Federal courts can intervene in cases involving prison conditions
UMWA International President Cecil Roberts, while recently touring the Fayette County Prison, warned that a federal judge could order the closure of the aging lock-up, an assertion doubted by opponents of the prison project.
Such intervention can and does happen.
Allegheny County, in the mid-1970s, found itself under the scrutiny of a federal judge when a group of inmates at the county jail filed lawsuits alleging violations of their rights to due process and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.
The Allegheny County Jail was designed and built in the late 1880s, as was the Fayette County Prison. The two structures are nearly twins, from the design of the cell ranges to the iconic “Bridge of Sighs.” Only now, the facility in Pittsburgh is a historic landmark, populated by tour groups rather than inmates.
In 1978, U.S. Judge Maurice B. Cohill Jr., now a senior judge in the western district, toured the Allegheny County Jail and heard six weeks of testimony from experts in the fields of mental health, medicine, penology and hygiene, as well as prison employees, administrators and county officials, at a non-jury trial.
In his ruling, Cohill observed conditions that were unconstitutional according to standards that apply to pretrial detainees, who are considered innocent until proven guilty, as well as standards for convicted inmates.
Cohill prefaced his remarks by stating, “We do not subscribe to the theory that a jail should be a country club, rest home or resort; nevertheless, prisoners are entitled to certain rights and the basic elements of human dignity.”
“After listening closely to the many witnesses, carefully studying the briefs filed and hearing post trial arguments,” Cohill wrote, “we are convinced that the situation at the Allegheny County Jail requires the intervention of this court.”
The jail at that time was not overcrowded, Cohill observed, but the building, then 88 years old, showed signs of damage, overuse and disrepair that had blossomed into a variety of complications.
Cohill described bedding discolored by body fluids, filthy and/or non-functional sinks and toilets, frequent leaks and overflows, cells with no lighting or wiring that had been dangerously jerry-rigged by inmates.
“Inmates cause most of the broken lights and damage to fixtures,” he noted. “Months often go by before a county electrician can come to the jail to make repairs.”
Inmates were responsible for cleaning common areas, but “a greasy kind of dirt” remained throughout, Cohill observed.
“The service areas (‘waterways’) behind the cells contain debris and accumulations of standing water from leaking pipes. Cockroaches infest the waterways and cells at night,” he wrote. “There are also mice throughout the building and rats in the outside area where the garbage cans are stored.”
The aging structure put workers in the same conditions as inmates, the judge pointed out.
Emergency preparedness was lacking as well, as the judge observed, “There is no written evacuation plan to be followed in case of fire.”
Further, the inmates lacked access to a law library, which amounted to a violation of their right to represent themselves at trial, Cohill noted.
In his conclusions of law, Cohill explained that the constitution provides for inmates to be furnished with basic necessities, “which include reasonably adequate food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care and personal safety.”
“The failure to provide adequate beds or other sleeping facilities, the failure to provide adequate clothing, and the failure to provide facilities and equipment for personal hygiene constitute cruel and unusual punishment for convicted inmates and violate the rights to due process and equal protection of unconvicted detainees,” Cohill concluded.
Noting a lack of mental health services for inmates, Cohill stated, “there is no suitable arrangement within the jail for dealing with violent, acting-out mentally unstable inmates. Neither are we aware of any mental health facility in the community with the capacity to deal with such unfortunate people.”
He urged authorities at all levels to “seek to provide such a facility before a tragedy occurs.”
By April of 1983, according to court documents, overcrowding had become problematic, compounding the issues raised by Cohill that largely remained unaddressed. A class of inmates asked a federal judge to hold the defendants in contempt for failing to abide by Cohill’s ruling.
The court then ordered inmate population caps, partly in an effort to spur county officials to construct or otherwise provide additional housing for inmates promptly.
Jail administrators found ways to house more inmates in the same amount of space, and documents show that their efforts were well-received by the court.
However, the court was constrained in October 1983 to direct the warden to release on their own recognizance any prisoners held in default of the lowest amount of bail, so as to avoid exceeding the population cap.
Two months later, the court additionally ordered that beginning in February 1984, a $5,000 penalty would be levied for each prisoner released under the provisions of the October order.
Ultimately, the Third Circuit reluctantly reversed the $5,000 per inmate penalty.
“Our reluctance reflects our complete sympathy with the court’s frustration with county officials whose continued contumacy has aggravated a serious problem which itself was in large part a result of their inactivity,” the appellate court stated.
In 1995, after two decades of litigation, the new Allegheny County Jail was built.