Walker v. Hughes

• Decision Date: 02 December 1974
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 39765,39834 and 40066.
• Parties: Randolph WALKER, Plaintiff, v. Charles HUGHES, former Warden, and Herb Beall, Individually and in his capacity as Warden of the Federal Correctional Institution at Milan, Michigan, Defendants. Daniel S. BRIDGE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Charles HUGHES, former Warden, and Herb Beall, Individually and in his capacity as Warden of the Federal Correctional Institution at Milan, Michigan, Defendants. Melvin DRAIN, Plaintiff, v. Charles HUGHES, former Warden, and Herb Beall, Individually and in his capacity as Warden of the Federal Correctional Institution at Milan, Michigan, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

386 F. Supp. 32

Randolph WALKER, Plaintiff, v. Charles HUGHES, former Warden, and Herb Beall, Individually and in his capacity as Warden of the Federal Correctional Institution at Milan, Michigan, Defendants.

Daniel S. BRIDGE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Charles HUGHES, former Warden, and Herb Beall, Individually and in his capacity as Warden of the Federal Correctional Institution at Milan, Michigan, Defendants.

Melvin DRAIN, Plaintiff, v. Charles HUGHES, former Warden, and Herb Beall, Individually and in his capacity as Warden of the Federal Correctional Institution at Milan, Michigan, Defendants.

Civ. A. Nos. 39765, 39834 and 40066.

United States District Court, E. D. Michigan, S. D.

December 2, 1974.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Martin I. Reisig, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiffs.

Gwenn L. Carr, Asst. U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., for defendants.

SECOND MEMORANDUM OPINION

FEIKENS, District Judge.

This is a class action suit in which plaintiffs, residents of the Federal Correctional Institution at Milan, Michigan (Milan), allege that the procedures of the institution's adjustment committee deprive them of substantial rights without due process of law.¹ Following hearings, this court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order in this matter on January 24, 1974, from which the defendants appealed. While the case was pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the United States Supreme Court delivered its opinion in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974), a case concerned with similar issues. On September 26, 1974 the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, upon request of both parties, remanded this case to this court, and the parties were invited to submit briefs considering the effect of Wolff on this court's prior decision and order. On the basis of these new developments in the law, this opinion is issued in lieu of and superseding the opinion of January 24.²

Milan is a medium security institution for young offenders. It has a range of rehabilitative programs for its inmates including educational and vocational training, psychiatric and psychological therapy, and recreational opportunities. Defendant Herbert Beall is the Warden of Milan, and is responsible for the administration of the institution.³ The parties originally stipulated that plaintiffs Randolph Walker and Daniel Bridge were representatives of the class of plaintiffs consisting of all inmates at Milan subject to the adjustment committee. Several other inmates were added to this class as named parties during the course of this proceeding.

I. Findings of Fact

Plaintiff Walker

1. Prior to February 7, 1973, plaintiff Walker was housed in the therapeutic community at Milan. Therein Walker enjoyed the benefits of freedom of movement within the unit, personal and group therapy, recreation, education and vocational training.

2. After an incident on February 7, 1973, Walker was placed in segregation and given a written incident report, written by guard Richard Cox, accusing him of assaulting another inmate during the incident.

3. Sometime on or before February 9, 1973, Walker's caseworker and counselor, Richard Rison, as well as Lieutenant Ashworth and Captain Yinger, questioned Walker concerning the incident.

4. Thereafter, at least four adjustment committee hearings were held concerning the Walker incident.⁴ At the first, on February 9, 1973, the committee consisted of Rison, Dr. Weaver (Chief Psychologist) and Mr. Edgington (Business Manager). Walker was instructed to tell his side of the story, which he did. No decision was reached at this hearing.

5. On February 12, 1973 a second hearing was held. The committee at this hearing consisted of Captain Yinger, Officer Friedman and Associate Warden Guienze. Walker repeated his story and no decision was reached.

6. On February 14, 1973 the committee met for the third time. The members of the committee were the same as those at the second hearing. Again no decision was reached.

7. Another hearing was held on February 16, 1973. This time the committee consisted of Captain Yinger, Warden Guienze and Caseworker Rison. At this hearing, Walker changed his story. At the fifth hearing he was informed of the committee's decision to recommend his transfer to the penitentiary at Terre Haute, Indiana. Later it was determined that Walker would be transferred to the federal penitentiary at Lewisberg, Pennsylvania, a maximum security institution.⁵

8. According to the committee's written finding of guilt in the Walker case, the finding was based on "information provided by investigation into the incident".

