Hendrix v. Faulkner

• Decision Date: 21 October 1981
• Docket Number: S 77-35 and S 79-32.,No. S 76-187,S 76-187
• Citation: 525 F. Supp. 435
• Parties: James Odis HENDRIX, Grady Thomas Bobbitt, Melon Carroll, Donald R. Sceifers, James Blackburn, Plaintiffs, v. Gordon H. FAULKNER, Edward Jones, Jack Duckworth, Charles Adkins, Defendants. Billie R. ADAMS, Plaintiff, v. Jack DUCKWORTH, J. F. Kozlowski, P. G. Youngblood, Bob Glaney, R. Shriner, Rodney Keith, Ronald Batchelor, Byron Glick, G. Wilkins, Defendants. Bruce C. WELLMAN, Dwight Walker, Douglas Shackelford a/k/a Achebe H. Lateef, Raymond Hurt, Richard Colvin, Stewart Brooks, Plaintiffs, v. Gordon H. FAULKNER, Norman Hunt, Cloid L. Shuler, Dean Neitzke, Jack Duckworth, Edward Jones, Major Gothel D. Wilkins, Ronald Freake, M. D., Roger D. Saylors, M. D., Captain Eugene Koziatek, Sgt. Byron Glick, Lt. Robert McKee, Officer John M. Sharp, Lt. John Riggs, Officer Bill J. Kennedy, Lt. David G. Oden, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana

525 F. Supp. 435

James Odis HENDRIX, Grady Thomas Bobbitt, Melon Carroll, Donald R. Sceifers, James Blackburn, Plaintiffs, v. Gordon H. FAULKNER, Edward Jones, Jack Duckworth, Charles Adkins, Defendants.

Billie R. ADAMS, Plaintiff, v. Jack DUCKWORTH, J. F. Kozlowski, P. G. Youngblood, Bob Glaney, R. Shriner, Rodney Keith, Ronald Batchelor, Byron Glick, G. Wilkins, Defendants.

Bruce C. WELLMAN, Dwight Walker, Douglas Shackelford a/k/a Achebe H. Lateef, Raymond Hurt, Richard Colvin, Stewart Brooks, Plaintiffs, v. Gordon H. FAULKNER, Norman Hunt, Cloid L. Shuler, Dean Neitzke, Jack Duckworth, Edward Jones, Major Gothel D. Wilkins, Ronald Freake, M. D., Roger D. Saylors, M. D., Captain Eugene Koziatek, Sgt. Byron Glick, Lt. Robert McKee, Officer John M. Sharp, Lt. John Riggs, Officer Bill J. Kennedy, Lt. David G. Oden, Defendants.

Nos. S 76-187, S 77-35 and S 79-32.

United States District Court, N. D. Indiana, South Bend Division.

October 21, 1981.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

William Marsh, Patricia Brown, Michael Milsap, Legal Services Program of Northern Indiana, Inc., Indianapolis, Ind., Edward L. Volk, Marsha Shatz, Newby, Lewis, Kaminiski & Jones, LaPorte, Ind., for plaintiffs.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of State of Ind., David A. Arthur, Sabra A. Weliever, Bruce L. Kamplain, Deputy Attys. Gen., Indianapolis, Ind., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER

SHARP, District Judge.

This action is a suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging conditions of confinement at the Indiana State Prison (hereinafter I.S.P.) at Michigan City, Indiana. The I.S.P. is an all male maximum security correctional facility, which has been in existence at the present location approximately 120 years. Jurisdiction is conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and (4).

The Court has consolidated herein three actions, cause numbers S 76-187, S 77-35 and S 79-32, wherein the plaintiffs seek individual damages and injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of all inmates confined at the I.S.P. A class certification is sought and will be dealt with herein. Specifically, plaintiffs ask that the Court find, upon consideration of the totality of the conditions at the I.S.P., that those conditions violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

Plaintiffs in S 76-187 whose claims have not been dismissed or severed are James Odis Hendrix, Grady Thomas Bobbitt, Melon Carroll, Donald R. Sceifers, and James Blackburn. Each is an offender incarcerated at the Prison. Defendants in S 76-187 are Gordon Faulkner, Commissioner, Jack Duckworth, Warden, and Edward Jones, Director of Classification and Treatment at the Prison.

Plaintiff in S 77-35 is Billie R. Adams, who is an offender incarcerated at the Prison. Defendants in S 77-35 are Jack Duckworth, J. F. Kozlowski, P. G. Youngblood, Bob Glaney, R. Shriver, Rodney Keith, Ronald Batchelor, Byron Glick and G. Wilkins. J. F. Kozlowski is no longer employed at the Prison.

Plaintiffs in S 79-32 are Bruce Wellman, Dwight Walker, Douglas Shackelford a/k/a Achebe H. Lateef, Raymond Hurt, Richard Colvin and Stewart Brooks. Walker, Shackelford and Colvin are offenders incarcerated at the Prison. Wellman, Hurt and Brooks were previously incarcerated at the Prison. Defendants in S 79-32 are Gordon Faulkner, Norman Hunt, Cloid L. Shuler, Dean Nietzke, Jack Duckworth, Edward Jones, Major Gothel D. Wilkins, Ronald Freake, M.D., Roger D. Saylors, M.D., Captain Eugene Koziatek, Sgt. Byron Glick, Lt. Robert McKee, Officer John M. Sharp, Lt. John Riggs, Officer Bill J. Kennedy, and Lt. David G. Oden. Riggs is deceased. Saylors is no longer employed at the Prison and is not serving the Prison under contract. Kennedy is no longer employed at the Prison.

