Reece v. Gragg, Civ. A. No. 82-1970.

• Decision Date: 17 December 1986
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 82-1970.
• Parties: Michael D. REECE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Don GRAGG, Tom Scott, Bernard Hentzen, Sedgwick County Commissioners, and Michael Hill, Sheriff of Sedgwick County, Kansas, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Kansas

650 F. Supp. 1297

Michael D. REECE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Don GRAGG, Tom Scott, Bernard Hentzen, Sedgwick County Commissioners, and Michael Hill, Sheriff of Sedgwick County, Kansas, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 82-1970.

United States District Court, D. Kansas.

December 17, 1986.

Jim Lawing, Wichita, Kan., for plaintiffs.

Royce E. Wallace, Wichita, Kan., for defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

THEIS, District Judge.

On October 14, 1982, Michael Reece was arrested and charged with a traffic offense. Pursuant to his arrest, he was incarcerated in the Sedgwick County jail briefly, and was later released on bond. While in the jail, he was given a mattress and told he would have to sleep on the floor because there were no available bunks. On November 16, 1982, he brought this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, contending that the conditions of the jail violated the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. He sought injunctive relief against defendants to require them to cease and desist operation of the Sedgwick County Jail under the present conditions, and for damages in excess of $10,000.00. Plaintiff later waived his request for monetary damages in open court, so this action now seeks only injunctive relief.

This matter was certified as a class action on February 13, 1984, with plaintiff representing the class of all present and future sentenced inmates of the Sedgwick County Jail. Subsequently, the Court granted the motions of Ronald Cross and Robert Engle for intervention. Engle has replaced Reece as the representative of the class of sentenced inmates. The Court also granted Cross' motion for certification of a class of all present and future pretrial detainees held in the Sedgwick County Jail, formalizing the way both parties and the Court had viewed the case from the outset.

On January 24, 1985, the Court conducted an unannounced tour of the jail facilities. Based on the Court's observations and conversations with prisoners during that tour, the Court issued a report listing problems it discerned with the jail. Among other things, the problems then involved excessive overcrowding of bunks into small cells; lack of day rooms or exercise rooms for daytime activities for the prisoners; toilet facilities that were dirty, stained, and had no seat or lid; walls, floors and bars which were dirty and in need of repainting; massive insect infestation; a lack of adequate personal hygiene products such as soap and razors; a small number of showers available to service all the prisoners; restrictive telephone policies; complaints of inadequate medical attention; complaints involving food quality and lack of hygienic standards in serving the food; a hot and fetid climate; and numerous appliances such as heaters and fans in need of repair. During 1985 and 1986, the Court conducted a number of hearings at which various assertions were made by plaintiffs' counsel, some admissions were made by defendants' counsel, and evidence was presented on jail conditions.

On January 29, 1986, the Sedgwick County Commission enacted a resolution to authorize a mail ballot election to obtain voter approval for the issuance of bonds to construct a new jail. The amount of the bonds was for approximately twenty-three million dollars. This mail ballot election was to be completed by April 10, 1986. The election was held amidst much publicity, and the bond issue was defeated.

On September 24, 1986, plaintiff filed a new motion for summary judgment, wherein he urged the Court to set a population ceiling of 81 (Kansas Department of Correction's standards) or at least of 135 (maximum number the facility was intended to house when it was built in the 1950s). Additionally, the motion seeks the establishment of a date no more than two years hence by when the constitutional problems of the facility must all be resolved, or the facility ordered closed. This motion has been fully briefed. On November 12, 1986, the Court conducted another visit of the jail premises. Although unannounced, the visit could not exactly be characterized as a "surprise" visit, because the county had been inviting the Court to visit for some time.

Since the Court's last visit, the Sheriff has made significant improvements in the facility. Most notably, the Court was impressed with the dramatic improvements made in cleanliness. The facility was freshly painted in a bright color which, along with the improved lighting in the jail, substantially reduced the drab nature of the facility evident on the last visit. Visitation and telephone policies were also improved. However, the Court noted several continuing problems. Chief among these was the tremendous overcrowding that continues unabated from the last visit. The plumbing facilities are still antiquated, unsightly and apparently unsanitary. The Court's impressions and findings of the current status of the jail will be set out in more detail below. Briefly, the Court finds that substantial improvements have been made, but that severe problems still exist.

Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is currently pending before the Court. Also pending before the Court is plaintiff's earlier motion for partial summary judgment, seeking an order from this Court prohibiting the defendants from placing juveniles in the jail. The Court has delayed resolution of these motions for a reason. This Court is not amenable to partisan political pressures or exigencies. Our democratic government has been tolerant of the political principle that citizens choose their representatives and should not have decisions on individual candidates influenced by judicial decision, especially at an election time. Further, although the jail issue is one of constitutional magnitude, it is not going to be solved by any instantaneous political action. Hence, the Court postponed until after the election its decision on what must be done to alleviate the present abhorrent conditions at the jail.

I. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARDS

The Court is familiar with the standards governing the consideration of a motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a drastic remedy to be applied with caution in order to preserve a litigant's right to trial. Machinery Center, Inc. v. Anchor National Life Insurance. Co., 434 F.2d 1, 6 (10th Cir.1970). To rule favorably on a motion for summary judgment, the Court must first determine that the matters on file regarding the motion "show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). By its very terms, Rule 56(c) "provides that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, ___, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510 (1986) (emphasis in original). Instead, the inquiry is "whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law." Id. at ___, 106 S.Ct. at 2512. However, the Court must look at the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Lindley v. Amoco Production Co., 639 F.2d 671, 672 (10th Cir.1981). Pleadings and documentary evidence must be liberally construed in favor of the party opposing the motion. Harman v. Diversified Medical Investments Corp., 488 F.2d 111, 113 (10th Cir.1973), cert. denied 425 U.S. 951, 96 S.Ct. 1727, 48 L.Ed.2d 195 (1976). If the facts support an inference which would permit the non-movant to prevail, summary judgment is inappropriate. Thomas v. United States Department of Energy, 719 F.2d 342, 344 (10th Cir.1983).

II. CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS

Conditions of confinement in jails are subject to constitutional scrutiny when pretrial detainees claim the protections of the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979), or when convicted inmates contend that they suffer cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981). Sentenced inmates may be held under conditions that are punitive, while pretrial detainees may not be because they are still cloaked with the presumption of innocence. Therefore, as to pretrial detainees, "the proper inquiry is whether the conditions of confinement amount to punishment of the detainee." Bell, 441 U.S. at 535, 99 S.Ct. at 1871. Sentenced inmates may be punished, but the Eighth Amendment prohibits any punishment that involves the unnecessary infliction of pain, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1979), or that is incompatible with societal standards of decency, Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 78 S.Ct. 590, 2 L.Ed.2d 630 (1958). Since the Sedgwick County Jail houses both pretrial detainees and convicted inmates, both standards are relevant to determining the propriety of relief, although, to the extent that the jail is unable to segregate pretrial and sentenced inmates, the higher standard applicable under the due process clause must be met for the entire facility. Fischer v. Winter, 564 F.Supp. 281 (N.D.Cal.1983). However, the distinction is immaterial, since the Court finds that even the Eighth Amendment standard is not satisfied.

A. Overcrowding

Overcrowding amounts to punishment when it "subjects a detainee over an extended period to genuine privations and hardship not reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective." Lareau v. Manson, 651 F.2d 96, 103 (2nd Cir.1981). In deciding whether overcrowding is unconstitutional for convicted inmates, the inquiry is whether the totality of conditions "deprives inmates of the minimal civilized measures of life's necessities." Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 346, 101 S.Ct. at 2398....