Morris v. Travisono

• Decision Date: 11 March 1970
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 4192.
• Citation: 310 F. Supp. 857
• Parties: Joseph MORRIS on behalf of himself and all other inmates of the Adult Correctional Institutions, Cranston, Rhode Island, Plaintiffs, v. Anthony P. TRAVISONO, individually and as Commissioner of the Department of Social Welfare of Rhode Island, and John Sharkey, individually and as Acting Warden of the Adult Correctional Institutions at Cranston, Rhode Island, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island

310 F. Supp. 857

Joseph MORRIS on behalf of himself and all other inmates of the Adult Correctional Institutions, Cranston, Rhode Island, Plaintiffs, v. Anthony P. TRAVISONO, individually and as Commissioner of the Department of Social Welfare of Rhode Island, and John Sharkey, individually and as Acting Warden of the Adult Correctional Institutions at Cranston, Rhode Island, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 4192.

United States District Court, D. Rhode Island.

March 11, 1970.

William Bennett Turner, Chief Counsel, New York City, John J. Donahue, Cary Coen, John A. Nelson, and Peter W. Thoms, of Rhode Island Legal Services, Inc., Providence, R. I., for plaintiffs.

Edward Burke, Chief Counsel, and Ira Schreiber of R. I. Dept. of Social Welfare, Providence, R. I., Donald Ryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., State of R. I., Providence, R. I., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PETTINE, District Judge.

This is a civil rights suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in which several issues are raised relating to the constitutionality and statutory permissibility of certain rules, practices, and conditions of life at the Adult Correctional Institution.

The history of this litigation will first be recited in order to establish the background against which this court is ruling. On Saturday, October 11, 1969 an ex parte temporary restraining order was sought by Rhode Island Legal Services on behalf of their clients, a group of prisoners who had allegedly been arbitrarily and discriminatorily segregated out from the general prison population and placed in a so-called Behavioral Control Unit where many of the more ordinary facets of their daily prison life, such as the opportunity to work, the opportunity to engage in regular prison activities, the opportunity to attend chapel, and the like, were denied them. Additionally, it was alleged that health conditions, in part created by the prisoners, and in part permitted to continue by the prison administration, were so seriously deteriorated in the B.C.U. as to amount to a serious health hazard and a violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. After some lengthy discussions with counsel for the plaintiffs, counsel for the prison administration and others, the court entered a temporary order requiring the defendants to provide the plaintiffs with minimal maintenance of personal hygiene and to permit plaintiffs outdoor exercise and access to religious services. The court further indicated that a physician should immediately examine the B.C.U. to determine the nature of any health hazard there present.

Commencing Monday, October 13, 1969 the court both heard in-court testimony and engaged in in-chambers negotiations in an attempt to break the impasse that had developed between the plaintiff prisoners and the defendant prison administration. For the entire week of October 13, 1969 the court and counsel labored virtually around the clock both in the adversarial atmosphere of the courtroom, where expert testimony met head on and clashed on the issue of the B.C.U. health hazard, and in the negotiation climate of court chambers where segregation and classification were the real bargaining points.

On Wednesday, October 15, 1969 the testimony of Mr. Anthony P. Travisono, the Director of the Department of Social Welfare, set the stage for two crucial developments. The first was the realization that the underlying issue in the case was that of the correctness, legally and phrenologically, of the classification and segregation concepts and operations. The second was the agreement of the plaintiff prisoners, predicated upon the court's indications that the underlying procedural issues would be considered, to break the impasse by cleaning up the food and excrement which caused the health hazard in the B.C.U.

On Thursday, October 16, 1969 negotiations in private between the parties continued. On Friday, October 17, 1969 several further developments came to light. First, the plaintiffs sought a continuance in order to prepare their case, believed by them then to have been considerably broadened into the area of due process of law in prison life. Second, the plaintiffs' chief counsel, Mr. John Donahue, indicated more than adequate personal health factors as an additional reason for continuance. The court, faced with the still to be tried and still then being negotiated classification matters, entered a temporary order regarding the classification matters. Prior to the entry of that order, the court stated at Transcript 354:

"* * * I will tell you what I am thinking perhaps should be done: These men be placed in a B classification and remain in that classification with whatever rights and privileges go with it until this case is ultimately determined, that the warden will have the right to change this classification down to C or D, but that would have to be based on their conduct, their conduct from this day forward and not for past conduct * * *."

