Bundy v. Cannon
This text of 538 F. Supp. 410 (Bundy v. Cannon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Three inmates at the Maryland Correctional Institution have filed a pro se motion in this court to intervene in Bundy et al. v. Cannon et al., 328 F.Supp. 165 (D.Md.1971) (“Bundy I”). The inmates allege that correctional officials are not complying with the decree entered by this court in Bundy I and that they are being denied due process of law.
In Bundy I this court approved certain “Adjustment Procedures” for dealing with “adjustment violations” of the General Rules and Regulations of the Division of Correction of the State of Maryland; those procedures were filed as an Appendix to that opinion. 328 F.Supp. at 174. On July 19, 1978, those procedures were modified by order of this court; see Bundy et al. v. Cannon et al., 453 F.Supp. 856 (D.Md.1978) (“Bundy II”).
The court appointed Francis B. Burch, Jr., Esq. and Robert Mathias, Esq. to represent the three inmates who filed the present motion to intervene. Thereafter, the respective parties, through counsel, reached agreement on revised Adjustment Procedures, which modify in certain respects the Adjustment Procedures approved by this court in Bundy I and II. The principal change in the existing procedures made by the proposed revised procedures is that a single hearing officer rather than a three *411 person Adjustment Team will now conduct all adjustment hearings. The presence of a Senior Correctional Officer and a Classification Counselor on the three person adjustment teams heretofore in use had caused some inmates, including the inmates seeking to intervene herein, to question the impartiality of the proceedings.
Counsel for those intervenors and counsel for defendants have stated to the court that they believe that “the revised Adjustment Procedures fully comply with minimum due process requirements as set forth by this Court and other applicable judicial decisions” and that “adherence to such provisions should result in the protection and safeguarding of the rights of inmates incarcerated in State correctional institutions without any unnecessary impediment to the ability of State correctional officials to fulfill their obligations to society.” The court concurs in that belief. The court notes, as it noted in Bundy II, 453 F.Supp. at 857, that it makes no finding that the revisions approved herein are required by the Fourteenth Amendment. The inmates have agreed to the voluntary dismissal of their motion to intervene. The court will enter an appropriate order.
REVISED APPENDIX
DIVISION OF CORRECTION REGULATION
STATE OF MARYLAND
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
ADJUSTMENT PROCEDURES
Applicable to: All Institutions, except the Maryland Correctional Pre-Release System
Policy and Procedure:
The Division of Correction recognizes an obligation to provide for the protection of an inmate’s right to due process within the adjustment procedure. It is, therefore, the policy of the Division of Correction that all inmates formally charged with infractions shall be given fair and impartial administrative hearings for the purpose of determining guilt or innocence and for the purpose of determining the appropriate sanctions to be imposed on the guilty. Provision is also made for the informal disposition of certain minor violations when deemed appropriate by staff and acceptable to the inmate.
The procedures herein detailed will provide for the orderly operation of the Division of Correction, as well as for the protection of all due process rights.
Saturdays, Sundays and State Holidays are specifically excluded from the determination of the time parameters herein stated, except for the required minimum of 24 hours that must elapse after the service of the Notice of Infraction and prior to the conduct of an adjustment hearing, which period will not be interrupted. A waiver of these time limitations may be made by the Hearing Officer when exceptional circumstances exist. Exceptional circumstance warranting a waiver must be fully documented.
A. Pre-Hearing Procedures
Any staff person who has reason to believe an inmate has violated any of the rules and regulations of the Division of Correction (as specified in DCR 105 — 1) or of the institution or unit, or of the Work Release Program shall immediately evaluate the incident to determine if it constitutes a major or minor infraction. If it is determined to be a minor infraction, the reporting staff member will consider an offer of informal disposition. The following procedures will then be followed:
1. Informal:
a. If, in the judgement of the reporting staff member, a minor infraction does not require a formal hearing, he may impose a temporary restriction to the inmate’s housing area or location from leisure time activities (such as recreation privileges and participation in Inmate Organization Activities) for a period not to exceed 24 hours.
*412 b. If the inmate accepts the informal disposition, the reporting staff member shall immediately prepare an incident report detailing the circumstances of the incident and will indicate the period of restriction. The inmate shall sign the incident report, as provided, to indicate acceptance of the informal disposition. The incident report shall then be forwarded to the Shift Commander (or designee) for review and approval.
(1) If approved, the Shift Commander will so note on the form, which will then be forwarded to Classification for inclusion in the inmate’s base file.
(2) If disapproved, the Shift Commander will so note on the form, detailing the reasons for that action, advise the reporting staff member of that decision, and order the inmate released from restriction.
(3) The Shift Commander may not require a formal adjustment hearing.
c. The inmate may exercise the right to reject the offer of informal disposition and elect an adjustment hearing.
2. Formal:
a. If, in the judgement of the reporting staff member, a minor infraction warrants a formal adjustment hearing, or if the inmate has rejected the offer of informal disposition, or if any major infractions are alleged, a Notice of Infraction (DC Form 105 — 1) shall immediately be prepared. The Notice of Infraction shall cite the specific alleged rule violations and will detail the circumstances of the incident.
b. The reporting staff member shall determine the extent to which the inmate may be an escape risk, may jeopardize the security of the institution, or may be a danger to himself or to others and, if appropriate, place the inmate on Temporary Segregation (see DCR 110 -19).
c.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
538 F. Supp. 410, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bundy-v-cannon-mdd-1982.