*1 publishing per (g) Damages Noncompliance. notice once sale —If comply week two consecutive weeks the lienor fails to newspaper provisions circulation in with of this sec- county. tion, the same shall lienor to the liable person having legal proper- title (2) public A sale must be held ty in the sum of one hundred dollars day Sunday other than and between ($100.00), together with a reasonable the hours of and 4:00 P. 10:00 A.M. attorney’s fees as awarded [fee] M.: Damages provided by the court. any county any part a. In where section shall be in addition to actual giving the contract to the lien rise damages any party to which other- performed, or wise entitled. obliga- county In the b. wherе the tion secured lien was con-
tracted for.
(3) may purchase public A lienor
sale. (e) (1) Notice of notice of Sale. —
sale shall include:
a. The name and address of the lienor. al., Plaintiffs, Robert et DAIGLE person having b. legal name of the property, title to the or if such HALL, Frank A. Commissioner of Correc- person reasonably cannot be ascer- tion Commonwealth Massa- tained, person the name of the chusetts, al., et Defendants. whom the lienor dealt. Civ. A. No. 74-4783-S. description property. c. A Court, United States District d. The amount due for which the D. Massachusetts. lien claimed. Jan. place e. The of the sale. private f. upon If a sale the date or proposed
after which the sale is made, public or if a sale the date
and hour when the sale is to be
held.
(2) required Notice of sale
mailed shall be mailed to the address lienor,
furnished to the ifor no ad- furnished,
dress has been to the last person
known address of the entitled If notice. no address is known rеasonably ascertainable, it shall necessary not be mail the notice.
(f) Notice to Commissioner of Motor property upon
Vehicles.—If the
the lien is claimed a motor vehicle required registered, that is to copy
lienor shall send a of the notice
of sale to the Commissioner of Motor required by
Vehicles G.S. 20- 114(c). *2 Shapiro, Timothy
Richard E. J. *3 Wilton, Rights Project, Prisoner’s Bos- ton, Mass., plaintiffs. Donahue, Michael C. T. William III, Attys. Gen., Harrod Asst. Robert H. Quinn, Atty. Gen., Boston, Mass., for de- fendants. AND ORDER
REVISED OPINION SKINNER, J.udge. District Opinion of December and Order hereby withdrawn and vacat- rehearing on ed basis herein- following after mentioned in sub- stituted therefor. n plaintiffs three inmates of Institution, Massachusetts Correctional Walpole, security state the maximum prison operated by the Massachusetts Department They allege of Correction. they that partmental have been confined the De- Segregation (DSU) in Unit Cell Block 10 without thе due quired the Fourteenth Amendment to United the Constitution States. The matter af- on plaintiffs, fidavits members of Rights Project, the Prisoners defendants, and of the together copies of no- with given hearings, plaintiffs tices departmental hearings, minutes of intradepartmental various orders memoranda. There does material issue of fact. OF FACT
FINDINGS
1. ROBERT DAIGLE
segrega
Daigle
placed in
Robert
was
infirmary
January
prison
on
tion
having
allegedly
a result
hostage
day.
guard
On
held a
on that
January 25,
Departmental Classifica
*
(the Committee) met
tion Committee
*
body,
This
simplicity’s
Committee is sometimes
referred to in
sake will be re-
and for
Opin-
Departmental
the exhibits as the
Classifica-
to as “the
in this
ferred
Committee”
Board,
appears
tion
but
this
be the
same
ion.
June,
Daigle’s
corrections officials
status.
two
classification
to consider
any prior
given
Daigle
notice of
1974.”
was not
permitted
meeting,
was
“highlights”
not estab-
These
present.
incident
by any evidentiary hearing, nor
lished
guard
discussed, nor was
was not
meeting of
were
July 9, except
discussed at the
subject
dis-
heard. The
evidence
medical
possibility of transfer-
was the
cussion
ring Daigle
expressed
opinion
officer
Bridgewater.
