|
View Case
|
|
Cited Cases
|
|
Citing Cases
|
|
Comment (0)
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WESTEFER v. SNYDER
725 F.Supp.2d 735 (2010)
United States District Court, S.D. Illinois.
July 20, 2010.
A. Yes. Doc. 522 (Randle Testimony) at 11-12. Also, all inmates assigned to Tamms in administrative detention will continue to receive quarterly review of their files concerning the propriety of continued placement at Tamms, as well as annual transfer review hearings concerning the propriety of continued placement at Tamms.5 Plainly, Point One of IDOC Director Randle's Ten-Point Plan affords IDOC inmates significantly more process with respect to placement at Tamms than hitherto has been the case. Unfortunately, the Court finds that the process afforded under Point One of the Plan is insufficient in two respects: first, the Plan makes no provision for inmates placed at Tamms to be informed in writing of the reason for their placement at the supermax prison in advance of their transfer review hearing; and second, the Plan is prospective only and does not provide for inmates already transferred to Tamms in disciplinary segregation who currently are confined in the supermax prison serving segregation sentences to receive a transfer review hearing. As the Court already has acknowledged, due process, especially in the context of prison administration, is to be construed flexibly, and this is particularly true where, as here, determinations about supermax placement implicate the correctional expertise of prison administrators
and compelling state interests in prison security and the prudent allocation of limited state resources. See Wilkinson, 545 U.S. at 224, 227-28, 125 S.Ct. 2384. That said, it is completely beyond the Court's ken how inmates seeking to contest placement at Tamms at their transfer review hearing can be expected to mount an effective challenge to their supermax placement without timely, written notice in advance of their transfer review hearing of the reason they have been placed at Tamms. As the Wilkinson Court observed, "For more than a century the central meaning of procedural due process has been clear: Parties whose rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard; and in order that they may enjoy that right they must first be notified[.]" 545 U.S. at 226, 125 S.Ct. 2384 (quoting Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 80, 92 S.Ct. 1983, 32 L.Ed.2d 556 (1972)) (internal citation omitted). Equally importantly, in Wilkinson the Court found that it did not unduly burden state interests in prison security and allocation of resources to provide inmates under consideration for placement at the OSP with written notice summarizing the conduct or offense that triggered such consideration at least forty-eight hours before a hearing on placement at the OSP. Id. at 216, 225-26, 125 S.Ct. 2384. In this connection, the Court notes that under the Ten-Point Plan, as part of the orientation process for inmates assigned to Tamms in administrative detention status, administrative detention inmates are advised within a few days of their arrival at the prison of the reason for their placement at Tamms and informed about the transfer review hearing process, and a transfer review hearing for such inmates is scheduled at that time. See Ten-Point Plan (Plaintiffs' Exhibit 7) at 16. The Court sees no reason why the IDOC should not provide to all inmates placed at Tamms notice of the reason for their placement in advance of their transfer review hearing, and in fact the Court believes that such notice is constitutionally compelled. With respect to transfer review hearings for current segregation inmates of Tamms, as noted Point One of IDOC Director Randle's Ten-Point Plan authorizes such hearings only for IDOC inmates placed at Tamms after the Plan is implemented. However, this ignores the fact that there are inmates of Tamms who were transferred there in segregation who have never received a transfer review hearing and who will not be eligible for such a hearing until they have completed their (sometimes lengthy) segregation sentences. The Court already has noted the case of Gene Arnett, who was transferred to Tamms in disciplinary segregation and who has spent the past eleven years in segregation at Tamms without receiving a transfer review hearing; even under Point One of the Ten-Point Plan, Arnett will not receive a transfer review hearing until he has completed the remaining seventeen years of his segregation sentence. See Doc. 433 (Arnett Testimony) at 74-75. It appears that, concomitant to the Plan, the IDOC is reviewing the files of long-term inmates of Tamms to evaluate the propriety of continued supermax confinement for those inmates. According to IDOC Director Randle, the files of 133 inmates placed at Tamms between 1998 and 2004 have been reviewed, and forty-eight of the inmates have been approved for transfer out of Tamms. See Ten-Point Plan (Plaintiffs' Exhibit 7) at 26; Doc. 522 (Randle Testimony) at 20. Inasmuch as it appears that the IDOC has been able to conduct reviews of the jackets of more than half of the inmate population of Tamms in the space of approximately three months (the time, according to IDOC Director Randle, that it took to prepare the Ten-Point Plan
