Frazier v. Donelon, Civ. A. No. 72-814.

• Decision Date: 23 August 1974
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 72-814.
• Citation: 381 F. Supp. 911
• Parties: Joel Wade FRAZIER et al. v. Thomas F. DONELON et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

381 F. Supp. 911

Joel Wade FRAZIER et al. v. Thomas F. DONELON et al.

Civ. A. No. 72-814.

United States District Court, E. D. Louisiana.

August 23, 1974.

William D. Treeby, and Michael R. Fontham, Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann & Hutchinson, New Orleans, La., for plaintiffs.

Alvin R. Eason, Parish Atty., Robert I. Broussard, Lionel R. Collins, Asst. Parish Attys., Gretna, La., for defendants, President of the Parish of Jefferson and Councilmen of the Parish of Jefferson, Louisiana.

Russell J. Schonekas, Tucker & Schonekas, New Orleans, La., for defendants, Alwynn J. Cronvich. Sheriff of the Parish of Jefferson, and Roland J. Vicknair, Warden of the Jefferson Parish Prison.

JACK M. GORDON, District Judge:

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and other inmates of the Jefferson Parish Prison, instituted this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343,¹ against Thomas F. Donelon, the President of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; all councilmen of Jefferson Parish;² Alwynn J. Cronvich, the Sheriff of Jefferson Parish; and Roland J. Vicknair, the Warden of Jefferson Parish Prison. In their complaint, plaintiffs challenge a number of the practices, rules, and regulations of the Jefferson Parish Jail as constitutionally violative of the First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

Plaintiffs maintain that certain illegal procedures are in operation at Jefferson Parish Jail and accordingly, plaintiffs contest these procedures as enumerated in the following allegations: (1) prison officials assert the right to open, inspect, read, and censor all correspondence to and from prison inmates; (2) prison officials sometimes refuse to mail inmate correspondence containing complaints about prison conditions; (3) mail arriving at the prison occasionally is delayed without reason; (4) visiting hours for inmates are limited arbitrarily and the present visiting facilities are substantially inadequate; (5) visiting regulations are applied in a discriminatory fashion; (6) usage of the public telephone is denied capriciously to some inmates; (7) inmates are not allowed access to newspapers, books, magazines, and other publications; (8) many inmates arbitrarily are denied the right to attend religious services conducted in the institution; and (9) prisoners have been refused the right to designate spokesmen to inform prison officials of the complaints of the inmate populace.

Generally speaking, the federal courts have adhered to the tenet of not interfering in the internal affairs and the administration of correctional systems, except in those extraordinary instances when the available administrative remedies within the penal system are of no avail to its inmate inhabitants. See Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974); Robinson v. Jordan, 494 F.2d 793 (5th Cir. 1974); Granville v. Hunt, 411 F.2d 9 (5th Cir. 1969); Jackson v. Godwin, 400 F.2d 529 (5th Cir. 1968). Cf., Haggerty v. Wainwright, 427 F.2d 1137 (5th Cir. 1970); Eaton v. Capps, 348 F.Supp. 237 (M.D.Ala.1972), aff'd, 480 F.2d 1021 (5th Cir. 1973). This non-intervention approach by the courts stems principally from judicial recognition of the sui generis nature of problems inherent in the formulation and execution of policies in a correctional environment. A complementary supportive factor in the development of judicial restraint with respect to the correctional area is the reticence of the federal courts to administer the functions of state institutions. Management of state penal institutions should at the very least be deferred to state courts and at the very best to the appropriate prison authorities. See, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973).

