Smith v. Sullivan

• Decision Date: 14 February 1980
• Docket Number: No. 77-3407,77-3407
• Citation: 611 F.2d 1039
• Parties: Richard B. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sheriff Mike SULLIVAN et al., Defendants-Appellants. Hector Salvida AMAYA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sheriff Mike SULLIVAN et al., Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 1039

611 F.2d 1039

Richard B. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sheriff Mike SULLIVAN et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Hector Salvida AMAYA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sheriff Mike SULLIVAN et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 77-3407.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 14, 1980.

George N. Rodriguez, Jr., County Atty., Michael Patrick Davis, Asst. County Atty., El Paso, Tex., for defendants-appellants.

Bruce Hallmark, Ruth Kern, Bruce J. Ponder, El Paso, Tex., for Richard B. Smith.

Hector Salvida Amaya, pro se.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Before COLEMAN, Chief Judge, FRANK M. JOHNSON, Jr. and POLITZ, Circuit Judges.

FRANK M. JOHNSON, Jr., Circuit Judge:

This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas requiring the sheriff and the members of the commissioners court of El Paso County, Texas, to limit the inmate population of the El Paso County jail and to submit weekly reports of conditions at the jail to the district court.

This is not the first time that this controversy has been before this Court. The case began on July 3, 1974, when an inmate of the jail, acting on his own behalf and as a representative of all other El Paso County jail inmates, filed suit for injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that conditions at the jail violated the United States Constitution and Texas statutory law. On September 25, 1975, after a nonjury trial, the district court found these allegations to be true. ¹ It issued an order requiring the sheriff and the commissioners court to initiate certain remedial programs by January 20, 1976, ² to bring the jail into compliance with Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 5115 by The defendants claim that this order is invalid in four respects. First, they contend that the nature of the relief that the order requires cannot legally be provided by the defendants under state law. They argue that compliance with the order's limitation on inmate population would require the sheriff to violate his statutory duty to accept prisoners ⁶ and the commissioners court to violate its duty to stay within spending limits imposed by state law. ⁷ This claim has no merit. It is well established that The defendants' second and third claims also fail. Their assertion that the portion of the district court order requiring the submission of weekly reports violates principles of federalism is frivolous, as is their contention that the district court lacked jurisdiction to order the defendants to continue to accept federal prisoners in the manner prescribed by state law. ⁸

                September 1, 1977, 3 and to provide an outdoor area for exercise and a rehabilitative program of recreation by September 1, 1977.  With certain modifications irrelevant here, the district court order was affirmed on appeal.  4  On June 15, 1977, on remand, the district court ordered the defendants to submit reports on their present compliance and their plans for future compliance with the court's order as modified on appeal.  After receiving these reports and denying a request for a hearing, the district court, on October 19, 1977, issued the order that is the subject of this appeal.  5
                inadequate funding will not excuse the perpetuation of unconstitutional conditions of confinement, E. g., Williams v. Edwards, 547 F.2d 1206, 1212-13 (5th Cir. 1977); Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291, 1319-20 (5th Cir. 1974); Mickens v. Winston, 462 F.Supp. 910, 912 (E.D.Va.1978); Inmates of Boys' Training School v. Southworth, 76 F.R.D. 115, 119 (D.R.I.1977); nor will an allegedly contrary duty at state law, Costello v. Wainwright, 525 F.2d 1239, 1243 (5th Cir.), Vacated and replaced, 539 F.2d 547 (5th Cir. 1976) (en banc), Replacement rev'd and remanded, 430 U.S. 325, 97 S.Ct. 1191, 51 L.Ed.2d 372 (1977), Original opinion reinstated, 553 F.2d 506 (5th Cir. 1977) (en banc)
                

The defendants are correct, however, in arguing that the trial court erred in failing to conduct further hearings as to the overall conditions at the jail before ordering that the inmate population be limited to 500.

