Ruiz v. Johnson

Decision Date01 March 1999
Docket NumberNo. CIV.A. H-78-987.,CIV.A. H-78-987.
Citation37 F.Supp.2d 855
PartiesDavid RUIZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Gary JOHNSON, Director TDCJ-ID, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

Daniel Maeso, Assist. Atty. General, Sharon Felfe, Jeff Millstone, Adirian L. Young, Demetri Anastasiadis, Reed Lockhoof, Richard Naylor, Lawrence Wells, Lee Haney, Bruce Garcia, Ann Kraatz, Louis Carrillo, Karen Matlock, Assist. Attorneys General, Gregory S. Coleman, Solicitor General, jack Ratliff, Special Assist., for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JUSTICE, Senior District Judge.

                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                I. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................   
                A. Case History ...........................................................   
                1. Ruiz v. Estelle ....................................................   
                2. The 1992 Final Judgment ............................................   
                B. The Prison Litigation Reform Act .......................................   
                C. Post-1992 Procedural History ...........................................   
                
                II. SUMMARY AND CLARIFICATION OF ISSUES .......................................   
                A. The Parties' Positions .................................................   
                B. The Proper Scope of this Decision ......................................   
                III. LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO THE PLRA ...........................   
                A. Retroactivity ..........................................................   
                B. Separation of Powers ...................................................   
                1. Separation of Powers Challenges to the PLRA ........................   
                2. Congress's Inability to Reopen an Article III Court's Final
                Judgment ...........................................................   
                3. The Consent Decree as a Final Judgment .............................   
                4. The Final Judgment's Protection of Inmates' Private Constitutional
                Rights .............................................................   
                5. Congress's Inability to Decide a Discrete Group of Cases ...........   
                6. The PLRA's Ambiguous Drafting ......................................   
                7. The PLRA's Unambiguous Legislative History .........................   
                8. Conclusion .........................................................   
                C. Due Process ............................................................   
                D. Equal Protection .......................................................   
                E. Conclusion .............................................................   
                IV. THE FACT-FINDING HEARING ..................................................   
                A. Procedure for the Truncated Hearing ....................................   
                B. Procedure for Evidentiary Objections ...................................   
                V. OVERVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE ..................................................   
                VI. OVERVIEW OF PRISONERS' RIGHTS UNDER THE EIGHTH
                AMENDMENT .................................................................   
                VII. PROVING SYSTEMIC CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS ................................   
                A. A Matter of "Logic and Judgment" .......................................   
                B. Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Experts' Methodology .............   
                C. Constitutional Violations As Legal Judgments ...........................   
                VIII. MEDICAL AND PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES ..........................................   
                A. Compendium .............................................................   
                B. Medical Testimony and Findings of Fact .................................   
                1. Quality of Care Audits-Cancer, Cardiac Disease, and HIV ............   
                2. Non-physician Health Care ..........................................   
                3. Inadequate Evaluation and Referral .................................   
                4. Failure to Follow-up ...............................................   
                5. Staff Indifference .................................................   
                6. Poor Treatment of Diabetes .........................................   
                7. The Lack of Satisfactory Communication Between Hospitals
                and Prisons ........................................................   
                8. Medically Contraindicated Work .....................................   
                9. The Lack of Self-Monitoring ........................................   
                10. Accreditation ......................................................   
                C. Psychiatric Testimony and Findings of Fact .............................   
                D. Legal Analysis and Conclusions .........................................   
                IX. ADMINISTRATIVE SEGREGATION ................................................   
                A. Compendium .............................................................   
                B. Testimony and Findings of Fact .........................................   
                1. The Psychological Effects of Administrative Segregation ............   
                2. Mentally Ill Inmates in Administrative Segregation .................   
                3. TDCJ Policies ......................................................   
                C. Legal Analysis and Conclusions .........................................   
                X. INMATES' SAFETY ...........................................................   
                A. Compendium .............................................................   
                B. Testimony and Findings of Fact .........................................   
                1. Introduction .......................................................   
                2. Physical Assaults on Inmates .......................................   
                3. Sexual Assaults on Inmates .........................................   
                4. Plaintiffs' Experts ................................................   
                5. Defendants' Response ...............................................   
                6. The Grievance Process ..............................................   
                
                7. Safekeeping and Protective Custody .................................   
                8. Accreditation ......................................................   
                9. Classification Staff ...............................................   
                10. Deliberate Indifference ............................................   
                C. Legal Analysis and Conclusions ..........................................   
                XI. EXCESSIVE FORCE ...........................................................   
                A. Compendium .............................................................   
                B. Testimony and Findings of Fact .........................................   
                1. Introduction .......................................................   
                2. An Overview of Expert Methodology ..................................   
                3. TDCJ-ID Policies and Procedures ....................................   
                4. A Culture of Force .................................................   
                5. The Prevalence of Excessive Force ..................................   
                6. The Ambiguity of the Numbers .......................................   
                7. Non-physical Force .................................................   
                8. Monitoring, Supervision, Grievances, and Investigations ............   
                C. Legal Analysis and Conclusions .........................................   
                XII. CONCLUSION ................................................................   
                