for submission to Governor Quinn, see Doc. 522 (Randle Testimony) at 8), the Court does not believe it would be unduly onerous for IDOC personnel to conduct transfer review hearings as to current segregation inmates of Tamms like Gene Arnett who otherwise are not afforded such a hearing even under the Ten-Point Plan. As a final matter, the Court will address a couple of items of injunctive relief requested by Plaintiffs and the class, namely, that: IDOC inmates cannot be transferred to Tamms for prison gang activity that occurred before 1996; and IDOC inmates may not be transferred to Tamms in disciplinary segregation more than a year after the conduct giving rise to the segregation placement occurred. The Court finds no merit in either of these requests for injunctive relief. As to whether IDOC inmates involved in gang activity before 1996 should be transferred to Tamms, it appears that before 1996 the IDOC tolerated prison gangs, as a matter of necessity; after 1996, with Tamms soon to be opened, IDOC policies toward prison gangs became harsher. As the Wilkinson Court noted, in evaluating due process in the context of prison administration, prison security is a paramount state concern. The fact that the IDOC may have tolerated gang activity does not mean that the agency encouraged it, and doubtless the IDOC tolerated gangs only because, before Tamms opened, tolerance of gangs was the best available means of preventing gang violence and ensuring prison security. As to whether IDOC inmates may be transferred to Tamms more than a year after a disciplinary infraction resulting in a segregation placement, the Court sees no reason to impose such a limitation on prison administrators, given that under the Ten-Point Plan and this Order all inmates transferred to Tamms in disciplinary segregation will receive a transfer review hearing shortly after their arrival at Tamms. It is worth noting here the special restrictions on the remedial power of a court that apply in the correctional context, particularly where, as here, a federal court is being asked to exercise such power with respect to the operations of state prisons. As Sandin teaches, federal courts are constrained to avoid taking measures that lead to "involvement ... in the day-to-day management of prisons, often squandering judicial resources with little offsetting benefit to anyone," and to "afford appropriate deference and flexibility to state officials trying to manage a volatile environment." 515 U.S. at 482, 115 S.Ct. 2293. "Such flexibility is especially warranted in the fine-tuning of the ordinary incidents of prison life, a common subject of prisoner claims[.]" Id. at 483, 115 S.Ct. 2293. See also Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 379, 96 S.Ct. 598, 46 L.Ed.2d 561 (1976) (noting that where a plaintiff requests an award of remedial relief that would require a federal court to interfere with the administration of a state prison, "appropriate consideration must be given to principles of federalism in determining the availability and scope of [such] relief."). Similarly, the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLRA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e et seq., imposes limitations of its own on the remedial relief that can be awarded by the Court in the correctional context:
1. The Court notes that there is also a minimum security prison at Tamms; all references to Tamms in this Order are to the supermax prison there.
2. This perhaps is the place to note that this Order is intended to be a concise account of the bench trial conducted on the procedural due process claims in this case, and to that end only matters deemed by the Court to be credible, material, and relevant will be reported. The reader should presume that evidence omitted from the Court's findings of fact was considered by the Court to be irrelevant or in any event less persuasive than competing evidence. The Court notes in passing that, in addition to alleging violations of procedural due process, Plaintiffs Von Perbandt, Taylor, Sparling, Sorrentino, Santiago, V. Rodriguez, E. Rodriguez, Lasley, Knox, Horton, Harper, Felton, Combs, Clayton, Chapman, Burrell, Bivens, and Cunningham also assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that they were assigned by Defendants to the supermax prison at Tamms in retaliation for filing grievances and lawsuits and engaging in other protected activities challenging the conditions of their confinement, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. These retaliation claims have been resolved in a series of jury trials, and they are not at issue here.
3. In fact, statistical data assembled by the IDOC shows that the average time served for the current population at Tamms is 73.4 months, or over six years. See Ten-Point Plan (Plaintiffs' Exhibit 7) at 6. Seventy of the 243 inmates (28.3%) have been at Tamms for at least ten years, and more than half have been at Tamms for over five years. See id. at 8. Over three-quarters (76.9%) or 190 of the inmates at Tamms have been there for over three years. See id., Table 4.
4. The Court recognizes that it is assuming here that, were work, education, and substance abuse programs available at Tamms, inmates of the supermax prison would participate in such programs. This assumption seems reasonable to the Court. Participation in such programs doubtless would be a happy alternative to the crushing monotony of being confined alone in a cell for up to twenty-four hours a day that currently is the lot of Tamms inmates. Also, it seems probable that Tamms inmates would welcome the opportunity to earn money by participating in work programs, in order to purchase small items like walkmans or arch supports that make life in a place like Tamms somewhat more bearable. See Doc. 433 (Testimony of Adolfo Rosario) at 50-51 (the witness, a Tamms inmate, complained that the shoes issued to him by Tamms correctional personnel lack arch supports, but he cannot purchase shoe inserts at the prison commissary because he is indigent and has no money to spend at the commissary).
5. Finally, although strictly speaking Point Two of IDOC Director Randle's Plan is not concerned with the issue of whether or not an inmate should be placed at Tamms, it is worth noting that Point Two protects inmates from spending an unnecessary amount of time in the supermax prison. Under the Plan, as already has been noted, upon arrival at Tamms new inmates of the supermax prison will be advised at orientation of the probable length of their stay at the prison, expressed as a range of possible terms of supermax confinement; further, inmates will work with counselors to ensure that they achieve the behavioral levels necessary to be transferred out of Tamms in the least possible time. See Ten-Point Plan (Plaintiffs' Exhibit 7) at 16; Doc. 522 (Randle Testimony) at 13-14.
|
|
|
|
|