McMurry v. Phelps

• Decision Date: 07 January 1982
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 77-1289.
• Citation: 533 F. Supp. 742
• Parties: James Troy McMURRY, et al. v. C. Paul PHELPS, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana

533 F. Supp. 742

James Troy McMURRY, et al. v. C. Paul PHELPS, et al.

Civ. A. No. 77-1289.

United States District Court, W. D. Louisiana, Monroe Division.

January 7, 1982.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

David Duhon, Mary Louise Strong, North Louisiana Legal Assistance Corp., Monroe, La., R. James Kellogg, New Orleans, La., for plaintiffs.

V. Gerald Dean, Grant, Scott & Dean, Monroe, La., for defendant, Bailey Grant, Sheriff.

Ben R. Hanchey, Hudson, Potts & Bernstein, Monroe, La., for defendant, Ouachita Parish Police Jury.

J. Marvin Montgomery, Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, La., for State defendants.

OPINION

STAGG, District Judge.

This suit, brought as a class action¹ by inmates of the Ouachita Parish Jail, challenges conditions of confinement at the Parish Jail located on the top floor of the Ouachita Parish Courthouse. The suit was filed seeking declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C., § 1983² for alleged deprivations of the rights of inmates secured under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as certain statutory rights conferred by Louisiana law. The plaintiffs named as defendants various parish and state officials:

(1) C. PAUL PHELPS, as Secretary of the Department of Corrections for the State of Louisiana;

(2) DANIEL L. KELLY, as Fire Marshal for the State of Louisiana³;

(3) DR. J. T. HAMERICK, as Director of the Louisiana State Division of Health⁴;

(4) WILLIAM CHERRY, as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Resources for the State of Louisiana⁵;

(5) BAILEY GRANT, as Sheriff for the Parish of Ouachita⁶; and

(6) ARLAN E. RAWLS, BILLY BANKS, ROBERT C. DOWNING, A. E. PIERCE, III, WILLIE CRAIN, and BILLY F. WHILHITE, as members of the Ouachita Parish Police Jury.⁷

The plaintiffs challenged virtually every aspect of the operations and management of the Ouachita Parish Jail.

After extensive discovery and tortuous negotiations, the parties hammered out a partial consent decree resolving some of the more troubling problems existing at the Ouachita Parish Jail (See Appendix A). The issues left for resolution concern conditions that plaintiffs contend are unconstitutional, either independently or as part of a total mix of conditions of confinement that fails to pass constitutional muster, and can be grouped under seven general headings: (1) Overcrowding; (2) Inadequate Supervision; (3) Visitation Rights; (4) Access to the Courts; (5) Censorship of Reading Material; (6) Sexual Discrimination; (7) Right to Sheets.

During discovery, the parties reached an impasse over the issue of paraprofessional staff visiting inmates at the jail. After a hearing, the court ruled that paralegals on plaintiffs' staff could interview inmates. This ruling was mandated by clear Supreme Court jurisprudence. See Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974); Johnson v. Avery 393 U.S. 483, 89 S.Ct. 747, 21 L.Ed.2d 718 (1969). The remaining issues were tried before this court on May 15, 1979.

In adjudicating suits challenging the conditions of confinement at a parish prison, the district judge finds his course well charted by several Fifth Circuit precedents. See e.g., Jones v. Diamond, 636 F.2d 1364 (5th Cir. 1981) (en banc); Miller v. Carson, 563 F.2d 741 (5th Cir. 1977); Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir. 1974). On most issues involved in this lawsuit, Judge Rubin's en banc opinion in Jones v. Diamond will provide the benchmark:

A prisoner, whether already convicted of a crime or merely awaiting trial, does not shed all his constitutional rights when he puts on jail clothing. While our "inquiry... into state prison management must be limited to the issue of whether a particular system violates any prohibition of the Constitution;" it is our duty, when jurisdiction is properly invoked, to protect prisoners' constitutional rights, for "there is no iron curtain drawn between the Constitution and the prisoners of this country."⁸

Jones v. Diamond at 1368 (citations omitted.) But Judge Rubin also repeated the admonition that has been the common refrain of every recent Supreme Court case dealing with prisoners' rights: "Our task is limited to enforcing constitutional standards rather than assuming supervision of jail administration." Jones v. Diamond at 1368.

