CAPPS v. ATIYEH, 495 F. Supp. 802 (D.Ore. 08/22/1980)

[1] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF OREGON


[2] 80-141, 80-6014


[3] 495 F. Supp. 802, 1980.DOR


[4] August 22, 1980


[5] Tom CAPPS et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Victor ATIYEH, Defendant. Joe WEST et al., Plaintiffs, v. Victor ATIYEH et al., Defendants


[6] Roy S. Haber, Prisoners' Legal Services, of Oregon, Salem, Or., for plaintiffs. , John R. McCulloch, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, Or., for defendant.


[7] The opinion of the court was delivered by: BURNS


[8] This matter came on for hearing at the request of plaintiffs for injunctive relief requiring defendants to reduce the inmate population at Oregon State Penitentiary, the Farm Annex, and Oregon State Correctional Institution to the design capacity of each facility; restraining defendants from housing more than one inmate in cells designed for single occupancy; and restraining defendants from housing inmates under conditions which provide less than 50 square feet of floor area per inmate. The basis of plaintiffs' complaint and request for relief is set forth in Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law which are being filed with this opinion.


[9] The severity of the overcrowded conditions at these facilities was recognized by the responsible corrections officials before these actions were filed. In December, 1979, the Administrator of the Corrections Division made three proposals to the Parole Board by which the crowded conditions at the prisons could be mitigated. In January, 1980, the Parole Board agreed to consider all prisoners against whom detainers had been lodged for possible release to and further incarceration by the authorities that had lodged the detainers. It also agreed to accelerate by two months the release dates of certain lesser offenders who, in the Board's judgment, would be least likely to commit further crimes upon their release. While these actions resulted in the release of 224 prisoners, because of new commitments to the prisons, the net population reduction was insignificant.


[10] Three additional proposals were made in March, 1980, by the Administrator of the Corrections Division to his superior in an effort to reduce the prison population. None was immediately adopted.


[11] Efforts to arrive at settlement through the use of a mediator were made on June 3-5, 1980, but proved unsuccessful. *fn1"


[12] On June 27, 1980, I issued a bench ruling, supplemented or supplanted by written Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, declaring that the overcrowded conditions at OSP, the Annex, and OSCI violate the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The matter addressed here is the proper form of injunctive relief.


[13] REMEDIAL POWERS


[14] Federal courts have extensive powers in fashioning relief for constitutional violations. A wide range of approaches have been used by courts in remedying unconstitutional overcrowding at prisons, including limiting the prison population to design capacity and prohibiting the acceptance of new prisoners until that goal is reached, Pugh v. Locke, 406 F. Supp. 318 (M.D.Ala.1976), aff'd in part and modified in part sub nom., Newman v. Alabama, 559 F.2d 283 (5th Cir. 1977), remanded on other grounds sub nom., Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 98 S. Ct. 3057, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1114 (1978); Costello v. Wainwright, 397 F. Supp. 20 (M.D.Fla.1975), aff'd, 525 F.2d 1239, on rehearing vacated and remanded, 539 F.2d 547 (5th Cir. 1976), rev'd and remanded, 430 U.S. 325, 97 S. Ct. 1191, 51 L. Ed. 2d 372 (1977); and Williams v. Edwards, 547 F.2d 1206 (5th Cir. 1977); reclassification of prisoners to reduce the population at maximum security facilities, Palmigiano v. Garrahy, 443 F. Supp. 956 (D.R.I.1977), remanded on other grounds, 599 F.2d 17 (1st Cir. 1979); accelerating parole dates and construction of new facilities, Johnson v. Levine, 588 F.2d 1378 (4th Cir. 1978); and imposing specific cell space requirements, Gates v. Collier, 390 F. Supp. 482 (N.D.Miss.1975), aff'd, 525 F.2d 965 (5th Cir. 1976); Battle v. Anderson, 447 F. Supp. 516 (E.D.Okla.1977), aff'd, 564 F.2d 388 (10th Cir. 1977); and Palmigiano v. Garrahy, supra.


[15] When I issued my bench ruling, I indicated (or tried my best to indicate) the extreme reluctance of this court to intervene in the administration of state prison facilities. The reasons for this reluctance are two-fold. The first is the traditionally strong belief of this court in the principles of comity and the necessity of preserving a healthy state-federal relationship. Second is the recognition that the problems of the criminal justice system are complex and not readily susceptible to resolution by judicial decree. Particularly is this so where legislative action or voter approval (or both) may be necessary to accomplish specific objectives.


[16] This court is sympathetic to the ever increasing demands made on citizens of the state to deal with social problems. The court is also aware of the efforts already made by prison administrators and the Parole Board to mitigate the problem. But good will, political considerations or budgetary constraints do not define the scope of constitutional protections or the duty of the courts to assure those protections to all persons who possess them. As stated on June 27, if the state seeks (as it must) to operate a prison system, it must do so in a constitutionally permissible manner.


