Glover v. Johnson, Civ. A. No. 77-1229.

Citation478 F. Supp. 1075
Decision Date25 October 1979
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 77-1229.
PartiesMary GLOVER et al., Plaintiffs, v. Perry JOHNSON, Director, Michigan Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District Michigan)

Judith Magid, Center for Urban Law, Charlene Snow, Michigan Legal Services, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiffs.

William Molner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Crim. Div., Duane T. Triemstra, Kalamazoo, Mich., for defendants.

OPINION

FEIKENS, Chief Judge.

On May 19, 1977, a civil rights suit was filed on behalf of present and future females incarcerated by the State of Michigan against the Director and other officials of the Michigan Department of Corrections, the Corrections Commission, and various administrators of the Detroit House of Correction (then being used as the principal place of incarceration of female prisoners). Plaintiffs sought a declaration by this Court that the State, through its Department of Corrections, had violated their rights under the Constitution. Plaintiffs also asked for injunctive relief to secure these rights. The original complaint focused on alleged inequalities apparent in the treatment and rehabilitation programs available to Plaintiffs at the Detroit House of Correction when compared to those programs available to male offenders in various prison facilities throughout the State.

Plaintiffs were subsequently permitted to amend their Complaint in order to take into account the opening of the Huron Valley Women's Facility Huron Valley and the transfer of the State female prisoners from the Detroit House of Correction to the new facility. Moreover, soon after Huron Valley's opening, Defendants began sending selected women prisoners to the Kalamazoo County Jail Jail in order to relieve overcrowding at Huron Valley. Consequently, Plaintiffs also addressed this action in their Amended Complaint and added the Sheriff of Kalamazoo County as a party Defendant.1

In an opinion filed December 23, 1977, I granted Plaintiffs' motion for certification of a class composed of all females who are presently, or may be in the future, incarcerated by the State at Huron Valley or the Kalamazoo County Jail. A subclass consisting solely of the women incarcerated at the Jail was also certified at that time. The formal structure of the case was finally set on March 17, 1978 when Charmaine Cornish, et. al. v. Perry Johnson, et. al., Civil Action No. 77-72557, was consolidated with this suit on grounds that the chief issue in Cornish — the adequacy of the law library furnished to women at the Detroit House of Correction and at Huron Valley — had also been raised in Glover, and that the interests of justice would best be served by their consolidation. Subsequently, Plaintiffs in both cases agreed that Plaintiffs in Cornish would be responsible for presenting this issue at trial.

Following a considerable amount of pretrial discovery and negotiation between the parties, a total of ten days of trial testimony was heard. Plaintiffs presented the testimony of the named class representatives, other women prisoners from both Huron Valley and Kalamazoo, male prisoners from other State institutions, and representatives from the Federal Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training, the Michigan Employment Security Commission, and the Michigan Department of Corrections, among others. Expert testimony was given by Dr. Otto Feinstein, Professor and Associate to the Vice-President for Urban Affairs at Wayne State University; Dr. David Fogel, Professor and Director of Graduate Studies in Criminal Justice at the University of Illinois, Executive Director of the Law Enforcement Commission, and former director of the Minnesota Department of Corrections; Elsie Dennison, labor economist and specialist on women offenders with the Women's Bureau of the United States Department of Labor; and Jane Chapman, co-director of the Center for Women Policy Studies and director of a project devoted to the problems of the economic rehabilitation of female offenders.

Defendants' witnesses included representatives from the administration of Huron Valley, Kalamazoo County Jail, and the State Prison of Southern Michigan, as well as several officials from the Department of Corrections: Perry Johnson, Director of the Department; Wilbert Laubach, Director of Education; and Rudolph Stahlberg, a Regional Administrator for the Department.

In their original complaint, Plaintiffs asserted jurisdiction in this Court based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as a result of the alleged denial of their right to equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, and because of an alleged violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681. Plaintiffs claimed that the State had violated their constitutional rights by offering educational and vocational rehabilitation opportunities substantially inferior to those offered male prisoners. Plaintiffs contrasted the comprehensive vocational and work programs created for male prisoners with the minimal offering of vocational programs available at the Detroit House of Correction. Similarly, they asserted that college-level courses leading to a degree were available to male prisoners though not to females. To the extent that the State receives federal aid for its educational programming, Plaintiffs alleged that this discrimination constitutes a violation of Title IX. After the complaint was amended to include references to Huron Valley and Kalamazoo County Jail, new issues were raised concerning the alleged infringement of Plaintiffs' rights to free expression and religious practice under the First Amendment and a claimed violation of the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

In its final form, the complaint challenges the entire range of treatment programs for female prisoners including educational opportunities, vocational and apprenticeship training, prison industry and work pass programs, wage rates, and library facilities as compared to those offered to male prisoners. The complaint against Kalamazoo focuses on the lack of programming, inadequate jail facilities, and the actual conditions of confinement at the jail.

Defendants deny that any of its policies violate the constitutional rights of its prisoners, explaining such differences as might exist on the basis of economic efficiency — i. e., that the smaller number of women make the extension of identical programs to Huron Valley impractical and excessively costly. Further, Defendants state affirmatively that Huron Valley as an institution fares as well as, or better than, any similarly-sized male institution in the State correctional system.

As a result of Plaintiffs' decision not to pursue the Title IX claim, the only grounds on which the case remains to be decided are constitutional — specifically, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and those aspects of the First and Eighth Amendments made applicable to the State through the Fourteenth Amendment.