It need not be repeated that federal courts should intervene in the day-to-day operation of state and local penal and detention systems only with the greatest of reluctance. Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 404-05, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974); Williams v. Edwards, 547 F.2d at 1211-12; Pugh v. Locke, 406 F.Supp. 318, 328 (M.D.Ala.1976), Aff'd in part sub nom. Newman v. Alabama, 559 F.2d 283 (5th Cir. 1977), Modified sub nom. Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 98 S.Ct. 3057, 57 L.Ed.2d 1114 (1978); Diamond v. Thompson, 364 F.Supp. 659, 662 (M.D.Ala.1973), Aff'd, 523 F.2d 1201 (5th Cir. 1975). Where constitutional deprivations are established, either in specific instances, E. g., Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 89 S.Ct. 747, 21 L.Ed.2d 718 (1969) (regulation infringing inmates' right of access to the courts), or by the totality of conditions within an institution, E. g., Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d at 1309 ("(e)ach factor separately . . . may not rise to constitutional dimensions; however, the effect of the totality of these circumstances is the infliction of punishment on inmates violative of the Eighth Amendment"), the federal courts may, and must, if the issue is appropriately presented, intervene. E. g., Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 685-88, 98 S.Ct. 2565, 57 L.Ed.2d 522 (1978); Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. at 405-06, 94 S.Ct. 1800. See also Newman v. Alabama, supra; Pugh v. Locke, supra. As indicated above, the federal courts have the power, and the duty, to make their intervention effective. To prevent further constitutional deprivations, a court may order forms of relief not normally required by the Constitution but nevertheless necessary given the circumstances if the court's efforts are to be successful. See, e. g., Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. at 685-88, 98 S.Ct. 2565 (affirming order forbidding more than 30 days of punitive isolation); Miller v. Carson, 563 F.2d 741, 751 (5th Cir. 1977) (affirming order requiring outdoor exercise). ⁹ Where, however From the record before us, we find it impossible to determine whether the district court's 500-inmate limitation on the jail population was tailored to remedy a constitutional violation. Although unconstitutional overcrowding was alleged in the original complaint, the district court never responded to the allegation with recorded findings of fact or conclusions of law. What the record indicates is that the court ordered the 500-inmate limit merely to bring the jail closer to compliance with state law. ¹⁰ As stated above, the imposition of such an order by a federal court is inappropriate. ¹¹ A limitation on the inmate population of the El Paso County jail may be necessary, but the district court should impose such a limitation only if the court Although unchallenged by the defendants here, there are other aspects of the district court's operative orders in this case that may, for the reasons set out above, constitute unwarranted federal judicial intervention in the day-to-day operation of the El Paso County jail. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979) (setting out test for determining constitutionality of conditions of confinement in facilities housing pretrial detainees). The district court is instructed on remand to review its orders in light of Wolfish and the totality of the conditions at the jail as they now exist. The court should continue to exercise its jurisdiction only if and to the extent that it determines that there are continuing deprivations of federal constitutional dimensions. See Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. at 688, 98 S.Ct. 2565 & n.12; Taylor v. Sterrett, 600 F.2d at 1145-46.

no constitutional deprivation is established, the justification for federal judicial intervention evaporates. Although state standards may sometimes serve as a useful guide in a federal court's determination and redress of constitutional deprivations, See, e. g., Williams v. Edwards, 547 F.2d at 1214 (state fire and sanitation codes indicate 'evolving notions of decency'; use of such codes allows federal district judge to minimize intrusion into details of state prison administration), Adams v. Mathis, 458 F.Supp. 302, 309 (M.D.Ala.1978), a violation of state law, without more, will not justify federal judicial intervention. Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. at 688, 98 S.Ct. 2565 & n.12; Diamond v. Thompson, 364 F.Supp. at 662. Cf. Taylor v. Sterrett, 600 F.2d 1135 (5th Cir. 1979) (requiring district court that had intervened on basis of state law violation to discontinue exercise of its jurisdiction and dismiss the cause). Unless acting to remedy federal constitutional violations as part of a "totality" approach, federal judges are not to become enmeshed in the minutiae of prison operations finds on remand, after a hearing and evaluation of evidence relating to The totality of conditions at the jail as they now exist, that the jail is overcrowded and that, considered with all of the other existing conditions, incarceration therein is violative of the prisoners' constitutional rights. ¹²

For the above reasons, the portion of the district court order limiting the inmate population at the El Paso County jail is vacated. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

APPENDIX # 1

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. EXERCISE AND RECREATION :

A. There is no program for exercise and recreation in the jail.

B. Prisoners are confined to their cells for the duration of their sentences or until trial.

C. Prisoners have no exposure either to sunlight or to fresh air.

2. EDUCATION AND REHABILITATION :

A. The only organized program of education provided at the jail is the Cooks and Bakers School.

B. Ample reading material is available but not distributed to prisoners at scheduled intervals.

C...