Summary
dismissing a pretrial detainee's claim because "[t]he layout of the prison required that the small number of pretrial detainees be housed with convicted DOC prisoners"
Summary of this case from Silvera v. Connecticut Department of CorrectionsOpinion
Civil Action Number 99-3269.
February 8, 2001
ORDER AND REASONS
This matter was tried to the undersigned Magistrate Judge, without a jury, on January 3, 2001. Witnesses called to testify at trial were:
Leo Schwartz, plaintiff Chad Green, an inmate at St. John Correctional Center who was incarcerated at the same time as plaintiff Lieutenant Oubre, Assistant Warden of St. John Correctional Center Warden Steven Guidry, Warden of the St. John Correctional Center
At the commencement of the trial, counsel and Mr. Schwartz entered stipulations. First, counsel for defendants stipulated that plaintiff was not allowed to have his personal law books while he was housed in a dormitory at the St. John Correctional Center. Second, counsel stipulated that plaintiff was not allowed access to the periodical " Free American." Based on the stipulations, plaintiff waived calling several witnesses listed on his final witness list.
Following the undersigned's ruling on defendants' motion for summary judgment (rec. doc. 56), the issues remaining for trial were: (1) plaintiffs allegation that he was denied access to his personal law books, the "Prisoner Self-Help Manual" and the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure; (2) plaintiffs allegation that he was improperly denied delivery of the magazine " Free American"; (3) plaintiffs allegation that he was subjected to unsanitary living conditions due to inadequate provision of toilet paper, and (4) plaintiffs allegation that, as a pre-trial detainee, he was unconstitutionally housed with convicted prisoners.
Access to Personal Law Books
Mr. Schwartz testified that, at the time he entered the facility in 1998, he had a 1997 Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure. While he was in segregation (from November 3, 1998 through December 15, 1998), he was allowed to have that book. However, when he went into general population it was taken away from him and he did not get it again until his release from the facility on December 22, 1999.
In addition, he ordered from the publisher the "Prisoner Self-Help Manual," but the book was never given to him and he did not have it returned to him until his personal property was returned on his release.
On cross-examination, he stated that he had a lawyer representing him in his criminal defense the entire time he was in the St. John Correctional Center. He admitted that he went to the law library on at least twenty-two (22) occasions during his incarceration and he estimated that he spent approximately one (1) hour on each of those occasions except one time when he spent two (2) hours. He testified that the law library did not have an up-to-date Code of Criminal Procedure, but did have a 1998 edition. In January or February, 1999, the library did finally get a current volume.
Plaintiff testified that the Prisoner Self-Help Manual was not in the prison law library and it was his belief that it would have assisted him in his criminal defense. He stated that he helped his lawyer attack his criminal cases, but it was not his contention that he would not have been convicted without access to his personal law books.
On the issue of plaintiffs lack of access to his two personal law books, Lieutenant Oubre testified that he did take plaintiffs Code of Criminal Procedure away and place it with Schwartz's personal property. He further testified that the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Prisoner Self-Help Manual are in the prison law library and were available during the time that plaintiff was housed at the facility. Lieutenant Oubre testified that the only personal books allowed in the dormitory are prisoner's bibles. The policy of no personal books in the dormitory is applied to all inmates throughout the facility.
The parties stipulated that, if called, Michael Duvall, a prisoner housed with plaintiff, would have testified that the Prisoner Self-Help Manual and magazines and newspapers were not available in the facility's law library.
Warden Guidry testified that both a current volume of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Prisoner Self-Help Manual were routinely kept in the law library, including during the period that plaintiff was housed in the facility. The facility's attorney advised the Warden to keep the Self-Help Manual in the library, and he was sure that was done.
The Warden testified that personal books are not allowed in the dormitories. There are no individual cells and approximately sixty (60) people are housed in each dorm. Because of Fire Marshal regulations, the inmates are required to keep all flammable items in a small box under their bunk. Warden Guidry testified that if the Self-Help Manual or Code of Criminal Procedure was not available in the library, plaintiff could have requested access to his personal books while he was in the library and he would have been given access to them.
In Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977), the Supreme Court recognized that inmates are guaranteed under the Constitution a right of access to courts. The Bounds court required that prison officials provide inmates with "a reasonably adequate opportunity to present claimed violations of fundamental constitutional rights to the courts." Id., 430 U.S. at 825, 97 S.Ct. at 1496. However, the Court "did not create an abstract, free-standing right to a law library or legal assistance" in the prison. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 2180, 135 L. Ed. 2d 606 (1996). In order for an inmate to establish that his access to the courts has been impeded by inadequacies in the law library or legal assistance, the inmate must establish an actual injury or prejudice to his efforts to pursue a specific legal claim. Id. Furthermore, prisoners are not entitled to unlimited access to the law library. See Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 326 (5th Cir. 1999). "An inmate cannot establish relevant actual injury simply by establishing that his prison's law library or legal assistance program is subpar in some theoretical sense . . . prison law libraries and legal assistance programs are not ends in themselves, but only the means for ensuring `a reasonably adequate opportunity to present claimed violations of fundamental constitutional rights to the courts.'" Casey, 518 U.S. at 351, 116 S.Ct. at 2180 (citing Bounds, 430 U.S. at 823-25, 97 S.Ct., at 1495-96).
Plaintiff was at all time represented by counsel in his criminal defense. He was allowed access to the law library on many occasions. He agreed that his conviction was not the result of his not having access to his personal law books. He thus failed to show that he incurred any actual injury or prejudice from the denial of access to his personal law books and, therefore, this claim is dismissed.
"The Free American"
Entered into evidence were the December, 1999 and the January, April, May and June, 2000 issues of the magazine. Plaintiffs exhibits P-1 through P-5. Issues received during the period of plaintiffs incarceration at St. John were not submitted and are presumed to have been returned to the publisher.
Plaintiff testified that the officials at St. John Correctional, specifically Lieutenant Wilson, told him that inmates were not allowed to have magazines, except for religious magazines. He was told that magazines are a fire hazard. He further testified that he was allowed to receive the monthly magazine " Free American" while he was in the Jefferson Parish Correctional facility, following his release from St. John Correctional. Mr. Schwartz testified that the publication does not advocate violence or bigotry. He did admit that it is a conservative publication which leans toward the "right" in opinion. Finally, Mr. Schwartz testified that newspapers and magazines were not available in the law library and he never saw them in the twenty-two (22) or so trips to the library he made during the time of his incarceration.
As to the facility's denial of plaintiff's access to his subscription to the " Free American," Lieutenant Oubre reviewed one issue and found that it was racially motivated. Since most inmates at the facility are black, he did not believe the publication should be made available to the plaintiff.
The Lieutenant testified that he did not make the decisions with regard to other issues of the publication. His concern with regard to the magazine was plaintiffs safety. The facility tries to avoid magazines at one extreme or the other of the political spectrum. The Lieutenant told Schwartz that he could not receive the publication.
Lieutenant Oubre testified that other magazines are in the library and available to the prisoners. In addition, prisoners are allowed to sign out three books at a time from the prison library.
Warden Guidry testified that Lieutenant Weinert made the decisions regarding prisoner access to magazines. The Warden testified that he has reviewed the publication and that he is concerned with regard to the safety of plaintiff and other inmates. He testified that he saw how the magazine could be perceived as an extremist publication and was worried with regard to Schwartz's security because of racial tensions and gang affiliations within the facility.
The Warden testified that the facility's policy is that no "subversive" magazines are allowed. Lieutenant Weinert is instructed to look for derogatory remarks, articles advocating violence, use of guns and things like confederate flags. Prison policy is that each issue is reviewed separately.
Warden Guidry testified that during plaintiffs incarceration, from April, 1998 through November, 1999, he was not allowed access to the subscription of " Free American." The facility sends such publications back to the publisher with a note to the postal service to "return to sender." The facility also has a policy of sending a notice to the inmate that the magazine is being returned
The " Free American" stated editorial viewpoint for 1999 was:
The Free American is committed to bringing the truth to the American people. We believe that in a free society, it is the job of the press to be the watchman of the Government. It then falls upon the people, being fully informed, to decide what actions they must take to preserve and defend their liberty. The Free American is committed to an editorial policy that is unabashedly pro-American. Too many of our ancestors fought and died to protect our Constitution, the oldest in the world, to ensure that we would retain those liberties spelled out in our Bill of Rights. Based on the knowledge we have compiled over the last four years of publication, we believe there is a verifiable, well documented plan to force Americans into a Global Government, complete with one world banking, a Global ID system, an international police force and a disarmed populous. This is unacceptable to us personally and is incompatible with our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Those who advocate such a global system and the dismantling of our Bill of Rights, are either misguided, uninformed or, if totally knowledgeable, traitors to this country. We will expose them.
