Click Back Button to Return to Publication
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
INDIANA, INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
MARION COUNTY JAIL INMATES,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
SHERIFF FRANK ANDERSON,
Defendant.
IP 72-424-C-B/F
270 F. Supp. 2d 1034
July 10, 2003, Decided
ORDER FINDING DEFENDANT IN
CONTEMPT AND IMPOSING SANCTIONS AS WELL AS COERCIVE MEASURES TO SECURE FUTURE
COMPLIANCE
This matter
is again before the Court on Plaintiffs' Petition to Hold Defendant in
Contempt. Plaintiffs allege, in support of this motion, that Defendant Sheriff
Frank Anderson has not complied with this Court's prior orders directing that
each prisoner in the Marion County Jail be provided a bed or bunk above the
floor and that all prisoners be treated in a safe and humane manner. While
essentially conceding that he is in violation of this Court's prior orders,
Sheriff Anderson contends that contempt sanctions are inappropriate based on a
showing that he has attempted in good faith to comply with the Court's orders.
Numerous hearings have been conducted by the Court on the issue of contempt
(E.g., IP 72-424-C-B/F, Docket No. 166), the most recent occurring on July 8, 2003.
To prevail
on a motion for civil contempt, the movant must prove by "clear and
convincing evidence" that the non-movant violated a court order. Stotler
and Co. v. Able, 870 F.2d 1158, 1163 (7th Cir. 1989); see also Goluba v. School
Dist. of Ripon, 45 F.3d 1035, 1037 (7th Cir. 1995). The district court
"must be able to point to a decree from the court 'which sets forth in
specific detail an unequivocal command' which the party in contempt
violated." Stotler, 870 F.2d at 1163 (citations omitted). The district
court does not, however, "ordinarily have to find that the violation was
'willful'" and may find a party in civil contempt if that party "has
not been 'reasonably diligent and energetic in attempting to accomplish what
was ordered.'" Id. (citations omitted).
We do not
find the Sheriff's failures to be the result of willful behavior, the failures
described and elaborated upon in the filings and at the hearings represent the
cumulative results of derelictions of duty in every branch and at every level
of county, city, and state government. However, the fact remains that the
Sheriff is not in compliance with the substance of our prior [*1036] orders -
that every prisoner be afforded bed space above the floor and that all
prisoners be treated in a safe, human manner. Therefore, Defendant Sheriff
Frank Anderson, having failed to comply with this Court's prior orders, is
hereby held IN CONTEMPT, pursuant to which an appropriate sanction should issue.
A court passing on a civil contempt petition may impose
sanctions to redress harm that has been caused or to secure compliance with its
orders, but may not exact punitive damages. E.g. South Suburban Housing Center
v. Barry, 186 F.3d 851, 854 (7th Cir. 1999); In the matter of Maurice, 73 F.3d
124, 127, 128 (7th Cir. 1995); Connolly v. J.T. Ventures, 851 F.2d 930, 933
(7th Cir. 1988). In an action regarding prison conditions, any court-ordered
prospective relief to remedy an ongoing constitutional violation must be
narrowly drawn, represent the least intrusive means necessary to correct the
violation of the constitutional right, and extend no further than necessary to
correct such violation. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626. Our prior orders directing that
inmates be provided with bed space off the floor and safe, humane treatment
satisfied these statutory requirements. However, these statutory requirements
do not control the scope of remedies available to cure contempt stemming from a
party's failure to comply with a prior court order. Accordingly, the remedies
mentioned herein are designed both to remedy the contempt and to coerce
compliance with our prior orders.
