McAlister v. Robinson

• Decision Date: 30 March 1978
• Docket Number: H-77-661 and H-77-672.,H-77-629,Civ. No. H-77-628
• Citation: 488 F. Supp. 545
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
• Parties: R. McALISTER v. Carl ROBINSON et al. Frank PASSALACQUA v. Carl ROBINSON et al. Anthony T. KOZLINSKI v. Carl ROBINSON et al. Salvatore RAFFONE v. Carl ROBINSON et al.

488 F. Supp. 545

R. McALISTER v. Carl ROBINSON et al.

Frank PASSALACQUA v. Carl ROBINSON et al.

Anthony T. KOZLINSKI v. Carl ROBINSON et al.

Salvatore RAFFONE v. Carl ROBINSON et al.

Civ. Nos. H-77-628, H-77-629, H-77-661 and H-77-672.

United States District Court, D. Connecticut.

March 30, 1978.

Jon Blue, Legal Assistance to Prisoners, Hartford, Conn. (Court-appointed), for petitioners.

Stephen J. O'Neill, Asst. Atty. Gen., Carl Ajello, Atty. Gen., Hartford, Conn., for defendants.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDED DECISION

F. OWEN EAGAN, United States Magistrate.

This is an action for declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief brought by four prisoners incarcerated at the Connecticut Correctional Institution, Somers (hereinafter, referred to as C.C.I.S.), located in Somers, Connecticut, against the Warden of C.C.I.S. and the Connecticut Commissioner of Corrections. The plaintiffs allege their transfer from the general population to segregated confinement, and continued maintenance therein, without notice and/or hearing either before or after the transfer, violated the rights guaranteed to them by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction for declaratory relief is claimed to be based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02. Section 2201 creates a remedy of declaratory relief "in a case of actual controversy." The present litigation involves an actual controversy, viz., the plaintiffs' alleged deprivations of constitutional rights arising out of their segregated confinement. Section 2201 also provides that declaratory relief may be granted "whether or not further relief is or could be sought", and section 2202 provides that "further necessary or proper relief based on a declaratory judgment or decree may be granted."

The plaintiffs base their claim of action for injunctive and monetary relief upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and its jurisdictional counterpart 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and (4). While federal courts have allowed state prison authorities a great deal of latitude conducting the day-to-day affairs of prison administration, Numer v. Miller, et al., 165 F.2d 986 (9th Cir. 1948); United States ex rel. Knight v. Ragen, et al., 337 F.2d 425 (7th Cir. 1964), cert. den., 380 U.S. 985, 85 S.Ct. 1355, 14 L.Ed.2d 277 (1965), it is "now settled beyond question . . . that claims of the kind presented here allegedly unconstitutional segregated confinement are within the jurisdiction of the federal courts under the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983; 28 U.S.C. § 1343)" citations omitted. Carter, et al. v. McGinnis, et al., 320 F.Supp. 1092 (W.D.N.Y.1970).¹

These two jurisdictional bases involve district judicial remedies. In light of this consideration, the court will first declare the rights of the parties and then decide upon the appropriate injunctive and/or monetary relief.

BACKGROUND OF LITIGATION

This action was initiated pro se on December 27, 1977, by a letter mailed to Jon O. Newman, United States District Court Judge for the District of Connecticut, and signed by all four plaintiffs. In that letter, the plaintiffs requested Judge Newman to issue an Order to Show Cause to the Connecticut State Police, C Troop, as to why the plaintiffs should be continued in segregated confinement. The case was subsequently assigned to T. Emmet Clarie, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.

On December 30, 1977, F. Owen Eagan, United States Magistrate for the District of Connecticut, issued four Orders to Show Cause, one for each plaintiff, to be served upon Carl Robinson, Warden of C.C.I.S. (hereinafter referred to as the Warden). The orders compelled the Warden to show why the plaintiffs should not be released back into the general population of the prison. The orders also allowed the plaintiffs to proceed in forma pauperis, and that their petitions be filed by the clerk without payment of the statutory filing fee, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Counsel was appointed on December 29, 1977, and filed a formal complaint on January 6, 1978, in which the four cases were consolidated. The Warden was named as a defendant, along with John R. Manson, the Connecticut Commissioner of Corrections (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner), both in their individual and official capacities. With the complaint, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

