Opinion ID: 167613
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dry Cell Placement

Text: On June 3, 1999, while at the Florence prison, officials issued an order placing M r. Jordan in a dry cell after he was accused that day of murdering another inmate w ith an eleven-inch sharpened piece of metal w hile in the main recreation yard. See Jordan v. Hood, 117 Fed. Appx. 31, 32 (10th Cir. Oct. 29, 2004) (unpublished op.); United States v. Jordan, 2005 W L 513501, at  (D. Colo. M arch 3, 2005) (unpublished op.). In his verified complaint, M r. Jordan alleged he remained in the dry cell for ten days, from June 3 to June 13, 1999, and received neither notice of the reasons for his dry cell placement nor a hearing on his confinement. Prison officials contradicted the duration of M r. Jordan’s confinement by declaration and submission of documentary evidence showing M r. Jordan remained in the dry cell less than a day, from approximately 3:00 p.m. until 7:38 p.m., at which time officials issued an order transferring him to administrative detention pending an investigation of his assault on another person and for security reasons. Prison records show M r. Jordan was transferred that evening to Cell A-106, which is not a dry or holding cell, but a cell in the special -3- housing unit for administrative detentions; these records also show on each of his ten days in Cell A-106 the times when he ate, exercised, showered, and received physician's assistant visits. In an attempt to rebut the daily prison records showing his ten-day placement in Cell A-106, M r. Jordan submitted declarations of two inmates who stated M r. Jordan was placed in Cell A-106 on the evening of June 3, 1999, but prison staff mysteriously removed him in the middle of the night and took him somewhere else. He also submitted an inmate’s declaration stating that from June 8 to June 13, 1999, he and M r. Jordan were both housed in dry cells. W ith respect to M r. Jordan’s claim he received no notice of the reason for his placement in the cell, prison records establish he received two orders concerning his initial confinement. On June 3, at 3:45 p.m., while in the dry cell, he received a copy of the order advising him of his confinement pending an investigation into the assault, and then again, at 9:00 p.m., while in Cell A-106, he received a copy of an order stating he was being placed in administrative detention for assaulting another person and his assault raised concerns of further serious injuries, life threatening circumstances, and security issues for the institution. In addition, on June 4, 1999, one day after the murder incident, M r. Jordan w as advised of the crime he allegedly committed and his M iranda rights, after which he refused to sign a M iranda waiver and instead invoked his right -4- against self-incrimination. As to his initial placement in the cell, prison officials explained the prison regulations in 28 C.F.R. § 541.22(a)(2) and (a)(3) permitted them to place an inmate w ho is under investigation for a criminal act in administrative detention and to refer such investigations, as they did here, to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Finally, concerning the conditions of the dry cell, M r. Jordan claims he did not have a mattress or other furniture and slept on a blanket; the cell was unventilated and smeared with human feces, vomit, and other human waste; he received only sixteen ounces of iced water each weekday and thirty-two ounces of milk each weekend day; he was given merely a jar for urine and a plastic container for waste; and officials denied him socks and shoes, reading material, toiletries, and other basic hygiene products, other than tissue on request. In response, the prison officials avowed the holding cells are routinely cleaned when an inmate leaves; M r. Jordan’s cell was personally inspected prior to his placement in it; and if a cell contained feces or vomit officials would not have placed him in the cell until someone cleaned it. They also explained that even though holding cells do not have a toilet or sink, they are routinely furnished with a mattress, sheets, and blanket; and M r. Jordan was given a bed pan and container for bodily excrement. W ith respect to Cell A-106, where he was transferred later that day, the same officials explained it included a sink, toilet, and shower, and -5- records show M r. Jordan received daily visits from a physician’s assistant, one hour of exercise each day, except for one day during a prison lock-down, and at least tw o showers during his stay. B. Federal Correctional Institution/Special Housing Unit Confinement On June 13, 1999, M r. Jordan was transferred to administrative segregation at the Florence Federal Correctional Institution Special Housing Unit as a holdover inmate based on spacial concerns, the investigation of his role in the murder, and his pending reclassification on security grounds. He remained at this facility in holdover status for almost nine months, until M arch 3, 2000. W ith respect to the conditions of his confinement, M r. Jordan complained they consisted of restraints and restrictions more severe than others in administrative or disciplinary confinement, explaining he received sporadic indoor exercise “less than once per week,” and prison officials severely restricted his ability to correspond, possess stationery, access reading materials from the library cart, and obtain personal property. In addition, M r. Jordan claimed that in September 1999, Lieutenant Fels informed him they had completed the investigation of him and if he signed a w aiver of his M iranda rights and confessed to the murder or told him who committed the offense, they would transfer him out of the special housing unit. Because he refused, claiming his -6- innocence and inability to identify the offender, M r. Jordan alleged officials left him to languish in administrative detention. Prison officials countered M r. Jordan remained in administrative detention in holdover status due to the pending investigation, the serious threat he posed to the safety and lives of others, and spacial considerations. 