Owens-El v. Robinson

• Decision Date: 04 January 1978
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 75-412 and 76-743.
• Parties: Kenneth OWENS-EL and Inmates and Future Residents of Allegheny County Jail, Plaintiffs, v. William ROBINSON and James Jennings, Defendants. INMATES OF the ALLEGHENY COUNTY JAIL, Thomas Price Bey, Arthur Goslee, Robert Maloney, and Calvin Milligan on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Robert PEIRCE, Chairman, Allegheny County Board of Prison Inspectors and all other members of the Board, James Jennings, Warden, Allegheny County Jail, and James Flaherty, Robert Peirce and Thomas Foerster, Commissioners for Allegheny County, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

442 F. Supp. 1368

Kenneth OWENS-EL and Inmates and Future Residents of Allegheny County Jail, Plaintiffs, v. William ROBINSON and James Jennings, Defendants.

INMATES OF the ALLEGHENY COUNTY JAIL, Thomas Price Bey, Arthur Goslee, Robert Maloney, and Calvin Milligan on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Robert PEIRCE, Chairman, Allegheny County Board of Prison Inspectors and all other members of the Board, James Jennings, Warden, Allegheny County Jail, and James Flaherty, Robert Peirce and Thomas Foerster, Commissioners for Allegheny County, Defendants.

Civ. A. Nos. 75-412 and 76-743.

United States District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania.

January 4, 1978.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Jere Krakoff, Neighborhood Legal Services, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiffs in No. 76-743.

John G. Arch, Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendants.

OPINION

COHILL, District Judge.

I Jurisdiction and Background

Plaintiff, Kenneth Owens-El, is a former inmate of the Allegheny County Jail ("jail"), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In 1975 he filed a pro se suit (one filed by himself without legal counsel), challenging the constitutionality of the conditions under which inmates of the jail are confined and seeking money damages and equitable relief. The complaint named as a defendant, William Robinson, the warden of the jail when the complaint was filed. James Jennings was added as a defendant when he succeeded Warden Robinson. The case was referred to the United States magistrate for a report and recommendation.

In 1976 Neighborhood Legal Services ("NLS") filed a class action suit in behalf of all jail inmates, past, present and future, petitioning for a declaratory judgment holding that the conditions of confinement at the jail violate the constitutional rights of the inmates. The complaint named as defendants the Allegheny County Commissioners, the members of the Allegheny County Board of Prison Inspectors, and James Jennings, the warden of the jail.

With the consent of all parties, these two cases were consolidated for trial and certified as a class action. Calvin Milligan, a member of the class, and plaintiff, Kenneth Owens-El, acted as their own legal counsel in cooperation with the NLS attorneys.

Specifically, the plaintiffs brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (the Civil Rights Act of 1871) contending that the conditions within the jail constitute cruel and unusual punishment proscribed by the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, violate their rights to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, and violate their rights under the First, Fourth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution.

This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343, granting jurisdiction in civil rights cases to the United States district courts, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, providing for declaratory judgments and 28 U.S.C. § 2202, allowing further relief based on a declaratory judgment.

After extensive pretrial discovery by the parties, a six week non-jury trial ensued during which the testimony of some 50 witnesses was heard, including that of experts in the fields of mental health, medicine, penology and hygiene. Other witnesses included guards, nurses, prisoners, former prisoners, attorneys, a county commissioner, the Sheriff of Allegheny County, a representative of the Coroner's office, an exterminator, the present warden of the jail and the former jail warden, who is now Commissioner of Corrections for Pennsylvania.

II Methodology

We do not subscribe to the theory that a jail should be a country club, rest home or resort; nevertheless, prisoners are entitled to certain rights and the basic elements of human dignity. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). During the trial it became apparent that the relatively long-term prisoners in the two state penal institutions closest to Pittsburgh, the State Regional Correctional Facility at Greensburg and the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh (more commonly known as "Western Penitentiary") receive better care and treatment than the jail inmates, yet most of the persons confined in the jail are pretrial detainees; that is, they have not been convicted of anything; they are there simply because they can't obtain a bail bond to secure their release prior to their trials.