Over the
course of recent weeks and months, while the Court has had Plaintiffs' motion
under advisement, significant progress has been achieved on all fronts and by
all involved in dealing with the jail conditions problem. Despite these
efforts, however, Defendant's remediations have fallen short and he remains out
of compliance with our prior orders. Indeed, as recently as July 2, 2003, one
corrections consultant noted that, after visiting more than 900 jails and
prisons in North American in his 31 years of experience, "the conditions
... in Marion County were among the worst" he has ever seen. See Joint
Stipulation, July 7, 2003, Exh. 7, Letter from Rod Miller. Moreover,
substantial time has elapsed between the original order directing the Sheriff
to satisfy constitutional standards with regard to certain conditions in the
jail and the very recent steps taken to achieve those conditions, which further
underscores the need for judicial action at this time to ensure continued progress. Some of the recent improvements
undertaken are not yet complete. Accordingly, this order imposes remedial
measures to cure the ongoing contempt, while recognizing the efforts underway
and allowing time for them to be completed before further, specific sanctions
will attach.
Therefore,
having adjudged Defendant in contempt of our prior orders in this matter in
these two respects - with regard to bed space above the floor and the safe,
humane treatment of prisoners, the Court now issues the following additional
orders to enforce compliance with constitutional requirements. Punitive
sanctions for Defendant's past contempt shall not be imposed at this time.
I. Bed space
The Court
previously ordered that the Sheriff must provide all inmates of the Marion
County Jail with bed space above the floor. This has not been accomplished.
Many inmates must sleep in plastic, molded pallets on the floor ("stack-a-bunks")
or on inferior and often filthy mattresses on the floor, some on picnic tables,
and some directly on the floor. The number of inmates housed in the jail
frequently far exceeds the number of beds above the floor. Having adjudged that
the Sheriff is in contempt of this order, the Court now [*1037]directs that the
Sheriff take the following remedial steps:
A) The
Sheriff must contract for and utilize all available bed space in Marion County
Jail II to house prisoners, which means that the emergency funding recently
allocated to acquire bed space in Jail II must be made permanent and continue
so long as the number of prisoners exceeds the number of available beds in Jail
I. It is our understanding that a fiscal ordinance to accomplish such funding
is scheduled for final consideration by the City County Council on July 21,
2003, and is expected to pass.
B) Failure
to provide the necessary funding through the legislative appropriations process
to acquire access to the Jail II space shall result in the imposition of a fine
at the rate of $40 per day per unfilled bed, n1 which payments shall be made
into an account established by the Court that will be used to purchase the
space, until all available beds at Jail I and Jail II are utilized.
C) Space existing in the Marion County Lock-up n2 that is not required for housing of prisoners on a short-term basis, as referenced in the Court's prior orders dealing with population limits in the Lock-up, and is therefore available for longer-term use, shall within 30 days be adapted and utilized for that purpose at a rate that complies with the Jail Inspector's standards and permissible utilization limits (i.e. in Section C5B of the Lock-up space, jail standards permit bed occupancy of 24). To the extent that utilization of this space is contingent upon there being sufficient staffing to oversee the reconfigured Lock-up area, the Sheriff must deploy the required staff to ensure the safety of the inmates housed in that area.
To the
extent that the Sheriff is impeded in his ability to provide necessary staffing
levels because of funding shortfalls from County reserves, a fine shall be
levied in the amount of $40 per day for each bed in the Lock-up that goes
unfilled (consistent with the Jail Inspector's figure regarding the Lock-up's
bed space capacity), which sums shall go into the separate account established
by the Court from which the cost of providing the necessary staffing will be
paid. The Jail Inspector's bed/space estimates, based on overall square
footage, will control the total amount of this monetary sanction.
In no event should the
Court's prior orders regarding Lock-up occupancy limits be violated in order to
comply with this Order.
D)
Sentenced inmates housed in the Jail who have been designated for incarceration
in a Department of Corrections ("DOC") facility must be transferred
forthwith from the Marion County Jail forthwith to their DOC designated
facility and, in any event, may not remain at the Marion County Jail for more
than five business days after being sentenced.
E) Inmates in the care,
custody, and control of the DOC who must be returned to the Marion County Jail
for additional court appearances shall not be lodged within the Jail facilities
overnight, requiring [*1038] them to utilize a bed, unless the Jail is in
compliance with this Order and can accommodate all the prisoners at that time
by providing beds for everyone.
