Martin v. Foti

• Decision Date: 31 March 1983
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 81-2759.
• Citation: 561 F. Supp. 252
• Parties: Wendell A. MARTIN, et al. v. Charles C. FOTI, Jr., et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

561 F. Supp. 252

Wendell A. MARTIN, et al. v. Charles C. FOTI, Jr., et al.

Civ. A. No. 81-2759.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

March 31, 1983.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Wendell Martin and Lester Duplessis, pro se.

Freeman R. Matthews, New Orleans, La., for defendants.

CHARLES SCHWARTZ, Jr., District Judge.

This matter was tried before the Court, sitting without a jury, on February 3, 1983. At the close of trial, the Court left the case open for the purpose of allowing defendants time to locate and submit in evidence the three disciplinary reports referred to at trial, and which defendants had been ordered to produce at trial by minute entry dated March 25, 1982. Those reports having now been produced, the Court, after review of the record in this matter, the evidence presented, and the applicable law, rules as follows.

To the extent that any of the following findings of fact constitute conclusions of law, they are adopted as such, and to the extent that any of the conclusions of law constitute findings of fact, they are so adopted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Plaintiff Wendell Martin is and was at all times mentioned herein, a prisoner in the custody of the Orleans Parish Prison.

Plaintiff Lester Duplessis is and was at all times mentioned herein, a prisoner in the custody of the Orleans Parish Prison.

Defendant Charles C. Foti, Jr., is and was at all times mentioned herein, the Criminal Sheriff of Orleans Parish, in charge of the Orleans Parish Prison.

Defendants Belisle, Bordelon, Barrere, and Cook were at all times mentioned herein, members of the Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff's office.

Defendant Larkin was at all times mentioned herein, a deputy sheriff assigned to the Orleans Parish Prison.

At or about 6:45 A.M. on May 27, 1981, while calling roll on tier B-1 of the Orleans Parish Prison, Deputy Larkins marked plaintiff Martin's name and subsequently wrote a disciplinary report on Martin for wearing a skull cap at roll call, in violation of the prison regulation forbidding head coverings and plaited hair between the hours of 6 A.M. and 8 P.M. (Rules 826 and 827 of the Orleans Parish Prison Rules and Regulations). Thereafter, while being called for outdoor recreation, Martin observed in plain view a disciplinary report with his name on it, at which time Martin asked Deputy Larkins what the report was for and if he could be given a copy. Larkins informed Martin that the report was for having a headscarf on during roll-call but refused to give Martin a copy.

On June 1, 1981, Martin was summoned to a disciplinary court consisting of Orleans Parish Prison officers Barrere, Hill, and Stewart. At that time, Barrere read the report to Martin, who admitted having a skull cap on, but no plaits, and responded that he had just woken up and had not had time to take the cap off. The disciplinary court then entered a "Not Guilty" disposition, closed the case, and ordered Martin returned to his tier, but warned him not to appear before the court again.

At or about 6:45 P.M. on June 6, 1981, while waiting for the left-side doors to be open on Tier B-1 in order to call roll, Martin engaged Larkins in some conversation, the subject of which is in dispute, but which apparently led Larkins to mark Martin's name when Martin responded to the roll-call.

Larkins subsequently brought Martin to the Watch Commander, whereupon Larkins reported that Martin had been interfering with roll-call. After some questioning of Martin, the Watch Commander recommended that Larkins write up a disciplinary report. When Larkins then was returning Martin to his tier, Martin requested that he receive a copy of that disciplinary report upon its completion, which Larkins refused.

On June 8, 1981, Martin was summoned to a disciplinary court consisting of officers Hill and Barrere. At that time, Barrere read aloud Larkins' report, which accused Martin of interfering with roll call despite repeated orders to remain silent. Martin was given the opportunity to explain his actions, and was then sentenced by the court to 30 days in administrative detention on tier C-1, which sentence began immediately.

The administrative detention area on tier C-1 is described in the Orleans Parish Prison Rules and Regulations as "a holding area, preferably a re-adjustment area were sic prisoners who present a immediate threat to the security of the facility through specific act of planned or committed misbehavior of rules and regulations of the institution."

The C-1 area was described by the prisoners as a filthy, rat and roach infested area, where food trays and laundry are left for days and no fans or watercoolers exist, and an ultra-bright electrical fixture remains on all the time, causing sweltering temperatures. Prison officials denied conditions are that bad.

