. § 53-252 (1974 Repl.Vol.). The Board in some cases holds hearings for inmates more frequently than the annual hearings called for by statute. Under the present system of parole...