Ruiz V. Estelle, 503 F. Supp. 1265 (S.D. Tex. 1980)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
503 F.Supp. 1265 (1980) David RUIZ et al., Plaintiff, United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. W. J. ESTELLE, Jr., et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. H-78-987. United States District Court, S. D. Texas, Houston Division. December 12, 1980. William Bennett Turner, Donna Brorby, Gail Saliterman, San Francisco, Cal., for class plaintiffs. Samuel T. Biscoe, John F. Jordan, Dallas, Tex., Jim Wiginton, Alvin, Tex., for plaintiff, L.D. Hilliard. David J.W. Vanderhoof, Patricia Gail Littlefield, Charles Ory, Stephen L. Mikochik, Adjoa Burrow, Stephen A. Whinston, Roby Haber, Shawn F. Moore, Dept. of Justice, Civ. Rights Div., Sp. Litigation Section, Washington, D.C., J.A. "Tony" Canales, U.S. Atty., Southern Dist. of Texas, Houston, Tex., John H. Hannah, Jr., U.S. Atty., Eastern Dist. of Texas, Tyler, Tex., for plaintiff-intervenor. Mark White, Atty. Gen. of Texas, Ed Idar, Jr., Richel Rivers, Harry Walsh, Mary N. Golder, Evelina Ortega, Bruce C. Green, Asst. Attys. Gen., Austin, Tex., Leonard Peck, Art Keinarth, David Jones, Asst. Attys. Gen., Huntsville, Tex., for defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION JUSTICE, Chief Judge. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION A. Description of the TDC System 1274 B. Description of the TDC Inmate Population 1274 C. Procedural History 1275 D. Outline of the Opinion 1276 II. OVERCROWDING A. Findings of Fact 1. Compendium 1277 2. Description of Facilities 1277 3. Effects of Overcrowding 1281 4. Failure to Ameliorate Overcrowded Conditions 1283 B. Legal Analysis 1285 III. SECURITY AND SUPERVISION A. Findings of Fact 1. Compendium 1288 2. Security Staff/Understaffing 1288 a. Background 1288 b. Training 1289 c. Staff duties and responsibilities; Understaffing 1290 3. Building Tender System 1294 4. Staff Brutality 1299 B. Legal Analysis 1303 IV. HEALTH CARE Medical Care A. Findings of Fact 1. Compendium 1307 2. Staffing and Personnel 1307 a. Physicians 1307 b. Nurses 1309 c. Medical Assistants 1309 d. Inmates 1311 e. Dental Personnel 1312 3. Facilities 1313 a. Unit infirmaries 1313 b. Huntsville Unit Hospital 1314 c. John Sealy Hospital 1315 4. Interference Occasioned by Security and Work Concerns 1315 a. Diagnostic Unit Procedures 1315 b. Unit Medical Procedures 1318 c. HUH Hospital Procedures 1321 5. Medical Records 1323 6. Pharmaceutical Services 1324 7. Organization 1327 B. Legal Analysis 1328 Psychiatric Care 1332 A. Findings of Fact 1. Compendium 1332 2. Psychiatric Screening of Inmates 1332 3. Psychological and Psychiatric Care at the Unit Level 1333 4. TDC Treatment Center 1334 5. Treatment Staff in General 1336 6. TDC's Defenses 1338 B. Legal Analysis 1338 Special Needs Inmates 1340 A. Findings of Fact 1. Compendium 1340 2. Physically Handicapped Inmates 1340 3. Mentally Retarded Inmates 1344 B. Legal Analysis 1345 V. DISCIPLINE 1346 Hearing Procedures A. Findings of Fact 1346 B. Legal Analysis 1350 1. The Wolff Requirements a. Notice 1351 b. Statement of reasons 1352 c. Witnesses 1353 d. Counsel substitute 1355 2. Impartial Hearing Body 1355 3. Failure to Follow State Rules 1356 4. Vague and Overbroad Rules 1357 5. Relief 1358 Solitary Confinement 1359 A. Findings of Fact B. Legal Analysis 1361 Administrative Segregation 1364 A. Findings of Fact B. Legal Analysis 1365 VI. ACCESS TO THE COURTS 1367 A. Findings of Fact B. Legal Analysis 1370 VII. OTHER CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT 1373 A. Findings of Fact 1. Fire Safety 1373 2. Sanitation 1374 a. Housing areas 1374 b. Water supply and plumbing 1374 c. Wastewater and solid waste disposal 1375 d. Food service areas 1375 e. Food processing areas 1375 3. Work Safety and Hygiene 1376 B. Legal Analysis 1377 1. Pendent Jurisdiction 1377 2. Applicability of State Health and Safety Laws 1378 3. Constitutional Claims 1382 VIII. TOTALITY OF CONDITIONS 1383 IX. DEFENDANTS' RIZZO ARGUMENT 1384 X. GENERAL RELIEF 1385 A. Unit Size and Structure 1385 B. Prison Location 1389 C. Appointment of One or More Special Masters 1389 D. Development of Detailed Remedial Decree 1390 XI. CONCLUSION 1391 I. INTRODUCTION The issues in this civil action relate to the constitutionality of certain operations of the Texas Department of Corrections (TDC), which is responsible for the confinement and management of adult convicted prisoners of the State of Texas. The plaintiffs are named TDC inmates, who represent a class of all past, present, and future inmates. Defendants are W.J. Estelle, Jr., Director of the Texas Department of Corrections, and the members of the Texas Department of Corrections. Jurisdiction is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and § 2201. Before embarking upon a discussion of the numerous specific factual and legal issues posed by the evidence in this civil action, a general overview of the TDC system, a description of the inmate population, the history of the litigation, and