Madison County Jail Inmates v. Mark Thompson

834 under “hoped”

because the evidence was admissible testify Carazzo would not and that and-404(b). 403 they Fed.R.Evid. “advised” him of his self-incrimination privilege. As our court held in United Sufficiency D. of the Evidence (7th v. Cioffi, States F.2d 1111 Cir. argue The defendants also 1974), the evidence failed to demonstrate that “here something we have more than they influence endeavored to Carazzo’s tes advice____ [Wjhile ‘mere’ a witness vio- timony grand jury. jury A before ver lates by claiming no law the Fifth if, taking dict must sustained view privilege against Amendment self-incrim- Government, most favorable to the there is bribes, grand jury, ination in a one who substantial evidence to it. Glasser threatens, coerces a witness to claim it or States, 60, 80, v. 315 U.S. United S.Ct. corrupt advises with motive a witness to (1942); Hyman, 86 L.Ed. 680 it, take can and does obstruct or influ- appellate F.2d at 908. An over ence justice.” the administration of “only turn a verdict when the record con stated, Id. at 1119. As Justice Holmes evidence, regardless tains no of how it is agree generalities “We to all the about not weighed, jury from which the could find supplying they criminal laws with what guilt beyond a Hy reasonable doubt.” omit, but against there is no using canon man, 741 F.2d at 908. v. United States construing common sense in saying laws as Harris, (7th Cir.1977), they obviously what mean.” Roschen v. require only this court construed 1503 to § Ward, 279 U.S. tendency impede “reasonable the wit (1929). L.Ed. 722 We hold that the Govern- discharge ness of her duties.” A produced ment substantial evidence of the presented review of the evidence to the guilt defendants’ at trial and that the evi- corruptly reveals that the defendants permit dence sufficient a reasonable endeavored to by silencing avoid indictment defendants, jury to find that the with cor- through intimidation, cajolery, Carazzo motivation, rupt endeavored to influence bribery. The promised defendants Carazzo witness, Carazzo. they expenses, would take care of his Each of the convictions defend- provide attorney, debt, an forgive his visit ants, Grieco, Arnold and Affirmed. him in imprisoned if he were for re silent, maining provide spend him with

ing money while he was incarcerated. Fur

thermore, the defendants reminded Caraz they

zo that past had aided him in the

would be in contact with him in the future. the defendants threatened Specifically, Car MADISON INMATES, COUNTY JAIL azzo and warned him they not to talk when al., et Plaintiffs-Appellants, remarked that the Government was not “gonna you shadow all their life” and that THOMPSON, Mark et al. “they protect don’t you when its all over Defendants-Appellees. with either.” Finally, heard evi dence that No. Carazzo 84-1677. refused to and never testify did grand jury before the on two United States Appeals, Court of separate occasions, in contempt, was found Seventh Circuit. spent eighteen months in for re Argued Jan. fusing testify. Furthermore, before en Sept. Decided tering jail, repeatedly Carazzo assured the defendants that he had not and would not As Amended Oct. testify before grand jury about their Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc sharking loan Against activities. this over 19, 1985. Denied Nov.

whelming threats, wrongdoing, evidence of intimidation, the defendants assert that the evidence merely they showed that Ind., Sutherlin, Indianapolis, K.

Michael plaintiffs-appellants. for Ice, Terrell, Miller, Donadío M. Stephen Ind., Rayn, Indianapolis, for defendants- & appellees. FLAUM, ventilation; (2) Circuit lacked capacity COFFEY and no