F) By
September 1, 2003, the following systemic improvements and innovations
(hereinafter collectively referred to as "September 1 improvements")
are expected to be in place and
operational, yielding synergistic, positive results in terms of reducing the
Marion County Jail overall occupancy numbers:
1) expansion of home detention/work release programs as pretrial
alternatives to incarceration;
2) acceleration of the timetable for preparation of presentence
reports;
3) a system to transfer and coordinate criminal cases within divisions
of the Marion Superior Court to allow for consolidated processing of multiple
prosecutions involving an individual defendant; and
4) formation of the Criminal Justice Council ("CJC") to
provide governmental oversight and coordination and policymaking on issues
relating to jail overcrowding and jail conditions.
F) The newly formed CJC is strongly encouraged to undertake
immediately a study of any and all additional jail space options, with due
regard to their corresponding costs, so that an inventory of available overflow
space is in place should demand for Marion County jail space exceed that which
is available in Jails I and II on a sustained basis. This study should include
consideration of the availability of other county jails, neighboring states'
jails, leased space available from the DOC, and other makeshift space that can
be quickly accessed to house prisoners on a temporary, emergency basis.
G) The newly formed CJC is strongly encouraged to develop a
computer tracking system for all jail inmates in order to permit precise data
on the number and identity of each and their whereabouts in the system.
H) Following the full implementation of the September 1
improvements, the Sheriff shall undertake promptly a full review and revision
as appropriate of the classification system for all inmates in the Marion
County Jails I and II.
I) From the date of this Order until October 1, 2003, the
permissible population limit in Jail I, based on the availability of beds above
the floor, is 1,310. When that number is reached, no further inmates may be
placed in that facility.
J) After September 1, 2003, on any occasion when the
bed-occupancy rate in the Marion County Jail reaches 1,134 inmates, the Sheriff
must notify the presiding judge of the Marion Superior Court and the chair of
the CJC that a jail emergency exists and request that the judge undertake
immediately all appropriate steps to mobilize and infuse judicial, prosecutive,
and public defender resources to consider the immediate release eligibility on
bail or under other court supervision of inmates currently detained in the
Marion County Jail, toward the end of averting a situation when the number of
permanent beds occupied by inmates exceeds 1,310. When population levels come
within 175 of the final permissible limit, that constitutes a "jail
emergency" as used in this context.
The Presiding Judge of the Marion Superior Court, in conjunction
with the CJC, is strongly encouraged to devise a plan for dealing with said
jail emergencies at the earliest possible time so that it is in place and in
ready status as of September 1, 2003.
K) Between September 1, 2003, and April 1, 2004, based on the
increased efficiencies and innovations referenced in Section E above, particularly
with the Arrestee Processing Center, which will have [*1039] available to it
and will utilize judicial services on a 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week basis, the
number of inmates housed in the Marion County Jail must be incrementally
reduced from 1,310 to 1,135 at a rate not to exceed the following monthly
population limitations:
September 1, 2003 1,310
October 1, 2003 1,285
November 1, 2003 1,260
December 1, 2003 1,235
January 1, 2004 1,210
February 1, 2004 1,185
March 1, 2004 1,160
April 1, 2004 1,135
Any violations of these
incremental reductions will result in fines being assessed at the rate of $40 per
day per inmate for each inmate over the prescribed bed capacity. In complying
with this count, the bed provided for each inmate must be above the floor.
Thus, the use of "stack-a-bunks" will not suffice as substitutes. The
monies paid as fines will be deposited in the separate Court-maintained fund.
See P L infra.
The CJC and the Presiding Judge of the Marion Superior Court are
strongly encouraged to devise a monitoring plan to provide the appropriate
alerts when these incremental population limits are threatened to be exceeded
so that immediate diversionary steps can be taken to avert violations. This
will be especially critical in anticipating and dealing with the influxes of
detentions that occur on weekends and holidays, according to historical data.