[17] I also stated, however, that I believed it was appropriate that the state be given an opportunity to put its own house in order. Therefore, rather than issuing a decree of injunctive relief, I asked that defendants submit by July 30, 1980, a plan by which with reasonable and realistic immediacy, the populations at each facility could be reduced to design capacity. Defendants were asked to have their plan include both the means by which and a time table when the reductions were to be accomplished, and for the plan to suggest mechanisms by which compliance with a decree of injunctive relief could be assured.


[18] THE PLAN


[19] The plan submitted by the defendants contemplates four short-term administrative actions, one short-term legislative action, and several long-term legislative actions. They are essentially as follows:


[20] (1) The Parole Board will retroactively apply the new parole matrix. The new matrix originally applicable to prisoners committed after May 1, 1980, essentially lengthens time for persons convicted of the most serious offenses and shortens time for persons convicted of the more minor offenses. The defendants estimate that application of the matrix to persons committed before May 1, 1980, will result in the release of 150 persons by October, 1980.


[21] (2) The prisons will no longer accept persons accused of parole violations prior to their parole revocation hearings. The defendants estimate this will reduce the demand for beds by 120 by December, 1980. These persons, however, would not necessarily be released from custody but rather would ordinarily be held in county jails until the date of their parole revocation hearings. It should be noted that, if implemented, this procedure would transfer inmates from the overcrowded state prisons to county jails which may already be, or as a result of the transfers could become, overcrowded. Clearly, the appropriate solution to a problem of a constitutional dimension is not achieved by a mere shift of the situation from one level of government to another.


[22] (3) The capacity of the prison forest camp will be expanded by reactivating vacant cabins. This would provide an additional 20 beds by December, 1980.


[23] (4) The Corrections Division will transfer 25 women prisoners from the Corrections Division Release Center to a vacant work release center, freeing the space in which they are being housed for use by 75 male inmates. This action could be accomplished by October, 1980.


[24] The combined effect of these actions would be to either remove from or refuse to accept into the crowded facilities a total of 365 persons by December, 1980. The actions, however, would not necessarily result in a net population reduction of 365 because new commitments may well exceed normal releases.


[25] (5) The defendants have also sought (and have now achieved) legislative modification of ORS 421.165, which would permit prisoners to be granted temporary leave for up to 90 days to search for and secure jobs immediately prior to their release on parole.


[26] Currently about 225 inmates are apparently eligible for work release prior to their parole. But the Corrections Division can accommodate only 100 persons at its residential work release centers. The Division believes that persons eligible for work release need not be detained in residential centers but rather can return to their homes, provided they are under close supervision. The plan provides that, upon amendment to ORS 421.165, the Corrections Division will close the residential work release centers and release the 225 inmates eligible for work release to their homes. The current staff at the work release centers would then supervise the persons released. The net impact of the measure would be to free an additional 125 beds at the prisons. *fn2"


[27] (6) The defendants also propose a long-term construction and financing program. The defendants submitted to the Special Session of the legislature a joint resolution that the state constitution be amended to authorize $ 120 million in bonded indebtedness for the construction or improvement and operation of state, regional or county correction facilities. This measure would require voter approval, which will be sought in November, 1980. The proposed plan includes construction and operation of three minimum security forest work camps to house a total of 150 inmates; additions to county jails totaling 600 beds, which would be used by the state until the counties required their use; and construction of two regional correctional facilities, which would provide an additional 1070 beds. These measures would be implemented between 1982 and 1986.


[28] This part of the plan, as it emerged from the legislature, provided for bonding authority of $ 81 million rather than $ 120 million. *fn3" The record is not clear, of course, as to the extent to which new construction would be available given the legislative action. And the plan presented contemplated that legislation implementing the bonding authority (if voter approval occurs) would be required and sought from the 1981 regular session.


[29] The construction of more large prisons or jails is a fairly traditional response to the seemingly intractable problems of criminal behavior. It is, however, only one of a variety of responses society can make to these vexing difficulties. Community corrections and a variety of other methods are also available. The decision as to which method is the most appropriate at a particular time is, of course, for the state, not the federal judges, at least on this record, and at this time.


[30] INJUNCTIVE RELIEF


[31] I do not believe it is necessary for the court to endorse any one or all of the proposals outlined by the defendants. The plan sets forth what appear to be good faith steps to achieve the necessary reductions with a reasonable and realistic degree of promptness. If fully and expeditiously implemented, the short-term actions seem likely to produce a population reduction of about 500 by the end of the year.


[32] In the order of injunctive relief to be issued today, the court will require that a reduction of the total population at the three facilities by 500 persons be accomplished by December 31, 1980, together with a further reduction of at least 250 by March 31, 1981. The order will not direct the state to adopt any particular methods to achieve this goal. *fn4" However, to assure that progress toward that goal is being made, defendants will be ordered to report monthly, commencing on September 1, 1980, on the number of persons housed at each facility and the steps that have been taken and remain to be taken to meet the deadlines imposed. *fn5" Appointment of a special master or the use of other enforcement mechanisms does not appear necessary at this time in view of the good faith the relevant officials have demonstrated to date. The defendants are to be congratulated for their forthright and ungrudging cooperation with the court in this matter.


