Ruiz V. Estelle, 503 F
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT Oral argument is scheduled for Dece~ber 14, 1981. TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED ---------------------------------------- 1 STATEMENT --------------------------------------------------- 3 1. Procedural history ---------------------------------- 3 2. Decision of the district court ---------------------- 7 a. The TDC system and inmate population ------------ 7 b. Overcrowding ------------------------------------ 8 c. Security and supervision ------------------------ 17 d. Health care ------------------------------------- 27 e. Disciplinary hearing procedures ----------------- 33 f. Administrative segregation ---------------------- 34 g. Access to courts -------------------------------- 36 h. Fire safety ------------------------------------- 41 i. Sanitation and work safety ---------------------- 44 j. Totality of conditions -------------------------- 46 k. Unit size, structure, and location -------------- 47 1. Special master ---------------------------------- 52 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ------------------------ 54 ARGUMENT ---------------------------------------------------- 57 I. THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY HELD THAT CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT WITHIN THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS VIOLATE THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT, AND THE RELIEF IT ORDERED WAS GENERALLY APPROPRIATE ------------------ 57 i A. The district court correctly found that TDC is severely overcrowded and that the overcrowding harms inmates ------- 58 B. The district court correctly concluded that TDC failed to provide inmates adequate security and supervision --------- 65 1. TDC is understaffed and the staff is poorly trained --------------------- 67 2. TDC has employed inmates to supervise and control other inmates ------------- 72 3. TDC correctional officers inflict widespread brutality on inmates ------- 78 4. TDC's classification system is inadequate ---------------------------- 80 c. The district court correctly found that fire safety measures at TDC are inadequate -------------------------------- 81 D. The overcrowding, lack of security and supervision, lack of fire safety, and failure to provide exercise for inmates in administrative segregation subject inmates to conditions that violate the Eighth Amendment -------------------------- 83 E. The district court's orders to eliminate overcrowding, to improve security and supervision, to improve fire safety, and to require exercise for inmates in ad ministrative segregation were, for the most part, appropriate exercises of its remedial authority ------------------------ 87 1. Inmate housing ------------------------- 91 2. Work release and temporary furlough programs ------------------------------- 93 3. Good time program---------------------- 93 ii Page 4. Community corrections programs --------- 94 5. Guard-to-inmate ratio ------------------ 95 6. Abolition of building tender system ---- 97 7. Use of force --------------------------- 98 8. Classification ------------------------- 99 9. Fire safety ---------------------------- 100 10. Administrative segregation ------------- 101 rr. THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR BY ORDERING THAT THE HUNTSVILLE UNIT HOSPITAL BE DOWNGRADED TO AN INFIRMARY UNLESS IT rs IMPROVED TO ACCEPTABLE STANDARDS ---------------------------------------- 104 III. THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR BY ORDERING TDC TO TAPE RECORD DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS --------- 114 IV. THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY HELD THAT TDC HAD OBSTRUCTED INMATES' ACCESS TO THE COURTS ----- 116 V. THE UNITED STATES TAKES NO POSITION WITH RESPECT TO THE DISTRICT COURT'S RULING REQUIRING TDC TO COMPLY WITH CERTAIN STATE HEALTH AND SAFETY LAWS --------------------------- 125 vr. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN ORDERING THE REORGANIZATION OF TDC INTO 500-MAN UNITS AND IN PLACING RESTRICTIONS UPON THE SIZE AND LOCATION OF NEW UNITS ------------------------ 126 VII. THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR BY APPOINTING A SPECIAL MASTER OR AUTHORIZING THE APPOINTMENT OF SIX MONITORS ---------------------- 128 VIII. THE STATE RECEIVED A FAIR TRIAL ------------------ 133 A. Judicial bias -------------------------------- 133 B. Cumulative error ----------------------------- 137 IX. THE DISTRICT COURT MADE SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF FACT SUFFICIENT FOR APPELLATE REVIEW ---------- 141 iii X. THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY GRANTING THE UNITED STATES' MOTION TO INTERVENE ------------------------------- 142 XI. THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE TEXAS BOARD OF CORRECTIONS ARE PROPER PARTIES DEFENDANT ------- 146 CONCLUSION -------------------------------------------------- 148 ADDENDUM ---------------------------------------------------- A-1 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Page Adams v. Mathis, 614 F.2d 42 (5th Cir. 1980) ------------ 