Taylor v. Perini

413 F. Supp. 189, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15642
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio
DecidedApril 9, 1976
DocketCiv. C69-275
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 413 F. Supp. 189 (Taylor v. Perini) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Taylor v. Perini, 413 F. Supp. 189, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15642 (N.D. Ohio 1976).

Opinion

ORDER

DON J. YOUNG, District Judge.

This action came on to be heard upon the first report of the Special Master, no objections thereto having been filed by any of the parties within the time heretofore fixed by the Court for the filing of same, and the Court being fully advised in the premises, it is ordered that the report is in all respects confirmed. Said report is attached hereto as Appendix B, incorporated herein by reference, and made a part hereof as fully for all intents and purposes as if set forth at length herein. The Court further finds and orders as follows:

(1) It is clear that all of the defendants in this action, E. P. Perini, George Denton, and William Gilbert, are responsible for the state of noncompliance demonstrated by the report of the Special Master. In addition, certain subordinates of the Director of the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction and the Superintendent of Marion Correctional Institution, particularly the Associate Superintendent for Treatment Services at Marion Correctional Institution, are responsible for their failure to effectuate the terms of the Court’s order of September 12, 1972, attached hereto as Appendix A. It is hereby ordered that all of the named defendants, as well as their subordinates, proceed at once to effectuate full compliance with the Court’s order of September 12, 1972.

(2) The progress of this case has shown beyond doubt that the defendants require assistance in implementing many of the terms of the Court’s order of September 12, 1972. It is hereby ordered that all steps taken by the defendants and their subordinates to effectuate full compliance with that order be supervised, coordinated and approved by the Special Master, acting for the Court. In this connection, the Special Master shall have the authority to state to the defendant, their subordinates, and all persons acting in concert with them or any of them the actions required to be taken by them or any of them to effectuate full compliance with the Court’s order of September 12, 1972, and to seek orders from the Court requiring any or all of said defendants, their subordinates, and persons acting in concert with them, or any of them, to show cause why they should not be punished as for contempt for failure to carry out such actions required.

(3) Because of the disclosures of noncompliance contained in the Special Master’s report, it is hereby ordered that the Special Master shall continue to investigate the defendants’ state of compliance with the Court’s order of September 12, 1972, and *194 shall make supplemental reports to the Court in the event that further or continuing instances of noncompliance are discovered. For this purpose, the Special Master shall have all of the authority granted to him by the Court’s order filed April 9, 1975.

(4) The report of the Special Master has demonstrated that full compliance with certain paragraphs of the Court’s order of September 12, 1972, is complicated by the large number of inmates presently residing at Marion Correctional Institution. This is particularly true of those portions of the order which relate to job assignment, promotion, transfer, and removal. Any increase in the population of the institution will interfere further with the effectuation of these provisions of the Court’s order of September 12, 1972. It is hereby ordered that the present maximum capacity of 1,143 inmates in the stockade and 275 inmates in the honor dormitory be observed and that no inmates be admitted to Marion Correctional Institution in excess of those maximum numbers.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

APPENDIX A

September 12, 1972

JOURNAL ENTRY AND ORDER

The plaintiff class (the inmates of the Marion Correctional Institution — hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs or inmates) having filed their class action complaint herein on November 7,1969, the Court having found same to be a proper class action, extensive discovery proceedings having taken place, and it appearing to the Court that the parties have waived hearing and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on all issues covered by this Order, the following Order is entered without admission of any violation of the Constitutional rights, privileges or immunities of any of the members of the plaintiff class by defendant, and without a finding by the Court of whether the defendant has deprived any of the members of plaintiffs’ class of any such rights, privileges or immunities;

NOW, THEREFORE:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT defendant, his employees, agents, successors, assigns and all those in concert therewith (hereinafter collectively referred to as defendant) ARE ENJOINED FROM:

1. Engaging in any act or practice which has the purpose or the effect of discriminating against any member of the plaintiff class because of his race, color, or national origin, except insofar as specifically required by this Order.

2. Engaging in any form of racial harassment, intimidation or insult against any member of the plaintiff class.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT defendant, his employees, agents, successors, assigns and all those in concert therewith (hereinafter collectively referred to as defendant) ARE ENJOINED TO:

1. Refrain from obstructing, censoring, reading, copying, or delaying first class mail between any of the members of plaintiffs’ class and any court of law, attorney-at-law, or public official; refrain from opening or inspecting any first class mail from any member of the plaintiff class addressed to any court of law, attorney-at-law, or public official; refrain from opening or inspecting any first class mail to any member of the plaintiff class from any court of law, attorney-at-law, or public official, except where conducted in the presence of the recipient for the limited purpose of detecting contraband.

2. Refrain from interfering with, or inhibiting by imposition of sanctions, threat of sanctions or harassment, efforts by members of the plaintiff class to assist one another in the preparation and conduct or defense of actions in any court of law involving the adjudication of the legal rights, privileges, or immunities of the assisted member of the plaintiff class. Defendant shall afford plaintiffs so desiring to work together a reasonable place to do so but may limit such activity to nonworking hours.

*195 3. Provide to any inmate without charge, or on credit, paper, pencils, pens, notarial services and postage for use in the preparation and mailing of documents and correspondence pertaining to legal proceedings involving the adjudication of the rights, privileges or immunities of said inmate.

4. Permit plaintiffs without restriction to receive, possess and read newspapers, magazines, pamphlets, books and other printed matter from any source, with the exception of individual publications which either are obscene under the applicable constitutional criteria as established by the United States Supreme Court, or which constitute a clear and present danger to the security or safety of the Institution, such as publications providing instruction in picking locks, digging tunnels or making weapons. Publications of the excepted classes may be censored or prohibited only if pursuant to specific written regulations providing for:

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

Related

Cutter v. Wilkinson
544 U.S. 709 (Supreme Court, 2005)
Jerry K. Forbes v. Clarence Trigg, Superintendent
976 F.2d 308 (Seventh Circuit, 1992)
Battle v. Anderson
708 F.2d 1523 (Tenth Circuit, 1983)
New York State Ass'n for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey
551 F. Supp. 1165 (E.D. New York, 1982)
Ruiz v. Estelle
503 F. Supp. 1265 (S.D. Texas, 1980)
Vaughn v. Trotter
516 F. Supp. 886 (M.D. Tennessee, 1980)
Hutchings v. Corum
501 F. Supp. 1276 (W.D. Missouri, 1980)
Davis v. Balson
461 F. Supp. 842 (N.D. Ohio, 1978)
Jackson v. Ward
458 F. Supp. 546 (W.D. New York, 1978)
Taylor v. Perini
455 F. Supp. 1241 (N.D. Ohio, 1978)
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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
413 F. Supp. 189, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-perini-ohnd-1976.