Smith v. Fairman, 80-2076.

Decision Date03 November 1981
Docket NumberNo. 80-2076.,80-2076.
Citation528 F. Supp. 186
CourtU.S. District Court — Central District of Illinois
PartiesJohnny SMITH, et al., on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. James W. FAIRMAN, et al., Defendants.

Jerold S. Solovy, William D. Heinz and Christopher L. Varner, Jenner & Block, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.

William Sullivan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chicago, Ill., Suzan Sutherland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Springfield, Ill., for defendants.

Thomas Y. Davies, Chicago, Ill., for amicus curiae, Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and Chicago Council for Lawyers.

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND FINAL ORDER

BAKER, District Judge.

The plaintiff, Johnny Smith, is an indigent prisoner at the Pontiac Correctional Center, a penitentiary operated by the Department of Corrections of the State of Illinois. He seeks only injunctive relief against the defendants.

The essence of the plaintiff's claims is that he has been deprived of his rights under the eighth amendment to the Constitution as it applies to the States under the fourteenth amendment by being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment arising from the overcrowded conditions or "double celling" practices at Pontiac. Smith also claims that the defendants, by ordering Smith's confinement in a double occupancy cell, have deliberately refused him necessary medical treatment and thereby subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment.

Relief is sought under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Jurisdiction is based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3).

I

This case began as eight separate actions by indigent Pontiac inmates for equitable and declaratory relief and for money damages. The cases were consolidated for ease of handling and judicial economy. A preliminary injunction was issued by the court on August 14, 1980 commanding the defendants to place the eight individual plaintiffs in single occupancy cells in the general prison population.

Thereafter, on October 30, 1980, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2), the court allowed the plaintiffs' motion to proceed as a class identified as:

"All present and future inmates of the Pontiac Correctional Center who are, have been, or will be punished for refusing to accept a double cell."

The plaintiff, Johnny Smith, moved, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(b) for a separate trial on Count IV of the amended complaint and sought injunctive relief only and at the same time moved to strike the defendants' demand for a jury trial as to that count. Smith's motion for severance of Count IV and for a separate trial was allowed and, after briefing and argument, the motion to strike the defendants' jury demand was allowed on April 3, 1981.

The case proceeded to trial before the court on April 14, 1981 and the testimony of twenty-three witnesses was presented over a period of nine days of trial. Sixty-two exhibits were received and considered. The court also toured the prison, heard three additional days of testimony, and received fifty-two exhibits in connection with the proceedings for a preliminary injunction. That evidence is considered together with all the other evidence in the case pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(a)(2).

The court heard testimony from inmates, from correctional officers, from experienced corrections administrators and penologists, from psychiatrists and other physicians experienced with medical problems in prison administration, and from clinical psychologists and social workers who deal with inmates and prison programs.

II

The Pontiac Correctional Center is a maximum security penitentiary. It houses inmates who have been convicted of felonies involving violence and threat to human life. Many inmates are serving sentences longer than ten years. All of them are committed for extended periods of incarceration.

The prison was constructed, according to Warden James W. Fairman, in 1871 and was built to accommodate a capacity of 1,200 prisoners. At the time of the hearing on the merits in 1981 the total population of the prison was 1,918 inmates.1 One thousand six hundred twenty-two (1622) were inside the walls in the maximum security unit and 296 were single celled in the medium security unit outside the prison walls.

Pontiac has three cellblocks. They are the North, South and West cellblocks. There are a total of 1,272 cells inside the prison of which approximately fifty are uninhabitable due to defective lighting, plumbing or locking systems.2

Assistant Warden Wright divided the total population of 1,893 inmates at Pontiac as of March 29, 1981 into categories: 1,110 were assigned to work or school programs; 210 were in segregation; 230 were in protective custody; and 303 were unassigned to any job or program. Warden Fairman testified that as of April 24, 1981 there were 600 inmates in the West cellhouse and 410 inmates in the South cellhouse. In the North cellhouse there were 250 inmates in segregation and fifty-two inmates in the protective custody unit. Warden Fairman testified further that there were 146 inmates in the West cellhouse in protective units. One hundred seventy-two (172) of the inmates in the South cellhouse were in protective custody and nineteen inmates were in an orientation status, Warden Fairman said.3

As near as I am able to determine from the evidence, there are 1622 inmates inside the walls with approximately 1220 cells to house them. Six hundred thirty-nine (639) of the inmates are single celled for segregation or protective custody or orientation reasons which leaves 983 inmates to be housed in 581 cells. That means that over 56% of the inmates at Pontiac are double celled, with the alternative being segregation or protective custody.

