Opinion ID: 404985
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: appointment of special master

Text: 147 The district court's order of reference 232 appoints a special master and provides for the appointment of several monitors to help the special master. It imposes on the special master the responsibility of seeing that the district court's decree is implemented, and empowers him to hold hearings, find facts, and make recommendations to the district court concerning TDC's compliance with the decree. As authority for the appointment the district court invoked both Fed.R.Civ.P. 53 233 and its inherent power as a court of equity. 148 TDC contends that the appointment of a special master was improper because the district court failed to comply with rule 53, which, according to TDC, codifies and limits a court's authority to appoint a special master. 234 Rule 53(b) states that a district court may appoint a special master only upon a showing that some exceptional condition requires the appointment. 235 149 The district court stated several reasons for its decision to make the appointment: the difficulty of superintending the implementation of a comprehensive, detailed plan for the elimination of the unconstitutional conditions found to exist in the Texas prison system; TDC's record of intransigence toward previous court orders requiring changes in TDC's practices and conditions; 236 the strained working relations between TDC's lawyers and the plaintiffs' lawyers; TDC's failure to acknowledge even completely evident constitutional violations; and TDC's failure to conform its actual practices to its written policies and procedures. 237 The district court did not, as TDC implies, simply rely on the mere complexity of the case. 238 Moreover, the court was not required to await the failure or refusal of TDC to comply with the decree before appointing an agent to implement it. Noncompliance may constitute one exceptional condition under rule 53, 239 but it is not exclusive. 150 Furthermore, rule 53 does not terminate or modify the district court's inherent equitable power to appoint a person, whatever be his title, to assist it in administering a remedy. 240 The power of a federal court to appoint an agent to supervise the implementation of its decrees has long been established. 241 Such court-appointed agents have been identified by a confusing plethora of titles: 'receiver,' 'Master,' 'Special Master,' 'master hearing officer,' 'monitor,' 'human rights committee,' 'Ombudsman,'  and others. 242 The function is clear, whatever the title. 151 The district court's opinion stated the reasons for the appointment of the special master and his monitors. 243 As it noted, we have previously approved the appointment of such agents to oversee compliance with continuing court orders. 244 Insofar as the special master is to report on TDC's compliance with the district court's decree and to help implement the decree, he assumes one of the plaintiffs' traditional roles, except that, because he is the court's agent, he can and should perform his duties objectively. 245 152 In its order of reference, the district court describes the special master's duties as entailing enormous responsibilities. The decree affects twenty-two TDC units, with a staff of more than 3,000 and housing more than 33,000 inmates. 246 The scope and complexity of the decree and the importance as well as the difficulty of ensuring compliance gave the court adequate reason to invoke its implied authority as a court of equity. Therefore we affirm the district court's decision to appoint the special master and his monitors to observe and report on TDC's compliance. 153 The special master is also given powers that are quasijudicial. He is permitted to hold hearings and is directed to find facts concerning the defendants' compliance with the provisions of the Court's Orders and the need, if any, for supplemental remedial action. The order also establishes rules of procedure: the monitors are to make reports of factual observations and to submit them to the special master and the parties. If any party objects, the special master is to hold a hearing, then make his report to the district court. No objection may be filed to the special master's report that could have been filed to the monitor's report preceding it. The special master's findings of fact are to be accepted by the court unless clearly erroneous. In addition, the special master may hold hearings sua sponte without a preliminary monitor's report; and in such instances factual findings in his reports are to be credited unless clearly erroneous. He may, moreover, submit reports based on his own observations and investigations without conducting a hearing. The order of reference does not distinguish between the credit to be given such reports and those submitted after hearings and accompanied by an evidentiary record. 154 To fulfill his responsibilities, the special master is given sweeping powers, including unlimited access to TDC premises and records as well as the power to conduct confidential interviews with TDC staff members and inmates, and to require written reports from any TDC staff member. These powers are unconfined save by the following instructions: he is not to intervene in the administrative management of either TDC or any of its units and he is not to direct the defendants or any of their subordinates to take or to refrain from taking any specific action to achieve compliance. 155 The order of reference does not make clear that, in conducting investigations and hearings, the special master and the monitors are not to consider matters that go beyond superintending compliance with the district court's decree. Such an express constraint is appropriate because of the danger that the special master or the monitors may entertain inmate complaints that convert the remedial process into a surrogate forum for new § 1983 actions. In the interests both of prison administration and sound judicial procedure, it should be made clear to the plaintiffs, the special master, the monitors, and the TDC staff that the special master is not an inmate advocate or a roving federal district court. As we have pointed out before, 247 the powers of the court's appointed agents should not intrude to an unnecessary extent on prison administration. 156 In one respect, the order of reference is too sweeping. It permits the special master to submit to the district court reports based upon his own observations and investigations in the absence of a formal hearing before him. 248 This not only transcends the powers traditionally given masters by courts of equity, but denies the parties due process. 249 157 Accordingly, the order of reference shall be amended as follows: (1) it should be made clear that the special master and the monitors do not have the authority to hear matters that should appropriately be the subject of separate judicial proceedings, such as actions under § 1983, and that their duties are restricted to those set forth in the order of reference; and (2) unless based on hearings conducted on the record after proper notice, the reports, findings, and conclusions of the special master are not to be accorded any presumption of correctness and the clearly erroneous rule will not apply to them. 158 Finally, the reduction in the scope of the district court's decree directed by this opinion should occasion further inquiry by the district court to determine whether or not there is a continuing need for a staff of six monitors to assist the special master.