Women Prisoners v. District of Columbia

Decision Date13 December 1994
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 93-2052 (JLG).
Citation877 F. Supp. 634
PartiesWOMEN PRISONERS OF the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Columbia

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Peter J. Nickles, Caroline M. Brown, Tracy A. Thomas, Covington & Burling, Washington, DC, for plaintiffs.

Maria Amato, Teresa A. Ferrante, Asst. Corp. Counsel Correctional Litigation Section, Washington, DC, Baltimore, MD, for defendants.

OPINION

JUNE L. GREEN, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court after a three-week trial, including the submission of approximately 900 exhibits and hundreds of pages of deposition and transcript testimony. On December 1, 1993, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2). The class is defined as all women prisoners who are incarcerated in the District of Columbia correctional system as of October 1, 1993, and all women prisoners who will hereafter be incarcerated in the D.C. correctional system.

Women prisoners in the District of Columbia are incarcerated in three facilities: the Lorton Minimum Security Annex (Annex), the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) and the Central Detention Facility (Jail). The Annex is a collection of minimum security dormitories in Lorton, Virginia, which presently house approximately 174 women prisoners who are either held for trial, awaiting sentence or within 24 months of release. (R. 8-99; Pls.Exs. 621 at WP00034; 520 at DC0030902.) CTF is an 800 bed co-correctional facility in the District of Columbia consisting of a series of buildings which house approximately 271 medium custody, general population women prisoners. (Pls.Exs. 638 at 5; 520 at DC0030902.) The Jail is a medium to maximum security co-correctional facility in the District of Columbia housing approximately 168 women prisoners who are either serving sentences of less than one year or who are awaiting trial or sentencing. (Pls.Exs. 621 at WP00031, 520 at DC0030902.)

The Plaintiffs premise their claim for declaratory and injunctive relief on the following grounds: 1) women prisoners at the Annex, CTF, and the Jail are subject to sexual harassment in violation of the Fifth Amendment and the Eighth Amendment; 2) women prisoners at the Annex and CTF receive unequal opportunities to participate in prison programs in comparison to similarly situated men at other correctional facilities in violation of Title IX and the Fifth Amendment; 3) the provision of inadequate obstetrical and gynecological care offered to women prisoners at CTF violates the Eighth Amendment; and 4) the general conditions of confinement and fire hazards at the Annex and CTF violate the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants are liable for these constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the alternative, the Plaintiffs argue that virtually all of the Defendants' actions violate the Plaintiffs' rights under the D.C.Code §§ 24-442 and 24-425.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. Sexual Harassment at the Jail, CTF and the Annex

The evidence demonstrates that there have been many incidents of sexual misconduct between prison employees and female prisoners in all three of the womens' facilities in this case. The level of harassment involves forceful sexual activity, unsolicited sexual touching, exposure of body parts or genitals and sexual comments. (R. 2-3.)

Within the D.C. Department of Corrections (DCDC) there is a general acceptance of sexual relationships between staff and inmates which creates a "sexualized environment" where "boundaries and expectations of behavior are not clear." (R. 5-78.) Based on conversations with DCDC employees, Mr. Howard Ray Jr., former administrator of CTF, stated, "You just get this sense that sexual misconduct has always happened and it is always going to happen." (Ray Dep. I at 112.)

The most disturbing evidence of sexual harassment involves sexual assaults on women prisoners and the inadequacy of the Defendants' response to these attacks.1 On October 31, 1993, at about 2:30 a.m., a correctional officer at the Jail, sexually assaulted Jane Doe Q while she was a patient in the infirmary. (R. 1-75 to 1-80.) The officer fondled her breasts and vagina, tried to force her to perform oral sex and then raped her. On December 9, 1993, at approximately 5:30 a.m., a correctional officer at CTF forced Jane Doe RR to perform oral sex on him while Jane Doe RR attempted to empty trash as part of a work detail. (R. 6-123 to 24.) The individual officers who assaulted Jane Doe Q and Jane Doe RR warned the women not to report the attacks. (R. 1-80; 6-126.)