L) All the
above-referenced fines shall be computed on a daily basis, and the total
amounts shall be deposited weekly in a separate fund, administered and
maintained by this Court and overseen by a Special Master, from which
allocations shall be made for uses relating to compliance with the Court's
prior orders, e.g., to pay the costs of additional bed space, if any can be
found to house Marion County inmates; to underwrite the expense of additional
jail staffing; to increase or expand the use of home-detention in lieu of
incarceration; and to provide improvements in inmate welfare. This list is
intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive. Expenditures shall be made upon
application to or at the discretion of the Special Master, with approval by the
Court.
M) The Special Master, charged with overseeing the fund
established by the fines described above, shall be appointed by separate order
of the Court, and the fees incurred in hiring a special master shall be borne
either by the Fund or by the Sheriff.
II. Safe and humane
treatment
The Court
also previously ordered that the Sheriff must assure that all inmates of the Marion County Jail are
treated in a safe and humane manner. This has not been accomplished. The record
is replete with examples of unhealthy, unsanitary, dangerous, offensive
conditions, which we will not further elaborate on here. Having adjudged the
Sheriff in contempt of this order, the Court now imposes sanctions in the form
of the following remedial steps:
A) Within
30 days of the entry of this Order, the Sheriff shall obtain from the Marion
County Building Authority and provide to the Court a breakdown of expenditures
made by the Building Authority to repair and maintain the Jail from the $1
million annual rent payments from the Marion County Sheriff. The report should
reflect expenditures over the past eighteen months, and include a detailed
explanation of the specific investments made at the jail to make it a safe and
humane environment. The Court seeks in this fashion to ensure that the rents
paid by the Sheriff are devoted to the upkeep of the jail facility and are not
being diverted to other governmental uses. In addition, the Sheriff is directed
to determine, with the assistance [*1040] of the Building Authority, the order
of priorities for addressing maintenance and repair requests by the Marion
County Jail, toward ensuring that the needs of prisoner health, safety, and
sanitation receive the highest priority in the expenditure of those monies.
B) Within 30 days of this Order, the Sheriff shall report to the
Court on the comparative per capita costs of housing inmates at Marion County
Jails I and II, toward the end of ensuring that there does not exist a
two-tiered system.
C) Medical care
1. The plan of the Operational Review Committee, composed of,
among others, representatives of Correctional Medical Services, Inc., Wishard
Health Services ("Wishard"), Midtown Community Mental Health Center,
Wishard detention, and the Marion County Jail, who will meet biweekly to
conduct continuous review and improvement operations at the jail is hereby
approved. See Joint Stipulation, July 7, 2003, Exh. 8. The formation of this
consortium is deemed a very positive step, and this group is encouraged to
continue to convene for the purposes of making further recommendations as
needed and implementing the agreed-upon changes. Special and prompt attention
hopefully will be given to the need to improve pharmacy services for inmates
requiring ongoing medications.
2. The parties stipulate that the recent improvements to medical
care and the plans for further improvements comply with this Court's prior
orders. Their stipulation is approved.
3. The Court recommends that the Marion Superior Court
Administrator, Mr. Renner, or any other appropriate representative overseeing
the new Arrestee Processing Center, consider ways in which appropriate medical
screenings can be included as part of the initial processing.
4. In view of the fact that the Jail medical office currently is
being staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, the Court encourages the
Operational Review Committee referenced above to develop a protocol that would
permit patients to be personally seen on a 24-hour basis as medical needs
arise. That is, because staffing is available, the clinic would operate around
the clock rather than only during the daytime hours. This would replace the
paper triage system currently in place for after-hours care. In addition, the
Committee is encouraged to address the need for protocols relating to the care
of inmates with long-term, chronic
injuries or illnesses, more specifically, the need to set standards for
determining suitability for transfer to the Wishard Hospital detention unit for
extended care rather than attempting to provide intensive medical
treatment/oversight in the Marion County Jail.