He was
the result of an
June
assault was
placed
in Cell Block
epileptic seizure.
psychotic
grounds
(a) he
opinion
the medical offi-
It was the
(b)
a threat
that he was
cer,
report
expressed in a
to the Com-
reportеd that
safety
It was
of others.
July 12, 1974, that Dai-
dated
missioner
history
epilepsy.
he had
*4
gle’s
suitably
epilepsy
controlled
could be
hearing
held
was
No reclassification
by
and that continued deten-
medication
days
Depart-
required
the 90
within
not serve
tion in Cell Block 10 would
4450.1,
re-
4.3. A
mental Order
Section
any purpose and would be detrimental.
May
hearing
on
held
was
classification
3,
ap-
On
the Commissioner
October
Daigle
represented.
was
at
which
Daigle
proved the retention of
in Cell
The Committee determined
following
Block 10 with the
comment:
January
inadequate
hearing
25 was
on
“Unfortunately, until the
medical
hearing.
ordered new
psychiatric
complete,
are
evaluations
1974, Daigle
July 2,
writ-
reсeived
On
to have an alternative
don’t seem
we
hearing
on
to be held
ten notice of a
placement
at MCI
other than Block 10
substantially
July
9. The notice was
Walpole.”
the form hereinafter described.
Daigle’s
in Cell
detention in
DSU
did not hear
evidence
Committee
10 has not been reviewed since
Block
Daigle’s
respect to
initial transfer
Sep-
middle
Between
time.
attention
The focus of
Cell Block 10.
November,
how-
first
tember
ever,
occurring on June
on an incident
was
plaintiffs
three
conducted
seriously
Daigle
11, 1974, in which
had
hunger
in their
resulted
strike which
officers,
injured
two correctional
hospitalization.
subsequently
uncon-
been found
had
taken
scious in his room. He had been
2. ARTHUR MORROW
Hospitаl,
his condi-
to Beth
where
Israel
segre-
placed in
Morrow was
Plaintiff
diagnosed
psychomotor
had
tion
temporal
1973,
gation
24,
he was
on
after
October
epilepsy.
lobe
being
first
He was
accused of
drunk.
a recommenda-
Committee
made
placed
and later that
in Cell Block 9
September
on
tion to
Hall
Commissioner
night
Morrow
Block 10.
moved Cell
they
medical
19,
in which
described
regarding
his
did
notice
not receive
his reten-
report
recommended
and then
placement in
Block 10 until Febru-
Cell
10.
recommenda-
tion in
Block
Cell
ary 15, 1974,
a letter
he received
when
following comment:
tion included the
cancelling
hearing
for that
schedule
plaintiff
February 25,
day.
“Reviewing
pat-
1974,
Daigle’s
On
bеhavior
notice,
in the
during
received
was
this incarceration
tern
hearing
described, of a
negative
form hereinafter
difficult
The three
task.
March
1974.
on
highlights
be before the Committee
period
this
could
intro-
At
evidence was
this
no
adequately discussed because
sys-
judicial
Morrow’s
other than
pending
duced
all
action
hostage
since he was
alleged
first time
For the
record.
an
tem. These include
1973; alleged
10 on October
confined in Cell Block
at Norfolk
incident
officially
informed
Morrow was
hostage
Walpole in Janu-
incident at
place him in Cell
alleged,
the decision
ary, 1974;
assault
an
segregation
stabbing
Block 10 was related to a
inci-
appropriate.”
...
present
dеnt
had occurred
cell
his
Mr. Workman was not
at either
6, 1974, plaintiff
September
Mor-
September
block. On March
the
meeting.
4 or the
copy
row received a
of the recommenda-
So
much
letter as re-
his
alia,
inter
which,
tions of
Board
lates
to Morrow reads as follows:
cluded
retention in
continued
Cell Block
he
“Since
last
was
reviewed
the D.
psychological
personality,
various
C.C.
he
received three
and medical tests.
reports
threatening
on
officers
7-
plaintiff
May
11-1974,
On
disobeying
re-
Morrow
order
Superintendent,
ceived a notice of another
Order 4310.1 Sec.
