Inmates, Washington Cty. Jail v. England
Decision Date | 01 December 1980 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 2-80-113. |
Citation | 516 F. Supp. 132 |
Parties | INMATES, WASHINGTON COUNTY JAIL, Plaintiffs, v. Ron ENGLAND, etc., et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Charles E. Bobo, pro se.
Ferdinand Powell, Jr., Johnson City, Tenn. and William C. Bovender, Kingsport, Tenn., for defendants.
No timely written objection to the recommendations of a magistrate herein of November 6, 1980 having been served and filed, the undersigned judge hereby ACCEPTS such recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In accordance with such recommendations, and for the reasons stated by the magistrate in his comprehensive report and recommendation:
MURRIAN, Magistrate.
This matter was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and the Rules of this Court for a report and recommendation on the following matters:1
This is an action for the alleged violations of constitutional rights, including rights guaranteed by the First, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986 and 1988. Jurisdiction is premised upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. The plaintiffs also seek to recover for alleged violations of state law. They seek compensatory and punitive damages, equitable relief and a declaratory judgment.
The plaintiffs are 12 present or former inmates of the Washington County (Tennessee) Jail (Jail). Since this action was filed, 5 have been released and 5 have been transferred to state institutions in Nashville, Tennessee. Only 2 remain in the Jail. The defendants are Ron England, Washington County Sheriff; R. Thompson, Washington County Jail Administrator; and unnamed Washington County Commissioners.
The matters pending will be considered below seriatim.
This motion (File No. 8) was disposed of in the undersigned's order filed October 2, 1980 (File No. 12).
In ruling upon a motion for summary judgment, the Court must view the evidence together with all inferences in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Smith v. Hudson, C.A. 6th (1979), 600 F.2d 60, 634, certiorari dismissed 444 U.S. 986, 100 S.Ct. 495, 62 L.Ed.2d 415. The movant has the burden of showing conclusively that there exists no genuine issue of material fact and that he is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Id.
In considering such a motion, the Court should consider the "* * * pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions * * *" and affidavits properly on file. Id., 600 F.2d at 64 5; Rule 56(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs have filed several documents in response to the defendants' motion for summary judgment which controvert some of the statements in the affidavit of defendant Thompson. However, none of these documents was sworn to under oath under penalty of perjury and none, therefore, is an affidavit. See Williams v. Pierce County Board of Commissioners, C.A. 9th (1959), 267 F.2d 866, 867 3; Black's Law Dictionary (4th Ed. 1968). Neither can the complaint be considered as an affidavit. Although it is notarized, it is not verified under oath. See Khan v. Garanzini, C.A. 6th (1969), 411 F.2d 210, 212-213 2, 4.
Convicted non-federal prisoners have the right under the Eighth Amendment, through the Fourteenth Amendment, to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Furman v. Georgia (1972), 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346.
The Supreme Court has recently set forth the standard by which the constitutionality of pretrial detention conditions of confinement are to be evaluated. Bell v. Wolfish (1979), 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447. The inquiry is whether such conditions amount to "* * * punishment * * *" or otherwise violate a specific constitutional provision. Id., 441 U.S. at 535-538, 99 S.Ct. at 1872-73. If a particular restriction is "* * * reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective * * *" such as the need to manage the institution and to maintain order and security, then it does not amount to "* * * punishment. * * *" Id., 441 U.S. at 538-542, 99 S.Ct. at 1874-75. "* * * In the absence of substantial evidence in the record to indicate that the officials have exaggerated their response to such considerations, courts should ordinarily defer to their expert judgment in such matters. * *" Id., 441 U.S. at 540-541, 99 S.Ct. at 1875 n. 23, 1878 (quoting Pell v. Procunier (1974), 417 U.S. 817, 827, 94 S.Ct. 2800, 2806, 41 L.Ed.2d 495, 504).
Even specific constitutional rights are subject to certain restrictions and limitations in the prison or jail context. Id., 441 U.S. at 544, 99 S.Ct. at 1877. The allegedly unconstitutional practice "* * * must be evaluated in the light of the central objective of prison administration, safeguarding institutional security. * * *" Id., 441 U.S. at 546, 99 S.Ct. at 1878. Courts should defer to the expertise of prison officials in the absence of substantial evidence of an "* * * exaggerated * * * response * * *" to such needs. Id.
