Opinion ID: 447604
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The April 1983 Proceedings

Text: 3 At the time of the October 11, 1978 judgment the inmate population of the jail had not been found to be a factor contributing to the constitutional violations identified by the court. Indeed in 1975 the average daily inmate population was only 429, and the court found that [o]vercrowding of the institution is not a problem. Owens-El, 442 F.Supp. at 1376. By April of 1983, however, conditions in the jail had been radically altered by an increase in the average daily inmate population to 690. The class representatives brought the deteriorating conditions to the district court's attention by moving to hold the defendants in contempt for failing to comply with the October 11, 1978 and April 17, 1980 orders, and for additional relief. The court held a six-day hearing on these motions, and found ongoing violations of both the October 11, 1978 and April 17, 1980 orders. Despite the seriousness of many of the violations, the court held that the conduct of the defendants did not rise to the level of contempt. The defendants moved to dismiss the motion for additional relief. The trial court denied this motion, holding that the class representatives had made an adequate showing of the need for such relief. The court credited the testimony of defendant William B. Robinson, a prior warden and currently Executive Director of the Allegheny County Prison Board, that the maximum number of inmates should be 475-500 males in the main unit, 63 males in the receiving unit, and 38 in the female section. On May 5, 1983 when the court toured the jail, the inmate population was 705. Robinson forecasted that if present arrest and sentencing trends continued the average daily population would eventually rise to 940. Summarizing its detailed findings of fact, the trial court observed: 4 The jail is now dangerously overcroweded. Fires and prisoner unrest are an ever-present danger in any penal setting. Here they could result in disaster. The Allegheny County Jail is a catastrophe waiting to happen. 565 F.Supp. 1278, 1281. 5 App. 57a (emphasis in original). Not finding the overcrowding to be for the express purpose of inflicting punishment, the court nevertheless held it to be a constitutional violation because the sole justification advanced for the crowded conditions was Allegheny County's disinclination, for economic reasons, to spend the funds necessary to provide additional facilities. As a result, the trial court continued, the jail remains with us--old, dilapidated and unconstitutionally overcrowded. App. 98a. Moreover, the court observed, this condition impedes the implementation of the 1978 and 1980 orders. Therefore, an order to reduce the overcrowding not only is within our power to correct the constitutional violations, but also falls within our remedial powers to modify and enforce our previous orders. App. 99a. Accordingly on May 25, 1983 the court ordered: 6 [T]he population of the Allegheny County Jail [shall] be reduced as follows: 7 a. After July 1, 1983, there shall be no more than 650 male and 60 female inmates housed in the Jail. 8 b. After August 15, 1983, there shall be no more than 600 male and 50 female inmates housed in the Jail. 9 c. After October 1, 1983, there shall be no more than 550 male and 40 female inmates housed in the Jail. 10 d. After January 1, 1984, there shall be no more than 500 male and 30 female inmates housed in the Jail. 11 App. 104a. No appeal was taken from the May 25, 1983 order.