May 15,
S.18B,
held on
8-6-1974,
was
Morrow
on
and for
on
Assault
present
counsel,
meeting,
without
Correction Officer on
He
8-4-1974.
no
рleased
Guilty
but
evidence was
concern-
was
Not
on
be found
ing
offense. Plaintiff
later
the 8-6-1974 incident.
received a memorandum which recom-
“His behavior is such that he should
placed
mended
he
in DSU. This
be continued in D.S.U.
for an-
status
recommendation was not
based on
day period.
other 90
predicated
duct or acts
“Mr.
positive side,
recently
“On the
progress,
opportuni-
Morrow’s
and the
counseling
quested
from Mr. William
ties for the individualized
attention
Clark,
Psychologist,
Staff
and should
*5
treatment Mr. Morrow
On
warrants.”
encouraged
pursue
Also,
be
to
this.
May 30, 1974, Mr.
no-
Morrow received
strong
he continues
in ed-
his
interest
tice that Commissioner Hall concurred
Weaver,
ucation. Mr. Frank
Head
in the
recommendatiоn
the Board.
MCI-Walpole
staff,
school
has in-
August 29, 1974, plaintiff
On
received
try
develop
dicated that he will
to
a similar notice from defendant Solomon
program
begin-
educational
for him
hearing
Septem-
that a
held on
ning
early
in
October.”
4,
hearing solely
ber
1974. The
con-
progress
cerned
Morrow’s
in
Mr.
DSU
3. GERALD SOUSA
any specific
and did not focus on
acts or
segrega-
placed
Plaintiff
was
in
Sousa
hearing
conduct. The
was terminated
24, 1973,
tion on October
after he was
September 11, 1974,
and continued to
being
accused
in
involved
the stab-
stabbing
which time the
incident and
bing of
another inmate.
factual
disciplinary reports
various
were dis-
his
as to notice
circumstances of
case
cussed.
hearing
substаntially
same
opportunity
Morrow had the
ex-
to
plaintiff
up
those
Morrow
as
to
plain
incidents,
these
but no evidence
hearing
1,
At the hear-
of March
1974.
concerning
charges
presented.
was
ing
1,
on March
Sousa was
stabbing
Discussion of the
incident was
option
choosing
either
DSU
protest
conducted over the
of Morrow’s
program
with an education
and a nine-
counsel. Morrow has remained in DSU
ty-day review,
facing an
or of
indefinite
date,
status since that
but has never
stay
in
evi-
DSU. At
no
this
been informed of the recommendation of
6,
dence was introduced.
March
On
September
the Board from the
4 and 11
received
defendant
Sousa
letter
hearings,
the statement of
reasons
conсurring
Hall
in the recommendation
his continued retention in
DSU or of
placed
in
that he be
Committee
final decision of the Commissioner.
DSU status.
1; 1974,
On October
defendant Solo-
The basis of
recommendation was
this
mon, in a letter to
ex-
Hall,
defendant
as follows:
plicitly relied on
H.
a letter from Workman,
presenting
worker,
a social
as
is a
disorder
“Inmate
character
why
long standing
“the best rationale
reten-
continued
He denied
[sic].
guilt
tion for both
in the offense for which
[Morrow
he
Sousa]
Hall, explicitly
sentence,
in a letter to defendant
has
to a life
committed
letter as
very
relied on Mr. Workman’s
While
as
bitter.
described
been
imprisoned
why
presenting
con-
sought
“the
rationale
best
lead оth-
he
has
[Morrow
retention for both
tinued
author-
er
in rebellion
inmates
segregation
ap-
(cid:127)
...
Sousa]
ity
his own
acted out on
also
propriate.”
manner,
provocative
in a violent and
inflicting
injury on Of-
severe
even
report
is attached to
Mr. Workman’s
possibly even
the rela-
ficers and
Opinion Appendix A.
tively
murder
stab-
recent vicious
bing of an inmate. His associates'
NOTICE OF HEARINGS
always
an undesirable
been of
hearings
respect
held
With
appears that,
he is
when
nature.