Besides pretrial detainees, there are also other classifications of inmates housed in the jail. These include inmates who have been convicted but are awaiting sentencing, inmates who have been committed to the jail for misdemeanors for relatively short sentences, those who are in, out and in again as part of a work-release program, federal prisoners awaiting trial or sentencing, and state and federal prisoners who have been brought from other institutions to reside in the jail while testifying in other cases in either the state or federal courts. Thus it is a "mixed bag" of residents and obviously a difficult situation for county officials to deal with. It is not and would not be practical to have separate facilities for each such class of inmate. We are nevertheless convinced that the inmates' constitutional rights have been violated and that remedial action is required.

We heard the opinions of expert witnesses as to what the optimum standards for confined persons should be as well as their criticisms of the existing accommodations and procedures at the jail. Nevertheless, a federal court may only invalidate those practices which constitute violations of federally guaranteed rights. The function of this court is not to determine what practices the court would implement if it were the jail administrator, but rather to establish minimal standards in those areas where the basic rights of inmates have been violated.

We have attempted here to strike a balance between the legitimate demands of pretrial detainees for unfettered enjoyment of those rights to which they are entitled as persons unconvicted of any crime and the compelling custodial necessities of a jail administration.

We are reluctant to interfere with such administration, and we do so now in certain areas only because paramount rights of the plaintiff inmates have supervened.

In recent years the County has tried to enhance and make more tolerable the conditions of the jail, mainly through capital improvements. Almost four million dollars have been spent in these improvements. Despite this, more changes are necessary to meet minimum constitutional standards in some areas.

It is well established that an individual or a class may not be deprived of constitutional rights simply because of economic considerations. See Rozecki v. Gaughan, 459 F.2d 6 (1st Cir. 1972); Jackson v. Bishop, 404 F.2d 571 (8th Cir. 1968); and Brenneman v. Madigan, 343 F.Supp. 128 (N.D. Cal.1972). "Lack of funds is not an acceptable excuse for unconstitutional conditions of incarceration." Finney v. Arkansas Board of Correction, 505 F.2d 194, 201 (8th Cir. 1974).

Where pretrial detainees and convicted persons are comingled in their cell assignments, the constitutional common denominator must be the rights of the pretrial detainees. Accordingly, a showing of a total picture of confinement, which constitutes a deprivation of due process for the pretrial detainees, and which cannot be remedied except by changes which will affect the convicted and detainees alike, will necessitate relief for both groups. Bay County Jail Inmates v. Bay County Board of Commissioners, Civil No. 74-10056 (E.D. Mich., 8/29/74), cited in O'Bryan v. County of Saginaw, Mich. 437 F.Supp. 582 (E.D. Mich.1977).

On the first day of the trial of this case, after hearing the opening statements of counsel and the participating inmates, but before taking any testimony, we announced, without advance notice to anyone, that we wished to tour the jail. Within half an hour we had commenced a thorough inspection, including having lunch in the guards' dining room and eating the same food as that served to the prisoners. The inspection and tour lasted approximately three hours.

We believe that a case like this should be decided on the basis of the facts as they existed when suit was filed, not when the court's inspection occurred; otherwise, continually changing conditions would make it virtually impossible ever to terminate the case. The tour was helpful, however, in enabling the court to understand what areas of the jail witnesses were talking about as their testimony developed, and the conditions that they were describing.

As required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 52, we have made Findings of Fact specially and have stated separately our Conclusions of Law based thereon. We have departed from the usual method of organizing such an Opinion, however; the common practice is for the court to state all the Findings of Fact pertaining to the case and then to set forth the court's Conclusions of Law. Because of the many subject areas considered during the trial of this case, that method would be cumbersome and perhaps confusing. Instead, we will first consider the law as it generally pertains to "inmates' cases" and then discuss each subject area of this case separately, making the Findings of Fact, stating our Conclusions of Law pertaining thereto, and then moving on to the next area where the process will be repeated.

III

The Law Pertaining to "Inmates' Cases"

At one time, it was the policy of the federal courts to avoid interference with the administration of state penal facilities. This "hands-off" attitude has been reevaluated by the courts in the last decade in response to mushrooming litigation filed by prisoners challenging the constitutionality of conditions under which they are confined and has now evolved to the point that the federal courts will intervene where the situation warrants.

The Supreme Court, in Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 405-406, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 1808, 40 L.Ed.2d 224, 236 (...