[33] The court will retain jurisdiction over this entire matter so as to insure full and realistically prompt realization of the relief ordered. Specifically, I retain jurisdiction to amend the injunctive order so as to require adoption of any one or more of the particular steps proposed, as well as adoption of any other remedial method that may seem to be called for by the circumstances.


[34] The parties will be asked to appear for a status report in early December, 1980, the specific date and time for which will be set in the future. The matter will be addressed at an earlier date upon a sufficient showing by either party of circumstances which substantially affect the reduction process.


[35] Plaintiffs' counsel are entitled, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, to an award of reasonable attorneys' fees. The parties are encouraged to reach agreement on the appropriate amount, bearing in mind the remedial purpose of the civil rights statutes and the factors listed in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974). If the parties are unable to reach agreement, the court will hear and decide the matter at the plaintiffs' request.


[36] The complaint in these actions raised additional issues relating to conditions at these institutions. The relief to be ordered may to some degree remedy some of the other conditions complained of. As indicated in the Findings and Conclusions, filed today, the claim which plaintiffs present as to the conditions relating to medical services at OSP has not, in and of itself, been heard, and, therefore, of course, has not been ruled upon. Deferral of this, and all other claims seems appropriate at this time. If counsel for plaintiffs determine that any or all of the remaining claims ought to be pressed, they should so advise opposing counsel and the court, and a conference will be arranged on short notice so that all such matters may be discussed.


[37] FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION


[38] I. INTRODUCTION.


[39] These actions, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenge the constitutionality of conditions at the Oregon State Penitentiary (OSP); its satellite facility, the Farm Annex; and the Oregon State Correctional Institution (OSCI). Plaintiffs are persons incarcerated at these institutions. Defendants are the Governor, the Administrator of the Corrections Division, the superintendents of these institutions, and the members of the Board of Parole. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief.


[40] The action denominated Capps v. Atiyeh, No. 80-141, was filed on January 29, 1980, by several inmates at OSP on behalf of all the prisoners at OSP. I appointed Prisoners' Legal Services of Oregon (PLSO) to represent plaintiffs; PLSO later, on March 19, 1980, filed a complaint denominated West v. Atiyeh, No. 80-6014, setting forth allegations similar to those set forth in the Capps complaint, on behalf of all prisoners incarcerated at OSP, the Annex, and OSCI.1a These cases have been consolidated pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a). West v. Atiyeh has been certified as a class action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and (b) (2). The class consists of all persons who are or will be incarcerated at the three facilities.


[41] The complaints in these cases allege, inter alia, that severe overcrowding at these institutions has resulted in conditions likely to cause the physical and mental deterioration of the inmates. With the consent of the parties, the issue of whether these penal institutions are unconstitutionally crowded was segregated, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(b). It is treated as having been submitted on the merits as permitted by Rule 65(a)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P.


[42] Testimony was taken from three inmates at OSP, four of the defendant corrections officials, and eight expert witnesses. The factual testimony was credible; with only a few exceptions it was uncontradicted. My findings are based on this testimony and on the photographic and documentary exhibits, answers to interrogatories, and depositions received in evidence. Although I wasn't able to visit the facilities earlier in the proceedings, I was able to visit OSP and OSCI briefly on August 8, 1980, and, of course, I have visited each a number of times in past years.


[43] On June 27, 1980, I issued a bench ruling in favor of plaintiffs holding that the conditions at each institution violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The following supplements, and, to the extent directly inconsistent, supplants that oral opinion and constitutes further findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 52.


[44] II. FINDINGS OF FACT.


[45] A. The Facilities.


[46] The Oregon State Penitentiary is a maximum security prison n2a located in Salem, Oregon. It comprises 22 acres and is surrounded by a reinforced concrete wall averaging 25 feet in height. Prisoners are housed in five units. One of these cell blocks was built in 1929, two in the early 1950's, and the newest in 1964. n2a. Inmates sentenced to the custody of the institutions at issue in this case stand convicted of one or more felonies which may be broken down into four classes. The maximum penalty for a Class A felony is 20 years; a Class B felony, 10 years; a Class C felony, 5 years; and an unclassified felony, life. The table below shows the proportion of each institution's population by felony class. In cases where incarceration resulted from more than one sentence, the most serious crime of which the inmate was convicted is listed. U A B C OSP 8% 45% 12% 35% OSCI 1% 48% 12% 39% The same prisoners also may be classified by the type of crime of which they were convicted-crimes against persons, crimes against property, or statutory offenses. Person Property Statutory OSP 59% 32% 9% OSCI 44% 52% 4%