Taylor v. Perini

421 F. Supp. 740, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13100
District Court, N.D. Ohio·Decided September 23, 1976·No. Civ. C 69-275·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DON J. YOUNG, District Judge:

This action came to be heard upon the Second Report of the Special Master on Defendant’s State of Compliance with the Court’s order of September 12, 1972. Said report is attached hereto as Appendix A, incorporated herein by reference, and made a part hereof as fully for all intents and purposes as if set forth at length herein.

The defendant has filed objections to the second report. In addition, the defendant moves the Court to find him in compliance with ¶ 5 and to modify ¶ 8(d) of the order.

THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

1. With regard to ¶ 9, Report p. 767, the objection of the defendant to the master’s finding is premature. The Court will defer ruling upon this objection until some future time.

*742 2. With regard to ¶ 11, Report p. 773, the objection of the defendant is well taken, and the following sentence shall be incorporated at line 8 on said page 774 of the second report as confirmed:

Compliance will be monitored on a monthly basis by averaging the weekly reports for each cellblock and dormitory. If the average for the month is within ± 5% deviation factor, the institution should be considered in compliance.

3. With regard to ¶8, Report p. 756, the objection of the defendant to the master’s finding is overruled.

4. The Second Report of the Special Master is in all other respects confirmed.

5. The motion of the defendant to modify ¶ 8 of the September 12, 1972 order is continued pending further report by the Special Master.

6. The motion of the defendant for a finding of compliance with ¶ 5 of the September 12, 1972 order is granted with the understanding that the Honor Dormitory Law Library will be completed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

APPENDIX A

SECOND REPORT OF THE SPECIAL MASTER ON THE DEFENDANT’S STATE OF COMPLIANCE

Submitted by Vincent M. Nathan, * Special Master.

INTRODUCTION

On March 29, 1976, the Special Master submitted his first report on the defendant’s state of compliance with the Court’s order of September 12, 1972 in the case of Taylor v. Perini. In the introduction to that report, the Special Master stated, “Upon the Court’s adoption of the findings of the Special Master contained herein, compliance plans can be developed quickly with respect to some areas of noncompliance and only with expenditure of great time and effort as to others.” Taylor v. Perini, 413 F.Supp. 189, 199 (N.D.Ohio 1976). That report was confirmed by the Court on April 9, 1976, there having been no objections filed by any of the parties. Id. at 193. The purpose of this second report is to relate steps which have been taken since that time to bring about a state of compliance with the Court’s order and to identify those areas in which further effort is necessary.

The Special Master is again in a position to report that he has received the fullest extent of cooperation from Superintendent E. P. Perini and his staff. In developing and effectuating plans of compliance, particularly with respect to some of the more difficult problems posed by the Court’s order, the Special Master has been aided immensely by representatives of the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Ohio, particularly Ms. Maryann Baker Gall. All counsel in the case have extended themselves to be of assistance, and the Inmate Liaison Committee has continued to function in a constructive and helpful manner. Finally, Director George Denton and the members of his staff at the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction have been extremely cooperative and have made a very significant contribution to the emerging state of compliance reflected by this report.

In view of the lengthy and detailed first report of the Special Master, this report will follow a somewhat simplified format. It will assume familiarity with or access to the terms of the Court’s order of September 12, 1972, the contents and' findings of the First Report of the Special Master on the Defendant’s State of Compliance, and the relevant departmental Administrative Regulations contained in the appendices thereto. All of these are available in the official report of Taylor v. Perini, 413 F.Supp. 189 (N.D.Ohio 1976).

PROHIBITORY PARAGRAPHS

The creation of an effective and independent grievance system to deal with allega *743 tions of racial discrimination, harassment, intimidation or insult, allegations of violations of other provisions of the Court’s order in Taylor v. Perini, and general inmate grievances continues to occupy a position of highest priority in the development of an overall plan for continuing and permanent compliance with the prohibitory paragraphs of the Court’s order. Indeed, in the absence of such a system, a release of jurisdiction by the Court is likely to result in slippage which over the course of time may lead to new litigation over some institutional practices which are the subject of Taylor v. Perini.

Formal grievances continue to be filed with the institutional Inmate Liaison Officer at Marion Correctional Institution (M.C. I.), and the rate of filing of such grievances has increased since the submission of the first report of the Special Master. According to the Inmate Liaison Officer, 57 formal grievances were filed between April 1, 1976 and August 11, 1976. In addition, six to eight informal grievances are lodged with that officer every day. In spite of the Superintendent’s directive of April 9, 1976, that his Administrative Assistant, Mr. W. J. Whealon, assume “extra jurisdiction . . . to monitor the I.L.O. function” and the provision of such time saving conveniences to the institutional grievance officer as a dictaphone for recording correspondence, that office remains inadequate to deal effectively with the present volume of serious grievances. In particular, several correctional officers are the subjects of serious and repeated allegations by inmates, and effective investigation of these complaints cannot be, accomplished within the framework of the present institutional and departmental grievance procedure.

Negotiations between the Special Master and Director George Denton resulted in agreement on June 4, 1976, that the Director would appoint a special committee to “propose a more effective independent inmate grievance system for the Department.” That committee was appointed in June, 1976, and consists of the following members:

Mr. John Conrad, Chairman. Mr. Conrad is Senior Fellow for the Center on Crime and Justice at the Academy for Contemporary Problems in Columbus, Ohio.
Dr. Henry Burns. Dr. Burns is the Chairman of the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Missouri at St. Louis.
Mr. William Dallman. Mr. Dallman is the Superintendent of Lebanon Correctional Institution in Lebanon, Ohio.
Mr. Terry Taylor. Mr.

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

Taylor v. Perini, 421 F. Supp. 740, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13100 (N.D. Ohio 1976).

421 F. Supp. 740 (Taylor v. Perini) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rhodes v. Knight
861 F. Supp. 980 (D. Kansas, 1994)
Taylor v. Perini
455 F. Supp. 1241 (N.D. Ohio, 1978)
Laaman v. Helgemoe
437 F. Supp. 269 (D. New Hampshire, 1977)