Before JAMESON, heating system District Judges, controlling cooling Senior Judge.* resulting temperatures varied (3) freezing; from over 100 to unclean JAMESON, Judge. District generally unsanitary; a haven appeal is an Jail This cockroaches; (5) inoperative often had notwithstanding Inmates from a showers, facilities; toilets and wash basin verdict in to 42 pursuant a class action (6) and. inadequate lighting. In addi- 1983. The awarded U.S.C. § was general library tion there no available to all mem- per day at the rate of $13.00 to the inmates and the facility had no recre- of inmates consisting of a subclass bers program. ation jail or exercise The also 19, 1979 incarcerated between October and (1) policy had no regard written with 1980, 18, per day to December and $10.00 upon inmate classification based reasonable consisting of the members of a subclass criteria; (2) an right inmate’s to communi- incarcerated December between relatives, friends, attorney; cate with or his 30, 19, judg- In its 1980 and June jail and the administration of the and verdict, notwithstanding the the dis- ment discipline inmates. Because fa- court trict awarded nominal cility overcrowded of the was about 50% and costs to the the first members $1.00 to the physical design time and due of the recovery to subclass and denied members jail the sheriff was not segregate able to primary second issue of the subclass. The those detained for violent from crimes appeal supports whether the evidence charged those with crimes. nonviolent part verdict. and We affirm Also, because of limited staff nonfunc- and and part. reverse remand in monitors, tioning TV inmates were not Background Proceedings I. Factual adequately supervised. in District Court February, pro- The 1980 Consent Decree case This is a consolidation two class relief, vided con- injunctive ordering the November, 1979, actions commenced in im- facility struction of new and interim County members of the Madison provements of the existing facility. On Board Commissioners and the Sheriff of 9,May reacting to the death two County Madison named as defendants jail, inmates in the inmate filed a capacities. individual and The their official petition requesting the court to determine brought suits were under section compliance whether defendants 1983, claiming U.S.C. violations of the § with the terms of the Consent The Decree. First, Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth de- approved Report Memorandum Amendments the United Constitu- States problems scribing resolu- intended seeking declaratory judgment, tion August parties tion on 1980. All the relief, injunctive The frequent, i.e., agreed hourly, less than present defined as all future in- was monitoring the residential areas inmate of the mates Jail. Eleven special holding yet and the not areas was causes were either dismissed or individual agreed It was achieved. increased consolidated because the claims were iden- emphasis educating on training and tical to those in this consolida- case. After operative monitoring staff and TV cameras tion, request the class addi- continued to by September improve existing 1 would damages for four inmates. tional situation. February entered a On 1980the court county intended Judgment. Decree and commissioners had Consent Partial existing jail by new of a The decree described the condi- to fund the the issuance general obligation. at plan tions the Madison Summa- This was Jail. bond 1938, (1) briefly facility, by rized erected frustrated successful remonstrance. * Montana, sitting by designation. Honorable of the Dis- William J. Jameson trict of parties might so that conduct settle- year the defend- it was an election Since negotiations, ment when a final settlement until after No- no further action ants took forthcoming granted not the court de- was newly elected commissioners vember. The granting the motion prior fendants’ motion. disregard plans decided to analysis of site the court was influenced A new construction commissioners. Judge MacKinnon in Doe v. plans were drawn District and new was selected Columbia, (D.C.Cir.1983) 1981 for a set up. The court June (MacKinnon, J., Separate report- Statement compliance with the Consent hearing on 948). that, at 701 F.2d The court stated although ed The court found Decree. analysis, it strictly complying in line with MacKinnon’s defendants were grant acting good motivated to defendant’s motion they were with the decree factors. The court noted the several faith. pendency of additional class actions agreed it On November seeking injunctive relief similar that the class would pretrial conference damages money and and the fact that the 30, August as of June 1981. On be closed judgment any settlement would affect Entry a Pretrial 4, approved 1983 the court only not the interest class members liabili- the defendants which “admitted] public Relying interest as well. on but matters general damages on all ty as to 247, Carey Piphus, v. 435 U.S. in the Consent conditions enumerated and 1042, (1978); Ryland 55 L.Ed.2d 252 15, February 1980.” Decree of 967, (5th Cir.1983); Shapiro, 708 F.2d 1, 1983. The began The trial November Columbia, 697 F.2d and Doe v. District of prior to Decem- admitted that defendants (D.C.Cir.1983)(Separate Statement re- jail did 1980 the Madison ber 948), ported at 701 F.2d the court held that minimal constitutional standards. not meet “[pjlaintiffs may damages not recover contended, however, im- They rights in the violation of constitutional ab- jail pursuant to the made in the provements harm.” The court proof sence of of actual resulted in February 15 Consent Decree that “the evidence of actual concluded meeting standards on jail constitutional support the ver- harm was insufficient to jury The after December dicts.” found, however, that the did not meet The nominal dam- $1.00 court awarded constitutional standards between December of the first ages and costs to members jury re- 1980 and June subclass, judgment for the defend- entered day awarding per a verdict $13.00 turned subclass, and claims of the second ants on period, those incarcer- for the first subclass judgment notwith- denied the motion ated October 1979 and Decem- between Rickey standing verdict on the claim of 19, 1980, per day for the and $10.00 ber Baines. G. subclass, those incarcerated be- second Appeal December 1980 and June tween II. Contentions awarded, ap- involving that the district court Appellants contend inmates, in excess proximately 3700 totaled (1) judg- granting erred in the motion for million dollars. The awarded of a half notwithstanding the verdict and dis- ment $10,000 Ricky special G. regarding evidence “which established Baines, jail. assaulted who been totality caused cru- of circumstances which seeking other claims of inmates two resulting in punishment,” el and unusual directed a ver- special the court (2) damages; “imposing its compensable defendants, in a third case dict for the judgments and assessment of own value jury returned a verdict for the defend- needs;” (3) society’s breaking fiduciary its ants. by interfering and re- responsibility with negotiated jecting preliminary enter settlement moved the The defendants (4) allowing parties; Af- the consoli- notwithstanding the verdict. judgment complaints, hearing on the motion dation of numerous individual rescheduling the ter jury’s award of actual dam- pre- accept representative failing to but respect periods. ages with to both subclass evidence. sentation of (1) prop- the court contend Appellees n.o.v. because judgment erly granted During A. Second Sub- Jail Conditions by substan- supported not