Jane Doe Q and Jane Doe RR were placed in protective custody after they filed complaints. (R. 1-86; Pls.Ex. 502 at 11.) Jane Doe RR explained the problems with this arrangement: "Protective Custody is just like being punished. It's the same place where you go if you do something.... You stay on lock 23 hours every day.... I didn't feel safe ... because the person that is supposed to be watching us, is never at the desk hardly ... I don't consider that as being protected." (R. 6-132 to 6-133.)

In addition to rape and forced sodomy, women prisoners endure other varieties of sexual assault. In September 1993, a correctional officer at CTF grabbed Jane Doe W's buttocks and vagina while he escorted her from the medical unit where she had received prenatal care. (R. 1-36 to 1-38.) A CTF foreman tried to rub up against Jane Doe Z, and steward hands and different officers fondled women prisoners' breasts, legs, arms and buttocks. (R. 7-64.) Another CTF officer attempted on several occasions to fondle Jane Doe K's breasts, vagina and buttocks in the television room. (R. 6-110.) A teacher in the print shop would frequently try to pull Jane Doe OOO to him and kiss her. (R. 1-112 to 113.) An officer in the garment shop attempted to paw and kiss women prisoners. (R. 6-113.)2

Another problem at CTF and the Annex is a lack of privacy. Some male officers fail to announce themselves before appearing in areas where women undress. (R. 3-16; 1-56 to 1-58; Y. Jackson Dep. at 32-33, 43.) In addition, the structural design of CTF permits male inmates a view of women's rooms while the men are in the recreation yard or in their own cells. (R. 9-131.) Defendants claim that they allow women to cover the window while they are dressing, but the Court did not see evidence of a written policy to this effect. (R. 9-53; 9-131.)

Women prisoners at all three facilities are the targets of sexual comments. Steward hands and officers at CTF feel free to direct sexual comments at women prisoners. (R. 7-64, 66.) One officer in particular discovered that Jane Doe V was going to take a shower and said, "Well, you go ahead and do that and I'll be in there to stick my rod up in you." (R. 4-68.) Male prisoners and correctional officers at the Annex also direct sexually explicit comments toward women prisoners. (R. 1-117; 6-115.) Officers at the Jail verbally harass women by making derogatory references about women prisoners' breasts and buttocks. (R. 1-88.)

The DCDC has policies and procedures designed to address sexual misconduct. In the Defendants' Basic Regulations for all Employees, employees are cautioned not to become intimate with prisoners. (Defs.Ex. 26 at 5-6.) The Defendants also have created the Inmate Grievance Procedure (IGP) under Department Order No. 4030.1D (Pls.Ex. 117.), the D.C. Personnel Policy on the Employee and Inmate Relationships under Department Order No. 3350.1, (Defs.Ex. 53.), the Sexual Harassment in the Workplace policy under Department Order No. 3310.4B (Pls.Ex. 107.) and the Procedure for Handling Institutional Persons Suspected of Committing Crimes in the Institutions under Department Order No. 5410.1. (Defs.Ex. 27.) These regulations are supposed to be taught during a seven-week, pre-service training program and each year during a 40-hour in-service training program. (R. 8-125 to 26.)

Though the DCDC has established an Inmate Grievance Procedure, (R. 8-127 to 28), procedures for filing an IGP form are not posted on each one of the units as required, and requests for written reports present an obstacle for illiterate women who wish to file a complaint. (R. 2-44 to 2-45.)

These various policies and procedures are of little value because the Defendants address the problem of sexual harassment of women prisoners with no specific staff training (Stempson Dep. at 182-83.), inconsistent reporting practices, cursory investigations and timid sanctions. Since training is confined to sexual harassment in the workplace (Riddick Dep. at 92; Pls.Exs. 111, 115.)3, employees confront the harassment of women prisoners in different ways. Ms. Toni Perry, the former Director of the Women's Program at CTF, would present an inmate's allegations to the Director of the DCDC instead of reporting to the administrator of the facility. (Perry Dep. at 162.) Mr. James Derr, a staff assistant at the Annex, said that because there are corrupt people in the system "you almost have to be careful as to who you give your information to, ... whether they be higher-ups or superior to you or not.... I'm reluctant to give much information to anyone of our system." (Derr Dep. II at 88, 97-98.) Ms. Christine Welch, a substance abuse counselor at CTF, believes that an inmate would have to tell her something two or three times before Ms. Welch would report it. (Welch Dep. at 62-63.) When a woman prisoner complained to Ms. Welch about an instance of sexual harassment, she told the woman prisoner to "just quit her job and program, because she really didn't need to work." (Welch Dep. at 63-64.)