Stated time and time again throughout the protracted proceedings and negotiations in this case, this judge has a distaste for crossing that Rubicon which separates the federal government from state government. Great deference should be shown jail officials in matters that concern the day-to-day operations of their institution. Nevertheless, plaintiffs have presented substantial, often compelling, evidence of long-existing and continuing Constitutional violations. The evidence has established that the totality of conditions at the Ouachita Parish Jail violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Except in fashioning the necessary remedies, deference is no longer possible.

I. Findings of Fact

Many issues in this complicated litigation were settled in the partial consent decree attached as Appendix A. Culminating the parties detailed discovery was a meaningful stipulation of facts submitted by the parties at trial as Joint Exhibit 1:

A.

Stipulated Facts

(1) Plaintiffs' attorneys and the attorney for the Sheriff have reached an agreement on the dimensions of the cells and other pertinent areas within the jail. Those dimensions will be submitted to the court by stipulation;

(2) As of May 15, 1979, inmates were not given the opportunity for outdoor exercise;

(3) Visitors are limited to three family members and one friend;

(4) Inmates without family members are not allowed to substitute friends for family members on the visitors' list.

(5) Ouachita Parish Jail has no library and does not supply reading material to inmates;

(6) Guards on duty are allowed to censor the reading material brought to the jail;

(7) Inmates eat in their cells, and there are no tables or chairs provided for them;

(8) At times, overcrowding in both the women's cells and men's cells has required that some inmates sleep on the floor due to a shortage of bunks;

(9) Inmates, other than trustees, do not leave their cells at any time during the day except for court appearances and consultation with attorneys;

(10) As of May 15, 1979, no outdoor nor indoor exercise programs were in effect at the Ouachita Parish Jail;

(11) The Ouachita Parish Jail does not have a law library and the Sheriff and Police Jury do not make available to inmates persons trained in law;

(12) On visiting days, visitors must talk through a barrier and there is no privacy;

(13) Inmates are not provided with sheets;

(14) There are no written standards for the guards in the determination of what books or magazines will not be allowed in the jail;

(15) Books brought to the jail by inmates' friends and relatives have sometimes been kept from inmates without explanation;

(16) Women inmates are not allowed to serve as trustees or to participate in work-release programs;

(17) Women inmates who are convicted and who are minimum security risks are housed only at the Ouachita Parish Jail, and hence are housed in more restrictive conditions than are similarly situated men who are housed at the Ouachita Area Multi-Parish Prison Farm.

B.

By The Court

Overcrowding

(1) Constructed in 1926, the Ouachita Parish Jail is located on the fourth and top floor of the Ouachita Parish Courthouse, situated in downtown Monroe, the major city in Northeast Louisiana. The jail underwent an addition in 1966 and another renovation in 1971. (Hereinafter, the Ouachita Parish Jail will sometimes be referred to as "the jail").

(2) The jail contains 5,100 square feet and houses an average of 120 inmates.⁹ The jail operates in conjunction with the Ouachita Area Multi-Parish Prison Farm. (Hereinafter referred to as "the farm.")

(3) At any time, the jail may house convicted prisoners serving parish time, convicted state prisoners awaiting appeal or transfer, and pre-trial detainees. Pre-trial detainees generally comprise over 50% of jail population.¹⁰ Although most of the population is short-term, some of the inmates have been in Ouachita Parish Jail for as long as five years.¹¹ The citizens of Ouachita Parish have long recognized that problems existed on top of their courthouse:

On Ouachita Parish Jail — We found this jail to be well-kept and clean. There were 123 prisoners incarcerated there during our inspection. Living conditions are extremely crowded and there is no room for expansion. For these reasons, we ask that the voters of Ouachita Parish give due consideration to the election set for April 7.

PX-4, March 30, 1979 Report of the Ouachita Parish Grand Jury. The Grand Jury report introduced into evidence as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2 contained similar statements. But the sounds of coins clanging out of the coffers caused needed changes to be neglected.

(4) The evidence conclusively established that the Ouachita Parish Jail is desperately overcrowded. Although the situation has been ameliorated since the institution of this suit, on the day of trial, all experts, including defendants, testified that the jail was severely overcrowded.¹²

(5) The layout of the jail as shown in Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 6 is unusual in that there is not one long hall with dormitory-type cells. Instead, the top floor of the courthouse has been divided into several compartments containing cell blocks, a dormitory and individual cells. This haphazard layout belies any contention that the current design is the optimum use of the space available.¹³

(6) Although the number of inmates housed in the jail varies, the daily jail report containing inmate population and classification showed a high of 133 inmates.¹⁴ This is more than twice the number of inmates allowed by the ...