I. INTRODUCTION

Counsel for the State of Texas, in an opening statement in this matter, declared that "[u]nder the guidance of this court, and out of a sincere desire to improve its prison system, ... Texas has transformed its prison policies and practices over the course of the last 20 years."1

There can be no doubt that since David Ruiz and the other named plaintiffs began this civil action in 1972 with allegations of unconstitutional practices and conditions in the Texas Department of Corrections' (TDC) prisons, the parties have effected remarkable changes within the prison system. In an epic trial in 1978 and 1979, the plaintiffs' evidence offered a rare glimpse behind the walls that so conveniently shielded free world society from the barbarous living conditions of many of the approximately 25,000 individuals then incarcerated in the TDC prison system.2 Faced with the staggering magnitude of the constitutional violations found in Texas prisons in 1980, this court regretfully acknowledged that

it is impossible for a written opinion to convey the pernicious conditions and the pain and degradation which ordinary inmates suffer within TDC prison walls-the gruesome experiences of youthful first offenders forcibly raped; the cruel and justifiable fears of inmates, wondering when they will be called upon to defend the next violent assault; the sheer misery, the discomfort, the wholesale loss of privacy for prisoners housed with one, two, or three others in a forty-five foot cell or suffocatingly packed together in a crowded dormitory; the physical suffering and wretched psychological stress which must be endured by those sick or injured who cannot obtain adequate medical care; the sense of abject helplessness felt by inmates arbitrarily sent to solitary confinement or administrative segregation without proper opportunity to defend themselves or to argue their causes; the bitter frustration of inmates prevented from petitioning the courts and other government authorities for relief from perceived injustices.

Ruiz v. Estelle, 503 F.Supp. 1265, 1390 (S.D.Tex.1980).

Truly, much has changed. The Texas prison system, having grown to incarcerate approximately 140,000 inmates in over 100 penal institutions, has instituted a complex web of policies and regulations designed to alleviate many, if not all, of those problems. Today, plaintiffs and defendants alike look back with horror at the way the system used to be. Plaintiffs and defendants alike may also look back with pride at how much the system has...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Castillo v. Case Farms of Ohio, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
    • December 1, 1999
    ...The fact that an injury is suffered mentally, rather than physically, does not make the injury any less real. See Ruiz v. Johnson, 37 F.Supp.2d 855, 914-915 (S.D.Tex.1999). Without commenting on the factual issue of their actual damages at this point, it is found, as a legal proposition, th......
  • Ginest v. Board of County Com'Rs. of Carbon County
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Wyoming
    • July 27, 2004
    ...including adequate monitoring of their medications); Ruiz v. Estelle, 503 F.Supp. 1265, 1303 (S.D.Tex.1980); Ruiz v. Johnson, 37 F.Supp.2d 855, 913-914 (S.D.Tex.1999), rev'd on other grounds, 243 F.3d 941 (5th Cir.2001), to on remand, 154 F.Supp.2d 975 (S.D.Tex.2001) (enjoining prison offic......
  • Benjamin v. Kerik
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • June 6, 2000
    ...viability of consent decrees that concern prisoner health or safety have not required a finding of actual injury. See Ruiz v. Johnson, 37 F.Supp.2d 855 (S.D.Tex.1999) (finding PLRA's termination provisions unconstitutional and ruling that, even if they were constitutional, prisoners neverth......
  • Wilkerson v. Stalder
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana
    • September 11, 2007
    ...against physical torture prohibit mental torture as well— including the mental torture of excessive deprivation." Ruiz v. Johnson, 37 F.Supp.2d 855, 914 (S.D.Tex.1999), rev'd on other grounds, 243 F.3d 941 (5th Cir. 2001), adhered to on remand, 154 F.Supp.2d 975 (S.D.Tex.2001). Such things ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 books & journal articles
  • THE HORROR CHAMBER: UNQUALIFIED IMPUNITY IN PRISON.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 93 No. 5, May 2018
    • May 1, 2018
    ...1972), rev'd, 489 F.2d 1335 (7th Cir. 1973). (12) Ruiz v. Johnson, 154 F. Supp. 2d 975, 986 (S.D. Tex. 2001) (quoting Ruiz v. Johnson, 37 F. Supp. 2d 855, 929 (S.D. Tex. (13) Order Approving Settlement at [paragraph] 10, DePriest v. Epps, No. 3:10-cv-00663 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 26, 2012). (14) S......
  • Forecasting sexual abuse in prison: the prison subculture of masculinity as a backdrop for "deliberate indifference".
    • United States
    • Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology No. 2001, September 2001
    • September 22, 2001
    ...v. Manson, 507 F. Supp. 1177, 1195 n.22 (D. Conn. 1980), modified on other grounds, 651 F.2d 96 (2d Cir. 1981). (82) Ruiz v. Johnson, 37 F. Supp.2d 855, 929 (S.D. Tex. 1999), rev'd and remanded sub nom. Ruiz v. United States, 243 F.3d 9421 (5th Cir. (83) LaMarca, 995 F.2d at 1533. (84) Youn......
  • The jurisprudence of the PLRA: inmates as "outsiders" and the countermajoritarian difficulty.
    • United States
    • Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology No. 2001, September 2001
    • September 22, 2001
    ...To expect such a world to rehabilitate wrongdoers is absurd. To allow such a world to exist is unconstitutional. Ruiz v. Johnson, 37 F. Supp. 2d 855, 916 (S.D. Tex. (76) See McCord v. Maggio, 927 F.2d 844, 846 (5th Cir. 1091). (77) Smith v. Arkansas Dep't of Corr., 103 F.3d 637, 644 (8th Ci......
  • Penal Isolation
    • United States
    • Sage Criminal Justice and Behavior No. 35-8, August 2008
    • August 1, 2008
    ...in progressive America. Piscataway, NJ: Aldine Transaction. Ruark v. Schooley, 211 F. Supp. 921 (D.C. Colo. 1962).Ruiz v. Johnson, 37 F. Supp. 2d 855, 915 (S.D. Tex. 1999), rev’d, 178 F.3d 385 (5th Cir. 1999).S.H. v. Stickrath, Case No. 2:04-cv-1206 (S.D. Ohio 2007).Sadler v. Young, 325 F.S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT