Palmigiano v. Travisono

• Decision Date: 24 August 1970
• Docket Number: 4348.,Civ. A. No. 4296
• Parties: Nicholas A. PALMIGIANO et al. v. Anthony P. TRAVISONO et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island

317 F. Supp. 776

Nicholas A. PALMIGIANO et al. v. Anthony P. TRAVISONO et al.^*

Civ. A. Nos. 4296, 4348.

United States District Court, D. Rhode Island.

August 24, 1970.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Hayden C. Covington, Barrington, R. I., Cary J. Coen and Barry A. Fisher, R. I. Legal Services, Inc., Providence, R. I., and Stanley A. Bass, N. A. A. C. P. Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., New York City, for plaintiffs.

Herbert F. DeSimone, Atty. Gen., and Donald P. Ryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Edward F. Burke, Ira L. Schreiber, Dept. of Social Welfare, Providence, R. I., for defendants.

OPINION

PETTINE, District Judge.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

These actions were instituted by six inmates in the "awaiting trial" section of the Adult Correctional Institutions of Rhode Island (A.C.I.), in behalf of themselves and all others who are awaiting trial against eleven named defendants, all of whom are state or federal officials responsible for the custody and care of persons confined in the awaiting trial section of the A.C.I.¹ Jurisdiction has been invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (3) and (4) (1964). Relief is sought under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (1964) against those defendants who are federal officers, and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1964) and related provisions² against the defendants who are state officials. The plaintiffs pray for declaratory,³ injunctive, and other appropriate relief against the enforcement of certain state statutes, regulations and customs relating to the care and treatment received by them in the awaiting trial unit.

The A.C.I. operates as several institutions in one, and one section, the unit in which plaintiffs are housed, constitutes what in most states would be known as a county or city jail. Because of the compactness of the State of Rhode Island and the ready accessibility of the A.C.I. from any point within the state, this single, centralized correctional facility is used as a pre-trial detention center as well as a post-conviction adult correctional institution or penitentiary. It should also be pointed out that, under 18 U.S.C. § 4002 (1964), the federal government may enter into contractual arrangements with state authorities for the maintenance and safekeeping of federal prisoners, including those awaiting trials in federal courts. This explains the inclusion of federal prisoners as parties plaintiff and federal officials as parties defendant in this action.

The plaintiffs have asserted that they have been discriminated against in various ways as inmates of the awaiting trial unit. As an example of the alleged discriminatory practices, plaintiffs claim that they are not eligible for certain rehabilitative programs and services unless and until they plead guilty or are convicted and are transferred to another section of the A.C.I. Plaintiffs also allege that they have suffered deprivations of constitutional rights in common with inmates of other units of the A.C.I. For instance, they allege that tables in the dining area are unclean; that they are not given sufficient supplies for personal cleanliness; that restrictions on visitations with outsiders are unduly severe; and that the current practices of institutional officials in opening, reading and censoring mail are unconstitutional.

Plaintiffs requested that a three-judge court be impanelled.⁴ The request was granted on July 3, 1970,⁵ and a hearing on the merits on all issues in the case has been scheduled to begin early in 1971. On July 8, 1970, plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order pending the hearing on the merits. In this motion are presented many of the same issues which are involved in the case of chief. The seriousness of the allegations made concerning censorship of mail, including alleged infringement of the "preferred" rights⁶ contained in the First Amendment, interference with the right to the effective assistance of counsel in preparation for trial under the Sixth⁷ and Fourteenth⁸ Amendments to the Constitution, and denial of free access to the courts,⁹ has impelled me to consider those portions of the motion for temporary restraining order pertaining to such censorship, and to defer all other questions to the entire court of three judges. I so advised counsel, and an evidentiary hearing has been held and arguments heard regarding censorship of mail.