In an order dated January 17, 1978, Judge Clarie referred the four cases to Magistrate Eagan under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(2) and Rule 1 of the Rules of United States Magistrates. Pursuant to that order, hearings were held at the courtroom within the C.C.I.S. facility on the 18th, 19th and 31st of January, 1978. At those hearings, the parties addressed themselves to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and also to a related Motion for Permanent Injunction. In addition to the hearings, two stipulations were filed on the 15th and 21st of February 1978, to expedite the court's fact finding process. Final briefs were filed by March 3, 1978, and from all of the above sources, the following facts were found.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At approximately 9:00 p. m. on November 10, 1977, the body of Alfred Chisholm (hereinafter referred to as Chisholm) was found in a laundry cart in the gymnasium area of C.C.I.S. Chisholm, a black man, had been an inmate confined in that institution. It was immediately apparent to the prison authorities, primarily because of bloodstains on Chisholm's body and clothing, that the death was the result of an act constituting some degree of criminal homicide. The medical examiner's report,² issued two days later, concurred with the authorities' suspicion of homicide, stating the cause of death to be "ASPHYXIA BY STRANGULATION. HOMICIDE."

2. The State Police for the State of Connecticut were called to investigate the death immediately after the body was found.

3. At approximately 10:30 p. m. on November 10, 1977, (one and one half hours after the body of Chisholm was found), plaintiff, Frank A. Passalacqua (hereinafter referred to as Passalacqua),³ a white man, was escorted from his cell in the general population of C.C.I.S. to an interview room within the prison. There he was questioned by the State Police about the apparent homicide for approximately two hours. Following this questioning, Passalacqua was escorted to F Block within C.C.I.S., a section of the prison used for housing prisoners assigned to administrative segregation (hereinafter referred to as F Block).⁴ When Passalacqua asked the prison authorities why he was being transferred, he was told only that he was "under investigation."⁵

4. At approximately 11:00 a. m. on November 14, 1977, the plaintiff Salvatore I. Raffone (hereinafter referred to as Raffone),⁶ a white man, was escorted from his work assignment in the gymnasium of C.C. I.S. to F Block. Prior to this transfer, he was in the general population of the prison. When Raffone asked why he was being transferred, the escorting officer told him: "I'm not allowed to tell you anything."⁷

5. At approximately 10:00 a. m. on November 15, 1977, the plaintiff Richard F. McAlister (hereinafter referred to as McAlister),⁸ a white man, was escorted from his work assignment in the gymnasium of C.C. I.S. to F Block. Prior to this transfer, he was in the general population of the prison. At the time of the transfer, McAlister did not ask why he was being transferred, and no explanations were offered to him.

6. In the afternoon of November 15, 1977, the plaintiff Anthony T. Kozlinski (hereinafter referred to as Kozlinski),⁹ a white man, was escorted from his work assignment in the electronics shop of C.C. I.S. to F Block. Prior to this transfer, he was in general population of the prison. The explanation offered by the escorting officer was that Kozlinski "was going to segregation under investigation by the State Police."¹⁰

7. Immediately upon entering F Block, each plaintiff was asked to remove his clothing and then was given a uniform brown jumpsuit. They were then locked in separate cells in F Block without any of their personal belongings.¹¹ From the time of their original confinements in F Block through the time of this writing, plaintiffs McAlister, Kozlinski and Passalacqua have been uninterruptedly assigned to F Block. Plaintiff Raffone was uninterruptedly assigned to F Block until recently when he was transferred to E Block, a similar administrative segregation area.

8. The four plaintiffs, while in administrative segregation, are enjoying substantial deprivations of the privileges which they enjoyed while they were in the general population. Among the objectively measurable differences between the general population and F Block (the same being true for E Block) are:

a.) in F Block, the plaintiffs are locked in their cells for 23 hours per day on weekdays and 24 hours per day on weekends; while in the general population they are generally locked in their cells only for eight hours each night;

b.) due to the number of hours the plaintiffs are locked in their cells in F Block, their contact with other prisoners is drastically less than it was in general population when they were allowed to be in the company of other prisoners for up to sixteen hours per day;

c.) meals are eaten by the plaintiffs alone in their cells, while in general population, meals were eaten with other prisoners;

d.) two showers per week are allowed in F Block (although sponge bathing is always available at the sinks in the plaintiffs' cells), while at least one shower per day was allowed in general population;

e.) plaintiffs must order books (including legal publications) one at a time from the library, while in general population they could enter the library during their recreation periods;

f.) no organized religious services are allowed in F Block (although clergymen regularly come to F Block to meet individually with the prisoners),...