Finney v. Mabry

458 F. Supp. 720, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15094
District Court, E.D. Arkansas·Decided October 5, 1978·No. PB-69-C-24·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

CONSENT DECREE

EISELE, Chief Judge.

The parties, through their respective counsel, have reached an agreement or an accord for resolving the issues in the above captioned lawsuit. They seek the Court’s sanction of that agreement through means of a Consent Decree and judicial approval of the same. Being satisfied that the pro *721 posed Consent Decree will reasonably resolve the issues raised by the parties, the Court hereby gives its tentative approval hereto and enters the following Order and Decree.

I.

The individual named petitioner is Robert Finney (hereinafter the “petitioner”). The individual named respondent is James Ma-bry, Commissioner of the Arkansas Department of Correction (hereinafter the “ADC”). ■

II.

The affected class whose interests are represented by petitioner consists of all past, present and future inmates confined in the correctional institutions of the Arkansas Department of Correction.

III.

The respondent, ADC, by entering into this decree makes no admission of any violation of constitutional rights of any specific inmate, whether in or out of population, not heretofore adjudicated.

IV.

The respondent enters into this settlement and Consent Decree solely for the purpose of maintaining a humane prison system consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of Arkansas.

V.

The ADC will honor all prior orders and injunctions, including but not limited to the following:

(1) No ADC employee will use excessive force against any inmate.

(2) No ADC employee will verbally abuse, curse or use racial slurs when addressing or talking with inmates.

(3) Reasonable and necessary medical, surgical and dental care will be provided to all inmates, and no inmate will be assigned to do work beyond his or her physical capability.

(4) Reasonable and necessary mental health care will be provided to all inmates. .

(5) The ADC will maintain an internal grievance procedure, no less restrictive than the present procedure, and inmates are encouraged to utilize the same.

(6) ADC officers assigned to the East Building will be rotated on a regular basis.

(7) Inmates will not be required to run to and from work as part of their job and training.

(8) No more than two inmates will be placed in any one punitive segregation cell, and bunks will be provided for each on which to sleep, except for emergency situations.

(9) Each inmate in punitive segregation will receive a proper diet daily. Grue will no longer be served as a punitive measure.

(10) No inmate will be confined in punitive segregation for more than thirty (30) consecutive days for any one disciplinary episode. If at the end of thirty days it is found that the inmate should not be returned to the population, he may be kept segregated but under conditions that are not punitive in accordance with the court order as recorded in Finney v. Hutto, 410 F.Supp. 251 and Hutto v. Finney, --- U.S. ---, 98 S.Ct. 2565, 57 L.Ed.2d 522 (1978).

(11) No more than two inmates will be confined in any two-man administrative segregation cell, and no more than four inmates will be confined in any four-man administrative segregation cell, and bunks for each to sleep on will be provided, except for emergency situations.

(12) The assistant superintendent in charge of security of the Cummins Unit will re-evaluate inmates confined in the East Building, except for those in *722 mates on investigative status or serving a punitive sentence or death sentence at least once each sixty (60) days, and the warden of the Cummins Unit will review the cases of the same category of inmates at least once a year.

(13) Damage done to the East Building by inmates will be repaired as soon as practical.

(14) All major disciplinary committees at the various units of the ADC will be administered in accordance with the guidelines set out in Wolff v. McDonnell and Judge Eisele’s Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 1978.

(15) Before an inmate can be found guilty of malingering by a disciplinary committee or a panel thereof, the committee or panel must consult with the doctor or other person who examined the inmate and determine that in the opinion of the examiner the accused inmate was in fact a malingerer on the occasion in question.

(16) The charging officer will not sit as a member of the disciplinary committee hearing that particular charge.

(17) The disciplinary committee will not adjudicate charges solely on the basis of an officer’s investigatory report of what some unnamed person told him. The committee must have before it the name and statement of the witness with first-hand knowledge of the infraction.

(18) If weapons or contraband are the basis of the charge and the officer has these items in his possession, they must be presented to the disciplinary committee for its inspection.

(19) Tape recordings of all disciplinary hearings will be carefully maintained by the various units of the ADC for a period of three years.

(20) Inmates accused of major infractions will be given a hearing within 72 hours after the occurrence of the disciplinary episode, exclusive of weekends and holidays, and the superintendent may grant limited extensions of time.

(21) Insofar as possible, major disciplinary hearings will be conducted on weekdays between 6:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M.

(22) All inmates accused of major infractions will receive a copy of the charge at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the hearing.

(23) All other regulations set out in the Inmate Handbook concerning discipli-narles will be strictly followed by the ADC personnel.

(24) All regulations concerning inmate mail in the Inmate Handbook will be strictly followed by the ADC personnel.

(25) The services of the Legal Adviser to the Inmates will continue to be made available to inmates as described by the Court in Finney v. Hutto, 410 F.Supp. 251, at 262 and 263.

(26) Law libraries will be maintained by the ADC at the Cummins, Tucker and Women’s Units for use by inmates. Inmates confined to other units of the ADC and inmates on restrictive status, such as punitive or administrative segregation, will be provided legal books and material in accordance with the rules and regulations of their respective units.

(27) The ADC will not discriminate against Muslims on account of their religious beliefs.

(28) Muslims will not be served pork against their will, and no food that has been in contact with pork or pork grease or lard made from pork fat will .be served to members of the Muslim religion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Finney v. Mabry, 458 F. Supp. 720, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15094 (E.D. Ark. 1978).

458 F. Supp. 720 (Finney v. Mabry) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related