the verdict class Period (2) not evidence; the court did tial dur respect to conditions With regard discretion abuse its period, ing the second subclass no settlement because proposed settlement was instructed: Appellees also reached. agreement was If that on and after December you find evidentiary error claims of raise three the Madison Coun- if are relevant ty were such that: Jail They claim is reversed. n.o.v. (1) admitting in evidence (a) court erred inmates could not be assured a rea- (2) reports; grand jury including sonably safe environment Schuster; evidence re- Dwight Dr. assault and acts of violence and sexual of Glen Adkins. garding the assault threats of acts of violence and sexual assault; or of Review III. Standard (b) provided food inmates were not reviewing n.o.v. conditions; or prepared under safe those are the same as the considerations (c) provided in the review of a directed ver shelter applicable inmates were determine appeals The court of must physical dict. which did not threaten and/or warranted submis degeneration including protec- the evidence whether mental Appleman jury. the case to the v. temperatures sion of and tion from excessive Cir.1964), States, 729, (7th 338 F.2d conditions; United unsanitary or denied, rt. U.S. ce 1090, (d) ade- inmates were not afforded (1965). A 13 L.Ed.2d care; quate medical or granted only if there is not n.o.v. (e) then ex- general, in the conditions jury properly upon which a could contem- isting incompatible were with non-moving party. a verdict for the return decency that are porary standards Inc., Schultz Owens-Illinois society, maturing mark of a the evidence, (7th Cir.1982). The 510-11 in the you may find that conditions then reasonably all inferences which can be with after Decem- County Jail on and therefrom, in must be viewed drawn minimal consti- did not meet ber party opposing light most favorable to the tutional standards. motion. Id. at 511. See also Kolb v. (7th Jones, Chrysler Corp., 661 F.2d of Madison the director Robert 1981). Department, testified con- Cir. Health jail’s food cerning inspection Support Jury IV. Evidence to Verdict facility. He stated preparation storage and facility re- 1980 the that on November determining the district court whether 43. He also score of ceived an overall granting in the motion for erred compared as indicated that the 1980 scores (1) presented: questions two n.o.v. slightly lower.1 1979 scores were to the there was sufficient evidence whether VII, inspec- Although 46-53. TR. at finding did support jury’s prior month to the tion about one was meet minimal constitutional standards period, i.e., subclass beginning of the second during period, the second subclass 30, 1981; that similar have inferred could December 1980 to June from the second sub- continued into is sufficient evidence whether there however, after three and one-half months was inspection* October 1981 revealed 1. The period. facility improvement. The received a subclass much the end of the second VII, 53, inspection, This of 77. TR. 59. score rights guaranteed the food was not class was denial period Constitution, including process conditions. prepared under safe due protection. totality equal The had been incarcerated Darance White circumstances, contended, the inmates re- during He periods. testified both subclass being in the sulted inmates submitted to March, in 1981 were the that the conditions punishment. cruel and unusual The in- September, 1979. TR. at same as those argue mates that the cruel and unusual IV, an English 167. John been inmate present punishment at Madison period. He during tes- the second subclass Jail, upon that it was “inflicted each and “hot, steaming tified was inmate[,] every presumptively must have heat. in that heat.” It was hard to breathe everyone.” only specific harmed The harm VII, TR. at have con- The could applicable identified that is protected cluded that inmates were not to all the in- members was unsanitary temperatures from excessive creased stress. of Dr. conditions. Dwight Schuster and five former inmates jail, English observed the brutal While offered this contention. on Glen Adkins.2 Ad- homosexual assault Three of the who claimed four additional separate days. kins beaten on two Bond, damages, Roger Bernard prison nothing knew officials these Baines, Rickey among Corbin and upon by English informed his attacks until those who testified.3 VII, TR. go to court. at 86-95. release English prison Baines, officials testified that a jury who received verdict of $10,000, at each individual physically never looked had been assaulted his cell. He block, VII, TR. at regarding cell testified conditions in the guards infrequent weekend made he was various cell blocks which con- VII, block, fined, checks on the cell TR. during stay his D Block English oppressive activity, also described the ef- he had observed homosexual food fect on inmates when confined an stealing and He indicated that fights. VII, bully. is a Tr. at inmate who not reported these incidents were because testimony From could have III, this of fear of retaliation. TR. at 87. inmates concluded that as- paper hoarding. toilet Baines also observed IV, environment. reasonably sured a safe TR. at 146. While confined in the very he was “boards”4 Baines stated that ample is We conclude that there III, depressed. TR. 102. at support jury’s finding jail that did not meet constitutional standards dur- fight had been involved in a while Corbin ing period that the second subclass but claim for additional dam- jail, his entering judgment district court erred He ages rejected by jury. testified was notwithstanding favor of defendants he that he would not shower because the verdict. IV, assault. TR. at 29- feared homosexual that was 30. He also testified food stolen Injury Damages B. Proof of and Actual from threat of violence. the inmates IV, TR. testified that as a instructed to deter at 28-29. Corbin was “pale, damage injury of his incarceration he was mine com result whether he proximately tormented” and that plained by the inmates was anxietous [sic] IV, pounds. had TR. at 45. unconstitutional lost about 25 caused the defendants’ However, he that had injury later admitted he omissions. The claimed acts and County separate while in the Madison Jail. The sought in a suit icide 2. Glen Adkins plaintiff. party estate was a administratrix of his not claim additional and does class action. cell so named because a board 4. This block was a provided the inmates rather than Titley, inmate who was for B. the other 3. Richard damages, mattress. committed su- claimed prior jail distress to his conditions of incarceration have oth- suffered emotional seeing negative He in fact had been stay jail. probably er elements the mark is having psychiatrist regularly VI, after suf- severe.” more TR. at 154. He testi- IV, TR. at fered a nervous breakdown. “every fied further individual that 61-62. goes through jail experience going have that mark that he or she remem- will Bond, who had been incarcerated ber the rest of their life.” Id. Dr. Schus- times, during period at separate ter stated that fear of homosexual attack is issue, in- testified that he had never been prevalent among younger all fight in a at the and that he had volved VI, prisons. Upon being TR. at 156. homosexual heard of but never witnessed opinions given asked whether the he had IV, too, He, activity. TR. at 192. indicated penal facility, would be true for Dr. cigarettes were stolen. TR. food answered, VI, Schuster “Yes.” TR. at IV, 162. separate for relief at 187. Bond’s claim person He also testified that if a jury. is bent on rejected by stop suicide it is difficult to him. TR. at English inmates John and Dar- Former VI, 164. He indicated those inmates ance White made no claim for stayed only who a short time in the Mad- beyond English those of the testi- class. County ison Jail would be less affected fied, supra, as discussed that he had been stayed, example, thirty than those who in the same cell with Glen Adkins when VI, days. TR. at 170. Dr. Schuster also violently Adkins was and homosexu- beaten something simple stated that as aas color raped. ally He testified that he was fear- VI, person. could affect a TR. at 174. during eight day stay ful and scared his VII, County Jail. TR. at conclude, record, reviewing We after White testified that he was beaten for no present failed to evi- apparent playing reason while checkers. finding dence which would IV, TR. at consequential injury to the class as a inmates, testimony whole. The Schuster, Dwight physician special- Dr. main, reaffirmed the nature the con- izing in psychiatry, forensic had never visit- jail. ditions in the Corbin indicated his fear Jail, ed Madison so his of homosexual attack Dr. but Schuster general confined to statements about among stated that this all fear is common human reactions to conditions like those Also, young inmates. Dr. indi- Schuster present at Madison Jail. He testi- cated that of the inmates confined fied that the environment of the would 10% VI, long periods of time would have suf- anyone. cause stress to TR. at elaborated, saying Thompson, He fered severe stress. Mark reactions stress vary preexisting County, condition the Sheriff Madison testified that individual, stress, the duration of the inmate were detained for a 80% group period isolation versus days association. TR. at of two or less.5 The inmate VI, per- 151. He estimated that ten personal injury about who had suffered population cent of the would react with consequence inadequate occurred as a of significant difficulty. Baines, emotional or mental supervision, recovered individual VI, gener- TR. at 153. He noted that “as a damages. rule, stress, longer period

al of is, Compensable Damages Depriva- likely whatever kind it it is more there C. VI, Rights will be a breakdown.” TR. at tion of Constitutional Union, experi- “the The Indiana Civil Dr. Schuster testified that Liberties brief, being certainly argues ence itself is its amicus that where of of sub mark, something rights damages that leaves its and when stantive are violated can be XII, days. 5. Another were in from three to 49 excess of 100 at TR. l7Vi% days; days; 1% from 50 to 99 1.5%