a general outline of this opinion will be set out. A. Description of the TDC System The Texas Department of Corrections currently operates eighteen prison unites in the state of Texas, sixteen for male prisoners and two for female prisoners.1 All but one of these units are characterized by TDC as maximum security institutions. Most of the units are large; the smallest incarcerates eight hundred inmates, and the largest house some four thousand. On most of the prison units, extensive farming and industrial operations are carried on, with the use of inmate labor. Indeed, self-sufficiency is a trademark of the TDC system-prison inmates produce most of their own food and clothing, provide manpower for prison construction and maintenance projects, and produce a variety of manufactured goods (mattresses, brooms, furniture, etc.), which are used within the prison system or are sold to other state agencies. Responsibility for the management of the prison system, subject to the control and supervision of the Texas Board of Corrections, is vested in the TDC Director. Each unit has its own warden, who is responsible for the day-to-day management of the unit. B. Description of the TDC Inmate Population The number of prisoners confined in the TDC system is very large and increases constantly. The inmate population includes persons of a variety of backgrounds and widely differing abilities, as well as many with acute physical and mental problems. A statistical profile of the TDC inmate population reveals pertinent information concerning persons immured in Texas prisons. TDC's 1978 Annual Statistical Report discloses that approximately ninety-six percent of the 24,575 inmates in TDC system were male, and four percent were female. An ethnic breakdown showed that approximately forty-three percent of inmates were black, thirty-nine percent were white, and nineteen percent were of Mexican ancestry. Prior to the incarceration, almost twenty-seven percent resided in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, twenty-five percent in the Houston area, and seven percent in the San Antonio area. In general, a large majority of TDC's inmates were convicted in urban areas. The mean age of TDC inmates in 1978 was 29.58, with forty-one percent of the population twenty-five years old or younger. These figures represent slight overall increases from previous years in the age of 1 The names of the TDC units, and their reported population levels on June 1, 1978, were as follows: Central (794 males), Clemens (1,127 males), Coffield (4,031 males), Darrington (882 males), Diagnostic (841 males), Eastham (2,617 males), Ellis (2,291 males), Ferguson (1,987 males), Goree (649 females), Huntsville (2,150 males), Jester I and Jester II (870 males), Mountain View (382 females), Retrieve (786 males), Ramsey I and Ramsey II (2,759 males), Wynne (2,079 males). An eighteenth unit, the Beto Unit, is partially completed at present and houses a small contingent of construction worker inmates working toward its completion. It is designed to hold 4,000 double-celled inmates. TDC inmates. In 1978, more than sixty-one percent of the new admissions to the TDC system were first offenders. The average maximum sentence of all inmates was 23.54 years. According to TDC's classification of the offenses for which inmates have been sentenced, approximately twenty percent were incarcerated for "violent" crimes, sixty-five percent for "property" crimes, and fifteen percent for "other" offenses. The mean intelligence quotient (IQ) for TDC inmates in 1978 was 93.92. Scores of seventy or below were exhibited by 1,609 inmates, or 7.05% of the TDC population. Another 2,157 inmates, or 9.45% of the population, had IQ scores between 71 and 89. Expert witnesses agreed that approximately ten to fifteen percent of the inmates were mentally retarded. It was further estimated that five percent of the inmates were acutely mentally ill, and that as many as sixty-eight percent were mentally or emotionally disturbed. Thirty percent had histories of serious alcohol abuse, and records of drug abuse and dependency were shown for thirty percent. Fifteen percent of the inmate population were found to be illiterate. Eighty-five percent were school "drop-outs", eighty percent had less than a seventh grade education, and fifty percent less than a fifth grade education. Average reading ability for TDC inmates was at approximately a sixth grade level. C. Procedural History This civil action began in June 1972, when David Ruiz, an inmate of the Texas Department of Corrections, filed suit against the Director of TDC, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged violations of his constitutional rights. In the spring of 1974, the civil action instituted by Ruiz was consolidated with the suits of seven other TDC inmates2 into a single civil action, styled Ruiz v. Estelle, 550 F.2d 238. Counsel was appointed to represent the indigent plaintiffs in the litigation, and the United States was ordered to appear in the case as amicus curiae.