Hamilton v. Landrieu

351 F. Supp. 549, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11079
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana
DecidedNovember 17, 1972
DocketCiv. A. 69-2443
StatusPublished
Cited by40 cases

This text of 351 F. Supp. 549 (Hamilton v. Landrieu) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hamilton v. Landrieu, 351 F. Supp. 549, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11079 (E.D. La. 1972).

Opinion

ORDER

CHRISTENBERRY, District Judge.

This matter came before the Court on a Rule to Show Cause Why The Special Master’s Report Should Not Be Adopted, and a hearing therein was held on November 8, 1972.' After hearing, neither plaintiffs nor defendants having introduced any evidence to controvert the Special Master’s Report, it is hereby ordered that the Report and Recommendations filed with this court by the Special Master are hereby approved and adopted.

It is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that defendants without delay shall immediately implement the following:

1. Defendants shall continue to provide basic medical services and screening physicals under a contract with Charity Hospital. The. quantity and quality of medical services shall be at least at the same level now provided under the present contract between the City of New Orleans and Charity Hospital.

2. A new prison hospital-infirmary shall be constructed immediately.

3. Permanent arrangements shall be made to provide adequate security for medical personnel and to facilitate the needs of the medical program, such as by providing drivers and vehicles to transport and supervise inmates who must be taken to Charity Hospital for treatment.

4. A medical aide shall be on the premises at Tulane and Broad Streets during the evening hours when no other medical personnel are present.

5. Arrangements shall be made with Charity Hospital or with the assistance of Charity Hospital to introduce psychiatric and dental care services and a drug abuse program.

6. A permanent year-round recreation program shall be maintained in the prison, such as described in the recreation report prepared by the New Orleans Recreation Department, which has been filed in the record in this case. This program should strive to give each inmate one hour of recreation off the tier at least five days a week.

7. Sufficient security personnel shall be provided so as to enable the recreation program to operate effectively.

8. As soon as the new prison hospital is completed, an indoor recreation area shall be provided in the prison.

9. The management and operation of the prison shall be improved immediately. To this end the City of New Orleans, with the assistance of the Criminal Sheriff, shall create a City Department of Detention and Corrections with authority*over and responsibility. for the proper operation of Orleans Parish Prison. This Department immediately shall employ an Executive Director who shall by. education, training and prior, experience be qualified as a professional penologist. The Executive Director shall have the responsibility and the authority to assure the effective and proper management of the Orleans Parish Prison.

10. No inmate shall be incarcerated in the present main Orleans Parish Prison facility located on Broad Street after March 1, 1975, and defendants are prohibited from using this facility as a place of incarceration following that date, except for A. & 0. purposes as provided below.

After March 1, 1975, the present main prison on Broad Street may be used only as an A. & O. unit for admission and orientation for a reasonable period until a new A. & O. facility has been constructed.

No inmate may be confined in the present prison at Broad .Street after March 1, 1975, except to undergo A. & 0. processing. No such inmate may be incarcerated there for more than 14 days. No more than 100 inmates may *551 be incarcerated there at the same time. Defendants shall use every reasonable effort to secure the necessary funds and build a new A. & O. unit to replace the present prison, as soon as practicable, after which no inmate may be incarcerated in the Broad Street prison.

11. The inmate population of the main prison at Broad Street shall be limited immediately and without delay to a maximum of no more than 450 inmates, and the inmate population at the First District Annex, should it be reopened, shall be limited to a maximum of no more than 60 inmates.

12. Practices whereby inmates are assigned to sensitive tasks which may compromise security such as operation of elevators, and tasks which have inmates perform personal services for other inmates, or which give inmates access to records or information about other inmates shall be discontinued.

13. Defendants shall promptly fill all existing vacancies in the security staff and, in addition, there shall be an immediate increase in security personnel as follows:

3 Prison Officers IV

11 Prison Officers III

30 Prison Officers II

60 Prison Officers I

6 Matrons

14. The quality of the security personnel overall shall be upgraded both in recruitment standards and training programs in the following respects:

a. The Department of Civil Service shall require all applicants to meet the standards set forth in its job descriptions and adhere to strict examination performance.

b. All employees of the prison shall be civil service qualified.

c. The incremental increases in wages between the positions of Prison Officer I, II, III, and IV are presently insufficient. These shall be increased to give incentives for prison officers of lower rank to seek advancement.

d. A bona fide pre-service training program shall be organized outside the prison, and an in-service training program shall be organized as an annual refresher. The Federal Bureau of Prisons Training Materials for Jail Administrators (Lieutenants and up) and Jail Officers (Sergeant and down) shall be part of the training.

e. Recruitment of minority group employees, in all categories, shall be increased.

15. Prison Officers shall be stationed inside the dormitories, inside the central corridors of the lock-down tiers, and inside the “fifth floor roof” facility. This shall be in addition to the present post deployment, which could then be somewhat reduced. This provision shall be effected as soon as there are sufficient trained personnel.

16. A better system of key identification and key control shall be introduced. A master set of duplicate keys shall be stored outside the prison, but available to the locksmith, as needed.

17. Female prisoners being processed through the main prison shall always be supervised by a Matron.

18. Mentally deranged prisoners shall never be unsupervised or unescorted.

19. Elevators of the prison should be operated by employees rather than inmates.

20. All inmates (sentenced and unsentenced) should be clothed in prison uniforms (except when going to court), so that inmates can readily be distinguished from employees and visitors.

21. The quantity and quality of “shakedowns,” i. e., searches of inmates, their quarters and examination of the physical plant both interior and exterior shall be increased. These “shakedowns” shall not be intended to harass inmates nor be conducted in a way calculated to harass inmates.

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

Related

Williams v. Kelone
560 So. 2d 915 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1990)
Inmates of the Allegheny County Jail v. Wecht
699 F. Supp. 1137 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1988)
Crain v. Bordenkircher
342 S.E.2d 422 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1986)
Inmates of the Allegheny County Jail v. Wecht
754 F.2d 120 (Third Circuit, 1985)
Dawson v. Kendrick
527 F. Supp. 1252 (S.D. West Virginia, 1981)
Ruiz v. Estelle
503 F. Supp. 1265 (S.D. Texas, 1980)
Johnny L. Spain v. Raymond K. Procunier
600 F.2d 189 (Ninth Circuit, 1979)
Rutherford v. Pitchess
457 F. Supp. 104 (C.D. California, 1978)
Owens-El v. Robinson
442 F. Supp. 1368 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1978)
Battle v. Anderson
564 F.2d 388 (Tenth Circuit, 1977)
United States Ex Rel. Wolfish v. Levi
439 F. Supp. 114 (S.D. New York, 1977)
Barnes v. Gibson
14 V.I. 345 (Virgin Islands, 1977)
Palmigiano v. Garrahy
443 F. Supp. 956 (D. Rhode Island, 1977)
Laaman v. Helgemoe
437 F. Supp. 269 (D. New Hampshire, 1977)
Chapman v. Rhodes
434 F. Supp. 1007 (S.D. Ohio, 1977)
Ahrens v. Thomas
434 F. Supp. 873 (W.D. Missouri, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
351 F. Supp. 549, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11079, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-landrieu-laed-1972.