From the December, 1999 issue.
A "prison mail policy restricting access as to potential violence producing materials is valid." Chriceol v. Phillips, 169 F.3d 313, 316 (5th Cir. 1999). The Chriceol court stated:
In O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 107 S.Ct. 2400, 96 L.Ed.2d 282 (1987), the Supreme Court established the test for evaluating the constitutionality of regulations that infringe on prisoners' First Amendment Rights. "[W]hen a prison regulation impinges on inmates' constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests." O'Lone, 482 U.S. at 349, 107 S.Ct. 2400 [at 2404]. To determine whether a challenged regulation is valid, we are directed to four factors relevant for determining whether a challenged regulation is valid: (1) whether the regulation has a logical connection to the legitimate government interests invoked to justify it; (2) whether there are alternative means of exercising the rights that remain open to the inmates; (3) the impact that accommodation of the asserted constitutional rights will have on other inmates, guards, and prison resources; and (4) the presence or absence of ready alternatives that fully accommodate the prisoner's rights at de minimums cost to valid penological interests. See O'Lone 482 U.S. at 350-52, 107 S.Ct. 2400 [at 2405-06] (citing Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-90, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987)).Chriceol, 169 F.3d at 316.
The court's review of the periodicals placed in evidence does not reveal that the magazine contains potentially violence producing material. Rather, while the magazine may be described as "right wing," not one article reviewed indicated any advocation of racial violence, hatred or use of force in any manner. The December, 1999 issue contains articles and interviews on the IMF World Bank meeting, Y2K preparations, gun control, the TWA Flight 800 investigation and Pat Buchanan's bid for the Reform Party nomination for President.
While the court was unable to review the specific issues withheld from plaintiff during the course of his incarceration, the evidence presented on behalf of the defendants reveals that Lieutenant Oubre made the decision with regard to one of the magazines, but there was no testimony or evidence presented that other issues were reviewed and determined to be either racially inflammatory or in support of some form of violence or illegal activity. Each issue of a particular publication must be reviewed before the publication is banned. Guarjardo v. Estelle, 580 F.2d 748, 762 (5th Cir. 1978); Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 405, 109 S.Ct. 1874, 1877, 104 L.Ed.2d 459 (1989). The prison presented no evidence that it reviewed each issue of the magazine and independently determined that it should be withheld for valid reasons of insuring the safety of prisoners and employees. It therefore cannot be said that the ban on the " Free American" is reasonably related to a legitimate government objective. See Mann v. Smith, 796 F.2d 79, 82 (5th Cir. 1986). Because of this, the undersigned finds that the ban on the publication was a violation of the plaintiffs First Amendment rights. Mann, 796 F.2d at 82 (citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547-48, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1878-79, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979); and Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666, 45 S.Ct. 625, 629, 69 L.Ed. 1138 (1925)). See also, Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822, 94 S.Ct. 2800, 2804, 41 L.Ed.2d 495 (1974) (holding that a prison inmate retains those First Amendment rights that are not inconsistent with his status as a prisoner).
Plaintiff presented no proof of actual damages in this case. The general rule is that "nominal damages should be awarded if actual damages are not established." Mann v. Smith, 796 F.2d at 86 (citations omitted). However, plaintiff was denied access to the publication for a period of approximately eighteen (18) months. The subscription rate for the magazine, according to the December, 1999 issue, is $50.00 per year. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an award of $75.00 in compensatory damages.
In the absence of proof of compensable injury, nominal damages, not to exceed one dollar, may be awarded for infringement of a First Amendment liberty. See Familias Unidas v. Briscoe, 619 F.2d 391, 402 (5th Cir. 1980).