III

The West cellhouse is a concrete block structure with ten tiers of cells with forty-two cells per tier. The outer walls have large glass window areas and the tiers of cells back up to each other so that the front of each cell is a steel barred gate that opens onto a gallery facing the windows. The cells, as measured by the court, are 75 inches by 124 inches, or 64.5 square feet. The cells are slightly in excess of eight feet in height.

The West cellhouse has thirty-two showers and some inmates report that they are able to take showers daily while others are able to take showers three times a week. The floors of the cells are poured concrete and the walls are concrete block. Each cell contains a sink; a sanitary stool; two fixed beds, welded bunk fashion or bolted to the wall; and a chest of drawers or cardboard boxes or both for clothing and personal belongings. Each inmate in the general population is allowed to possess twenty-five books, twelve records and electronic equipment such as a tape player, a radio, or a television set. The equipage in a cell occupies so much of the available floor space that generally the prisoners in a double cell are left with approximately nine square feet for standing room. One prisoner described the available open space in his cell as an area about one and a half feet wide by four feet long.

The West cellhouse, when it was examined by the court, and as uniformly reported by the witnesses, appeared to be fairly clean and neat and the individual cells showed good housekeeping practices. Inmates are able to send their laundry out once every two weeks but most inmates do not send out the laundry because it comes back damaged or not at all. Instead, the inmates do their laundry in the cells in buckets or in the toilets or, when permitted, in the showers.

The South cellhouse is constructed in a manner similar to the West cellhouse except that there are eight tiers of cells with fifty-two cells in each tier. The cells in the South cellhouse are much the same as that in the West except that they are slightly smaller. They measure 64 inches by 124.5 inches or 55.3 square feet and contain the same equipage as is found in the West cellhouse. The South cellhouse has forty showers and inmates are able to take a shower three times a week. The South cellhouse appeared to the court to be fairly clean and the cells again appeared to be well taken care of. That also was the uniform observation of the witnesses.

The North cellhouse is of similar construction to the other two and has six tiers of cells with fifty-two cells in each tier. The cells in the North cellhouse measure 64 inches by 125 or about 55.5 square feet. In the North cellhouse each tier of cells has two showers, and showers are available to inmates once a week. The laundry services in the North cellhouse are available on a once-a-week basis. The witnesses uniformly observed that the North cellhouse was not as neat or clean as the South and West cellhouses.4

In the general population, the two-man cells are uniformly very small and cramped5 and it is difficult if not impossible to move about the cell unless one inmate is on a bunk. Dr. Christianson, the court appointed expert, related that the cells were so cramped that he had to back out of one of them to permit an inmate to leave. That observation is substantiated by the court's own inspection of the cells at Pontiac.

The sink in the cell has a cold water and a hot water tap. Inmates report that hot water is available only on an intermittent basis and the court appointed expert, Dr. Christianson, reported that there was no hot water in the taps that he tested at the time of his visit.

Light is provided in the cells by a single fluorescent bulb in the ceiling and air vents are present in the upper back wall in the West cellhouse and in the lower rear wall in each of the other cellhouses. The inmates cover the vents in most instances to cut off the spread of dust and roaches. R. at 364-65. In those cells where the vents were open, Dr. Christianson said he could feel no airflow.

The West and South cellhouses have fairly large yard areas connected to them. The yard areas are fenced in with cyclone wire fencing and have half court basketball and other recreational...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Ruiz v. Estelle
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 23 de junho de 1982
    ...v. Collins, 659 F.2d 420, 427-29 (4th Cir. 1981) (en banc); id. at 430 (Winter, C. J., concurring and dissenting); Smith v. Fairman, 528 F.Supp. 186 (C.D.Ill.1981). TDC argues that the Ninth Circuit, in Hoptowit v. Ray, --- F.2d ---- (9th Cir. 1982), read Rhodes as rejecting "the totality" ......
  • Union County Jail Inmates v. Scanlon
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • 27 de abril de 1982
    ...visitation, recreation, and time off the tier, as detailed above. See, e.g., Lareau, supra; Ramos, supra; Ruiz, supra; Smith v. Fairman, 528 F.Supp. 186 (C.D.Ill.1981). With regard to the detention/isolation cells, I agree with the Special Master that the cells can constitutionally accommod......
  • Smith v. Fairman, s. 81-2859
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 5 de outubro de 1982
    ...now appeal. We reverse. I The district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are set out in its opinion. Smith v. Fairman, 528 F.Supp. 186 (C.D.Ill.1981). As the trial court noted, Pontiac houses inmates convicted of serious crimes involving violence and threat to human life, such......

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