Martin v. Tyson

• Decision Date: 29 March 1988
• Docket Number: No. 87-2371,87-2371
• Citation: 845 F.2d 1451
• Parties: Michael L. MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sheriff Richard TYSON, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Page 1451

845 F.2d 1451

Michael L. MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sheriff Richard TYSON, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 87-2371.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

Submitted March 29, 1988. ^*

Decided May 9, 1988.

Michael L. Martin, pro se.

Patrick J. Hinkle, Law Office of R. Kent Rowe, South Bend, Ind., for defendants-appellees.

Before FLAUM and EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judges, and PELL, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Michael L. Martin filed this action under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 against Sheriff Richard Tyson, various Commissioners of Marshall County, Indiana, and prison employees, as individuals and in their official capacities, for violating his constitutional rights while Martin was a pretrial detainee. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, and this appeal followed.

I

In 1982 Martin was arrested for arson and held in the Marshall County jail for 21 days, until released on bond. In September 1983 Martin was arrested in Houston, Texas, for interstate flight to avoid prosecution. Martin was returned to the Marshall County jail, where he remained until he escaped on November 25, 1983. ¹ On September 19, 1984, Martin was arrested in Ohio for non-support and was held in an Ohio jail until October 18, 1984, when he was returned to the Marshall County facility. Martin remained in the Marshall County jail until February 11, 1985. This suit is based on the conditions of Martin's confinement in the Marshall County jail between October 18, 1984, and February 11, 1985.

II

A. Allegation Nine

Martin's original complaint contained ten allegations and named only the Commissioners of Marshall County and Sheriff Tyson as defendants. On March 7, 1986, Martin was given leave to amend his complaint. His amended pleading added the remaining defendants and restated the allegations of his original complaint. Martin did not mention Allegation Nine of his original complaint in the amended complaint. Allegation Nine was that Martin had been denied access to newspapers during his confinement. The district court interpreted Martin's omission of Allegation Nine as a decision on his part not to pursue this claim, which the court then dismissed.

The language of Martin's amended complaint suggests that Allegation Nine was incorporated by reference. Martin asked the court to

allow the following wording [in the amended complaint] in addition to the wording already contained in the complaint.

Given the obligation to accord a liberal reading to pro se pleadings, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), we find that Martin's Allegation Nine survived the amendment of the complaint. The district court should consider this claim on the merits.

We have previously found the arbitrary denial of access to published materials violates an inmate's first amendment rights. Sizemore v. Williford, 829 F.2d 608, 610 (7th Cir.1987); Kincaid v. Rusk, 670 F.2d 737, 744-45 (7th Cir.1982). See also Mann v. Smith, 796 F.2d 79, 82 (5th Cir.1986). Sheriff Tyson's affidavit confirms that newspaper delivery to the Marshall County jail inmates was prohibited, although Tyson stated that newspapers could be received on a subscription basis. ² Martin argues that this portrayal of the facts is inaccurate, and that the ban on newspapers was absolute. Since the district court has not addressed the merits of this allegation, we must remand the issue.

B. Defendants Overmyer, Schultz, and Baker

The district court dismissed the claims against defendants Overmyer, Schultz, and Baker, then Commissioners of Marshall County. The court held that the Commissioners had no personal involvement with Martin, which precluded liability under Sec. 1983. Rascon v. Hardiman, 803 F.2d 269, 273 (7th Cir.1986), citing Wolf-Lillie v. Sonquist, 699 F.2d 864, 869 (7th Cir.1983). Martin cites several Indiana statutes establishing the administrative standards for state prisons. He argues that the Commissioners were statutorily required to comply with certain policies. This is irrelevant, since a violation of state law does not create liability under Sec. 1983. Gramenos v. Jewel Companies, Inc., 797 F.2d 432, 434-35 (7th Cir.1986).

Martin also sues the Commissioners in their official capacities, which makes this a claim against the governmental unit. Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690 n. 55, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2035, n. 55, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Although the doctrine of respondeat superior is inapplicable to Sec. 1983 actions, Monell, 436 U.S. at 694, 98 S.Ct. at 2037, a county may be held liable for its official policies. Under Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1872, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979), a policy that "amounts to punishment of the detainee" is unlawful. There is no evidence, however, that the Marshall County jail's policies were designed to deprive pretrial detainees of their due process rights. The district court therefore properly granted summary judgment on this claim.