February
Committee
presents
population,
threat to the
plaintiff
received a
thereafter,
each
safety of
other inmates and offi-
both
fol-
in the
notice
standard
institution,
potentially to
cers and
lowing fоrm:
and that
this threat should be mini-
Department
date
“On the above
by housing
Segregated
mized
him a
Hearing
will be
Classification
status.”
your current status
review
ducted to
On
was
June
another
and make recommendations
conducted and on June
Sousa
Commissioner of Correction.
was informed that he
to remain
was
Department Classification
“The
confined DSU.
by the Commis-
was established
Board
Committee’s recommendation
transfers
hear
sioner to
cases where
11, however, reported
June
Sousa
Segregation
Departmental
or from the
“progressing well,”
that he should
MCI, Walpole
recom-
Unit at
eligible
for “Educational
Release”
mended.
University
program,
of Massachusetts
necessary
you
deem
“In the event
*6
progress
and that
if his
continued
representative
you may
awith
consult
could
considered
transfer to
M.C.
hearing.”
prior
the scheduled
I., Norfolk,
August 29,
in the fall. On
6.4(a)
Department Order
of
Section
plaintiff
1974,
Sousa received a
of
notice
governs
4400.1,
classifi-
notice of
4,
a
September
scheduled for
hearings
notice
provides
cation
plain-
1974. After a brief discussion of
description of the board
“shall contain a
programs
the
tiff’s
was contin-
procedures
fol-
powers,
its
and
September 11, 1974,
ued to
at which
meeting,
for the
the reason
lowed at
meeting,
stabbing
plain-
time the
incident and
listing
time and
tiff’s recent
record were
meeting.”
place for the
briefly mentioned.
Sousа
remained
date,
in
status since
DSU
but has
UP-
ATTENDANT
5. DEPRIVATIONS
never been informed of the recommenda-
THE
DETENTION IN
D.S.U.
ON
September
tions
Board from the
4
10,
they
in Cell Block
Since
have been
September
hearing,
11
state-
plaintiffs,
support
in
ment of reasons
contin-
(a) may
cells
from their
be released
ued retention in
or of
DSU
the final de-
of-
only
approval
with the
cision
defendant Hall.
they
charge,
in
whereas
ficer
early October,
In
counsel for
freely
formerly
to move
able
were
plaintiffs
provided were
recommen-
institution,
through dations of several members of the Com-f
cells,
(b)
whereas
in their
must eat
regarding
Among
mittee
Mr. Sousa.
oth-
formerly
eat with
they
could
these recommendations
was that of
dining halls,
at the
er inmates
Workman,
did
who
not attend either the
cells,
September
other
hearing.
in
September
(c)
visit
4
11
per-
formerly
they
were
1974,
Solomon,
On October
whereas
defendant
mingle
and converse
mitted
RULINGS OF LAW
inmates,
privately with other
A. DUE PROCESS
(d)
making
yell
requests must
when
requirements
The minimum
enough
everyone
loudly
in
prison disciplinary
due
ings
in
hear
order to
their
to hear in
corridor
depriva
which can result in serious
guard,
the attention of
attract
privileges
tion of
been
have
established
formerly
they
could make
whereas
requests
McDonnell,
Wolff
418 U.S.
guards
privately,
(No. 73-679,
S.Ct.
