Richardson v. Koutoujian

31 Mass. L. Rptr. 270
CourtMassachusetts Superior Court
DecidedJune 14, 2013
DocketNo. MICV198805857
StatusPublished

This text of 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 270 (Richardson v. Koutoujian) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Richardson v. Koutoujian, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 270 (Mass. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

Henry, Bruce R., J.

These two matters have been consolidated for consideration of the motion of the plaintiffs in the Richardson case for further injunctive relief and of the motion of the defendant in the Doyle [271]*271case seeking modification of the injunction entered in that matter in 1993. Hearings have been held on both motions and I have toured both the Middlesex County-Jail in Cambridge and the Middlesex County House of Correction in Billerica. I will review the previous court orders regarding both of these facilities, discuss the current situation at each, and make final orders for the resolution of the issues raised by these two motions. In essence, I allowboth motions, at least in part.

Richardson Order

In the Richardson matter a class of pre-trial detainees obtained injunctive relief regarding the population to be housed at the Middlesex Couniy Jail in Cambridge (the Jail). The injunction, which was affirmed in 1990, enjoined the Sheriff:

1. From allowing inmates to sleep on the floor. Every inmate shall be furnished with a bed. 2. From allowing more than one inmate to be housed in a cell. 3. From allowing inmates to be housed in or to sleep in the cells on the [ground floor] except for any purpose relating to the transportation of prisoners to and from the jail. 4. From allowing inmates to be housed on or to sleep anywhere on the 17th floor except for any purpose relating to the transportation of prisoners to and from the jail. 5. From housing inmates in any multiple occupancy cell or dormitory where there is not at least one toilet and wash bowl for each eight (8) inmates [citing 103 Code Mass.Regs. §972.03(3)]. 6. From housing inmates in any area where there is not at least one shower for each fifteen (15) inmates [citing 103 Code Mass.Regs. §972.07(2)]. 7. From housing inmates in the 18th floor day room [citing 103 Code Mass.Regs. §972.6]. 8. From housing inmates in the 20th floor day room [citing 103 Code Mass.Regs. §972.06]. 9. To reduce the total population of the jail as follows: (a) To 260 immediately, (b) To 240 within sixty days of the issuance of this order, (c) To 220 within one hundred twenty days of the issuance of this order, (d) To 200 within one hundred eighty days of the issuance of this order, (e) Transfer all inmates who may be transferred under the provisions of M.G.L.c. 276, §52A, (f) Remand those inmates with parole violations behind bail to the custody of the parole board, (g) Work with the courts and other agencies to establish a pretrial diversion program whereby prisoners will be conditionally released while awaiting trial, (h) Release eligible inmates to halfway houses.

Richardson v. Sheriff of Middlesex County, 407 Mass. 455, 458-59 (1990).

Doyle Decrees

Pursuant to the terms of Memorandum of Understanding, which was entered as a permanent injunction in 1993 and last modified in 1998, the Middlesex House of Correction at Billerica (HOC) may house a combined total population of 835 convicted inmates and pre-trial detainees. Pursuant to those orders, the maximum number of pre-trial detainees is 50. The two populations must be housed separately and the pretrial detainees may be placed only in single cells.

At the time that the injunction was last modified in 1998, the HOC could accommodate 865 inmates and detainees as follows: the Main Building, with 300 cells; Modular 1, housing 100 inmates; the Communiiy Work Program Modular, with a capacity of 100 inmates; Modular 2, housing 240 inmates; the Dormitory, limited by court order to 75 inmates; the Work Release Facility, housing 50 inmates.

Current Conditions The Jail

The available physical space at the Jail has not increased since the injunction was entered in 1989. For years now, however, the population at the Jail has consistently exceeded the cap established by that 1989 order, with the population at the Jail in some months reaching well over 400 detainees.

The current capacity of the Jail is as follows. The eighteenth floor contains four cellblocks with a total of 54 cells available for occupancy. Seven bunk beds have been placed in the corridors outside of each of the cellblocks on the eighteenth floor. The eighteenth floor cellblocks may house up to a total of 110 detainees. The “Max Unit,” which despite its name is not a maximum security unit, is on the eighteenth floor and houses up to 13 detainees. The eighteenth floor dormitory contains beds for 56 detainees currently.

The nineteenth floor contains four cellblocks with a total of 54 cells available for single occupancy. Three bunk beds are placed in each of the corridors of two of the cellblocks; six bunks are placed in the corridor of the third cellblock; and five bunk beds are in the corridor of the fourth cellblock. The nineteenth floor cellblocks may house up to 88 detainees.

The twentieth floor does not contain cellblocks, but is made up of several different areas with a total capacity of 153 detainees as currently constituted: 44 beds in the Annex, 6 beds in the Isolation/Segregation Unit, 44 beds in the Dormitory Special Management Unit, 8 beds in the Rear Unit, 30 beds in the New Man Unit, 18 beds in the Job Unit, and 3 beds in the Medical Unit.

As currently constituted, therefore, the Jail has 420 total beds. When the population has exceeded the available beds, plastic-form beds are placed on the floors with a thin mattress on top.

In several areas of the facility the toilet and shower facilities are inadequate to meet the requirements set in the 1989 orders.

The House of Correction

As of March 16, 1998, when the last order was entered in the Doyle matter, the HOC could house 865 inmates and detainees. Since then, several of the [272]*272buildings have been demolished and new construction has been completed. Currently, the HOC consists of the Main Budding, which has been in use since 1931, with three tiers with each tier having four sides with 25 cells per side. The Main Building tiers, therefore, have 300 individual cells. In December of 2007, the Main Budding Dormitory was opened. It can house up to 60 detainees or inmates.

The Dormitory Budding is a separate budding and is permitted to house 75 inmates, per the Doyle order. Currently, the Dormitory Building houses, primarily, inmates who participate in the Community Work Program. The Work Release Facdily in the former Sheriffs and Correctional Officers’ Residences houses up to 50 inmates.

In June of 2006 the Podular Budding was opened. The Podular Budding is composed of four pods of 64 ceds on two levels. Each pod consists of an open communal area surrounded by ceds. 62 of the ceds are double-occupancy ceds and two ceds in each pod are handicapped accessible and are single-occupancy ceds. Each pod may house 126 inmates, for a total of 504 inmates in the four pods. The Podular Budding also contains a Health Services Unit with 21 beds—8 single ceds, a larger ward with 9 beds and a smader ward of 4 beds. The Podular Budding was budt with a core facility which includes an Intake area, Kitchen/Food Services facdities, Health Services Unit, Visitation Area, and a Central Control area.

Currently, the HOC has the capacity to house 1,010 inmates and detainees.

There is a planned construction project which wid add a new pod and a dormitory budding for an additional 496 beds at the HOC.

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

Related

Richardson v. Sheriff of Middlesex County
553 N.E.2d 1286 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
31 Mass. L. Rptr. 270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richardson-v-koutoujian-masssuperct-2013.