ALLEGATIONS OF PLAINTIFFS CONCERNING MAIL CENSORSHIP

Plaintiffs contend that defendants arbitrarily, capriciously, and without good cause or reason related to the maintenance of order at the A.C.I., persist in opening, reading and censoring plaintiffs' incoming and outgoing mail, including correspondence with courts, government officials, and attorneys. Among other things, they claim that opening and censoring of mail constitutes an invasion of a constitutionally-guaranteed right of privacy, that it constitutes an intrusion upon the attorney-client privilege, and that it hampers preparation for trial. They assert, further, that the actions of prison officials have placed a "chilling effect" upon their right of access to the courts, upon their right to petition representatives or agents of government, and upon their right to effective representation by counsel. They claim that the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments are being violated by defendants. Plaintiffs seek an order restraining defendants from delaying, opening, reading, censoring or tampering in any way with plaintiffs' incoming or outgoing mail.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Although the opinions of the respective parties to this action concerning the necessity for censorship vary widely, the facts, as presented at the evidentiary hearing, are uncontradicted in any substantial or material respect.

1) Prisoners in the A.C.I., both state and federal, are housed in a separate unit or section while awaiting trial. The inmates of the awaiting trial section are, for the large part, persons who have been unable to afford bail. Although the A.C.I. is divided into several units or sections, its administration is centralized and in many of its aspects it is operated as a single institution. For example, the rules, procedures and practices followed with respect to the handling of mail are, with minor exceptions, applicable throughout the A.C.I., to mail of convicted prisoners as well as to mail of those awaiting trial.

2) Censorship Authorization. When a prisoner enters the A.C.I., if he desires mail privileges he is required to sign an "Authorization for Disposition of Mail," authorizing the warden or his representative to "open and examine all mail matter and express or other packages which may be directed to the inmate." The officer before whom the authorization is given is required to countersign, certifying that the prisoner "signed the same voluntarily" in his presence.¹⁰

3) The Approved Correspondence List. At approximately the same time, the prisoner completes a requested "Correspondence and Visit List,"¹¹ listing the persons with whom he wishes to visit and correspond. This list is normally confined to relatives and friends.¹² The inmate is entitled to have as many as seven correspondents, although additional persons may be added to the list through special approval of institutional officials. Attorneys are not ordinarily included on these lists.¹³ Inmates may correspond with certain persons in addition to those on the correspondence list through the use of "special purpose" letters. These include letters to courts and to attorneys of record.¹⁴ The correspondence list is subject to the approval of the Classification Department.¹⁵ To assist classification officials in deciding whether to approve the request list, the inmate is asked to give certain information concerning each person listed, including name, relationship to inmate, address, age, occupation, and arrest record.¹⁶ The officials may conduct investigations of proposed correspondents before giving approval. Ordinarily, married inmates are not permitted to correspond with women other than their wives, mothers and sisters.¹⁷ And, although unmarried inmates can correspond with approved unmarried women, they ordinarily are not permitted to correspond with married women other than their mothers and sisters.¹⁸ Special permission must be obtained from the warden before an inmate may correspond with an ex-inmate, a person with a criminal record, or an inmate of another institution.¹⁹ Permission must also be obtained from probation or parole authorities before correspondence will be allowed between an inmate and a person on probation or parole.²⁰ The approved correspondence list may be modified from time to time. Changes are processed through the Classification Department.²¹

4) Limitations on the Number of Incoming and Outgoing Letters. Written regulations limit the number of incoming letters from approved correspondents which an inmate may receive to seven per week, not including letters received from special purpose correspondents, such as attorneys of record or courts.²² The testimony adduced at the hearing, however, indicated that, in practice, defendants have not restricted the number of incoming letters in any way. Awaiting trial inmates may write and send one letter per day to persons on their authorized correspondence list, while post-conviction inmates may send out two letters per week for which the state will pay postage, and a reasonable amount of additional mail for which the inmate himself must pay.²³

5) Incoming Mail: Special Requirements. Incoming mail must not exceed two sheets and cannot be larger than 8½" by 11" in size. The complete name and address of the sender must be on the upper left hand corner of the envelope and at the end of the letter. Letters from persons other than the sender should not be enclosed. Stamps should not be sent in a letter to an inmate, although money, preferably in the form of money orders, may be included. A letter in a language other than English must be translated before it will...