659 M.C.I., Walpole.” of each the inmate to re- is induce Norfolk -21). Memorandum, p. frain from further (Defendants’ infractions distinguishing pur- right, rules. feature of They probably if The are however, punishment, a con- of it pose is enforcement in each case is the specific past sequence require- of process conduct. discipline, due the same Travisono, supra, v. F.2d v. Gomes 490 apply In in each Gomes case. ments 1215; Haymes (1st United ex rel. Travisono, States v. Cir. F.2d 1209 490 Montanye, (2nd Cir., remanded, F.2d 977 1973), U.S. vacated 1974). Packer, supra, p. 33. 41 L.Ed.2d 94 S.Ct. process re- (1974), it held that due I hold therefore clas precautionary quirements trans- in the imposes a sification which substantial prisoner, to an fer Island of a Rhode change of adverse the conditions con out-of-state institution specific prior finement of con because required of a same as those subject duct is procedure. of characteristics process minimum of duе standards im two were not described institutions posed Wolff, notwithstanding the M.C.I., Norfolk taken into account. presence treatment, of elements of secu M.C.I., Walpole, de- have been rity necessity. or administrative liberately respect to differentiated discipli actions taken case were Transfer the conditions of confinement. nary. generally is good a re- Norfolk considered it If is ever claimed that transfer of behavior. court ward justifiable an inmate to Cell Block 10 is judicial conditions at notice that takes purposes treatment, of defend- onerous than at Wal- Norfolk are less pole. heavy ants will have burden es- tablishing proposition by such a some change in major [adverse] “[A] objective form of evidence. confinement” is consid- the conditions of good time, equivalent of loss ered the invoking I make clear that due should guarantee process, due procedure directed at 19). supra, p. Wolff, (94 2982 n. S.Ct. In diffi not at the view the result. prison administration, recognized culties courts Various given discretion broadest must of confinement the conditions adversely carry out their changed correction officials for administrative nearly impossible Procunier v. general security, tasks. reasons, or because Martinez, pp. supra, 1806-1807. 94 S.Ct. particular availability in a insti- of pro process is “The touchstone due programs of rehabilitation tution of thought against arbi tection of the individual appropriate particu- for a sup government.” Wolff, trary action arguable is also lar inmate. It ra, p. 2976; States ex United decisions, S.Ct. such as some classification Haymes Montanye, supra, 505 F. prediction rel. threats to on a based p. not the business 2d security, dependent upon the judgment for that to substitute its court ability personnel to translate of trained officials, long offi as these *8 of perceived signals spe- so myriad into a of parameters of warning. cials act within the broad prison cific No administra- process. procedural ignore warnings due tion can afford to though not for them are even the bases following the cоnstitutes The objective susceptible articulation. to : minimum fundamental cases, process required The in such due here, charges need not be delineated notice of 1. Advance written in this case since the adduced inmate, evidence given no the to must of character. is a different of 24 hours advance than less hearing impartial tribu- distinguish an always before easy is goal treatment, nal. discipline from since the 660 Procunier, opinion rehearing, state- ette v. must be written 2. There (cid:127) upon (9th Cir., 1974). 510 relied F.2d 613 of the evidence ment discipli- the and the reasons Wolff, furthermore, di has not nary action. responsibility prison the of minished of allowed should be
3. The inmate accusing subject ficials themsеlves to present documentary evidence probing Pal witnesses migiano examination. defense, witnesses and to call Baxter, 1280, v. 487 F.2d 1290 permitting do will not if him to so (1st 1973), remanded, Cir. vacated and safety jeopardize institutional 418 94 S.Ct. 41 L.Ed.2d U.S. goals. correctional (1974). pre 1155 It follows the testimony illiterate, or vious discussion that if the inmate is the Where complexity the is not to be issues makes where inmate directly by witnesses, unlikely will be it nevertheless that inmate the present must be revealed to with suf evi- the inmate able to collect and permit adequate re necessary ficient detail to inmate dence case, intelligently. comprehension but it inmate, or the aid of a fellow seek ade- forbidden, if B. AND CRUEL PUNISH- UNUSUAL quate from staff or substitute aid MENT designated by competent inmate existing in Cell conditions the staff. Block 10 do not themselves offend the very Eighth The notice must at the least prohibition against Amendment in describe the conduct punishment. cruel and unusual Deten pro precipitated the mate which has period tion in Cell Block 10 for out posed reclassification, giving time and proportion being pun to the offense procedure place. It must describe ished, however, long period or for such a hearing and the in be followed at the damage permanent as to run the risk of procedural rights above de mates physical and mental of an health might scribed. inmate, well offensive. Moriarty, O’Brien 944 v. 489 F.2d requires necessity Practical (1st 1974); Anderson, Cir. Johnson v. ordinarily tribunal F.Supp. (D.Del.1974). 