Following a brief recess, the defendants offered a counter-proposal by which all prisoners then remaining in the B.C.U. would be placed into B classification, immediately heard in reclassification proceedings, and thence reclassified as either remaining in B or returned to C or restored to A. No prisoner was to be returned to D status. All classifications were to be predicated upon conduct from October 17, 1969 forward and past prison history, excluding the events between September 27, 1969 and October 17, 1969, except insofar as to consider favorably the cleanup of October 15, 1969. This proposal then was accepted, was entered on the record on Tuesday, October 21, 1969 and the case was continued to November 7, 1969 with certain suggestions by the court as to future proceedings. On October 30, 1969 a motion for further continuance was filed and on October 31, 1969 a continuance to December 5, 1969 was granted so that expert counsel might be found to try this case.

On December 8, 1969 Mr. Cary Coen of Rhode Island Legal Services and Mr. William Bennett Turner of the NAACP

Legal Defense Fund entered their appearances on the record as counsel for the plaintiffs. On December 12, 1969 plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint which was argued on December 15, 1969 and granted as of that date. On December 16, 1969 an amended complaint was filed alleging a class action on behalf of all the prisoners at the Adult Correctional Institution and a separate sub-class action on behalf of those prisoners in the B.C.U. The complaint was a broad-ranging one addressed principally to the constitutionality of the classification and disciplinary procedures and also to certain qualities of prison life at the Institution. From early in December until early January the parties conferred and negotiated to reach settlement of their differences. From the commencement of negotiations the court indicated its willingness to abide by settlement, subject, however, to its own review of the settlement proposal and to its determination of the nature of the decree to be entered. Early in January the parties submitted a draft of the proposed "Regulations Governing Disciplinary and Classification Procedures at the Adult Correctional Institutions, State of Rhode Island" to the court. See Appendix A. This draft represented the arms-length, good-faith bargaining product of the parties.

The court can state unequivocally to those prisoners who may be in doubt that there was no outside influence whatsoever placed upon your counsel who represented you skillfully throughout these difficult and tough bargaining sessions. The court read the proposed Regulations carefully and conferred with counsel. At one such conference it was brought to the court's attention that certain of the plaintiffs, particularly those confined in the B.C.U., were not satisfied with the proposed Regulations and wanted to go to trial. The court then determined to hear the views of these prisoners, all of whom were at this time confined in the B.C.U.

On January 16, 1970 six prisoners, including the named party plaintiff, stated their generalized objections to the Regulations and to certain facets of life at the prison. The court then ordered that the Regulations be prepared and distributed to the prisoners under an order of notice permissible under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(d) (2) and perhaps mandatory under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e). The procedures for preparation and distribution were carried out. The court has received and read with utmost care the responses of the prisoners.

By stipulation of February 2, 1970 it was agreed that new classification proceedings in accordance with the Regulations would commence for all those prisoners who had originally been placed in the B.C.U. on or about September 27, 1969 and who still remained in B, C, or D status. It was further agreed that the court would receive and review all such classification hearings. The court notes that the Regulations are now in effect at the Adult Correctional Institution.

On its own initiative but with the concurrence of the parties the court, moreover, consulted with certain penologists of national experience who pointed out that in their opinion these Regulations are far more precise and provide for much more extended procedures in disciplining and classifying than the Federal regulations. As a matter of fact, it seemed to them that the Regulations in question go well beyond most State systems. The court notes that one expert felt that the organization of classification and disciplinary boards was too highly structured and precluded necessary flexibility, that the role for the warden should be general administrator rather than clinical director, that the procedures were too formalized, rigid and detailed, and that an undue amount of time would be spent at the expense of goals and programs. However, there was not complete agreement in this regard, for others felt that the institution could live with the Regulations recognizing that they would...