The uncontroverted facts presented herein are evaluated below, seriatim, in light of these legal standards as well as appropriate case law bearing on the more specific claims asserted.
(a) Plaintiff James W. Tittle, a pretrial detainee, claims that he was denied medical treatment. A prisoner's constitutional rights are violated if prison or jail authorities show a "* * * deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. * *" Estelle v. Gamble, (1976), 429 U.S. 97, 104, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 291, 292 8, 12, 50 L.Ed.2d 251, 260 ( ); Inmates of Allegheny County Jail v. Pierce, C.A.3d (1979), 612 F.2d 754, 762 7, 8 (Fourteenth Amendment due process rights of pretrial detainees).
Although the complaint states that Mr. Tittle is 100% permanently disabled with a back and leg injury, there are no facts showing that this condition was a serious one requiring immediate medical attention. There are uncontroverted facts showing that Mr. Tittle was eventually taken to a doctor and no follow-up treatment was required. There is no genuine issue of material fact and the defendants are entitled to a judgment on this claim as a matter of law. Id.
(b) The claim of plaintiff James W. Feathers, a pretrial detainee, is time-barred by the 1-year Tennessee statute of limitations. T.C.A. § 28-304. See Willett v. Wells, D.C.Tenn. (1977), 469 F.Supp. 748, 753 8, 9 aff'd, C.A. 6th (1979), 595 F.2d 1227.
(c) Plaintiff Fred G. Psioda, a convicted prisoner, claims that he was forced to appear in court in "* * * soiled prison clothing. * * *"
Such requirement does not amount to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, through the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, Mr. Psioda's constitutional rights of access to the courts and to counsel are not impinged upon by such a requirement. See Mingo v. Patterson, D.C.Colo. (1978), 455 F.Supp. 1358, 1363 19 ("* * * the constitutional rights to counsel and access to the courts do not contemplate the right to have `particular' clothing available to wear at trial. * * *"); cf. Estelle v. Williams, (1976), 425 U.S. 501, 96 S.Ct. 1691, 48 L.Ed.2d 126.
If Mr. Psioda's claim is based upon an alleged denial of due process at a criminal trial, then the claim might possibly be raised in a habeas corpus proceeding, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See e. g. Kennedy v. Cardwell, C.A. 6th (1973), 487 F.2d 101, certiorari denied 416 U.S. 959, 94 S.Ct. 1976, 40 L.Ed.2d 310.
(d) Pl...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Anstey v. Davis
...U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1978); Tarlton v. Henderson, 467 F.2d 200 (5th Cir.1972); Inmates, Washington County Jail v. England, 516 F.Supp. 132, 140 (E.D.Tenn. 1980), aff'd without opinion, 659 F.2d 1081 (6th See also, Brinson v. McKeeman, 992 F.Supp. 897, 910 (W.D.Tex.1997) ......
-
Sasnett v. Department of Corrections
...U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1978); Tarlton v. Henderson, 467 F.2d 200 (5th Cir.1972); Inmates, Washington County Jail v. England, 516 F.Supp. 132, 140 (E.D.Tenn.1980), aff'd without opinion, 659 F.2d 1081 (6th Moreover, the asserted need for more technologically advanced machin......
-
Fucci v. Graduate Hosp., Civil Action No. 95-5799.
...Co. v. Saudi Arabian Fertilizer Mktg. Co. Ltd., 1995 WL 27164, *2 (E.D.Pa. Jan.23, 1995); Inmates, Washington County Jail v. England, 516 F.Supp. 132, 138 (E.D.Tenn. 1980), aff'd, 659 F.2d 1081 (6th Nevertheless, because plaintiff testified that although he paid no taxes on the income from ......
-
Isbell v. Medtronic, Inc.
...documents. U.S. v. Glass Nursing & Convalescent Homes, Inc., 550 F.Supp. 1149, 1154 (S.D.Ohio 1982); Inmates, Washington Cty. Jail v. England, 516 F.Supp. 132, 138 (E.D.Tenn.1980), aff'd, 659 F.2d 1081 (6th Cir.1981). "It has long been settled law that a plaintiff must respond to an adequat......