D) Food
1. The Court notes with approval the recent replacement of
contaminated food trays and the planned installation of a new food service line
by July 18, 2003; these represent significant improvements to the food service
conditions at the jail.
2. The current 70-cent-per inmate-per meal allotment implemented
by the Sheriff pursuant to directives from the State Board of Accounts is
constitutionally inadequate in that it deprives inmates of their entitlement to
safe and humane treatment with regard to daily nutrition. Indiana Code §
36-8-10-7 provides that the daily meal
allowance per inmate in all Indiana jails shall not exceed $2. The State Board
of Accounts exempts Marion County from its statewide prisoner meal allotment
schedule. Thus, by statute and by regulation (Indiana Code § 36-8-10-7),
Sheriff Anderson is authorized to spend up to the $2 maximum per inmate per
meal. Therefore, the Sheriff is ordered
to upgrade the [*1041] per inmate-per meal allotment to provide a safe and
humane level of daily nutrition to all Marion County jail inmates by amending
its contractual arrangements with its food services vendor(s).
3. The Sheriff, in consultation with a certified nutritionist
who oversees menus at the jail, shall upgrade the quality of the fare served to
prisoners in terms of quantity (as appropriate) and nutritional content. The
sample menu that was tendered as an exhibit at the July 8, 2003 hearing appears
to reflect a healthy and diverse array of food; in any event, we rely on the
judgment of the certified nutritionist. The Court's concern, therefore, is
primarily with those times when exceptions must be made to the approved menu;
substitutes to the certified menu fare, when required, should be of comparable
quality and quantity with due regard to the nutritional and caloric needs of
the individual inmates.
4. Given the inadequacy of the space allocated for the kitchen
and food preparation areas of the jail, the kitchen facilities must be shut
down for 12 hours every two weeks to allow for thorough and complete cleaning.
During these 12-hour hiatuses, the Sheriff must contract with an outside vendor
to prepare food off site that satisfies the standards of the certified
nutritionist.
5. At the earliest feasible time, the Sheriff shall engage
consultants to determine the feasibility of preparing all food for the
prisoners off site and using the Jail's limited kitchen space only for purposes
of distributing food, rather than its preparation for the general jail
population. The Sheriff shall submit a report on the feasibility of this plan,
and his proposed response, by December 31, 2003.
6. Regardless of whether off-site food preparation can be
instituted, the Sheriff shall, with the proper support from consultants,
prepare a plan for the complete overhaul of the jail kitchen facilities, which
includes acquiring new equipment and imposing other efficiencies on the area.
This plan with the Sheriff's recommendations shall be submitted to the Court by
December 31, 2003.
E) Recreation
1. The parties have stipulated that recreation is now available
to all those inmates who seek it. The Court approves this stipulation.
2. The Sheriff shall nonetheless create a plan to expand the
kinds of recreational options available to inmates and a schedule that would
allow for expanded hours of participation. This plan should address the
problems that deter participation by many inmates, i.e., the loss of property
or other adverse consequences when they leave their cells or cellblocks for
these periods of time. This plan shall be submitted to the Court by December
31, 2003.
3. Inmates serving extended periods of incarceration should be
permitted incrementally more time for recreation, as compared to those held for
only short periods of time.
F) Cleanliness
1. To ensure safe and humane conditions through proper hygiene,
the Sheriff is directed to devise daily/weekly schedules to ensure regular
cleaning and maintenance of all inmate residential areas (cellblocks, Lock-up,
dorms, etc.). To facilitate the process, to the greatest extent possible, all
inmates in a particular area should be removed periodically from that particular
area to permit thorough cleaning to occur. Consideration should be given to
engaging non-correctional officers and civilian employees (as was done in the
staffing of the commissary) to oversee and conduct the cleaning; these cleaning
tasks may nonetheless be performed by a subset of inmates.
[*1042] 2. Correctional Medical Services, Inc. should be
consulted for standards for screening those individuals who will be required to
participate in cleaning activities, similar to the methods of screening kitchen
workers, to ensure against employing persons suffering with allergies, physical
incapacities, etc.