841 protected by particular discerni interests even in the absence of presumed question____ right consequential injuries. It cites Lenard ble Cir.), 874, (7th F.2d 889 Argento, 699 v. 259, 98 at 1050. Id. at S.Ct. — U.S.-, 69, denied, 78 104 S.Ct. cert. prerequisites elements and for re- [T]he Lash, 682 84 and Owen L.Ed.2d v. covery damages appropriate of to com- (7th Cir.1982), F.2d 658-59 injuries by depriva- pensate caused this It true that Owen of contention. right of one are not tion constitutional recognize that certain and Lenard under necessarily appropriate compensate in- proper to dama presume it is circumstances deprivation caused juries of anoth- the cir ges.6 From our examination of er. considering the case and cumstances of this 264-65, at 98 at 1053. Id. S.Ct. in nature the constitutional violations holding this This considered volved, is not a case we conclude this cases cited the Indiana Civil Liberties presumed. may be damages where In attempt Owen we Union. “declin[ed] Carey Piphus, question,” noting U.S. resolve the that re- In v. required point, i.e., (1978), on another L.Ed.2d 252 the Su mand was Ct. S. defendant, holding in his determine whether Court reversed court’s preme immune capacity was from liabil- entitled to recover sub students were ity for 682 F.2d at 659. In without non-punitive stantial Lenard, we applying Carey, examined they showing consequential injury where of that case and the consti- circumstances process.7 procedural due had been denied issues involved order to deter- tutional The Court concluded: appropriate prerequisite mine the for a sum, then, although mental at damage award. 699 F.2d 889.8 caused the denial emotional distress subsequent In the case v. Crawford process com- procedural itself is due (7th Garnier, 719 F.2d Cir. nei- pensable we hold that under § 1983), we noted that while Owen and Le injury of such nor the ther likelihood “suggest that certain constitutional nard difficulty proving great it is as to so may support an award for dam violations awarding compensatory justify consequential inju ages in the absence of proof actually injury that such without ries, spoke n decisions direct neither those was caused. the issue did Kincaid ly to as [Kincaid at 1052. Id. Cir.1982)] Rusk, (7th 745-46 however, recognized, that dam- Court or cited Kincaid.” and neither discussed showing ages may be appropriate without sought damages plaintiff Kincaid consequential injury under circum- some his due a sheriff for violation of against stances: Rights Amendment and First process reading him material. This court denying governing compensation rules [T]he prove had failed to injuries by deprivation consti- held that caused was entitled to compensable damages, but rights tutional should be tailored to driving for drunken nor 8. Lenard arrested It should be noted neither Owen individu- Lenard a class action. Both were offenses. He contended several other traffic seeking for a by police al section claims he had been beaten officers rights. per deprivation of constitutional Here Examining the circum- unconscious. knocked damages all mem- diem awards of made to that case and the "substantial consti- stances of two bers of subclasses. issue,” that a could tutional we concluded damages properly consider and award of lower The Court number 7. noted "in conse- violations the absence discernible approved nominal courts had "the awards of injuries.” quential damages deprivation of where § under 1983 rights are not to have constitutional shown 266-67, injury.” 435 U.S. at n. caused actual S.Ct. at n. 24. 98 842 Crawford, plain-

nominal In their motion n.o.v.” at Id. challenged his termination from a tiff fed- Judge agreed Judge Robb Mac- employment emergency program eral as Kinnon. right

violation of his First Amendment Judge began MacKinnon his discussion upheld speech. free We an award for lost by stating that he doubted whether there wages, injury reputation, pain to support was sufficient to conclu- plaintiff suffering, held that the but sion of constitutional violation but ad- $10,- not entitled to an additional award of damage dressed the award nonetheless. injury rights” 000 “for to his civil and that “diligent He noted that after research” he award should be reduced to $1.00. money could find no case where We now examine the circumstances of prisoners to a upheld. has been Id. this case and the nature of the constitution- at 949. His research revealed that in the al appropriate violation to determine the past only prisoners individual have been prerequisites damage for a award. Nei- money damages. Indeed, awarded Carey Piphus prior ther nor of the appellants support cases cited to cases this court involved a class action. argument per compensation their diem concerned in each court was case with recognized methodology is well for com- whether an individual had sus- pensating prisoners are all claims made compensable damage. tained While the sum, prisoners.9 Judge Mac- pending, motion for n.o.v. was grant Kinnon money was loathe to dam- Columbia, the case of Doe v. District of ages prisoners to a mass that supra, brought to the court’s atten- many prisoners includes causing who are Judge tion. The district court found Mac- complained the conditions of and who will separate reported Kinnon’s statement at cooperate help Doe, not correct them. 948, persuasive concluding 701 F.2d 701 F.2d at 949.10 the evidence was insufficient to A verdicts and that the could of the not review record reveals that the prisoners recover for violation of their at Madison Jail caused rights in proof constitutioal the absence of some of the complained of. The of actual harm. attacks, stealing, homosexual food fights were, course, all committed jury, Doe the as did the inmates. White testified that the inmates action, instant awarded to a class swept into the floor drains which debris up made of inmates based on the claim of becoming clogged. resulted in their TR. at punishment cruel and unusual and the fail- IV, 169-71. Baines testified that the in- provide adequate ure protection from put mates would in the drains blankets There, too, assault. the total award get toilets to “make floor flood to $500,000. Doe, amounted to over guards up they get so could attention.” Injunctive at 948-49. grant- relief was also IV, TR. at 145. He also testified that the ed. The case was remanded for a new trial paper procedural based on would hoard toilet and that errors. Mac- “acquiesce[d] Kinnon some inmates would the toilet paper the court’s use decision VI, appeal[ because defendants start fires to heat coffee. TR. at 145- [did] ] from the district deny court’s decision to 146. Corbin testified that he and other appellants p. Recognizing designed 29 their brief cited The. class actions Keller, (D.Md. F.Supp. O'Conner v. 510 1359 necessity bringing to eliminate the "a multi- 1981); Winston, F.Supp. Mickens v. cases,” 462 910 plicity of identical MacKinnon (E.D.Va.1978), (4th Cir.1979); aff'd, F.2d 609 508 noted that "class actions were not intended or Johnson, (E.D.Pa. F.Supp. Mack v. designed proof to reduce the standard 1977); Rockerfeller, United States ex rel. Neal single required large one case or to substitute a (S.D.N.Y.1970), F.Supp. part, aff'd proof smoke screen of facts for concise nom,, McGinnis, (2d sub Sostre v. 442 F.2d 178 required prove basic elements case al- Cir.1971), 719, denied, cert. 404 U.S. S.Ct. leged.” Id. at 951. (1972). 30 L.Ed.2d 740 report fights, circumstances, TR. inmates did not observed these a uniform award IV, 28-29, assaults, inappropriate. TR. at at homosexual IV, IV, 53, stealing, 30-31 or food TR. (Leventhal, J., Id. at 208-09 concurring). prison officials. Baines also testified respect With to the award for infringe- reported. type activity that this was not ment of First rights, Amendment Judge III, TR. at said: Leventhal disturbing Also is the possibility that appellants

