Hutchings v. Corum

• Decision Date: 27 June 1980
• Docket Number: No. 79-0600-CV-W-4.,79-0600-CV-W-4.
• Citation: 501 F. Supp. 1276
• Parties: Mark Alan HUTCHINGS et al., Plaintiffs, v. Jack CORUM et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri

501 F. Supp. 1276

Mark Alan HUTCHINGS et al., Plaintiffs, v. Jack CORUM et al., Defendants.

No. 79-0600-CV-W-4.

United States District Court, W. D. Missouri, W. D.

June 27, 1980.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Claudia York, Kansas City, Mo., G. Patrick Wiederaenders, Liberty, Mo., for plaintiffs.

John M. Crossett, Liberty, Mo., for defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

ELMO B. HUNTER, District Judge.

This is a class action¹ challenging the constitutionality of numerous conditions and practices at the Clay County Jail ("CCJ") located in Liberty, Missouri. Plaintiffs are seeking an order for declaratory and injunctive relief in a number of specific areas. The complaint charges that prisoners at the CCJ are (1) subjected to summary, harsh, and brutal punishment and conditions, (2) deprived of life and liberty without due process of law due to unsafe and unsanitary conditions in the CCJ which are punitive in nature and constitute punishment prior to trial for pretrial detainees, (3) denied due process of law by the imposition of punishment for alleged violation of jail rules, (4) denied effective representation of counsel and a fair trial because of defendants' practices, procedures, acts and policies which deny or eliminate access to counsel and to legal materials, (5) denied access to the courts because of the lack of an adequate law library or a reasonable alternative, (6) denied free speech and association by the limitation of contact by telephone and personal visits with inmates' families and friends, (7) subjected to unreasonable search and seizure of papers and effects and the careless handling of inmates' property, and (8) denied the right to practice their religions by the defendants' failure to provide religious services or special diets required by certain faiths.

The case was fully tried to the Court on June 2, 3, and 4, 1980, in Kansas City, Missouri.

This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs allege violation of the First, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. This Court has jurisdiction conferred through 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and (4) and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and § 2202.

I

The parties have stipulated to a number of facts which require no proof.

1. The CCJ was errected in 1927 to serve as a "county" jail. At that time the population of Clay County was approximately 26,800. The county now has a population of approximately 132,000.

2. The inmates in the CCJ, both pretrial detainees and sentenced inmates, are housed on all three floors of the structure.

A. The second or top floor contains the following:

(1) Two four-bunk cells known as "classification" ("C-1 and C-2") which each contain an area of approximately 105 square feet;

(2) Two four-bunk cells known as "maximum security" (North Max. 1 and South Max. 1) which contain an area of approximately 168 square feet each, and a shower stall measuring 9 square feet, in each cell;

(3) Four two-bunk cells ("North Max. 2, South Max. 2, North Max. 3, and South Max. 3") which measure 78 square feet each;

(4) A six-bunk cell used for housing trustees ("Trustee Cell") measuring 184 square feet with some hall space and a separate bathroom measuring approximately 62 square feet;

(5) An area used as the office for the jail commanding officer, measuring 208 square feet with a adjoining shower and closet measuring 36 square feet.

B. The first or middle floor contains the following:

(1) Two four-bunk cells ("North Main 2 and South Main 2") measuring 191 square feet each with a 9 square foot shower area in each cell;

(2) Two four-bunk cells ("North Main 1 and South Main 1") measuring approximately 206 square feet each and a 9 foot shower area in each cell;

(3) Kitchen area;

(4) Nurses' station;

(5) Visiting area;

(6) Desk or booking area.

C. The basement or lower floor contains:

1. Two four-bunk cells ("North Bas. 2 and South Bas. 2") measuring approximately 191 square feet each with 9 square foot shower areas in each cell;

2. Two four-bunk cells ("North Bas. 1 and South Bas. 1") measuring approximately 206 square feet each, with a 9 square foot shower area in each cell.

3. Showers and open toilet areas are contained in each cell, except for the trustee cell which has a separate enclosed bathroom. There is no separate dayroom for any cell.

4. No indoor area is provided for exercise or recreation. An L-shaped outside area was paved and fenced for recreational use in 1979. It measures approximately 1,219 square feet.

5. The CCJ's inmate population fluctuates. For the past year, the average daily number of prisoners incarcerated in the jail is 49.

