Taylor v. Sterrett, 72-2443

• Decision Date: 19 August 1974
• Docket Number: 72-3689.,No. 72-2443,72-2443
• Citation: 499 F.2d 367
• Parties: Joseph TAYLOR et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. W. L. STERRETT et al., Defendants-Appellants. Julius Dwain PERRY, Sr., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. James E. (Bill) DECKER et al., Defendants-Appellants. Joseph TAYLOR et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. W. L. STERRETT et al., Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

499 F.2d 367 (1974)

Joseph TAYLOR et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. W. L. STERRETT et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Julius Dwain PERRY, Sr., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. James E. (Bill) DECKER et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Joseph TAYLOR et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. W. L. STERRETT et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 72-2443, 72-3689.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

August 19, 1974.

Henry Wade, Crim. Dist. Atty., Dallas County, John B. Tolle, Gerald Weatherly, Asst. Crim. Dist. Attys., Earl Luna, Robert W. Porter, Dallas, Tex., for defendants-appellants.

Robert L. Byrd, Ft. Worth, Tex., John F. Jordan, Dallas, Tex., Stanley A. Bass, New York City, James E. Clayton, Dallas, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellees.

Before COLEMAN and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges, and RUBIN, District Judge.

COLEMAN, Circuit Judge.

This litigation concerns conditions in the Dallas County, Texas, jail. The opinion of the District Court is reported, Taylor v. Sterrett, 344 F.Supp. 411 (1972). We affirm and remand in part; we also vacate and remand in part for the further consideration of the District Court in light of intervening Supreme Court decisions and the ongoing circumstances of the case.

The District Court properly declined to apply the doctrine of abstention to this case, Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 40 L.Ed.2d 224.

In the exercise of its pendent jurisdiction, associated with the federal constitutional claims hereinafter mentioned, the Court ordered steps to insure compliance with the laws of Texas with reference to local prison facilities. The exercise of pendent jurisdiction in this area was correct, Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 94 S.Ct. 1372, 39 L.Ed.2d 577 (1974); Mobil Oil Corporation v. Kelley, 5 Cir., 1974, 493 F.2d 784.

As to the enforcement of state laws applicable to this jail Paragraphs 1, 2, 11 and 12 of the District Court order, 344 F.Supp. 422-423, we have recently vacated a stay originally entered here pending appeal. It was specified that this action was without prejudice to the rights of the appellants to seek any justifiable modification in the District Court. It could hardly be expected that a United States District Court, in the exercise of appropriate pendent jurisdiction, would decline the enforcement of laws which the state, of its own volition, had enacted for the improvement of prison conditions within its jurisdiction. The decree of the District Court on these topics is affirmed. The case is nevertheless remanded to enable the Court to enter such modifications, if any, as ought to be had in the light of the ongoing circumstances.

Equity never seeks the impossible nor orders the unreasonable—its orders are adapted to the exigencies of the case. The criticisms which appellants level against the decree with reference to state requirements at this jail are accordingly left to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, with full power to assay the merits of these criticisms and decree accordingly.

Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the District Court order prohibiting the unnecessary destruction of prisoner reading matter, etc., is affirmed as a reasonable provision for the protection of First Amendment rights.

As to Paragraph 7 of the District Court order, relating to rules of conduct of inmates, we are informed by the briefs, and there is no suggestion of dispute about it, that the Sheriff has, in fact, filed such rules with the District Court. We therefore consider this issue as substantially moot, but the District Court will be free to enter any modifications or amendments as may appear appropriate within the teachings of Wolff v. McDonnell, post, or any other applicable decision of this or of the Supreme Court.

This brings us to Paragraph 8 of the District Court order, which reads as follows:

"The Sheriff is directed not to allow persons to see prisoners except with the consent or request of the inmates. This has particular reference to `copout\' men, who have had free access to the jail."

As a general proposition we agree that prisoners should be left free of unwanted visitors, contacts, or importunities. Yet, we are of the view that the provisions of Paragraph 8 are too restrictive, especially since the primary jurisdiction of the federal courts in this area is limited to the vindication of rights guaranteed by the federal constitution. Conceivably, the order would eliminate visits from official investigators engaged in efforts to solve crimes or to perform other legitimate duties. As to prisoners who choose not to be represented by co...