Opinion ID: 349561
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Appointment of an Ombudsman.

Text: 52 The trial court ordered the establishment of a permanent ombudsman to act as a middleman between the inmates and the correctional staff. 401 F.Supp. at 898. (Emphasis in original.) He had the good judgment to appoint a Magistrate as ombudsman. 53 We cannot uphold the permanency of the ombudsman, but we find no fault with the trial court's exercise of its discretion in ordering this relief until it relinquishes jurisdiction over this matter. 21 54 The appointment of an ombudsman is the kind of procedural innovation we sought to encourage in Hardwick v. Ault, 5 Cir. 1975, 517 F.2d 295, where we said: 55 We, too, are aware of the burdens imposed upon the federal judicial system by the increasing volume of prisoner litigation . . . The federal courts, and particularly the district courts, must make every effort to devise procedural innovations that will readily separate meritorious claims from frivolous claims and that will encourage informal settlements of grievances while at the same time preserving the plaintiffs' rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 56 517 F.2d at 298. The ombudsman, like the monitor ordered by this Court in Newman v. State of Alabama, 5 Cir., 1977, 559 F.2d 283, should observe conditions at the jail and report his observations to the trial court, to assure compliance with the trial court's orders. To that end, he may report inmate complaints to the jail administration, 22 for such reports may lead to the solution of some problems without involving a litigation. Cf. Newman v. State of Alabama, 559 F.2d at 289 (informal conferences between monitor and warden may lessen burden on trial court). The ombudsman may also, as the trial court suggested, serve as a channel of communication from the jail administrators to the inmates, if the officials see fit to use him in that way. The ombudsman, however, like the monitor, should have no authority to intervene in daily prison operations. Id. He is to be an arm of the court rather than an independent agent. See Newman for a discussion of the duties and powers of an ombudsman/monitor. 57 The trial court erred in ordering that the ombudsman have permanent office. Court-ordered permanency is an intrusion into state administration of prisons beyond the necessities of the case. We find only one other disputed 23 case in which a court ordered the use of an ombudsman or monitor without limiting the period such a person should serve. Hamilton v. Landrieu, E.D.La.1972, 351 F.Supp. 549, 552, ordered the employment of a Prison Ombudsman to investigate complaints and seek relief from the prison's administrators. That case was never appealed. Other cases more appropriately tie the duration of the official position created to the duration of the litigation spawning it. 24 In Gates v. Collier, 5 Cir. 1974, 501 F.2d 1291, 1321, the trial court appointed a monitor to determine the degree of compliance with its order. In Morgan v. McDonough, 1 Cir. 1976, 540 F.2d 527, 533, the court appointed a temporary receiver for troubled South Boston High School. Inmates of Attica Correctional Facility v. Rockefeller, 2 Cir. 1971, 453 F.2d 12, authorized the appointment of federal monitors to implement an injunction against brutality; the injunction (could) be vacated upon a showing that it (was) no longer required for the protection of the inmates. In Pugh v. Locke, M.D.Ala.1976, 406 F.Supp. 318, 331, modified sub nom Newman v. State of Alabama, 5 Cir., 1977, 559 F.2d 283, the district court had appointed a thirty-nine-man Human Rights Committee for the Alabama Prison System to monitor compliance with the court's orders; on appeal this Court ordered the dissolution of the committee and the appointment of a monitor. In Morales v. Turman, E.D.Tex.1973, 364 F.Supp. 166, 179 and E.D.Tex.1974, 383 F.Supp. 53, 120-21, an ombudsman was appointed to report to the court on various matters, including possible violations of the court's orders. In Alberti v. Sheriff of Harris County, S.D.Tex.1975, 406 F.Supp. 649, 678, the court held that There shall be an Office of the Ombudsman established to monitor defendants' efforts in complying with (its) Order.After the district court relinquishes jurisdiction, the administrators of Duval County Jail, of course, may determine whether to use an ombudsman, grievance procedures, or both to attempt to settle prisoners' complaints without litigation. There is strong support for use of an ombudsman; 25 there is no inconsistency in having both an ombudsman and internal grievance procedures.