370 up prior prison made knowledge staff safeguard There is no institutional gen inmate some system present Walpole against at interest eral re outcome. unreasonably long provi detention. The quirement impartiality requires, every days sion for a review inade very least, however, the tribu quate, objective since no criteria accusing nal include the officer. provided body reviewing which the Bundy Cannon, F.Supp. guided. (D.Md., 1971) While confrontation cross- REHEARING required examination of accusers are not On the motlon of the defendants Wolff, under and are left to the discre- rehearing court of the above Permitted safeguards officials, tion testimony, matter to receive additional imposed prevent should be abuse of hearing, As a of this De result held on very least, that discretion. theAt 27, 1974, following cember I make the hearing body record must show that findings rulings, additional specific finding (1)
has made a confrontation *9 (2) potentially disrupt of underlying cross-examination the institution facts upon nary system [12] established described in Commissioner’s Department comprehensive discipli- Correction which that conclusion 72-1, “Disciplinary is Clutch- Policy,” based. Bulletin population in since June of the institution. been effect which has summary disposi- provides Block Transfers to Cell 10 are not ordi- for 1972. It right perceived by offenses,” narily of with adminis- “minor a tion of board, disciplinary. disciplinаry appeal tration as an to hearing disciplinary board full before a full, however, When Cell Block 9 is “major calls This bulletin offenses.” serving periods mates who are of “isola- promulgation more detailed for the punishments specific tion” as for viola- by the regulations for each institution tions are transferred to Cell Block 10. January thereof, Superintendent and on open Another sanction which MCI, Superintendent 1974, the disciplinary board is a “Recommendation 4310.1, Walpole, Institution Order issued superintendent, (for ultimate decision Oper- “Disciplinary and Unit Procedures Commissioner) de- of transfer to documents, governing These two ation.” partment segregation unit.” Institution and, comply together, fully in taken 11.5(b)(3)iii. 4310.1, If Order Section requirements respects, exceed the some a recommendation made a hear- McDonnell, of Wolff v. U.S. ing by Departmental is then held Clas- (1974). 41 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. Departmental sification Committee. Or- 4400.1, pro- Departmental 72-1 Bulletin der Classifi- Commissioner’s D, paragraph vides, however, then, VII in in cation Committee as cases disciplinary procedures purposes security, classification- for no formal felony necessity, also a or the offense is treatment administrative held where history, to the District referred reviews the inmate’s entire which investigation prosecu- evidentiary hearings Attorney and' does not conduct as Order in See also Institution offenses inmate tion 4310.1, court. stands accused his institutional rec- Section ord. One of the sanctions available guilt has been established Where MCI, disciplinary Walpole, board as disciplinary board, after a punishment major is con- offense rules, current ducted accordance with Unit, located finement to the Isolation Departmental Classification Commit- M.G.L.A., Chapter 127, Cell Block 9. proceeding justified in without a tee is of confinement Section 41. Conditions hearing. further Due does substantially the on Cell Block 9 are hearing. require more than one previously as same described, except on Cell Block get however, plaintiffs, did not inmates are hearing. alleged personal property offens- allowed to have There clothing, District At- other minimal and are not had been referred to the than es paragraph ordinarily torney, VII D admitted to educational and under counselling program. The maximum Bulletin 72-1 and sec- Commissioner’s 4310.1, period no to isolation 9.2 of Institution Order tion confinement days. offense, held. could be each fifteen Block 10 Inmates on Cell against invoking rule personal (Daigle property fact has procedures when the set) some television