Sands v. Wainwright
| Decision Date | 05 January 1973 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 71-339. |
| Citation | 357 F. Supp. 1062 |
| Parties | John A. SANDS, Plaintiff, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
James M. Russ, Michael F. Cycmanick, Orlando, Fla., and Walter R. Stedeford, Jacksonville, Fla., for plaintiff.
Daniel S. Dearing, Chief Trial Counsel, Dept. of Legal Affairs, and A. S. Johnston, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Fla., for defendant.
On May 12, 1971, plaintiff John A. Sands, an inmate incarcerated at the Florida State Prison1 at Raiford, Florida, caused to be filed in the Clerk's office of this Court a pro se, handwritten petition which he characterized and denominated as a "writ of habeas corpus for relief and full compensation". The petition, however, was in effect a civil complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his civil rights. This Court on its own motion and in accordance with the pre-trial stipulation filed herein June 29, 1972, here treats the pro se petition as a civil complaint seeking declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201. This Court is satisfied that jurisdiction exists. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343(3) and 1343(4); 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
In his complaint the plaintiff Sands (sometimes hereinafter plaintiff and sometimes hereinafter Sands) raises basic issues regarding whether the prison disciplinary proceedings to which he was subjected afforded procedural due process to him and whether these proceedings deprived him of rights secured by the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. This Court is of the firm opinion, hereinafter expressed, that the plaintiff was not afforded procedural due process and hereinafter declares the rights and other legal relations of the parties.
Subsequent to the initiation by the pro se plaintiff of this litigation, this Court sua sponte appointed three lawyers to represent him: James M. Russ, Esquire, and Michael F. Cycmanick, Esquire, of Orlando, Florida, and Walter Stedeford, Esquire, of Jacksonville, Florida.
The Court considers this to be a significant case. Since the Florida State Prison is located within the Jacksonville Division of the Middle District of Florida, many "prisoner" civil rights suits are filed here each year. At the present rate there will be about three hundred (300) of these suits alone filed in this Division this calendar year. Although the issues presented are as varied as the methodology of the various pro se plaintiffs who seek to raise them, a recurrent theme is the prison disciplinary system which the several plaintiffs countless times allege to be constitutionally defective. This consideration, when coupled with the hereinafter noted recent developments in this area of the law, explains the attention afforded this case.
Plaintiff John A. Sands, a black man, is a thirty-one year old inmate who has spent the greater portion of his adult life in the prison institutions of the State of Florida. He is presently serving a fifteen year sentence for the crime of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony. Previously, he was incarcerated for the crimes of armed robbery and attempt to escape.2 When he first entered prison, Sands was only nineteen years of age.3
Sands had spent some time while a teen-age boy in institutional homes. As a result of fighting and aggressive behavior at one of these, he ultimately had to be transferred to another correctional institution. While at these institutions, Sands received no mail or visitors, and the staff ". . . could locate no interested relatives to provide him a home."4
Within several months of his entering the Florida State Prison on April 19, 1960, Sands was involved in the first of many incidents which resulted in disciplinary action. The prison file documents at least eleven (11) incidents which have resulted in some type of formal disciplinary action.5 Additionally, it is clear that Sands has been placed in administrative segregation under disciplinary circumstances. For example, in a Report of Administrative Segregation dated December 17, 1971, the "institutional Disciplinary Committee" assigned Sands to administrative segregation status for his alleged involvement in a racial incident in the East Unit School. Further, the Court notes that, as is indicated within a section of his prison record denominated as "Punishment Record", the prison authority apparently itself not only at least sometimes considers confinement in administrative segregation to be punishment but also assignment to the East Unit itself as a form of punishment.6