9. At some point the assault charge was referred to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for possible prosecution, but this was subsequently declined.

10. Walker was never told at any of the hearings: (a) that he could have counsel or counsel substitute; (b) that what he said might be used against him; (c) that he could confront his accuser; (d) that he could call witnesses in his defense; (e) that he could see the investigative reports.

Plaintiff Bridge

11. The parties stipulated to the following findings of fact with respect to Bridge:

"On or about January 17, 1973, Petitioner, DANIEL S. BRIDGE, was charged by the respondent or his authorized representative with five acts: (a) engaging in, or encouraging, a group demonstration; (b) refusing to obey an order from any staff member; (c) conduct which disrupts or interferes with the security or orderly running of the institution; (d) participating in an unauthorized meeting or gathering; and (e) assaulting a staff member.

"On the evening of January 18, 1973, Petitioner was informed of the charges against him.

"On January 22, 1973, before the `adjustment committee', petitioner made a request to have counsel appointed to represent him.

"He (Petitioner) denied touching the officer in the above incident.

"Petitioner was found guilty of all offenses charged on January 17, 1973.

"Petitioner requested to confront the officer making the charges. The request was denied.

"As a result of these charges, Petitioner was confined to Administrative Segregation.

"He was not offered assistance of counsel or counsel substitute. He was not allowed the opportunity to call witnesses on his own behalf. Nor was he allowed to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses.

"A member of the adjustment committee was Captain Yinger. Mr. Bridge's complaining officer on January 17, 1973, is Senior Correctional Officer, Bunkie Elliott.

"Petitioner originally filed his Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus on or about March 21, 1973. Subsequently he was transferred to the Federal Correctional Institution at Terre Haute, Indiana, on April 13, 1973. He was confined to administrative segregation at Terre Haute from his arrival through May 21, 1973."

Plaintiff Drain

12. Prior to April 10, 1973, Drain was placed in the honor block at the institution. The benefits of this placement included an unlocked room and unlimited visitation by his family which resides in Detroit.

13. On April 10, 1973, Drain was charged with possession or introduction of any narcotic paraphernalia, and given written notice of the charge in an incident report.

14. The adjustment committee in Drain's case received the following report in an investigation into the incident:

"Drain has been named several times as the `kingpin' in our drug activities in the Institution. He was suspected of pressuring inmates working in the business office to introduce contraband drugs. On one situation after receiving information that he had pressured an inmate for this purpose, a large amount of marijuana was found on a study release inmate that we suspect was intentionally dropped prior to search. Due to lack of conclusive evidence, we were unable to charge Drain with this incident. I might add that earlier this date there was a fight involving two unknown black inmates in F-1 Dormitory, the combatants ran from the dorm and could not be identified. Drain has a laceration on his leg and scratches on his hand that could have resulted from a fight."

Also, the investigator stated:

"It is the conclusion by this writer that DRAIN is the most active and powerful of the suspected drug dealers within the institution."

15. At the hearing Drain was asked to explain his side of the story and he denied any connection with the incident. Drain wanted to call a witness on his own behalf but was not allowed to do this.

16. The committee found Drain guilty. In its written findings, the committee stated that this was based on the "incident report" and on "your statement", referring to Drain's denial.

17. Finding number 10, supra, applies to Drain.

18. Pursuant to the recommendation of the adjustment committee, Drain was transferred to the Federal Penitentiary at Terre Haute, Indiana, a maximum security institution for long term adults, and was held in segregation for considerable time upon his arrival.

Witness Saxner

19. Prior to August 17, 1973, witness Saxner was incarcerated at Milan. On that date he asked a prison employee, Lopez, about improperly handling a fellow prisoner. A discussion ensued; other inmates gathered. Lieutenant Edwards of the staff arrived, and asked Saxner to tell him what happened.

20. That afternoon, Saxner was called to Captain Yinger's office. Also in the office were Lieutenant Ashworth, Caseworker Rison and other officers. Saxner was given a written incident report charging him with threatening an officer, insolence toward a staff member and conduct which disrupts or interferes with the security or orderly running of the institution. Lopez was the accuser.

21. In Captain Yinger's office, Saxner was asked if he had anything to say, and he denied the allegations. Lieutenant Ashworth told him he was unsuited for Milan and that he was being transferred to the Federal Penitentiary at Terre Haute, Indiana...