In cases of this kind, this Judge is every mindful of the limited right the federal courts have to adjudicate claims that arise from state prison confinement. Noted opinions have been handed down from every level of the federal court system that advise extreme caution in adjudicating claims that essentially involve the general administration of a state prison and do not reach, as they must, the level of constitutional violations. Justice Powell of the Supreme Court of the United States set forth the reason for this principle in striking and memorable language:

"The problems of prisons in America are complex and intractable, and more to the point, they are not readily susceptible of resolution by decree. Most require expertise, comprehensive planning, and the commitment of resources, all of which are peculiarly within the province of the legislative and executive branches of government. For all of those reasons, courts are ill equipped to deal with the increasingly urgent problems of prison administration and reform. Judicial recognition of that fact reflects no more than a healthy sense of realism." Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 at 405, 94 S.Ct. 1800 at 1807, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1979).

The Supreme Court of the United States has continuously expressed its adherence to this doctrine of restraint from undue interference in the administration of state prisons unless federal constitutional violations and deprivation are clearly evident. The principle has been enunciated again and again with a variety in the language. The dominant thought remains clear. The most recent statement of this settled principle is contained in Rhodes v. Chapman, ___ U.S. ___, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981), stating that courts must bear in mind that their inquires "spring from constitutional requirements and that judicial answers to them must reflect that fact rather than a court's idea of how best to operate a detention facility." Rhodes, supra, at ___, 101 S.Ct. at 2401, citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 539, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1874, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). Federal judges must be circumspect not to interfere without warrant and subject themselves to the suspicion that "it is the office of the good judge to enlarge his jurisdiction." 1 Works of Thomas Jefferson 121-22 (Federal ed. 1904).

This Judge has indicated from the beginning of this case to the present time, a complete and utter distaste for having to cross that Rubicon which separates the federal government from the state government and enter into the morass of the day to day operation of the prison.

THE PLAINTIFF CLASS

Plaintiffs have moved the Court to determine that this action should be maintained as a class action under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A threshold requirement for class certification is the existence of a class which requires representation. Dolgow v. Anderson, 43 F.R.D. 472, 491 (E.D.N.Y. 1968), summary judgment rev'd, 438 F.2d 825 (2d Cir. 1971); Ridgeway v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 74 F.R.D. 597, 602 (D.Ill.1977). The class, as well as its members, must be clearly defined and identified with particularity. Williams v. Page, 60 F.R.D. 29, 34 (N.D.Ill.1973); Inmates of Lycoming County Prison v. Strode, 79 F.R.D. 228, 231 (M.D.Pa.1978).

The proposed class consists of "those prisoners who are, or may be in the future, confined at the Indiana State Prison, Michigan City, Indiana, in the custody of the Indiana Department of Correction." This type of class has been described as "obviously definable and identifiable." Inmates of Lycoming County Prison v. Strode, supra. In this context, it has further been said that:

"The use of the class action form is a desirable and logical way to challenge prison conditions and it only makes sense to include future inmates. See Santiago v. City of Philadelphia, 72 F.R.D. 619 (E.D.Pa.1976); Miller v. Carson, 401 F.Supp. 835 (M.D.Fla.1975); Dillard v. Pitchess, 399 F.Supp. 1225 (C.D.Cal. 1975)."

Inmates of Lycoming County Prison v. Strode, supra.

Each potential member of the class is not required to be identifiable, but merely "circumscribed by some objective set of criteria." Ridgeway v. I.B.E.W., supra; Carpenter v. Davis, 424 F.2d 257 (5th Cir. 1970). Plaintiffs' definition of the class for which certification is now being sought clearly meets this requirement. See, generally, Alliance to End Repression v. Rochford, 565 F.2d 975, 977-978 (7th Cir. 1977).

A second threshold requirement for class certification is that the representatives are members of that class. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm. v. Whirlpool Corp., 80 F.R.D. 10, 14 (N.D.Ind.1978); Inmates of Lycoming v. Strode, supra. This prerequisite has been described as "the most fundamental requirement of Rule 23(a)." E.E.O.C. v. Whirlpool Corp., supra. The named plaintiffs here are prisoners who are confined at the Indiana State Prison, Michigan City, Indiana, in custody of the Indiana Department of Correction. Complaint at 2 and 4 (Pars. 1 and 7), and, therefore, these representatives are members of the proposed class.

A. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.

The proposed class consists of the current prisoner population at the Prison, numbering approximately 1900 persons. The class would also include all those persons who, in the future, are incarcerated at I.S.P., potentially hundreds or thousands of additional class members. It is appropriate to include future inmates in a class action challenging prison conditions. Ahrens v. Thomas, 570 F.2d 286, 288 (8th Cir. 1978); Inmates of Lycoming County Prison v. Strode, supra, at 231.

While numbers alone do not satisfy the numerosity requirement, they are a relevant consideration. In Swanson v. American Consumer Industries, Inc., 415 F.2d 1326 (7th Cir. 1969), it was held that 151 class members was a sufficient number to satisfy the requirement of F.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(1). Joinder of 1008 class members has also been held to be impracticable. Hopson v. Schilling, 418 F.Supp. 1223 at 1236-1237, as it has when the class...