Both and the Indiana Civil jury might have included Powell, rely on Liberties Union Dellums v. for suffering. mental distress and I rec- (D.C.1977), 566 F.2d 167 class action ognize that an individual suing steps demonstrators on the of the United for violation rights of first amendment Capitol States who had been arrested at a out-of-pocket not limited to expenses but protest rally. jury Vietnam War The may, upon proper showing, recover for $7,500 awarded to each demonstrator for harm, emotional But [citations omitted] rights. denial of First Amendment in the context large action, of a appeals D.C. Court of reversed and re- simply there is too much room for varia- manded for redetermination of First tion among on this item members damages, holding Amendment Thus, class. while individual class mem- $7,500 judgment “totally pro- out of might permitted bers to recover for portion any harm that has suf- been emotional upon proper harm showing, fered.” Id. at 196. the uniform class award for first amend- had also awarded to each $500 ment cannot in all fairness en- punish- class member for cruel and unusual compass this. The award must fo- ment, $3,000 eight to each of class mem- injuries cus on the sustained all mem- actually bers who stood trial for malicious bers of the class—the value that each prosecution, and to all other class mem- $50 one of them necessarily place would prosecution.12 bers for malicious The com- rights expression of free and assem- Judge concurring ments of in his Leventhal bly in the circumstances of this case. opinion respect to the award for cruel The class award for fourth amendment punishment pertinent and unusual damages included an element for humili- detention, this case. Leventhal said in part: ation of may arrest and inescapable be deemed false de- A why per second reason the $500 this, however, Beyond tention. plaintiff award cannot stand is that indi- to all award members of the class aas plaintiffs vidual were confined under go. class cannot In sum class-wide dam- greatly differing conditions. As is clear ages must be those which necessarily imprisonment, from the award of false arise from events which made this action some members class were detained appropriate for class treatment substantially less time than others. place____ first One-half of the class was not taken to (Leventhal, J., Id. at 209-10 concurring). block, cell where D.C. apparently ap- most inhumane. It of their contentions that in pears among imprisoned that even those anguish mates recover for mental location, at the same there may distress, have pain suffering appellants significant been differences in terms of opinion cite this court’s in Mary Beth v.G. bedding supplied, (7th food and medical atten- City Chicago, 723 F.2d 1263 Cir. tion, force, physical 1983). use of etc. Under In Mary Beth four G. scale, depending upon length Tamm He dissented. would have re- of time in police versed and held the officers immune as a upheld, detention. While this award was matter of law. questioned the awards for cruel and un- punishment prosecution. usual and malicious 12. The had also awarded for false imprisonment sliding arrest and false on a the concerns of Mac- brought a class We share group that among a were Kinnon in Doe v. District Columbia Chicago for its City of against the action Powell with Leventhal Dellum v. females, searching includ- all strip policy of respect to the of classwide award misdemeanor of- for arrested ing those pun- and inhumane to inmates cruel mon- awaiting arrival of fenses, bail while compen- not a case ishment. This is where agreed with ey. The district damages may be awarded the ab- sable policy violat- strip search plaintiff that agree proof sence of of actual harm. We Jury trials Amendment. the Fourth ed with the district court that the evidence damages, issue of on the held were then insufficient to actual harm establish $25,000 each for in verdicts resulting 3,700 for whom for the $30,000 plaintiff, and for one plaintiffs, two awarded. the evidence does were While plaintiff. uphold- In $60,000 fourth for the finding consequential dam- awards, part: court said in ing the appropriate. ages, nominal by each woman testimony offered The Negotiations V. Settlement mental distress regarding emotional Pending action on defendants’ mo was ade- resulting from the searches parties entered tion for n.o.v. by persons who quately corroborated February negotiations. On into settlement best. The knew the women 22, 1984, plaintiffs sent a settlement shock, alia, revealed, instances of inter defendants, copy proposal to the with shame, rage, humilia- depression, panic, district court. At a hear the letter to the lasting tion, effects nightmares, ing the court informed on March life. woman’s on each grant parties of its decision to It is clear that 723 F.2d at appellants contend judgment n.o.v. G., based on Mary Beth awards its fiduci that the district court breached by each damages sustained proof of actual 23(e).13 ary duty imposed Fed.R.Civ.P. and not on classwide that this resulted from They assert breach case, instant the award In the “rejection preliminary the court’s of] affirmed on the Rickey Baines is basis negotiated settlement which had been damages sustained proof of actual parties.” dam- claims for individual Baines. Other Appellees contend that no settlement rejected. ages were During reached. agreement was ever cited, have parties have and we 1, 1984, counsel for the hearing on March found, case, McElveen v. only one stated, “I think it is fair to appellants William, (4th 725 F.2d 954 Cir. Prince record that the report to the on the Court 1984), compensatory upholding an award negotiate parties attempting been have in a class action claim damages to inmates (emphasis good faith.” a settlement prison or violations ing constitutional April added). order of its There the court affirmed conditions. motion granting defendants’ $210,000in a class action on award of court, referring to the March n.o.v. the county jail of a con of the inmates behalf part: represented hearing, said in “Counsel facility” which “ex “a terrible negotiations ceded had been con- that settlement limita However, permissible continuing. constitutional no ceeded and were ducted reached, referring Carey v. Pi and it Without final settlement had been tions.” discussion, understanding con from coun- the court or further Court’s phus com Council that, actual and sel for defendants “Numerous cluded no settlement by plain presented and Commissioners injuries were pensable by the approval could be reached without trial.” Id. at 958. tiffs at court, proposed dismissal or 23(e) and notice of the provides: Fed.R.Civ.P. given compromise to all members of shall be shall not be dismissed A class action the court directs. manner as the class in such approval of the compromised without grant- the Commissioners.” part, Council Affirmed reversed and re- the was moti- ing defendants’ motion court IN PART. manded judg- part “by the fact that .the vated affected any proposed settlement ment COFFEY, Judge, concurring. Circuit interest public’s interest as well as the the opinion. I concur in I Jameson’s of the class members.” separately only I is write because believe it The has considerable district court the imperative alleged we detail defi- determining settle in' whether discretion jail’s operation in the structure and ciencies v. Bryan is and reasonable. ment fair allegedly claimed caused the trauma 799, Co., F.2d Pittsburgh Plate Glass 494 gave rise to the of or stress award (3d denied, Cir.), Abate cert. sub nom. 801 monetary plaintiffs The in this Co., 419 U.S. Pittsburgh Plate Glass action are into two divided sub-classes (1974), 900, 184, 42 L.Ed.2d 146 S.Ct. inmates of incarcerated the Madison 913, 836, 42 denied, reh. 420 U.S. Jail, County group being the first those (1975). A court order L.Ed.2d 844 district jail persons residing in the between Octo- approving disapproving proposed or 18, ber and December 1980 and appeal not be overruled on settlement will consisting of group per- the second those of showing clear of abuse unless there is a residing in jail sons the between December Ass’n discretion. In re Executive Traffic trial, 1980 and Juné 1981. At the Cir.1980) R.R., (2d —E. prior the defendants admitted that to De- compel to (petition for writ of mandamus 19, 1980, cember the Madison Jail proposed judge approve to the the district meet did not minimum constitutional stan- denied). of a class action was settlement dards, stating signed in a consent decree of the most “In the exercise of his discretion 15, 1980, February that: judge is significant factor for district “(1) jail