Unsanitary Living Conditions Due to Inadequate Provision of Toilet Paper
Mr. Green, who was incarcerated at the same time as plaintiff, testified that there was a period of time when his entire dormitory went for three, four or five days without toilet paper. He believed that this was in February through April, 1999. Mr. Green testified that the prison handed out one roll of toilet paper per prisoner once a week. He did agree that often toilet paper accumulates and some inmates have several rolls of toilet paper at any given time. If he ran out of toilet paper, he would ask other inmates for some.
Green testified that he did recall one occasion when Schwartz had some kind of flu and had to go to the bathroom approximately thirty times a day. He also testified that on occasions fights would almost break out due to lack of toilet paper and an inmate would have to ask other inmates for part of their supply. Green stated that Schwartz never got into a fight over toilet paper.
Mr. Schwartz testified that he was housed in the main dorm which had a capacity of about sixty (60) men. He testified that in February, 1999, he went for approximately one and one-half weeks without toilet paper. On one occasion when he reached into a locker and took toilet paper from another inmate he almost got into a fight.
He further testified that in February he got sick and complained about the lack of toilet paper and finally got additional rolls. During this period, he was told that the facility was out of toilet paper. From November, 1998 through February, 1999 was the time period during which he experienced the problem with a shortage in toilet paper.
On cross-examination, Schwartz stated that he used loose leaf paper when he did not have toilet paper. He also agreed that he did not have to seek medical attention due to the lack of toilet paper.
Lieutenant Oubre testified that the procedure was to distribute two (2) rolls of toilet paper to each inmate every Monday. During his tenure in charge of prison programs, he was not aware of any problems with the normal procedure. Lieutenant Oubre testified that if an inmate ran out of toilet paper he could request and get more. To his knowledge there has not been any time period within which an inmate was without toilet paper for a period of two weeks.
Lieutenant Oubre stated that unlimited quantities of toilet paper are not distributed throughout the facility because the inmates hoard it and it can be a fire hazard; they can use the paper as wicks; they have used toilet paper to hide drugs and to clog toilets. He further testified that he saw plaintiff one to two times a week and does not recall that he ever complained regarding lack of toilet paper.
On cross-examination, Lieutenant Oubre stated that he was not directly in charge of ordering or distributing toilet paper, that Officer Jenson was.
Warden Guidry testified that he did not personally observe distribution of toilet paper. He delegated the procedure for ordering and handing out toilet paper regularly to Officer Jenson. He does not recall any denial of toilet paper during the November, 1998 through February, 1999 time period, nor does he recall any time period within which any inmate complained that he had been denied toilet paper. As a matter of fact, the Warden testified that he had only received one complaint from any inmate and that was Schwartz. In response to the complaint, he told Jenson to give plaintiff toilet paper. He noted that he did not receive any complaints with regard to lack of toilet paper from any of the other 59 inmates in plaintiffs dorm.
In Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 537, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1873 (1979), the United States Supreme Court determined that "the fact that . . . detention interferes with the [pre-trial] detainee's understandable desire to live as comfortably as possible . . . during confinement does not convert the conditions or restrictions of detention into `punishment.'" Id., 441 U.S. at 537, 99 S.Ct. at 1873; see also Parker v. Carpenter, 978 F.2d 190 (5th Cir. 1992). Thus, if a particular act, condition, or restriction within the prison amounts to punishment, it is unconstitutional. Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 85 (5th Cir. 1987).
To determine whether a condition or restriction amounts to punishment, a court must determine if the restriction is imposed for the purpose of punishment or if it is reasonably related to a legitimate governmental purpose. Bell; Cupit. "Absent proof of an official's expressed intent to punish, the determination of whether a condition is `punishment' turns on whether an alternative purpose to which the restriction may rationally be connected is assignable for it, and whether it appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned to it." Valencia v. Wiggins, 981 F.2d 1440, 1446 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 509 U.S. 905, 113 S.Ct. 2998, 125 L.Ed.2d 691 (1993).
