Harris v. Bell

402 F. Supp. 469
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri
DecidedSeptember 8, 1975
Docket73 CV 115 W-4
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 402 F. Supp. 469 (Harris v. Bell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Harris v. Bell, 402 F. Supp. 469 (W.D. Mo. 1975).

Opinion

STIPULATIONS OF FACT

ELMO B. HUNTER, District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

This action was filed in August, 1973, by the plaintiff, Fredericka Harris, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2) and (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of her minor son, Lavon Harris, and all others similarly situated in the State of Missouri. Its purpose was to challenge the lawfulness of certain practices and conditions at the State Board of Training Schools facility at Boonville, Missouri (hereinafter referred to as T.S.B.) as they affected the plaintiff class of juveniles. This court requested the parties to attempt to resolve their differences through negotiation, and such attempts were immediately begun. The negotiations were unavoidably delayed during the spring of 1974, because of a potential governmental reorganization which meant that in all probability many of the named defendants would not continue in positions of authority and responsibility in regard to the operation of the T.S.B. later than mid-summer, 1974, and that new defendants could not be identified until that time. The original defendants were unwilling to bind unknown successors by their own decisions. As is evident from this Court’s order of September 5, 1974, substituting and dismissing parties, this change in authority and responsibility did in fact take place. Negotiations were then resumed, and have continued up until the present.

These stipulations of fact concern practices and conditions as they existed *470 at the time of the filing of this suit as well as present practices and conditions. The parties have stipulated to the accuracy of this material. The parties are further agreed that this material is for use only in the present litigation.

A. PAST PRACTICES AND, CONDITIONS

On the second and third floors of the Administration Building of the T.S.B. there are eighteen single-person cells, each 6' 6" wide and 9' 6" deep with a 9' ceiling. It is the use of, and conditions in, these cells which are the subject of this litigation. At the time that this suit was filed, these cells were collectively called the “Day Nursery.”

Four of these cells are on the third floor of the Administration Building and fourteen are on the second floor. Each of the third-floor cells was equipped with a combination sink-commode without toilet seat, a solid steel bunk, a mattress, sheets and blankets when needed. These four cells all front on a large common room and face a brick wall, two lights at the top of which provided a very small amount of illumination for inmates in the cells. A very small amount of light also enters the rear of each cell, through a high barred opening.

These four cells were very poorly ventilated, and often filthy, as was the common area which they faced. Three fans and a single small air-conditioning vent, which was not operating at the time the suit was filed, were totally inadequate to dispel the uncomfortable heat and the foul odors which permeated this part of the facility. The juveniles housed in these cells ate their meals lying on their stomachs on the cell floors, reaching out through the bars to get food placed on the floor just outside each cell door. The paper plates on which meals were served were too large to pass between the barred openings in the doors.

Juveniles in these four cells were left unattended except for the short periods when institution staff brought meals. No staff member was on continuous duty on the third floor of this building, and a heavy door blocked these cells off from the remaining areas of the third floor. Showers were provided approximately once a week, and aside from this, juveniles on the third floor spent virtually all of their time in their cells. No regular programs of recreation, counselling or education existed for any of these juveniles.

Juveniles confined in the fourteen second-floor cells were not so isolated from staff, being at all times within calling distance. These fourteen cells also differ from those on the third floor in that a small space at the bottom of each allows food plates to be slipped into the cell. Twelve of these cells contain separate toilet bowls, without seats, and sinks. The remaining two cells had “oriental toilets,” grated holes in the floor. All fourteen cells contained webbed-steel bunks, a mattress, sheets, and blankets when needed.

At the time this suit was filed, not a single cell on the second floor contained a working light. Small, barred vents in these cells are non-functional, providing neither heat nor fresh air. The cells are hot and stifling in summer because of ineffective ventilation. The only light which penetrated these cells came from windows across the corridor or from corridor ceiling lights, half of which were inoperable at the time this suit was filed. The mattresses were stained, torn, and generally filthy, and the cells, sinks and commodes were also deplorably unclean.

None of the juveniles in any of the cells was regularly and routinely afforded such necessities as toothpaste, toilet paper, soap, towels, washcloths or shampoo. Like the juveniles on the third floor, second-floor inmates were showered approximately once a week. All meals were eaten inside the cells. All spent virtually their entire days in the cells. No regular program of recreation, counselling or education existed for any of these juveniles. None attended, or was permitted to attend, any religious serv *471 ices. Incoming and outgoing mail was censored sporadically. All incarcerated juveniles wore white, pajama-like garments.

Prior to the filing of this suit there existed no written regulations at the T.S.B. as to conduct which could result in maximum-security incarceration, nor was any child granted a hearing to determine whether his conduct merited such incarceration. All confinements were indefinite in nature. Careful records were kept, however, concerning the length of each child’s stay as well as the reason for his initial confinement. An examination of these records reveals the following patterns and usages:

In the year 1971, there were eight hundred and forty-eight separate confinements of juveniles in the cells in the Administration Building at the T.S.B. Two hundred and ninety-eight of these confinements were longer in duration than ten days, the maximum single confinement being forty-nine days in duration. Among those confinements, and the offenses which gave rise thereto, were the following:

E.H, 43 days fighting
W.Y. 17 days insubordination
A. A. 21 days escape
S. R. 11 days throwing articles
R.F. 48 days pending assault and robbery
L.M. 14 days destroying state property
L.H. 28 days escape
D.T. 35 days striking a supervisor
R.F. 23 days attempted auto theft
T. C. 26 days escape
C. R. 21 days attempted escape
D. M. 20 days fighting and threatening officers

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

Related

District of Columbia v. Jerry M.
580 A.2d 1270 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1990)
Hanna v. Toner
630 F.2d 442 (Sixth Circuit, 1980)
Jonathan Hanna v. John J. Toner
630 F.2d 442 (Sixth Circuit, 1980)
State Ex Rel. KW v. Werner
242 S.E.2d 907 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1978)
State ex rel. K. W. v. Werner
242 S.E.2d 907 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
402 F. Supp. 469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-bell-mowd-1975.