approxi- was over crowded strength plaintiff’s case balanced time; mately fifty percent of the Even if against the offer.” Id. settlement upon parties agreed a settlement (2) any there no was ventilation court, having that the class determined blocks; the cell prove damages, to as a whole had failed (3) the and toilet facilities were shower not abused its discretion would have inoperative drainage and that often any disapproving settlement. causing inadequate, often plumbing was drains; ups in the back YI. Conclusion (4) security tele- closed-circuit n.o.v. as first sub- to the inoperable; were visions class, during those incarcerated (5) up in many were boarded windows period to Decem- from October elements, attempt to out the an block 18, 1980, affirmed. The ber is inoperable, thereby allowing the el- subclass, in- to those n.o.v. as the second areas; cell to come into the block ements during from period mates incarcerated (6) physical design jail limit- 30, 1981, is 1980 to June December inmates; segregate opportunity ed is reversed. The case remanded (7) in the that the administrative staff judgment in favor of district court to enter provide proper su- inadequate for nominal the second subclass pervision; together with costs.14 of $1.00 any this evidence. See Fed.R.Evid. Appellees erred in contend the court harmless, (1) event, admitting grand jury reports, any any evidence error was into prior reports recovery on which included particularly in of the fact that view 1979; (2) of Dr. to October Schuster; damages. See to nominal limited Fed.R.Civ.P. (3) regarding the assault therefore, necessary, to discuss It is not Glen We conclude that the Adkins. appellees’ contentions. its discretion in the admission did abuse “Specifically, prison- or exercise it (8) appear there was no recreation would inmates; to the area available infringement ers recover for the (i) (ii) (9) program providing bodily for health- three interests: integrity; inadequate; and mind; (iii) care to inmates was peace capacity. earning otherwords, policy no written enforced entitled jail.” the administration governing compensation physical inju- ries, pain and suffering, emotion distress state that The consent decree went on to impairment prospects their remedy these deficien- would jail.1 employment while County, proximately admit- future cies caused jail the did not meet the minimum ting that by the defendant’s unconstitutional con- during the time constitutional standards duct.” persons in the first incarcer- sub-class were Columbia, Doe v. District 697 F.2d of jail, the claimed at trial that funds ated in 1115, (D.C.Cir.1983) 1124 citing Carey v. the expended improve had to condi- been 1042, 435 Piphus, U.S. 55 jail the after tions in that December (1978) (interests prisoners L.Ed.2d 30,1981 (the through 1980 and June second correspond “reasonably closely inter- to the period), jail the in fact meet sub-class did protected by analogous ests common-law minimal constitutional standards. How- rules.”) tort in this case was ever, opin- as detailed Jameson’s that instructed before it could dam- award ion, plaintiffs from the sub-class the second ages, the class had to establish it period present did evidence that the food injury. suffered actual harm or The class inadequate,2 that the had ventilation presented evidence that certain inmates substantially improved,3 and also that allegedly injuries had suffered from sexual jail supervision proper of inmates was still jail. attacks while incarcerated in the lacking.4 As noted in Jameson’s ma- However, only the presented opinion, jority judgment notwithstanding any injury class-wide was the only granted the verdict be where the describing alleged one Dr. Schuster the evidence, light read in the most favorable stressful conditions of inmates in confine- motion, party opposing to the is insuffi- Schuster, testifying, ment. Prior to Dr. a support See, to cient e.g., verdict. psychiatrist practicing Indianap- forensic Owens-Illinois, Schultz Indiana, olis, grand jury reviewed various (7th Cir.1982). 510-11 reports describing jail in the conditions While record contains numerous ref- during period. the first sub-class Based to the alleged erences various undesirable upon reports, review of these testi- his he existing jail, conditions in the the issue on jail fied that the conditions in would appeal is any whether there is evidence in anyone.” “cause stress to Tr. atVI to support record an award of However, the record Dr. discloses that on a class-wide basis. It is not the condi- Schuster failed to interview the in- jail properly give tions in rise to an very jail mates much less even visit the damages; the alleged award rather it is structure, its confines or It is inmates. trauma stress suffered the inmates give as a result of those difficult for me to understand a mere how an grand rise to award: of the jury report examination can action, stay during 1. Since time of this has 3. Inmate White testified that his jail stuffy. completed March of facility. it was hot and construction of a new English, Inmate who observed a brutal homo- Jones, 2. Robert the Director of Madison Adkins, sexual on Glen testified that assault Department, Health informed court that the during while he incarcerated the second jail's storage preparation facility food re- period, prison officials never exam- sub-class just prior ceived low score of 43 to the com- in the cell block ined the inmates to determine period, mencement of time the second sub-class and, weekends, anyone injured if been December to June rarely guards checked the cell block. notwithstanding the necessary ment verdict on the give psychiatrist a forensic particular fact knowledge question and data of standard . percentages to deal in determining situation whether a n.o.v. well-reasoned, logical judgment to amake granted should be is “whether the evidence certainty degree of medical that condi- presented, all combined with in- reasonable would cause “stress tions therefrom, ferences permissibly drawn is regardless period inmate’s anyone,” of the sufficient verdict when Nevertheless, Dr. of confinement. Schus- light in a most to the viewed favorable findings alleged to a de- ter did couch his party against whom motion is direct- the emotional reac- gree stating when Yards, Inc., ed.” Lampert Tice v. upon vary, depending factors tion would (7th Cir.1985). F.2d Any con- psychological as the individual’s such permissible flicts the evidence and all person’s of the makeup and the duration inferences from the evidence must re- he Significantly, incarceration. admitted party solved resisting favor only approximately percent ten Therefore, entry motion. Id. population “sig- react with a inmate would appropriate n.o.v. if case difficulty” mental nificant emotional or there is upon insufficient evidence he jail. in the While did state person reasonable could properly base an fear younger inmates would homosex- that damages. award of id. See attack, he on to note that these ual went judge The trial that several stated among all in- young fears were common judgment factors motivated him to enter prisons. by mates in all As demonstrated expressed n.o.v.: the concerns in testimony, an re- Dr. Shuster’s individual’s separate in MacKinnon’s statement Doe v. vary will action to a stressful situation Columbia, (D.C. District 697 F.2d 1115 of incarceration, upon length of depending the Cir.1983) (separate reported at statement stability and his emotional before and dur- 948), pendency the of additional prison. in the ing his confinement In this jail seeking class actions other class, case, the the majority approx- vast of relief, similar the fact that the imately percent, were incarcerated for public would affect the interest as well as less; very days given stay the two short members, class and the the interest of the less) (48 majority hours or of the vast of fact that was insufficient evidence of there jail, the members of the class it is support the jury’s actual harm to verdict. exposure doubtful their the condi- factors, all but Of these the latter any tions in the caused them actual general the considerations Thus, I injury. the evidence in this believe (and may capable taking tak well have necessary quantum proof case lacks the en) determining the into account when inmates, class, as to establish that the example, amount For the of its award. injury supporting have suffered actual undoubtedly made jury was aware that $500,000 in consequential the award plaintiff may few members of the class not damages. Further, in Judge I concur that, money damages and that analysis have “deserved” absent demon- Jameson’s harm, against an