Plaintiff failed to carry his burden and prove that he was in fact denied toilet paper for any significant amount of time. The fact that no other inmate complained about the lack of toilet paper and plaintiff did not complain to Lieutenant Oubre during this time regarding the alleged lack of toilet paper leads this Court to believe that sufficient toilet paper was provided to the plaintiff. Further, plaintiff showed no injury in that he did not get into any fights nor suffer any medical problems as a result of the alleged lack of toilet paper. The prison identified a legitimate reason for the regulated distribution of toilet paper in the prison, and plaintiff did not show that such condition of confinement was inflicted upon him as punishment. Therefore, plaintiffs claim that his federal constitutional rights were violated by the prison's alleged failure to provide toilet paper to him for one to two weeks is dismissed.
Housing of Pre-Trial Detainees with DOC Inmates
Mr. Schwartz testified that there was a problem in housing pre-trial detainees with Department of Corrections ("DOC") inmates because the latter just "don't care." He stated that this caused tension and that he avoided contact with DOC inmates.
Mr. Schwartz was not convicted until August 15, 2000, so that his entire detention at the St. John Correctional Center was as a pre-trial detainee.
On cross-examination, plaintiff agreed that no DOC inmates harmed him and that he was not involved in any fights. Further, he volunteered for "boot camp" from April, 1998 through August, 1998, in which the vast majority of participants were DOC inmates. Finally, plaintiff agreed that he never complained about being housed with DOC inmates.
On the issue of the housing of pre-trial detainees with DOC inmates, Lieutenant Oubre testified that the boot camp was geared to DOC inmates and plaintiff volunteered to be in that program.
Regarding the classification system for inmates, Lieutenant Oubre testified that it is based on a point system which takes into account the nature of the crime charged, and past violence, among other factors. Lieutenant Oubre did not know how Schwartz was classified. Lieutenant Oubre stated that Schwartz was known to get loud, but was not known to get into fights. To Lieutenant Oubre's knowledge, plaintiff never complained about being housed with DOG inmates.
As to classification of prisoners and housing of DOC inmates with pre-trial detainees, Warden Guidry described the facility as consisting of four dorms: two dormitories housing sixty-two (62) inmates and two housing sixty (60) inmates. Out of that 244 inmate population, approximately 225 are DOC inmates. In addition to the four dormitories, the old jail houses approximately sixty (60) trustees, all of whom are DOC inmates.
The Warden testified that if there are problems with regard to an inmate, he can be moved. As to Schwartz, he is unaware of any problem with threats against him and is further unaware of any complaints he made regarding being housed with DOC inmates.
The classification of inmates, including the housing of pre-trial detainees with convicted inmates, is an administrative function of the prison. The Constitution requires that the prison administration act reasonably in placing inmates within the prison. Jones v. Diamond, 636 F.2d 1364 (5th Cir. 1981) (en banc) cert. dismissed, sub nom, 453 U.S. 950, 102 S.Ct. 27, 69 L.Ed.2d 1033 (1981), overruled on other grounds, Int'l Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO v. Champion Int'l Corp., 790 F.2d 1174 (5th Cir. 1986) (overruling only of the method used to calculate expert witness fees). The federal courts will not interfere with this administration without a constitutional violation. Bell v. Wolfish. 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). However, under "Jones v. Diamond, failure to adequately classify inmates is a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment." Pembroke v. Wood County, Texas, 981 F.2d 225, 229 (5th Cir. 1993).
It is clear from the testimony at trial that separate housing for pre-trial detainees was not possible at St. John Correctional Center. The layout of the prison required that the small number of pretrial detainees be housed with convicted DOC prisoners. The warden testified that inmates were classified in accordance with a point system used to insure each inmate's safety. Plaintiff admitted that he incurred no actual injury as a result of the housing and that he volunteered to participate in the boot camp program geared toward convicted inmates. Therefore, any claim that plaintiffs federal constitutional rights were violated by the housing of pretrial detainees with convicted inmates is dismissed.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned concludes that plaintiff has not established his claims that (1) his constitutional rights were violated because he did not have access to his personal law books; (2) his constitutional rights were violated because he was subjected to unsanitary living conditions; and (3) he was unconstitutionally housed with convicted prisoners. Those claims are therefore dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff has, however, established a violation of his First Amendment right to access to the magazine " Free American," and therefore the court awards him compensatory damages in the amount of $75.00 and all costs of this proceeding.