McClendon v. City of Albuquerque, s. 96-2056
| Decision Date | 02 April 1996 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 96-2056,96-2057,s. 96-2056 |
| Citation | 79 F.3d 1014 |
| Parties | Jimmy McCLENDON a/k/a Billy McClendon; Harold Lund; Peter Sumatkak; David Michael Bauer; Carl Ray Lopez; Bruce David Morawe; Thomas Young; Ruthie Duran; Deborah Lavera; Janelle Roybal; Dannette Difiori; Maria Sisneros; Larry Green; Bartel Haley; Michael Cote; Joe Ray Herrera; Josie Kriena; Debbie Lucero; David Shawkin; Marc A. Gillette; George Chavez; Eliseo Baca; Clint Barras; Francisco Melendez; Samual Herrod; Vincent Padilla; Carl Duckworth; Joseph W. Anderson; Paul Johnson; Fred Mall; Hector Lopez; Ricky Rose; Herbert King, Sr.; James Parks; Michael A. Johnson; Johnny Vallejos; Joe Newberry; Darryl Craft; Albert Willy; William P. Jimmy; Augustine Tapia; Richard A. Smith; Robert Lovato; Roy Whatley; Marty Begay; Martin Valdivia; Tallie Thomas; Augustine Jackson; Donald Hall; Carl Sur; Steve Esquibel; Lonnie Whatley; James Saiz; Bryon Zamora; Allen M. Sawyer; Patrick Benny Romero; Richard C. Kopecky; Phillip Shumate; Nelson Romero; Steve Johnson; Bennie F. Garcia; Louie Chavez; Brian Salazar; Richard Gallegos; Larry Stroud; James Burks; Brad Fischer; Amihon Baca; Jeff Dillow; Pete McQueen; Manuel Martinez; Arnold Anthony Maestas; John Hewatt; and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees and Real Parties in Interest, and EM, RL, WA, DJ, PS and NW, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Intervenors and Real Parties in Interest, and Lawrence A. Johnson, Intervenor, v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE; Martin Chavez, Mayor of Albuquerque; County Of Bernalillo; Patrick Baca, Bernalillo County Commissioner; Albert Valdez, Bernalillo County Commissioner; Eugene Gilbert, Bernalillo County Commissioner; Barbara Seward, Bernalillo County Commissioner; Jacquelyn Schaefer, Bernalillo County Commissioner; Bill Dantis, Director, Bernalillo County Detention Center; and Bernalillo County Detention Center; Paul Sanchez; Frank Lovato; Ercell Griffin, Deputy Director, BCDC; Michael Smith, Lieutenant; John Van Sickler, Lieutenant; Will Bell, Officer; Albe |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Appeal From The United States District Court For The District Of New Mexico (D.C. No. 95-0024 MV/RLP); Martha Vazquez, Judge.
Jeffrey Baker, The Baker Law Firm, Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Defendants-Appellants and Petitioners.
Anthony Ayala, Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Plaintiffs-Appellees and Real Parties In Interest.
Peter Cubra, Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Plaintiffs-Intervenors-Appellees and Real Parties in Interest.
Before PAUL KELLY, Jr., Circuit Judge, In Chambers.
Defendants-Appellants and Petitioners seek an emergency stay pending appeal of the district court's order limiting their authority to independently select places of confinement for inmates. Covering all bases, they also seek a writ of prohibition against the district court enjoining the court from enforcing the condition. I find that the application for the stay is well taken and should be granted; although I have jurisdiction to consider the petition for an extraordinary writ, I will exercise my discretion to refer it to a panel of this court.
Defendants-Appellants and Petitioners are local governmental entities, elected officials and public employees in the State of New Mexico who operate and work at the Bernalillo County Detention Center (BCDC) located in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Plaintiffs-Appellees and Real Parties In Interest are a class of inmates who have been or will be confined at BCDC. See D. Ct. Order filed August 23, 1995 at 1 n.1 (doc. 106); Aplts./Pet. Emergency Request filed March 26, 1996, ex. 1; Complaint filed January 10, 1995 (doc.1). Plaintiffs-Intervenors-Appellees and Real Parties In Interest are a class of inmates with mental or developmental disabilities who have been or will be confined at BCDC.
Plaintiffs allege various constitutional violations regarding their conditions of confinement. On August 23, 1995, the district court granted a preliminary injunction to reduce the population of the BCDC based upon an unannounced visit by the district judge to the facility, which was followed by a one-day evidentiary hearing. D. Ct. Order filed August 23, 1995 at 2 (doc. 106). The district court ordered BCDC to reduce its inmate population according to a schedule of progressively decreasing population caps and imposed detailed conditions concerning day-to-day operations. Id. at 12-18. To achieve the population caps, the order required the City and County Defendants to implement a "Matrix Release System" (MRS) whereby inmates would be assigned a numerical score based on several factors, including any pending charges and prior convictions. Inmate counts were required at 4:00 a.m. each day and, based upon the numerical scores under the MRS, the Director of the facility was "authorized and directed to make the necessary releases from BCDC as required to enforce the population limits." Id. at 13. The district court's order was converted into a permanent injunction based upon a partial settlement agreement between the Plaintiffs and Defendants which reserved certain individual claims. Settlement Agreement and Order filed September 7, 1995 (docs. 115 & 116). Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the district court retained jurisdiction to enforce and modify the permanent injunction. Settlement Agreement filed September 7, 1995, p 1.B (doc. 115).