On June 8, 1981, at or about 5:00 P.M., plaintiff Duplessis was placed in the C-1 area pending an investigation of an alleged rape that occurred the previous night. At or about 11:45 P.M. on June 14, 1981, while still on Tier C-1, Duplessis was written up by Larkins for returning soap and shampoo to another prisoner, Robert Miller, after taking a shower, instead of returning directly to the cell.

Another deputy had let Duplessis and the others out to shower and allowed Duplessis to borrow the soap and shampoo from Miller. In fact, Duplessis and Miller had been sharing the shower articles since June 8, when they were placed on C-1.

According to plaintiffs Martin and Duplessis, who were sharing a cell on C-1 at the time, Larkins had come by earlier in the day on June 14, 1981 and attempted to engage Martin in conversation, at which point Duplessis told Martin "not to fall into that trap." After Duplessis' shower and return to his cell, plaintiffs contend that Larkins requested to see Duplessis' name tag, and when asked for what reason, replied "you fell into that trap." At that point, Duplessis requested a copy of any disciplinary report, which was refused.

On June 16, 1981, Duplessis was summoned to a disciplinary court consisting of officers Bordelon, Cook, and Noble. At that time, Cook read Larkins' disciplinary report aloud, which accused Duplessis of failure to obey an order of a staff member by not returning directly to his cell after the shower. Duplessis was given the opportunity to explain his actions, and was then sentenced by the court to 30 days in administrative detention on tier C-1, with no credit for the eight days already spent there pending the rape investigation.

No charges were ever brought against Duplessis arising out of the rape investigation. In fact, despite repeated requests by Duplessis to speak with the officers investigating the rape, or other officials, no prison official spoke with Duplessis about the incident after the morning of June 8, 1981, when he was placed on tier C-1. In the conversation that morning, Duplessis was questioned about the rape and informed an investigation was pending. Warden Wilfred Washington, who was Associate Warden at the relevant times herein, testified that it was regular prison procedure to place witnesses or suspects in tier C-1 for security and administrative reasons pending investigations of serious prison misbehavior or criminal activity.

In both Martin's June 8 and Duplessis' June 16 disciplinary court hearings, according to the plaintiffs, neither was permitted to call any witnesses, although they would like to have done so. There is no evidence that either formally requested witnesses, but it is clear no witnesses were called.

The Orleans Parish Prison Rules and Regulations,¹ a copy of which is handed to every prisoner upon arrival, state the disciplinary procedures to be followed in the prison, some pertinent ones in this matter being as follows:

(a) The disciplinary board shall consist of at least three members of the Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff's Office;

(b) An inmate shall be brought before the board within twenty-four hours of the actual incident unless extenuating circumstances exist;

(c) After the inmate is brought before the board, the warden will read aloud the content of the incident report and the accusation involved;

(d) The accused will be allowed to present witnesses who may appear on his behalf;

(e) The accused will then be allowed to make any statement relative to the incident before the board.

Further, the prison regulations provide that any inmate found responsible for violating any regulations may be subject to the following disciplinary procedures, at the discretion of the disciplinary board: (1) extended lock-down; (2) administrative detention for a maximum of 30 days for any one violation; (3) disciplinary segregation, loss of visiting privileges; (4) withholding of good time; (5) removal from work details or programs; (6) extra work details; (7) reprimand, probation or warning; (8) criminal charge; (9) no action.

In addition, the regulations state that the disciplinary board is vested with a wide range of latitude and discretion, and specifically that for a prisoner who has "violated many rules and regulations of the parish prison system, a disciplinary record will be forwarded to Baton Rouge record room requesting withholding of your good time."

Warden Gary Bordelon testified that he drafted the regulations and that they were in effect at the time of the incidents which are the subject of this suit.

Warden Wilfred Washington testified that despite the stated regulations, prisoners have not been given the opportunity to present witnesses at disciplinary board hearings, except in "severe" cases.

Warden Washington also testified that it is the recognized practice of the prison to orally inform prisoners of the reason(s) for which they are being brought before the board, prior to the hearing, but that written reasons or copies of the disciplinary reports are never given. Furthermore, Deputy Larkins testified that he did not believe that there was an obligation on his part to...