In this opinion, I discuss the appropriate standard by which to review Plaintiffs' constitutional claims, and then apply that standard to each of the major areas they have challenged: educational and vocational programming, adequacy of the institutional facilities, prison industry and wage rates, and work pass programs. I treat separately the claims concerning the law library first raised in Cornish v. Johnson. Finally, the opinion addresses the issues raised by Defendants' use of the Kalamazoo County Jail.

I
A

Before analyzing this situation in equal protection terms, it is necessary to select a standard by which the practices of the State can be measured against its goals for the corrections system generally. The critical factor in this analysis is gender. It is clear that the State has provided for the separate incarceration of male and female prisoners, and that Huron Valley is the principal facility devoted to the custody of female prisoners. Thus, a female felon in the State of Michigan will be sent to Huron Valley by reason of her gender alone, and will necessarily have access only to these programs currently available at that location. A male prisoner, on the other hand, can be classified or later transferred to a wide variety of prison facilities in the State and generally will have access to more program opportunities than his female counterpart. I conclude, therefore, that because of these limitations women as a group are treated differently than men as a group, and that these differences in treatment are directly related to gender.

The State argues, however, that any differences in treatment are the result of the limitations placed on them by the size of the institution and not the sex of the inmates housed there. There is, of course, no fixed relationship between size per se and the kinds of programs offered in any given institution. There is, however, an economic relationship which, if not fixed, is at least of great practical significance in determining the range and quality of programs offered. While recognizing that reality, these considerations alone cannot justify official inaction or legislative unwillingness to operate a prison system in a constitutional manner. Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291, 1319-20 (5th Cir. 1974); Pugh v. Locke, 406 F.Supp. 318, 330 (M.D.Ala.1976), aff'd and remanded, 559 F.2d 283 (5th Cir. 1977); Holt v. Sarver, 309 F.Supp. 362, 385 (E.D. Ark.1970).

In arguing that Huron Valley offers programming of comparable and sometimes better quality than that available in similarly-sized male institutions, the State avoids the fact that all State female felons are sent to Huron Valley while all male felons are not confined in a facility of comparable limitations. In this context, "institutional size" is, frankly, not a justification but an excuse for the kind of treatment afforded women prisoners.2

B

Despite persuasive arguments that the strictest form...

To continue reading

Request your trial
51 cases
  • Moss v. Clark, Civ. A. No. 88-0361-AM.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • October 21, 1988
    ...classifications based on gender are equally inapposite. See, e.g., Pitts v. Meese, 684 F.Supp. 303 (D.D.C.1987); Glover v. Johnson, 478 F.Supp. 1075 (E.D.Mich. 1979). Gender classifications are subject to "heightened scrutiny," and this is true whether the gender classification is related t......
  • Dawson v. Kendrick
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • August 10, 1981
    ...Carolina, 501 F.Supp. 1173, 1176-77 (E.D.N.C.1980); Bukhari v. Hutto, 487 F.Supp. 1162, 1171-72 (E.D.Va.1980); Glover v. Johnson, 478 F.Supp. 1075, 1078-79 (E.D.Mich.1979); see also Smith v. Bounds, 538 F.2d 541, 545 (4th Cir. 1976), aff'd sub nom., Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 97 S.Ct. 1......
  • Ruiz v. Estelle
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • December 12, 1980
    ...are forbidden the opportunity to learn from someone, such as other inmates, who are skilled in such matters. Glover v. Johnson, 478 F.Supp. 1075, 1096-97 (E.D.Michigan 1979). Unless TDC demonstrates that the legal assistance programs are able to serve all inmates requesting assistance, it m......
  • Canterino v. Wilson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky
    • July 26, 1982
    ...size' is, frankly, not a justification, but an excuse for the kind of treatment afforded women prisoners." Glover v. Johnson, 478 F.Supp. 1075, 1078 (E.D.Mich. 1979). In reality, the Levels System has been imposed at KCIW because defendants have implicitly, if not consciously, decided that ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Correctional facilities
    • United States
    • Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law No. XXIV-2, January 2023
    • January 1, 2023
    ...L.J. 9, 26–27 (2003). 23. 24. Klinger v. Dep’t of Corr., 31 F.3d 727, 731 (8th Cir. 1994). 25. Id. at 739 (citing Glover v. Johnson, 478 F. Supp. 1075, 1080 (E.D. Mich. 1979)). 26. Glover v. Johnson, 478 F. Supp. 1075, 1085–86 (E.D. Mich. 1979). See Christopher Zoukis, The Equal Protection ......
  • The feminist challenge in criminal law.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 143 No. 6, June - June - June 1995
    • June 1, 1995
    ...A Profile of Female Offenders in the Federal Bureau of Prisons, FED. Prisons J., Spring 1992, at 33, 36. (195) See Glover v. Johnson, 478 F. Supp. 1075, 1086-87 (E.D. Mich. 1979). (196) See Rafter, supra note 192, at 188. (197) See id. at 187. (128) See Memorandum of Professor Melissa Harri......
  • The Prison Reform Litigation Era: Book-Length Studies and Lingering Research Issues
    • United States
    • Prison Journal, The No. 83-3, September 2003
    • September 1, 2003
    ...J. (2001). Prisoners’ rights: The Supreme Court and evolving standards of decency.Westport, CT:Greenwood Press.Glover v. Johnson,478 F. Supp. 1075 (E.D. Mich. 1978).Graglia, L. (1976). Disaster by decree. Ithaca, NY:Cornell University Press.Haines, H. (1996). Against capital punishment: The......

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