Both the preliminary injunction and settlement pleadings make it clear that the district court has not determined whether the operation of BCDC violates federal law. The district court reserved any ruling on whether a constitutional violation occurred:
Defendants, by stipulating to the facts concerning overpopulation and by proposing administrative solutions, have not thereby waived, either directly or constructively, their rights to trial or proof of the alleged constitutional violations. The Court notes Defendants' position that overpopulation alone does not constitute a violation of the residents' constitutional rights, and that "overcrowding," if defined as simply population in excess of BCDC's design capacity has not resulted in any such violation. The Court leaves that issue for future resolution.
D. Ct. Order filed August 23, 1995 at 2 n.2 (doc. 106). The settlement agreement acknowledged "the fact that there is no finding of any constitutional violations." Settlement Agreement filed September 7, 1995 at 2, p 7 (doc. 115).
Although the MRS was utilized twice, Defendant City of Albuquerque then sought to avoid exceeding the population caps by housing inmates in other facilities. The alternative housing is to be temporary because additional capacity in the form of a new detention facility on the Westside of Albuquerque is scheduled to be operational on May 24, 1996, about sixty days hence. In the interim, Defendants advised the district court of plans to recommission Montessa Park (once the site of a detention facility) to house inmates temporarily. Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs-Intervenors objected. The district court then directed Defendants to advise opposing counsel of any plans to house inmates temporarily and allow opposing counsel to visit the proposed facilities. Clerk's Minutes of November 17, 1995 (doc. 144). Plaintiffs then sought a preliminary injunction enjoining the operation of the Montessa Park facility. Motion for a Preliminary Injunction filed November 20, 1995 (doc. 145). Defendants represent that the district judge visited the facility and approved it for temporarily housing inmates, although no ruling appears of record, nor does the district court docket sheet reflect a written disposition of the preliminary injunction request.
On Friday, March 22, 1996, the district court held a hearing in response to Defendant City of Albuquerque's notification that the population caps had not been met as of March 17. The district court held that certain defendants were in violation of the court's order by exceeding the population cap and by failing to release BCDC inmates in accordance with the MRS. Tr. at 82-83, attached as ex. 2 to Emergency Motion (No. 96-2056). The district judge, however, considered options to the MRS, including tents, the basement of a courthouse and Montessa Park, Tr. at 86, and then imposed the condition which is the subject of this appeal and the writ of prohibition:
Any proposed sites will be made available to opposing counsel so that they may have an opportunity to tour the facility,....
If there is a dispute as far as availability of any of these sites, counsel knows by now that all it takes is a phone call to get me there, and I am happy to tour any other facilities that may be used as an interim measure.
Tr. at 86. The district judge set the matter for further hearing on Monday, March 25, 1995, to check on the progress of the alternatives. Tr. at 87.
On March 25, Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs-Intervenors moved the district court to issue an order to show cause and hold Defendants in civil contempt. Though it does not appear of record, Plaintiffs represent that "on Sunday, March 24, 1996, the Court entered an Order restraining the Defendants from using the Montessa Park Warehouse to house inmates." Motion and Affidavit for Order to Show Cause and Other Relief filed March 25, 1996 at 1 (doc. 179). See also Aplts./Pet. Emergency Request filed March 26, 1996, ex. 3 (Tr. at 71) (district judge refers to "telephone hearing that we held on Sunday at approximately 1:00 p.m."). According...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. Fairfax County Department of Family Services
...Second, the purpose of a stay pending appeal “is to preserve the status quo pending appellate determination,” McClendon v. City of Albuquerque, 79 F.3d 1014, 1020 (10th Cir.1996), whereas the purpose of the good cause finding is to determine whether to transfer or keep a case involving an I......
-
Smith v. Barber
...of the Eighth Amendment govern such claims. Craig v. Eberly, 164 F.3d 490, 495 (10th Cir.1998) (citing McClendon v. City of Albuquerque, 79 F.3d 1014, 1022 (10th Cir.1996)). The Eighth Amendment requires that prison officials provide humane conditions of confinement, including ensuring that......
-
Gmyr-Maez v. Albuquerque Police Collin Schneider
...standard provides the benchmark for such claims.” Craig v. Eberly , 164 F.3d 490, 495 (10th Cir.1998) (citing McClendon v. City of Albuquerque , 79 F.3d 1014, 1022 (10th Cir.1996) ). An arrestee is no different: the Tenth Circuit has upheld the decision of a district court to apply the Eigh......
-
Pueblo of Pojoaque v. State
...injunction is granted; and (iv) any risk of harm to the public interest. See Motion to Stay MOO at 2 (citing McClendon v. City of Albuquerque , 79 F.3d 1014, 1020 (10th Cir. 1996) ). Pojoaque Pueblo argues that it "can establish each element and has already established these elements as evi......