and have access referred to the District has been offense Attorney counselling programs, educational according is, defendants’ Block 10 is but their confinement Cell counsel, apprehension based on periоd, subject for an indefinite judicial proceeding combination every ninety days. view Inmates punishment would con institutional 10 for reasons transferred Cell Block might jeopardy, also stitute double specific other than infractions privilege the inmate’s interfere with vol- rules indeed transfers are some appre against This self-incrimination. groundless. untary part fear appears of inmates who on the to me to be hension prohibition endangered in The constitutional that their lives would *10 662 only judicial jeopardy applies to spe- to Cell Block double 10 was on account of proceedings. Cordova, past conduct, States v. cific United and in effect awas 1969); (5th disciplinary transfer, 414 Cir. F.2d 277 Unitеd however else (7th Shapiro, may styled. v. F.2d 680 Cir. officially equally States It is 1967); Anderson, F. requirements clear Johnson that the minimum any Supp. 1373, (D.Del.1974). process In required by due were Wolff case, problem cer- the constitutional is afforded them. inflicting pun- tainly the not solved any There does not mate- depriving of due ishment and the inmate any fact, rial issue of nor reason hold to privilege process as well. hearings making per- further before preserved by Insti- self-incrimination is order, injunc- manent at least as far as 4310.1, b) 11.4 tution Section Order tive pro- relief is concerned. Under the paragraph Commissioner’s Bul- IV A of hearings visions of Fed.R.Civ.P. the privilege personal is letin 72-1. The to preliminary permanent on relief аre inmate, it, the claim or hereby plaintiffs’ consolidated. The option. waive it at his damages claim for has not been heard plaintiffs full entitled to a were upon proceedings. and must wait further guilt before on issue Accordingly, hereby I enter the follow- bodies, responsible or another of these ing Order.
either board or a classifi- they committee, cation com- before ORDER adverse mitted to more ordered, adjudged It is and decreed because conditions of confinement that: their offenses. (1) hereby The defendants are en- future, appears me, It to that in the joined retaining plain- from easily required result could most Depart- tiffs in detention in the rescinding accomplishеd by rules Segregation MCI, mental Unit at hearings forbidding disciplinary board transferring Walpole, from or cases which have referred them to such detention because It outside law enforcement authorities. specific prior their conduct until does not me that these rules seem to they afforded have been a disci- up purpose. serve useful It is plinary hearing in accordance defendants, the court, and not 72- Commissioner’s Bulletin specific means determine 1 and Institution Order 4310.1. they comply or- with the (2) enjoined The defendants are retaining ders hereinafter entered. plaintiffs Although present discipli transferring Depart- them to the nary hearing MCI, in force at rules Wal Segregation mental Unit pоle, requiremements exceed treatment unless a classification Wolff, applied are rules to committee, hearing, after a hearings held. whatever findings specific made based It is axiomatic that one of ele the basic evidence adduced at such ments of treat due is uniform program that there a treatment is ment. available in said Unit which plain- appropriate for each more C. CONCLUSION condition than tiff’s then program treatment available specific finding No under the MCI, population Eighth required Amendment Walpole. plaintiffs my these in view of conclu respect process. (3) sions with to due Hall within The defendant shall plaintiffs clear days that the transfer submit the court *11 regulations jacket departmental conceal bloodstained and dun- approval garees implicating him in death will: which stabbing day) of an inmate earlier that clearly identify (a) history following imprisonment a and with accordance proceedings in first on a life sentence for 7-2-64 with foregoing Opinion; degree murder that has included hearings accord- in (b) provide for following: placement from 4- D.S.U. Bul- Commissioner’s ance with had behavior that 8-70 to 10-7-70 for substantially in letin 72-1 injury to two officers serious caused Or- Institution with accordance assaults, drugs, un- and involved inmate an der 4310.1 before relationships in- other wholesome with reclassified seg- mates; inciting in a a disturbance conditions more adverse rеgation 6-14-71; inci- unit on and two alleged because finement Assaulting In- Officer and dents of án conduct, specific prior notwith- citing a Disturbance on 11-20-1972 standing outside a referral He in Block 12-20-1972. has