Reports of sexual misconduct also do not remain confidential. (Perry Dep. at 164; R. 4-50.) After Jane Does Q and RR reported their...

To continue reading

Request your trial
78 cases
  • Brown v. Cumberland Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maine
    • 18 Agosto 2021
    ...to an unnecessary risk of harm when she was shackled during and immediately after labor); Women Prisoners of D.C. Dep't of Corr. v. District of Columbia , 877 F. Supp. 634 (D.D.C. 1994) (holding that shackling a woman "in labor and shortly thereafter ... is inhumane"), vacated in part and m......
  • Woodford v. Ngo, No. 05–416.
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 22 Junio 2006
    ...throughout a city's prisons, because they correctly fear retaliation if they file such complaints? See Women Prisoners v. District of Columbia, 877 F.Supp. 634 (D.C.Cir.1994). Are such remedies meaningful when a prisoner files a grievance concerning a prison official having encouraged him t......
  • Villegas v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 4 Marzo 2013
    ...led one court to analyze the shackling claim it faced as a conditions-of-confinement claim. See Women Prisoners of D.C. Dep't of Corr. v. Dist. of Columbia, 877 F.Supp. 634, 668–69 (D.D.C.1994), modified in part on other ground s, 899 F.Supp. 659 (1995), vacated in part and remanded on othe......
  • Smith v. Cochran
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Oklahoma
    • 9 Mayo 2001
    ...[physical and mental] ... which is so malicious that it violates contemporary standards of decency...." Women Prisoners v. District of Columbia, 877 F.Supp. 634, 664-65 (D.D.C.1994), vacated in part on other grounds, 899 F.Supp. 659 Along with recognizing a constitutional violation of Eight......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • 24-c-2 Eighth Amendment Claims for Sexual Assault
    • United States
    • A Jailhouse Lawyer's Manual Chapter 24 Your Right to Be Free from Assault by Prison Guards and Other Prisoners[*] (24 to 24 F) 24-c Sexual Assault and Rape (24-c to 24-c-5)
    • Invalid date
    ...101 S. Ct. 2392, 2399, 69 L. Ed. 2d 59, 68 (1981)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 183. Women Prisoners v. District of Columbia, 877 F. Supp. 634, 665 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1977, 128 L. Ed. 2d 811, 823 (1994)), vacated in part o......
  • 24-c Sexual Assault and Rape [details]
    • United States
    • A Jailhouse Lawyer's Manual Chapter 24 Your Right to Be Free from Assault by Prison Guards and Other Prisoners[*] (24 to 24 F) 24-c Sexual Assault and Rape (24-c to 24-c-5)
    • Invalid date
    ...in part on other grounds, 93 F.3d 910, 320 U.S. App. D.C. 247 (D.C. Cir. 1996)). 174. See Women Prisoners v. District of Columbia, 877 F. Supp. 634, 665 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (noting that although security concerns sometimes trump privacy interests, the evidence did not show any justification fo......
  • 41-c-3 Pregnancy
    • United States
    • A Jailhouse Lawyer's Manual Chapter 41 Special Issues of Women Prisoners[*] (41 to 41 G) 41-c Adequate Medical Care (41-c to 41-c-3)
    • Invalid date
    ...stages of labor cannot be shackled absent clear evidence that she is a security or flight risk"); Women Prisoners v. Dist. of Columbia, 877 F. Supp. 634, 668-69 (D.D.C. 1994), vacated and modified in part on other grounds, 899 F.Supp. 659 (D.D.C. 84. For the full list of states, see Women i......

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