The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit approved the appointment of a receiver to oversee operations of the Raymond Detention Center (RDC) in Hinds County, Mississippi. The district court’s action was a contempt sanction imposed for the County’s repeated failures to comply with a consent decree.

RDC has been in crisis since a 2012 prisoner riot at the 31-year-old, 594 bed jail led to a September 2013 grand jury report finding RDC was in “deplorable condition and inadequately staff[ed],” posing “a major security risk to inmates, staff of the facility, visitors to the facility, and to the citizens of Hinds County,” who also faced “a major liability risk” as a result.

As PLN reported, another riot broke out in March 2013, killing one prisoner and injuring seven others. Another grand jury found the jail was under the control of the incarcerated and recommended relieving then-Sheriff Tyrone Lewis of responsibility. [See: PLN, Oct. 2015, p. 50]. The federal Department of Justice (DOJ) began an investigation in 2014, which lead to a 2016 lawsuit. The parties immediately entered into a Consent Decree that imposed 92 requirements upon RDC. [See: PLN, Jan. 2017, p. 40.]

In 2019, the DOJ presented the federal district court with a litany of violations. RDC avoided a contempt order by hiring a new jail administrator. The court, in 2020, “begrudgingly” approved a stipulated settlement agreement, despite the fact RDC was in compliance with only one of the 92 requirements of the Consent Decree.

A November 2021 report from court-appointed monitor Elizabeth Simpson found conditions at RDC had seriously deteriorated. “As always, the lack of personnel is the single greatest problem facing” RDC, Simpson wrote. In 2021, there were six deaths at RDC. In one case, guards did not discover a corpse until six hours after the prisoner was stomped and dragged across the floor and placed into a sitting position. [See: PLN, Sept. 2022, p. 18.]

In 2022, the district court found that between October 2021 and January 2022, there were 77 assaults reported at RDC, a figure that likely “severely understated” the “full scale of violence at RDC” given the deficiencies in reporting instances of violence. The court ordered Hinds County to show cause as to why it should not be held in contempt and why receivership should not be instituted. The County, despite the wave of violence and deaths, responded by moving to terminate or modify the Consent Decree under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

In February and March 2022, the district court entered separate orders finding Hinds County in contempt for violating over two dozen provisions of the Consent Decree. In April 2022, the court declined to terminate the decree, noting that RDC staffing was at an “all-time low.” A new, shorter injunction was entered, for the court terminated provisions it deemed met constitutional standards. As a sanction for the contempt, RDC was placed into receivership.

Hinds County filed an appeal of the contempt orders, and the Fifth Circuit in December 2022 granted an injunction that stayed the new injunction and postponed receivership while it resolved the appeal. While the case was on appeal, four detainees escaped from RDC. Two were recaptured and the other two were killed in a shootout with Leaks County deputies. [See: PLN, June 2023, p. 42.]

The Eighth Circuit reviewed each of the injunction’s nine provisions to see if an Eighth Amendment violation existed and whether the district court made the requisite findings.

The first provision was the protection from harm, “namely whether RDC’s failure to prevent violence among inmates represents a current and ongoing constitutional violation.” Evidentiary hearing testimony reflected that “[i]t is no secret that RDC is unsafe, especially A-Pod.” Additionally, staff reportedly “call out sick or just [do] not show up for work” because they are “afraid to work a pod.” Detainees in two pods established “inmate committees” or “gang committees” that “essentially run the unit and among other things . . . decide if there’s someone on the unit they don’t want on the unit.” 

“A-Pod was described as “a disaster,” testifed an expert. “It’s filthy, lights don’t work, locks don’t work, doors can’t be secured, cells don’t have lights inside them. . .. Showers don’t work.” The area was “ill-equipped across the board.” RDC had only 58% of the staff required to operate safely. Staff salaries were raised to $31,000 in 2022, but vacancies persisted. The Eighth Circuit concluded “the district court correctly held that both the conditions in A-Pod and RDC’s systematic staffing issues demonstrated the County’s deliberate indifference toward inmate safety.”

Next, the Court found the totality of the evidence supported the injunction’s provision on use of force. It noted a “one-off” event where guards used a Taser to coerce a prone prisoner into submission. Another incident involved guards shooting a sleeping detainee with a beanbag gun because he did not rise for a shakedown at two or three o’clock in the morning. Use of force reports were often not reviewed by supervisors at RDC, nor did the facility regularly provide use of force training to new hires.

While the Constitution does not require “reporting mechanisms or effective review of episodic events,” the totality-of-the-circumstances test counsels incident reporting at RDC. The Court noted incidents where prisoners were placed back into the same pods in which they had problems or were stabbed. In an October 2021 death, reports showed deficiencies that led to the firing of three guards.

The district court’s continuation of provisions on sexual assault was remanded for specific findings of “current and ongoing” constitutional violations. The district court’s provisions related to the conduct of investigations of incidents, the grievance process, use of booking segregation cells at RDC, and over-detention of detainees without legal basis were well supported and affirmed. The County did not challenge provisions relating to the youth-prisoner center. 

The Fifth Circuit then turned to the receivership appointment. The Court found no abuse of discretion in the finding that receivership was necessary to remedy current and ongoing constitutional violations. The Court also considered whether the scope of the receivership was proper. The receiver was given “broad-reaching” authority over the day-to-day operations of RDC’s state facilities and programs. 

The Court found error in the provision giving the receiver authority to control the purse strings by granting control over the budget and salaries and benefits for personnel. That provision “goes beyond the limitations imposed” by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which had a fundamental purpose of extricating federal courts from the management of prisons. See: Guajardo v. TeX. Dep’t of Crim. Just., 363 F.3d 392 (5th Cir. 2004). 

In addition, the district court failed to conduct a need-narrowness-intrusiveness analysis on the scope of the receiver’s duties. Therefore, the matter was remanded to reevaluate the scope of the receivership and to conduct a proper analysis. The district court’s order was reversed in part and affirmed in part. See: U.S. v. Hinds Cty. Bd. of Supervisors, 120 F.4th 1246 (5th Cir. 2024).  

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal case