Opinion ID: 372936
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The filed document will certify whether:

Text: 1 Each inmate of the El Paso County Jail has been allowed one hour of supervised physical exercise or recreation on at least three days in the immediately preceding seven days and each inmate who has been confined longer than thirty days has been allowed access to sunlight for one hour in the immediately preceding seven (7) days 2 Each prisoner has (a) been provided with adequate reading material, (b) been afforded regular opportunities for legal, religious and personal counseling, (c) been provided free access, during daylight hours, to an area other than his bunk, (d) been given a choice among several vocational training courses if he has been a prisoner for more than sixty (60) days, and (e) been afforded an opportunity to attend religious services on a regularly scheduled basis 3 All inmates who are sick or injured from whatever cause are given a medical examination by a licensed physician immediately after the sickness or injury is reported, and that physician-prescribed medications are provided to inmates as ordered by the physician 4 Each inmate has received daily, well-balanced meals containing sufficient daily nutritional value to preserve health, and that such meals are served hot 5 (a) clean towels and toilet paper are always available to prisoners, (b) a clean blanket, clean mattress cover, mattresses and bunks are always available to each prisoner, (c) all toilets, urinals, showers, wash bowls and other plumbing facilities have been operative, without being out of order for more than 24 hours, (d) adequate hot and cold water is available, (e) supplies necessary for prisoners to maintain themselves in sanitary condition are always available, and (f) one toilet, one shower-bath and one combined lavatory and drinking fountain are provided for each twelve prisoners or fraction thereof confined in any area 6 (a) every area holding prisoners is visited each hour of the 24-hour day, (b) a communications system is in operation whereby any prisoner may call for help from a guard at any time and receive help within a few minutes, (c) each floor of the Jail has had at least one prisoner-guard available at all times 7 (a) those inmates under 18 years of age are always separated from others, (b) witnesses are always kept separate from others, (c) male inmates are separated from female inmates, (d) first offender inmates awaiting trial are always separated from all other classifications of convicted prisoners, and (e) inmates with communicable or contagious diseases are always separated from all others 8 (a) jail rules and regulations, as well as prisoners' rights with respect to violations, are effectively made known to all prisoners and (b) disciplinary procedures comply in all respects with Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974) The report shall state the high and low temperatures recorded during each 24-hour period in a designated representative area containing inmates on every floor on which inmates are kept. Such report shall be for each 24-hour period in the immediately preceding seven consecutive days. For each instance in which the subscribers of the report are unable to certify the implementation of the matters addressed by Paragraphs B(1) through B(8) above, the report shall state in which particulars the conditions at the jail have deviated, during the preceding seven (7) days, from the standards prescribed by this Court in Paragraphs B(1) through B(8). A copy of the weekly report shall be forwarded, immediately upon receipt by the United States District Clerk, to the Chairman of the Commission on Jail Standards. In compliance with the Opinion rendered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in this cause, the portion of this Court's Order of September 25, 1975 requiring the Commissioners Court of El Paso County, Texas to provide an outdoor area for exercise is amended to extend the compliance date to September 1, 1978. The Defendants herein have failed to comply with the Order of September 25, 1977 to provide a rehabilitative program of recreation; however, because of the involvement of the Defendants in appealing the original Judgment of this Court and in other planning, the time for providing a rehabilitative program of recreation is extended to September 1, 1978. Nothing contained in this Order shall diminish the responsibility of the County Judge of El Paso County, Texas, the County Commissioners of El Paso County, Texas, the Sheriff of El Paso County, Texas or the Jailers of El Paso County, Texas to comply with Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. Art. 5117. The rate charged by El Paso County for the housing of Federal prisoners shall not be increased without first obtaining the consent of this Court unless such increase, if any, is agreed upon by the Federal Bureau of Prisons of the Department of Justice. All costs heretofore adjudged against Defendants which have not been paid will be paid within ten (10) days from the date of this Order. A copy of this Order shall immediately be forwarded by the Clerk of the Court to the Chairman of the Commission on Jail Standards. 6 Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 5116, on which the defendants rely, provides in part that (e)ach sheriff is the keeper of the jail of his county. He shall safely keep therein all prisoners committed thereto by lawful authority . . . . 7 The defendants also argue that the order requires the members of the commissioners court to swear to weekly reports relating to matters over which they have no power or authority to have actual knowledge. The district court's January 6, 1978, modification of the order so as to require only that the defendants submit the reports on best information and belief effectively moots this argument 8 The district court in its order stated that nothing in the order was to diminish the responsibility of the defendants to comply with the requirement of Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 5117 that (s)heriffs and jailers shall receive into their jails such prisoners as may be delivered or tendered to them by any United States Marshal or his deputy for any district of Texas . . . . In addition, the court required the defendants to obtain prior approval from the court of any contested increase in the fee charged by the county for this service The defendants' argument is that, even assuming the validity of the rest of the court's order, this portion is invalid because at the time it was entered the United States was not a party to the litigation. 9 In Hutto v. Finney, the majority indicated that solitary confinement for a period in excess of thirty days is not necessarily cruel and unusual punishment, and noted that if the state had fully complied with the court's earlier orders, the present time limit might well have been unnecessary, but it concluded that taking the long and unhappy history of the litigation into account, the court was justified in entering a comprehensive order to insure against the risk of inadequate compliance. 437 U.S. at 687, 98 S.Ct. at 2572 (footnote omitted). In addition to finding that the order presented little danger of interference with prison administration, and that it was issued by a trial judge who had had long experience with the litigation, the majority noted that (t)he order is supported by the interdependence of the conditions producing the violation. It stated that (t)he 30-day limit will help to correct these conditions. Id. at 688, 98 S.Ct. at 2572 (footnote omitted). Cf. id. at 714, 98 S.Ct. 2565, 2572 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting) (accusing the majority of allowing the district court to assume a management role in the Arkansas prison system) In Miller, the court stated that (w)hen the totality of conditions in a penal institution violates the Constitution, the trial court's remedies are not limited to the redress of specific constitutional rights. 563 F.2d at 751. 10 Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 5115 requires, among other things, See Appendix # 2, that not less than thirty percent of a jail's total designated capacity be accommodated in single-prisoner cells. The El Paso County jail, which had an alleged designated capacity of 588 inmates but only 14 single cells, clearly failed to meet this requirement. It was apparently to bring the jail closer to compliance with Article 5115 that the district court ordered the 500-inmate limit. As the court remarked during a March 9, 1978, contempt proceeding: I think if we accept that the (defendants) will do nothing concerning the enlargement of the jail or the restructuring of the jail, that you will, in fact, continue to face a problem concerning how many people you can handle, Mr. Rodriguez. That was the reason for the Court's originally reducing the amount of 500 because you were so utterly and completely out of compliance with both the spirit and the fact of 5115 that there is no possible way exceeding 500 that you can begin to comply with the proper segregation. 11 It would seem especially inappropriate where the state has indicated And demonstrated a willingness to police itself. In Taylor v. Sterrett, 600 F.2d 1135, 1141-45 (5th Cir. 1979), we noted that in 1975 the state of Texas created a Commission on Jail Standards charged with supervising day-to-day administration and long-term planning in Texas county jails. We also noted that the Commission is authorized to close nonconforming facilities. Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 5115.1. We concluded that the establishment of the Commission indicated a strong state commitment to improve conditions in Texas county jails. 600 F.2d at 1145-46 (conclusion held to warrant return of Dallas County jails to state and local jurisdiction). The record in this case does not suggest that that conclusion was mistaken. As the district judge stated in a conference of counsel held approximately a week after the issuance of the order: If I had a sneaking suspicion or some firm evidence that they (the Commission on Jail Standards) weren't going to perform, then I would have no hesitance to find that a sham and a pretense and but I don't think that. 12 If the district court makes such a determination and documents the conclusion with appropriate findings, the court should take care to establish a sufficient evidentiary basis for any inmate population limit that it decides to order as a result. In addition, it should reevaluate its assessment of the importance of holding the defendants to their State statutory obligation to continue to accept federal prisoners. See note 8, Supra