award the defendants stration of actual an award of conse- would damages inap- public class In quential likely paid to the entire most out of funds. view, I in propriate. agree therefore the award my the trial court erred in substitut damages. nominal ing its on these matters for own jury. FLAUM, Judge, concurring Circuit dissenting part. part and only theoretically ap- That leaves as the propriate granting judgment for basis I-IV(A) parts I result concur there judge’s n.o.v. trial conclusion that opinion part V of Jameson’s court, evidence respectfully was insufficient but must dissent (C) reaching IV(B) jury’s I award of parts from because believe however, conclusion, judge entering judg- did not com- the trial court erred why plaintiffs’ merit on he found the unre- adequately represent experiences evidence insufficient or what fur- class, butted of the entire then judge should required. ther he would have have grant either refused to class certifica- majority’s attempts justify current tion for the portion litiga- of this finding trial court’s insufficient evi- tion or should have established subclasses dence, are based on see ante of inmates prison based on conduct and/or alleged weaknesses the evidence that experience.1 Once the court ruled that properly go only to the amount of questions of law or fact common to were injury, injury due for the not to whether an the class and that damage claims of the place. instance, occurred the first For plaintiffs named typical of the dam- only Dr. Schuster’s a small ages class, suffered it should have percentage of inmates would suffer severe been left to the jury to decide how to factor stress due to the unconstitutional condi- into its award the fact that some members preclude tions in the does not an award plaintiff have been unde- psychologi- less severe serving money damages, and the wit- (as injuries experienced cal Dr. Schuster nesses’ observations should not have been testified the jury and as could infer from discounted unrepresentative as of the en- evidence) by virtually every member of tire class. From a reliance standpoint, I addition, class. the fact troubling find the fact that the trial court that eighty percent of the class was incar- granted first certification; then con- days cerated for two or less was taken into solidated into the class action at least ten account in fashioning its verdict prisoner against suits the de- per on a person diem basis. A incarcerated fendants, leading to believe days for two would therefore receive both that their evidence would be deemed damages, in hardly $26 an excessive typical of other class members and that it enduring amount for the conditions con- (or would not necessary acceptable) even cededly present during the the first for each present to his period. Finally, subclass majority’s the at- evidence; finally own ruled that the tempt plaintiffs’ to discount one of pro- the plaintiffs’ evidence was insufficient sup- to fessed fear of homosexual attack as “com- port an damages award of to the entire among inmates,” mon young all ante at judge class. Once the decided that support a does not conclusion presented evidence representative was not justified, real, the fear was not or of the class or that some of the class mem- caused the defendants’ supervi- lack of award, bers did not deserve a monetary Rather, sion. support it lends plain- to the (with class should have been decertified tiffs’ assertion that bodily these fears of members) notice to all class jury’s and the injury and the other psychological harm upheld verdict either as to the plain- named resulting from the unconstitutional condi- (or trials) tiffs or a new trial held on dam- tions in the among common ages plaintiffs. for individual members. If judge’s concern was not so much Although I persuaded therefore am not that the evidence was insufficient but rath- that there was insufficient sup- evidence to jury’s er that the excessive, verdict port jury’s he award in this case, should given have ordered a my primary remittitur and concern is with the trial plaintiffs apparently option court’s conflicting rulings. accepting If judge the trial lower award or retrying was concerned that a certain the case. group (i.e., short, of inmates I preyed those who on would remand this case for a re- inmates) other any should not receive equitable dam- newed and more determination of ages or that the witnesses plaintiffs’ who testified did the claims for damages, whether regard, 1. In this it should be noted that into subclasses and a determination of their plaintiffs expressly sought ruling January a proper scope, appropriate.” if 1982 "whether the class should be subdivided murder, degree second de- victed of first holding a new trial for murder, kidnapping, robbery, of actual harm armed gree provide sufficient evidence class, class as decertifying the manslaughter, robbery, attempted to the entire bank on holding a new trial damages and then larceny, rape, grand assault decertify- plaintiffs, damages for individual Doe, weapon. dangerous 701 F.2d at 949 reinstating jury ver- ing class and MacKinnon, J.). (separate statement ordering plaintiffs, named dict as to the prisoners’ of the six counts of the Each a remittitur. complaint in based on actual and Doe was pervasive inmate and a majority’s contention threatened violence Turning to the inappropriate consequential risk of harm the institution. Id. at 948. harm, it actual proof the absence MacKinnon’s belief that the inmates plaintiffs have noted that should be sufficient presented had not evidence Rather, the in- otherwise. never asserted finding that these conditions vio- only declarato- complaint requested mates’ rights their constitutional based lated plus “money dam- ry injunctive relief (1) some level of is on his view violence sustained as ages injuries actual expected security pris- in a maximum to be complained of conditions and result of on, there was insufficient evidence (em- County Jail” at the Madison practices the violence at the institution was ex- added). whether question phasis at 953. MacKinnon’s cessive. Id. never an must be shown was actual harm question statement therefore addressed Indiana Civil case until the issue there were unconstitutional con- of whether filed an amicus brief Liberties Union instance, prison in the first ditions distinguishable This case is thus appeal. admit- whereas in this defendants case Columbia, 697 v. District from Doe ted that conditions the Madison (D.C.Cir.1983), F.2d did not meet minimum constitutional Jail that it could award was instructed Furthermore, in contrast to the standards. plaintiffs’ for the intrinsic value Doe, security prison at issue in maximum rights. It Id. at constitutional jail housing local Jail inappropriate suggest that Doe seems detainees; misdemeanants, others pretrial legal principle justi- established a new sentences, and some serving short-term finding insufficient fies the trial court’s transportation persons awaiting convicted only enunci- in this case when Doe the initial prison system. state Of to the consist- plaintiffs rule that the have ated a action, example, in this plaintiffs named acknowledged they could not ently —that detainees, pretrial one was serv- three were damages of their con- recover for violation driving one-year sentence for without ing a proof rights in the stitutional absence license, serving a short sentence one was Carey Piphus, harm. v. actual See offense, and two had been for an unnamed U.S. robbery awaiting and were convicted (1978); Doe, F.2d at 1122- L.Ed.2d 252 prison. Approximately to their transfer 25. plaintiff class of inmates con- 90% the trial I must further dissent from Because the pretrial detainees. sists of majority’s reliance on court’s and the resem- in bears little factual situation Doe separate Judge MacKinnon’s statement us, Judge case before Mac- to the blance setting jury’s support aside the Doe to that inmate violence is to be Kinnon’s view my In plaintiffs. to the award of prison security maximum expected in a ques- view, has little relevance to Doe if convictees has little that houses violent introduced tion of whether the instant case. any relevance to support an award sufficient evidence separate statement Judge MacKinnon’s Doe, plaintiff damages in this ease. In belief, the trial further expressed his consisted of convicted persuasive, particularly judge found F.2d at below security facility. 697 maximum pay mon- “incongruous con- that it would be plaintiffs had been 1117. The named ey prisoners causing who are damages to ALEXANDER, al., conditions, unhygienic Silas J. who et violence and Plaintiffs-Appellants, silence, and who