G) Department of Justice reports
1. The Sheriff has informed the Court of two Department of
Justice studies - one on jail staffing and one on the Marion County criminal
justice system - currently underway and scheduled to be completed in the coming
weeks. Within one week of the receipt of those studies, the Sheriff shall file
the reports with the Court. Within one week of filing the reports with the
Court, the Sheriff shall file his reactions/responses to the reports, stating
his proposed course of action, in light of their findings.
H) No-contact visits
1. In order to relieve the serious staffing shortages at the
Jail, effective the date of this Order, the previous order of this Court
directing the adoption of a Marion County Jail contact visitation policy is
rescinded. Steps should be undertaken immediately to provide a fair and
adequate non-contact visitation arrangement, with full implementation occurring
within 30 days.
2. In addition, effective the date of this Order, the Sheriff
shall undertake to install a new system
of video surveillance, both inside and outside the jail, and a new system of
audio technology to permit electronic communications between prisoners in the
cellblocks and Jail staff and guards.
I) Miscellaneous
1. The Court hereby requests that the County Auditor provide
assurance that the monies paid into the general fund by the United States
Marshals Service for the housing of federal prisoners are allocated in their
entirety to the Sheriff's budget for the benefit of inmates.
2. The payments by the United States Marshals Service shall not
result in offsetting deductions in the Sheriff's budget which would have the
effect of negating the allocation of these funds.
III. Summary
Summarized below are the operative dates and corresponding
obligations created by this Order:
July 21, 2003 Anticipated final vote by City County Council on fiscal
ordinance for Jail II space funding
August 11, 2003 Modification of Lock-up completed, pursuant to Jail
Inspector's limitations; Building Authority
report
submitted to the Court; Sheriff's report on per
capita
expenditures for inmates in Marion County Jail I
and II;
implementation of non-contact visitation system
September 1, 2003 Arrestee Processing Center
online; expanded home
detention/work release program; changes to
presentence report procedures; fully implemented
system to transfer and coordinate criminal cases
within
divisions involving a single defendant; and
active
participation of the CJC
October 1, 2003 Jail bed capacity reduced to 1,285
November 1, 2003 Jail bed capacity reduced to 1,260
December 1, 2003 Jail bed capacity reduced to 1,235
December 31, 2003 Filing of Sheriff's
feasibility report/plan for off-site
food preparation; a plan for kitchen overhaul;
and a study
of/proposal for expanded recreational
opportunities
January 1, 2004 Jail bed capacity reduced to 1,210
February 1, 2004 Jail bed capacity reduced to 1,185
March 1, 2004 Jail bed capacity reduced to 1,160
April 1, 2004 Jail bed capacity reduced to 1,135
[*1043] B)
This Order and these requirements shall remain in effect until further order of
the Court. Defendant Sheriff Frank Anderson is hereby ordered to distribute
copies of this Order to all appropriate officials within the Sheriff's Department,
to the judges serving as members of the Executive Committee of the Marion
Superior Court for further distribution to all judges of the Marion Superior
Court, to the Marion County Prosecutor, to the Marion County Public Defender,
to the members of the CJC, to the Marion County Auditor, to the members of the
Operational Review Committee, and to the members of the City County Council.
It is so ORDERED this 10 day of July, 2003.
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
FOOTNOTES:
n1
According to Jail Inspector Paul Downing, the cost of housing one inmate in the
Marion County Jail II is $39.13 per day.
n2 In
reference to the Court's prior order regarding weekly population reports at the
Lock-up, hereafter the Sheriff is relieved of the duty to file with the Court
the detailed backup documentation, that is, the lists of prisoner names and
length of time each spent in the Lock-up. The population summaries of the
Lock-up and the jail population data reflecting overall capacity will suffice
for the Court's purposes. However, the Sheriff shall continue to prepare and
retain in his departmental files the detailed supporting documentation so that
the information is available for review by the Court or the parties at any
time.