been for authorities enforcement law seemed that since 11-2-1973. It has investigation such presents population, a in he when he is pros- possible prior conduct and safety in- other threat to the of both inmate; ecution potentially mates and officers and procedure provide for (e) for a institution. De- to the of inmates transfer noted areas certain D.C.C. Segregation partmental Unit progress positive its in involvement purposes treatment for report recommended of 3-6-1974 and paragraph (2) with accordance edu- recommended continued D.S.U. above; and college cational release courses (d) provide institutional for an willingness indicated school and MCI-W prevent procedure he to MCI-N if to consider transfer detention progress ac- established in his continued Segregation Departmental regarding tivities. recommendation forego- Unit, defined in the as college pursued for rea- was not courses unreasonably ing Opinion, for An made clear to the D.C.C. never sons long periods, circum- or under for precipitating concern increased event creating per- a risk of stances change of security in Block 10 and physical mаnent mental or July in June and administration inmate, in violation harm to an sharply restrictions 1974 resulted in Eighth Amendment curtailed his as a runner work Constitution of the United Counseling altogether. it terminated States. manager intermit- with the ease became period (4) further wanted for when he to stand tent for case is short hearings plaintiffs’ claim of a screen on the other side on the be seen recently damages. persons initiated other had D.S.U.; practice inmates in with counseling visiting with often interfered A APPENDIX Educational rooms. sessions in available Workman, by Mr. Recommendation A relationships personal volun- Gerald Member, the Case of on D.C.C. teers continued. Sousa W-938 Report Disciplinary He received September Offi- on a Correction 8-4-1974 A&B placed to an Officer. status cer and Direct Threats in D.S.U. Mr. Sousa broom precipitating in- have struck with He is said to on 3-6-1974 due (he restrain- officers who on 10-24-1973 handle two that occurred cident ing attempted obey a friend his. Officers officer and refused to disengage verbally means to being In late ported abused. himself them. learning experience, other Without August and two Sousa “hunger likely only repeat sorts began seems that he strike” mates past experience protest apparent conditions when released into spokesman population. He is the Block 10. group. list of concerns was A theOn basis of his in these behavior *12 only re- when much latеr past impulsive months, two is, that Mr. quested the administration. aggressive behavior re- for which he that individuals told selected has Sousa Disciplinary Report, ceived the 8-4-1974 publicity that want did not all he negative, manipulative, im- support developed not he did age-keeping behavior associated with hunger day sponsored N.P.R.A. hunger strike, appears it point has he Lawyers for Mr. Sousa strike. yet personal not reached a ma- suggested probably contin- he not turity that would allow him to make hunger is released ue strike if he adjustment gen- successful to life em- and that he would be from Block 10 population MCI-Walpole. eral bittered if retained D.S.U. recommended, therefore, remain that he Cоnsidering day peri- indication that status for D.S.U. another 90 hunger continuing support od with discontinue the Sousa would of a D.S.U., counseling program. the strike strike release from appears more a tactic than a matter
principle. he It would put pressure on D.C.C.
tends it to spokesman has he
for his release. As leadership position
assumed a whether
by design assumption or not. His frequently
leadership past in the has in, with, or been sulted associated Plaintiffs, al., Arthur FANO et flict and disturbance. In institutional privately this instance he trying be seems Larry al., MEACHUM et Defendants. mat- to disassociate himself from A. No. Civ. 74-5059-S. ters attendant to the strike negative sense, viewed while even Court, United States District he made little or no effort to do D.' Massachusetts. publicly. same He seems now to Jan. right “jail in the house middle of the politics” get he has said would he
involved in if transferred to MCI-N. position
He must have realized that this goal professed
was detrimental to his appears
transfer to MCI-N. This repetition past behavior which position
locks himself into a of main- taining image up fighting he ends
preserve everyone’s seeming satisfac-
tion but his own.
From a treatment and behavioral
perspective hoped it that he will be counseling
able to make better use only situation, and learn from negative personally
how unful- positions developed, also filjing
how he has to find within himself the