adhere to a code of refuse cooperate or to report ame- violations they about which liorating the conditions DISTRICT, al., CHICAGO PARK et (citation omitted). complain.” Id. Defendants-Appellees. conclusion, however, Judge reaching this No. 84-2995. distinguished expressly MacKinnon the sit- Doe, actual harm uation in where Appeals, United States Court supervision alleged lack of was the Seventh Circuit. consequent pervasive risk of harm due to Argued June violence, present inmate from cases like the Sept. Decided one, number and where a substantial varie- ty prison of unconstitutional conditions are As Amended Rehearing on Denial of alleged. Id. at 950. MacKinnon Nov. therefore, recognized, himself that his rea- award of criticizing sons for an prisoners apply

a class of would not to a situation. Jail There is no case, example,

indication plaintiff members of the class were

responsible overcrowding, for the the lack ventilation, inadequate lighting, toilet,

inoperative shower, and wash basin

facilities, windows, boarded-up or the care,

inadequate policies, health visitation

library facilities, pro- and recreational

grams. The fact that few members of have contributed to

a few of the unconstitutional conditions prison justify denying

found does not sum,

relief to the entire class. I believe

that reliance on sepa- MacKinnon’s inappropriate

rate statement Doe finding

this case and cannot

there was insufficient evidence to sustain jury’s plain- award of to the

tiff class.

Case Details

Case Name: Madison County Jail Inmates v. Mark Thompson

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Date Published: Oct 7, 1985

Citation: 773 F.2d 834

Docket Number: 84-1677

Court Abbreviation: 7th Cir.