Sands filed this case as a result of a disciplinary report dated November 16, 1970, in which he was charged with "assault on other inmates" and "creating a racial disturbance".7 The parties have stipulated and admitted the following facts:8
In addition to the foregoing stipulated facts, the defendant called J. C. Combs9 as his only witness at the trial of this case on July 11, 1972.10
Combs testified that, before the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings of November 20, 1970, which constitute the subject matter of this litigation, Sands was being held in administrative segregation. Sands had been placed there on October 13, 1970, while investigation was completed on the intra-prison charges which on November 20, 1970, resulted in the disciplinary action.11 Combs further testified that Sands did not have any type of hearing or appearance before any disciplinary committee prior to or concomitant with his confinement in administrative segregation.12
Wings N, P, R and S of the East Unit are those which are presently utilized for administrative segregation.13 These cells are the same type as those heretofore utilized on two wings which then housed the "death-row" inmates.14 Q-Wing is the punitive segregation area.15 Combs testified that the distinction between "administrative" and "punitive" segregation is that, while in the latter status, an inmate can be placed on a special diet and does not have visiting privileges.16 Further, his mail privileges are restricted, except for "legal mail".17 With regard to bedding, an inmate in punitive segregation has a mattress; and with regard to clothing, the inmates have the same clothing as when confined in administrative segregation status.18
The disposition of the November 20, 1970, disciplinary committee hearing was that Sands was placed in punitive segregation for an indefinite period on a special diet and that he lost one hundred twenty (120) days of gain time. He was physically placed on Q-Wing, west side in cell number 3.19 This cell was at that time, and perhaps still is, a "strip cell". These cells are furnished with only tiled walls and floor, a light bulb and a flushable drain (a hole in the floor) which is termed an "oriental commode".20 The drain is flushable not by the inmate but by the custodial officers. Although the inmate is physically restrained from exiting the cell by a barred wall and door, there is also an outer door which, if closed and if the light is cut off by the switch which is controlled by the custodial officer, can eliminate all light from the cell.21
Sands spent twenty-seven (27) consecutive days in punitive segregation and on December 17, 1970, was released therefrom and transferred to administrative segregation status.22 There was no hearing before the disciplinary committee concerning his placement in administrative segregation, although Combs imagined ". . . it was discussed with him right at his cell."23
Administrative segregation itself is a type of solitary confinement: the inmate is confined in a cell by himself.24 In the East Unit these numerous cells are each approximately six and one-half feet (6½') by nine and one-half feet (9½').25 Three of the walls are blank, steel walls; and the fourth is a barred wall and doorway.26 The cell opens onto a walkway and, in turn, overlooks a wall of clear windows.27 The cell blocks within which these cells are located are the outer well type.28
Each cell in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baxter v. Palmigiano Enomoto v. Clutchette
...at 599, 42 L.Ed.2d, at 592 (concurring in result). See Fowler v. Vincent, 366 F.Supp. 1224, 1228 (S.D.N.Y.1973); Sands v. Wainwright, 357 F.Supp. 1062, 1093 (M.D.Fla.1973). Although an inmate would not be testifying in response to a court order, his answers in response to questions of priso......
-
Rhem v. Malcolm
...v. Geary, No. C-71-2017 (N.D.Cal., April 16, 1973); Collins v. Hancock, Civil 72-114 (D.N.H., February 23, 1973); Sands v. Wainwright, 357 F.Supp. 1062 (M.D.Fla.1973); Worley v. Bounds, 355 F.Supp. 115 (W.D. N.C.1973); Inmates of Milwaukee County Jail v. Petersen, 353 F.Supp. 1157 (E.D.Wis.......
-
Miller v. Carson
...See also Rhem v. Malcolm, 371 F.Supp. 594, 622 (S.D. N.Y.1974), affirmed and remanded 507 F.2d 333 (2d Cir. 1974); Sands v. Wainwright, 357 F.Supp. 1062, 1094 (M.D.Fla.1973), vacated on other grounds 491 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1974); Washington v. Lee, 263 F.Supp. 327, 331 (M.D.Ala.1966), aff'd......
-
Palmigiano v. Baxter
...within a prison disciplinary hearing may have an understandable fear of "fishing expeditions" designed to gather information. See Sands v. Wainwright, supra; Carter v. McGinnis, supra; Clutchette v. Procunier, supra, 328 F. Supp. at The right to remain silent in the disciplinary hearing wit......