6. The length of time inmates are incarcerated at the CCJ also varies. The lengths of incarceration at CCJ from June 1, 1979 to May 28, 1980 were as follows:

                   1 to 3 days            2395 inmates
                   4 to 10 days            175 inmates
                   10 to 30 days           115 inmates
                   1 to 3 months           107 inmates
                   3 or more months         59 inmates
                

7. There are four window air conditioning units on each floor, and above the air conditioning units are opaque glass bricks. There is also an exhaust vent and fan on the roof. To provide additional ventilation fans are brought in and the front door is opened, when weather permits.

8. The cleaning in cell areas is done by the inmates. The hallways and other common areas are cleaned by trustees accompanied by a deputy.

9. Inmates are required to eat their meals in their cells.

10. The lights are outside the cell areas in the hallways except on the second floor where they are enclosed in cages within the cells. There are no electrical outlets in the cells. Extension cords, plugged into the light fixtures, run across and above the aisles into the cells.

11. Since March 1, 1980, visitation takes place only on the weekend. The visitation area is one room on the south side of the jail and is 4'5" wide and 11'8" long. The inmate is allowed no physical contact with his visitors. He can only see them through a glass barrier and speak with them through a telephone headset intercom. There are 9 windows and 6 phones.

12. The only written rules and regulations issued to inmates consist of a list of infractions classified by level of seriousness. Included with this list is a statement as to the punishment to be given if a certain rule is broken.

13. No women have been housed at the CCJ since July 1, 1979. Women are only in the jail for booking and for hearings.

II THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS FOR PRETRIAL DETAINEES AND CONVICTED PRISONERS

As this Court has noted in prior opinions, judicial review by a federal court concerning conditions within state penal institutions must be conducted within a constitutional framework. See, Burks v. Walsh, 461 F.Supp. 454 (W.D.Mo.1978), aff'd. sub. nom. Burks v. Teasdale, 603 F.2d 59 (8th Cir. 1979); Burks v. Teasdale, 492 F.Supp. 650 (W.D.Mo.1980); Eckerhart v. Hensley, 475 F.Supp. 908 (W.D.Mo.1979).

Review of prison conditions relating to convicted inmates is generally made pursuant to the proscriptions of the Eighth Amendment. See, Campbell v. Cauthron, 623 F.2d 503 (8th Cir. 1980); and Burks v. Teasdale, supra. In Campbell, the Eighth Circuit has recently delineated the appropriate analytical guidelines for Eighth Amendment inquiry.

"Like most constitutional declarations, the exact meaning of `cruel and unusual punishment' is somewhat elusive. Consequently, we look to the broad principles underlying the constitutional terms. `The basic concept is nothing less than the dignity of man ... The words of the Amendment are not precise, and ... their scope is not static. The Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.' Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 100-101 78 S.Ct. 590, 597-98, 2 L.Ed.2d 596 (1958) (footnote omitted). The amendment prohibits penalties `that transgress today's "broad and idealistic concept of dignity, civilized standards, humanity, and decency."' Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 685 98 S.Ct. 2565, 2571, 57 L.Ed.2d 522 (1978) quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102 97 S.Ct. 285, 290, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976); Jackson v. Bishop, 404 F.2d 571, 579 (8th Cir. 1966)."

The Eighth Circuit also noted in Campbell that prison conditions for unconvicted persons are to be judged against the "due process standard of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments." (citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979)). Further, the Campbell decision makes clear that conditions within a penal institution which are unconstitutional for convicted persons under Eighth Amendment review are likewise an abridgement of the due process guarantees afforded unconvicted persons. Campbell v. Cauthorn, supra, at p. 505; see also, Detainees of Brooklyn House of Detention for Men v. Malcoln, 520 F.2d 392, 398 (2nd Cir. 1975); and Inmates of Allegheny City, Jail v. Pierce, 612 F.2d 754, 762 (3rd Cir. 1979).

Prisoners are also afforded other constitutional guarantees. For instance, prisoners possess First Amendment protection for speech and religious practices, see Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 94 S.Ct. 2800, 41 L.Ed.2d 495 (1974); Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974); Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 92 S.Ct. 1079, 31 L.Ed.2d 263 (1972), and due process and equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, see Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974); Lee v. Washington, 390 U.S. 333, 88 S.Ct. 994, 19 L.Ed.2d 1212 (1968), among others. See Generally, Bell v. Wolfish, supra, 99 S.Ct. at 1877.

Nonetheless, it is axiomatic that a federal court's review of the conditions within a state penal institution must be limited solely to those conditions which result in constitutional deprivations. This Court can intervene only when confronted with clear constitutional violations. See, Bell v. Wolfish, supra at 1886; Burks v. Teasdale, supra, 603 F.2d at 62; and Campbell...