2 As to the conditions of his confinement, they pointed out he would have been afforded the same reading materials as other administrative inmates and, as indicated by prison records, he refused regularly-offered exercise periods. In addition, they explained inmates in the special housing unit are generally given the same privileges as inmates in the general population, provided such privileges are consistent with the security needs of the unit, and in M r. Jordan’s case he received the same privileges as the other inmates, except he was not permitted group recreation because of his security level. They also pointed out that during his almost nine-month administrative detention at the special housing unit he committed several infractions, including interfering with security devices, refusing to obey an order, destroying government property, and possessing a dangerous weapon and 2 As to his placement ten days later in the special housing unit, prison officials explained an investigation is not considered closed until the inmate is criminally charged and/or the Federal Bureau of Investigation releases its primary jurisdiction allowing the Bureau of Prisons to complete its investigation and administratively discipline an inmate for homicide, and they could not determine Mr. Jordan’s classification for permanent placement in a facility commensurate with his security needs until the criminal matter was resolved, which resulted in his holdover status in administrative detention. -7- threatening bodily harm. As one example, M r. Jordan removed a stainless steel shower panel in his cell and used it to break the glass of his cell window and threaten staff. As a result of being found guilty of these offenses, he received a total of seventy-five days of disciplinary segregation as a sanction, during which time he lost commissary and property privileges. C. Administrative M aximum Penitentiary Confinement On M arch 3, 2000, M r. Jordan received an administrative detention order for transfer to the Florence Administrative M aximum Penitentiary, which reiterated his placement in administrative detention stemmed from his reclassification pending the murder investigation and his possible prosecution; he remained a holdover inmate in that facility from M arch 4, 2000, until June 4, 2004. In his verified complaint, M r. Jordan stated officials w ere holding him indefinitely in prolonged solitary isolation without procedural due process because he received no hearing and no indication an investigation was pending for the purpose of keeping him in segregated confinement. He also alleged that, unlike him, other inmates under investigation remained in the general prison population. As to the conditions or restrictions associated with his confinement, M r. Jordan alleged he lacked access to a radio or television at different times, his -8- exercise was reduced to two and one-half hours per week, and the conditions of his confinement were similar to those in disciplinary segregation or at the Florence control unit. However, he admitted he enjoyed access to educational and recreational programs, medical and psychological services, leisure and legal library services, and frequent interactions with staff. In response, prison officials pointed out all inmates in administrative maximum confinement are provided access to the following privileges: the commissary, institution programming, mental health and medical services, leisure and law libraries, five hours a week recreation, a hobby craft, telephone, correspondence, and visitors. They also explained these inmates enjoy opportunities to gain employment as a unit orderly; access to legal assistance from another inmate; and to interact with a case manager, unit counselor, unit manager, custody staff, and department heads. They avowed that while inmates in the facility are in single cells and cannot move about as in an open population facility, they are offered the same programs and afforded the same privileges as inmates in the general population, except that administrative detention inmates: 1) are allowed only one social call per month, while general population inmates are allowed two per month; and 2) do not receive the twelve hours recreation time general population inmates on group recreation status receive, but receive the same five hours of individual recreation that general population inmates on single -9- recreation status receive. Prison officials by declaration stated M r. Jordan was given the same privileges afforded other inmates at the administrative maximum confinement facility, which included the privileges and exceptions just described. Prison officials also offered evidence explaining M r. Jordan lost his privileges to a television as a result of disciplinary sanctions imposed for infractions completely independent from his administrative detention for investigation of the murder, including the loss of television and commissary privileges because staff found a razor blade between pages of a book in his cell while he w as housed at the administrative maximum prison; while the record shows this incident was eventually expunged from his disciplinary prison record, officials pointed out it caused the lost privileges of which he now complains and furthered their security concerns. They provided further record evidence M r. Jordan received an opportunity for five hours of exercise per week, which he frequently refused. Finally, they contradicted his general allegation he experienced restrictions similar to inmates in disciplinary segregation or the control unit. 3 3 Specifically, they explained inmates in disciplinary segregation do not have a television set or radio, cannot participate in hobby craft or possess certain personal property, do not have commissary privileges, and may only receive one social telephone call every ninety days; and that inmates in the control unit have even fewer privileges than those in disciplinary segregation. -10- Prison officials also soundly countered M r. Jordan’s various claims that while in the administrative maximum facility he received no indication an investigation was pending for the purpose of keeping him in segregated confinement. Prison records show he received such notification on M arch 3, 2000, the day before his transfer to the administrative maximum prison, and again on June 5 and August 25, 2000, when officials denied his request for removal from administrative detention on his claim the investigation was completed; instead, prison officials explained a pending investigation was ongoing into his involvement in the homicide. Documents also show M r. Jordan filed an administrative appeal requesting release from confinement because the homicide charges against him were “nullified,” to which prison officials responded in November 2000 that the matter had been forwarded to the United States Attorney’s office for review and possible prosecution for homicide. Prison officials also explained under 28 C.F.R. § 541.22(c)(2) no formal review, as required under § 541.22(c)(1), is necessary for holdover status inmates in administrative detention pending an investigation and, instead, designated staff are only expected to meet weekly with an inmate and to review his case on the record each week.