The tasks that administrators of penal facilities perform are not easy or envy-engendering ones; these responsibilities include, inter alia, the maintenance of frequently overcrowded institutions, the preservation of internal order and discipline, guarding against escape and preventing the infiltration of various contraband, such as weapons and narcotics, all without infringing the personal rights of the inmates. It is not very surprising, therefore, that problems surrounding incarceration are complicated and usually are not susceptible of ready resolutions. Accordingly, extensive research, planning, and expertise in correctional affairs must be employed when attempting to discover viable solutions. It would not seriously be questioned that the courts, vis-à-vis other branches of government, are the least equipped governmental organ through which to ventilate and resolve inmate grievances because inherent in the juridical operation is the necessity that courts view each issue in black and white terms. By its very nature, a court's ruling is antithetical to the attainment of striking a judicious medium between the parties. Cognizant of the undesirable result produced by such a "one or the other" approach when dealing with inmate assaults upon the regulations of correctional institutions, this Court attempted to avoid resolution of the present complaint by judicial fiat. It is the opinion of this Court that resolution of disputes by litigation, due to the combatant win or lose attitude of litigants, generally has the effect of driving the parties further apart instead of bringing them together. Thus, the Court preferred to yield to the less stultified process whereby judicial involvement in correctional problems hopefully would be eliminated or perhaps minimized substantially.

Consistent with the above stated philosophy of avoiding, when possible, a tripartite confrontation between the inmates, the prison administrators, and the judiciary, this Court concluded that a non-judicial remedial system for inmate grievances would constitute a more preferable approach. Therefore, the Court sought to employ some means whereby the inmates and the administrators could negotiate the complaints in the instant case without judicial interference but subject to court review if warranted. Such a negotiating structure must be both flexible in its operation and independent of the system that it seeks to modify.

As would be expected, this form of collective bargaining also requires the presence of some impartial individual or agency, trained as a mediator, who can assist the parties in the creation of a suitable format. Not only must this neutral consultant be able to delineate to the respective sides the sundry, conflicting interests and needs of their bargaining opponent, but the mediator must be able to serve as the necessary catalyst in helping the parties develop possible solutions to their mutual problems.

Inasmuch as collective bargaining within the correctional parameters is a relatively novel approach which many persons, including judges, still consider to be in an embryonic stage, the Court felt that it would be instructive to detail the fundamentals of the negotiating system that the Court employed in this case, and, more particularly, how such a system developed and functioned.

Initially, the Court informally requested the parties to the suit at bar to agree to keep the litigation in abeyance while the mediation progressed, in recognition of the fact that litigation is often incongruous with the forward movement of mediation. The litigants voluntarily consented to the unrecorded stay order and concurred with the Court in its desire to provide an alternative remedy to the judicial process. Of course, the first task was to select a competent mediator. The usage of the Community Relations Service (hereinafter referred to as "CRS"), a division of the United States Department of Justice, proved most formidably to satisfy this need. After contacting the Regional Coordinator of the CRS, arrangements were made whereby the Court personally explained to the CRS representative the existing issues of conflict. As an aside, the CRS representative informed the Court that the CRS had prior experience in mediating inmate grievances and recently had achieved success in performing mediation services in a nearby state correctional institution. Once the CRS representative understood the inmate grievances, the Court scheduled a conference in chambers with the CRS representative, the attorneys for the inmates, the Sheriff of Jefferson Parish, the Warden of Jefferson Parish Prison, as well as their attorneys. From that juncture until the completion of the arbitration processes, the Court's involvement was strictly de minimis. During the Court's conference the CRS representative presented some tentative ground rules for the forthcoming discussions and posed a plan for the selection of members of the respective negotiating teams. The inmate body of Jefferson Parish Prison designated their bargaining agents,³ which included the inmates' counsel, while the so-called prison management side consisted of the Sheriff, the Warden, various correctional officials, and attorneys for the Parish.

Upon the selection of the negotiating committees, the CRS representative secured a meeting place where the discussions could occur with a substantial degree of privacy. These sessions were scheduled so as to allow an adequate amount of time for each conference as well as to permit ample time between sessions; the parties thus had sufficient time to fully air their views at each encounter and concomitantly enjoyed enough time between sessions to digest the conversations and results of the previous session as well as to obtain feedback on the different issues from their respective represented bodies.

As reported to the Court by the CRS representative, the negotiating meetings were highly productive. Although these sessions were intended to focus on the inmate grievances contained in the complaint, the parties were not limited in their discussions to any specific boundaries. In a remarkably short time, a certain camaraderie between the two factions surfaced and soon thereafter concrete...