87 Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978) -------------------- 146 I 147 Andrade v. Hauck, 452 F.2d 1071 (5th Cir. 1971) --------- 123 Battle v. Anderson, 447 F. Supp. 516 (E.D. Okla. 1977), aff 'd, 564 F.2d 388 (10th Cir. 1977) ------------------ 100 Battle v. Anderson, 564 F.2d 388 (10th Cir. 1977) ------- 90, 92, 112 Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) -------------------- 54, 85 Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977) -------------------- 123, 124 Burks v. Teasdale, 603 F.2d 59 (8th Cir. 1979) ---------- 92 Burks v. Walsh, 461 F. Supp. 454 (W.D. Mo. 1978), aff'd sub nom. Burks v. Teasdale, 603 F.2d 59 (8th Cir. 1979"'}"":"------------------------------------------------ 86 Campbell v. McGruder, 580 F.2d 521 (D.C. Cir. 1978) ---- 124 Corpus v. Estelle, 551 F.2d 68 (5th Cir. 1977) ---------- 121 Corpus v. Estelle, 605 F.2d 175 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 919 (1980) --------------------------- 121, 124 Costello v. Wainwright, 525 F.2d 1239 (5th Cir. 1976) 87, 91 Cotton v. United States, 52 U.S. (11 How.) 229 (1850) 144 Crowe v. Leeke, 540 F.2d 740 (4th Cir. 1976) ------------ 86 Cruz v. Beto, 603 F.2d 1178 (5th Cir. 1979) ------------ 117 Cruz v. Hauck, 475 F.2d 475 (5th Cir. 1973) ------------- 123 Curtis v. C.I.R., 623 F.2d 1047 (5th Cir. 1980) --------- 142 Debs, In re, 158 U.S. 564 (1895) ------------------------ 144 Dugan v. United States, 16 u.s. (3 Wheat.) 172 (1818) -- 144 Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974) ------------------ 147 Estelle, In re, 516 F.2d 480 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 426 u.s. 925 (1976) ---------------------------- 4, 142, 144 v Page Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) ------------------- 31, 104 Excel Handbag Co. v. Edison Bros. Stores, 630 F.2d 379 (5th Cir. 1980) --------------------------------------- 137 Finney v. Arkansas Board of Correction, 505 F.2d 194 (8th Cir. 1974) --------------------------------------- 112 Gary w. v. State of La., 601 F.2d 240 (5th Cir. 1979) 129 Gates v. Collier, 349 F. Supp. 881 (N.D. Miss. 1972), aff'd, 501 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir. 1974) ------------------ 99 Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir. 1974) passim Gulf King Shrimp Co. v. Wirtz, 407 F.2d 508 (5th Cir. 1969) --------------------------------------- 142 Halderman v. Pennhurst State School & Hospital, 612 F.2d 84 (3d Cir. 1979), rev'd in part, 49 U.S.L.W. 4363 (U.S. April 20, 1981) ---------------------------- 144 Hardwick v. Ault, 447 F. Supp. 116 (M.D. Ga. 1978) ------ 102 Hite v. Leeke, 564 F.2d 670 (4th Cir. 1977) ------------- 85 Holt v. Sarver, 309 F. Supp. 362 (E.D. Ark. 1970), aff'd, ----::r42 F.2d 304 (8th Cir. 1971) -------------------------- 98 Holt v. Sarver, 442 F.2d 304 (8th Cir. 1971)------------- 83 Hooks v. Kelley, 463 F.2d 1210 (5th Cir. 1972) ---------- 123 Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678 (1978) --------------------passim Inmates of Attica Correctional Facility v. Rockefeller, 453 F.2d 12 (2d Cir. 1971) ---------------------------- 99 Jessup v. United States, 106 U.S. (16 Otto) 147 (1882) -- 144 Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483 (1969) ------------------- 123 Johnson v. Levine, 588 F.2d 1378 (4th Cir. 1978) -------- 87 Jones v. Diamond, 636 F.2d 1364 (5th Cir. 1981), cert. granted sub nom. Ledbetter v. Jones, 49 U.S.L.W. 3968 (U.S. June 29, 1981) ----------------- 99 vi Page Jones v. Wittenberg, 330 F. Supp. 707 (N.D. Ohio 1971), aff 'd sub nom. Jones v. Metzger, 456 F. 2d 854 (6th Cir. 1972)-===-------------------------------------------- 113 King v. Gulf Oil Co., 581 F.2d 1184 (5th Cir. 1978) 137 Laaman v. Helgemoe, 437 F. Supp. 269 (D. N.H. 1977) 113 McCray v. Sullivan, 509 F.2d 1332 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 859 (1975) ------------------------------ 100 M.C.I. Concord Advisory Bd. v. Hall, 447 F. Supp. 398 (D. Mass. 1978) -------------====------------------------- 86 Miller v. Carson, 563 F.2d 741 (5th Cir. 1977) ------------- passim Nadeau v. Helgemoe, 561 F.2d 411 (1st Cir. 1977) ----------- 102 Newman v. Alabama, 503 F.2d 1320 (5th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 948 (1975) ------------------------------ passim Newman v. Alabama, 559 F.2d 283 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 438 U.S. 915 (1978) ------------------------------ passim Novak v. Beto, 453 F.2d 661 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 968 (1972) ------------------------ 121 Palmigiano v. Garrahy, 443 F. Supp. 956 (D. R.I. 1977), aff'd and remanded, 599 F.2d 17 (1st Cir. 1979)----------- 113, 129 Peterson, Ex parte, 253 U.S. 300 (1920) -------------------- 130 Petrites v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 646 F.2d 1033 (5th Cir. 1981) ------------------------------------------ 137 Procunier v. Martinez, 416 u.s. 396 (1974) ----------------- 54, 123, 124 Pugh v. Locke, 406 F. Supp. 318 (M.D. Ala. 1976), aff'd as modified sub nom. Newman v. Alabama, 559 F.2d 283 (5th Cir. 1977T,-rev 1 d in part, 438 u.s. 781 (1978) ------ 70, 78, 97, 98 Quern