Newman v. State of Ala., Civ. A. No. 3501-N

• Decision Date: 02 February 1979
• Docket Number: 74-57-N and 74-203-N.,Civ. A. No. 3501-N
• Citation: 466 F. Supp. 628
• Parties: N. H. NEWMAN et al., Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF ALABAMA et al., Defendants, United States of America, Amicus Curiae. Jerry Lee PUGH, for himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Larry D. BENNETT, Individually and in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Alabama Board of Corrections, et al., Defendants, Barry E. Teague, United States Attorney, Amicus Curiae. Worley JAMES et al., Plaintiffs, v. Larry BENNETT, Individually and in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Alabama Board of Corrections, et al., Defendants, The National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Inc., and Barry E. Teague, United States Attorney, Amici Curiae.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama

466 F. Supp. 628

N. H. NEWMAN et al., Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF ALABAMA et al., Defendants, United States of America, Amicus Curiae.

Jerry Lee PUGH, for himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Larry D. BENNETT, Individually and in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Alabama Board of Corrections, et al., Defendants, Barry E. Teague, United States Attorney, Amicus Curiae.

Worley JAMES et al., Plaintiffs, v. Larry BENNETT, Individually and in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Alabama Board of Corrections, et al., Defendants, The National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Inc., and Barry E. Teague, United States Attorney, Amici Curiae.

Civ. A. Nos. 3501-N, 74-57-N and 74-203-N.

United States District Court, M. D. Alabama, N. D.

February 2, 1979.

Philip H. Butler (Robison, Belser, Brewer & Mancuso), Montgomery, Ala., for Newman plaintiff.

Robert D. Segall (Hobbs, Copeland, Franco & Screws), and John L. Carroll, Montgomery, Ala., for Pugh plaintiffs.

George Peach Taylor, University, Ala., for James plaintiffs.

W. Scears Barnes, Jr., Alexander City, Ala., for Bd. of Corrections.

Larry R. Newman, Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Alabama, Montgomery, Ala., for other defendants.

Barry E. Teague, U. S. Atty., M. D. of Ala., Montgomery, Ala., Stephen A. Whinston and Patricia Gail Littlefield, U. S. Dept. of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Washington D. C., for amici United States of America and Barry E. Teague, United States Attorney.

Ralph I. Knowles, Jr., University, Ala., Matthew L. Myers, and Alvin J. Bronstein, Washington, D. C., for amicus The National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Foundation, Inc.

Michael D. Waters, Legal Adviser to the Governor, State of Ala., Montgomery, Ala., for Governor Fob James.

MEMORANDUM

JOHNSON, Chief Judge.

On October 4, 1972, this Court held that the failure of the Board of Corrections to afford the basic elements of adequate medical care to inmates in the Alabama Prison System constituted "a willful and intentional violation" of their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Newman v. Alabama, D.C., 349 F.Supp. 278, 287. Four years later, when the Court issued its order in Pugh v. Locke, D.C., 406 F.Supp. 318 (1976), those same serious shortcomings persisted. What Pugh revealed, however, was that such shortcomings were endemic to every phase of the prison system's operation. The conditions of confinement then violated any judicial definition of cruel and unusual punishment. In September, 1978, hearings were held to determine the degree of compliance by the Board of Corrections with the Newman and Pugh orders.¹ The overwhelming weight of the evidence presented at that time established that what was true in 1972 and 1976 is still true today. While some progress has been made, the Board of Corrections has not in several critical areas achieved substantial compliance with the Court's orders. The very fact of confinement in Alabama's Penal System continues to contravene the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of plaintiffs.

The response of the Board of Corrections in 1976 was that the state legislature had failed to provide adequate funds. Despite the clear command of the law that the state may not discount constitutional rights, the excuse of the Board remains that the legislature has been remiss. That excuse has no legal weight. It may be true that the legislature has failed to meet its constitutional responsibilities in this area. But what the evidence now so strikingly reveals is that even within funding limitations imposed by the legislature, the Board has failed to make a genuine effort at compliance. In area after area, the Board has made no serious attempt to determine what steps can be taken with present funds and to plan what can be accomplished with additional sums. The theme running throughout the evidence is a lack of professional leadership. The Court is compelled to conclude that there is no reasonable likelihood of effective cooperation and substantial compliance from the present Board of Corrections. The passage of three years since Pugh makes the need for comprehensive relief more urgent than ever.

I. OVERCROWDING

All institutions are in compliance with the requirement that the number of inmates not exceed the design capacity of the facility. This goal has only been achieved, however, by creating a backlog of 1,800 state prisoners in the city and county jails throughout Alabama. It is undisputed that the conditions in the county jails are worse than any that exist in the state prisons. Alabama's city and county jails were not designed to house long-term detainees. The evidence suggests that in almost if not every instance they fall below the minimum constitutional standards set forth in the Pugh order. Overcrowding is the norm. There is no classification system in the jails, with the result that offenders of all types are placed together. The jails are unsanitary and in a state of disrepair, and inspections have disclosed that many are serious fire hazards. Medical care is practically non-existent. In most jails, the prisoners receive no meaningful work, no programs, no exercise. Overcrowding in the prisons has been relieved only at the price of aggravated violations of the rights of state prisoners in the county jails.

The Board has presented no long-term plan to solve this problem. There were plans to build two 400-person facilities with the money from the 1977 bond issue. Indecisiveness, coupled with rising costs, makes it likely that only one can be built with that money now. In its comprehensive plan submitted to the Court on January 17, 1979, the Board proposes to construct four institutions, which will provide 1,700 additional spaces by 1981. Even accepting the Board's optimistic timetable, the problem of state prisoners backed up in the county jails will not be ended. The Board's own projections indicate that there will still be almost 1,000 state prisoners in the city and county jails in 1981. And even that projection makes the questionable assumption that Fountain and Draper can be improved to meet minimum constitutional standards. This prospect of continued non-compliance with this crucial aspect of the Court's order requires further relief.

II. CLASSIFICATION

In 1976, all prisoners were classified, and a system of classification was developed. Since that time, the system has deteriorated and no longer functions in accordance with the Court Order. The experts attributed the problem to a lack of leadership and concluded that a replacement was necessary to run the program. The Court adopts that testimony. The classification staff at the institutions are not properly trained, have an insufficient understanding of the purposes of classification, and operate with no professional guidance. No handbook or guidelines have been provided for the staff's use. It is not surprising, then, that procedures have broken down and inconsistent standards are being applied. Often the initial classification decision is not made by a multi-disciplinary team composed of a psychologist, classification specialist, and correctional counselor, but by the "classification specialist" acting alone. The Central Review Board, in reviewing classifications, also does not meet as a team, and it, too, operates without written criteria. More seriously, classification decisions are dictated by the disciplinary system. Indicative is the fact that the Central Review Board almost always reverses the institutional team when the warden recommends a higher custody classification. As a result, while the initial classification resulted in a determination that 700 prisoners should be classified "medium custody," the subsequent classification decisions by the Board have resulted in almost double that number being so classified. This development has had a detrimental impact on prisoners' access to jobs, activities, and programs. Indeed the classification system does not play its intended role in the assignment of institutional work. There, too, the recommendations of the wardens, none of whom are classification specialists, seem to be controlling. Meaningful classification has also been undercut by the continued employment of certain guidelines as absolute bars to pre-release or work-release programs. As a result, the highly successful Frank Lee Youth Center has had a vacancy rate of 30 to 50 out of 200 places despite the fact that there are hundreds of first-time offenders (for non violent crimes) at Draper and in the county jails who are potentially eligible for that program. Another result is that the current inmate population at Frank Lee, as in 1976, continues to be over 50 percent white, although the prison system population as a whole is predominantly black.

In addition to failing to maintain an adequate, ongoing classification process, the Board has failed to correct the "traumatic and stressful" conditions at its Kilby facility which render unreliable the initial testing and evaluation of new prisoners. The mingling of prisoners regardless of offense and propensity to violence, combined with the absence of security in the cellblocks and dormitories, is an invitation to violence of all kinds. One 18-year-old prisoner testified that he had been raped on four successive days during daylight hours while awaiting classification at Kilby. Effective and reliable classification of inmates, which in large part is the basis of the safety of all inmates, will not be achieved until these conditions are corrected. The problem is less one of money than of management.

III. MENTAL HEALTH CARE

In Newman, the Court found that the mentally ill, the disturbed, and the retarded were unidentified and were dispersed throughout the prison population without treatment. The evidence upon this submission reflects that nothing has been done to correct the situation. There is now some effort at identification of...