C. Defendants Tyson, Criswell, Glant, Hesler, and Woodward

Defendants Tyson (Sheriff of Marshall County), Criswell (a police officer), Glant, Hesler, and Woodward (three employees of the jail), may have been directly involved with Martin's confinement. The rights of pretrial detainees are protected under the Due Process Clause of the fourteenth amendment, which prohibits punishment of persons who have not been convicted of a crime. Bell, 441 U.S. at 536 n. 16, 99 S.Ct. at 1872 n. 16. The district court decided that Martin had not been "punished" prematurely.

1. Conspiracy

Martin alleges that defendant Criswell conspired with Ohio jail officials. When contacted by the Ohio authorities, Criswell identified Martin as an inmate escaped from the Marshall County jail. As a result, Martin maintains that he was incorrectly classified in the Ohio facility. As the district court observed, however, the defendants had no control over the administration of the Ohio jail. Furthermore, Criswell accurately stated Martin's status. Martin protests that since the charges against him for the escape were later dropped, the information given to the Ohio authorities was erroneous. On the contrary, Criswell's statement corresponded with the facts. Plea bargains (which led to the dropping of the escape charge) do not retroactively alter facts.

2. Visitation Policy

Martin also complains of the visiting policy at the jail. The jail limited both the number of visitors and the length of the visits, and "contact" visits were prohibited. On one occasion, Martin's mother was denied the opportunity to visit with him because she arrived on a day when no visits were scheduled. The Marshall County jail officials assert that these limitations were necessary due to the small size of the jail and the number of people to be accommodated.

The size and location of a facility are relevant factors in determining whether a plaintiff has been constitutionally harmed. Penland v. Warren County Jail, 797 F.2d 332, 335 (6th Cir.1986). The Marshall County jail is a small detention facility in a rural area. Courts must play a limited role in the administration of detention centers. Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576, 584, 104 S.Ct. 3227, 3231-3232, 82 L.Ed.2d 438 (1984). Summary judgment for the defendants on this point was proper.

3. Access to Courts

Martin asserts that he was denied access to the courts because the Marshall County facility has no law library. Meaningful access to the courts must be provided. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 823, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 1496, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977); United States ex rel. George v. Lane, 718 F.2d 226, 230 (7th Cir.1983). As Bounds recognized, however, this need can be addressed in several ways. The relevant inquiry is whether the inmate has been given a "reasonably adequate opportunity" to present his claim. Bounds, 430 U.S. at 825, 97 S.Ct. at 1496.

Although the Marshall County jail does not have a law library, Martin was represented by counsel on his criminal charges. See Love v. Summit County, 776 F.2d 908, 914 (10th Cir.1985), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 66, 93 L.Ed.2d 25 (1986). The fact that Martin has pressed this suit suggests that he has not been constitutionally harmed. See Howland v. Kilquist, 833 F.2d 639, 642 (7th Cir.1987) (no detriment shown by denial of legal materials); Mann v. Smith, 796 F.2d 79, 84 (5th Cir.1986) (no actual injury shown by pretrial detainee). He does not point to any claim that he was unable to pursue. Consequently, we find that the judgment for defendants on this allegation was appropriate.

4. Classification Hearing

Martin next contends that he was denied a classification hearing prior to his placement in a one-man cell, and later, in an eight-men cell. The fact that Martin was lodged with several other prisoners does not suggest that the practice was unconstitutional. Bell, 441 U.S. at 542, 99 S.Ct. at 1875 ("one man, one cell" principle is not required by Due Process Clause). Martin's complaint regarding the size of his cell is also without merit. See, e.g., Mann, 796 F.2d at 85 (detainee's contention that his cell was too small to allow exercise found meritless).

Martin further insists that pretrial detainees should not be lodged with convicted inmates, and that his placement within the Marshall County jail was therefore unacceptable. It does not appear that the Marshall County jail had a classification scheme in place. However, classification of inmates, whether or not desirable, is not a constitutional requirement. See Campbell v. Bergeron, 486 F.Supp. 1246, 1249 (M.D.La.1980), affirmed mem., 654 F.2d 719 (5th Cir.1981). Martin has offered no indication that he has been injured by his cell placement. The grant of summary judgment on this ground is therefore affirmed.

5. Outside Recreation

Martin alleges that he was denied access to sunshine and fresh air, a cruel and unusual punishment and a violation of Indiana state law. We have...