Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-0285 miscellaneousTHOMAS E. WOODS, PETITIONER IN THEOOURTTOF~~©NPLEAS OF -CUMB~-n~-~,,~. ,~,-,U~_PENNSYLVANIA THE DEPARTMENT OF :CORRECTIONS, ~ RESPONDENT · 98,0285 _ MtSCEELAN~Qu S:~:_T:ERM:.~ :~. IN RE: PETITION FOR HABEAS~RPUS OPINION ANDORDER OF COURT BAYLEY, J;, April 29, 1999:-- Thomas E. Woods is an inmate under the jurisdiction of the Pennsy!v..ania Department of Corrections. Hehas filed an amended~petition:~r~aCwrit, of~.habeas : .... :. :: '::';:-corpus challenging the conditions of his confinement in the Speciat:Ma~gement Unit .... - .... :: ~ (SMU) at:the State Correctional Institution at Camp HitLCumbe_d_a_n_ .d: County~_:..The~ .... ............ · . :~'~': :'~Commonwealth filed an answer with new matter that-petitioner:answered; - ~- ....... Pa.R:Crim. P. :~1701 (b) provides: -A petition for writ of habeas corpus.challengingtheconditions of the .~:- -- petitioner's confinementqn a criminal matter ShalLbe filed.with~the:clerk. ~ _ of court of the judicialdistrict wherein:the:petitioner:is confined~: - ~ ~_~_.:~:.:::: ~::: Petitioner is serving a life sentence for murder in the first :deg[ee_;::'On April .10, : -~: '- 1998.-he was transferred from SCI Smithfield to the:SMU inSC!~an~ilL HeJs in ~-: 'disciplinarycustody in Phase V of the SMU. Petitioner raise~r__~_e_.ss-.:._r-,ia:~i.~s :-, ~ ...... :' :'"::~---*:alleging (1) the invalidity of his transfer to the .SMU~!n.:s_-:¢_-~. Camp~-.H, itt~.'-(2~:.that-he is not . .... --:--;::~¥;:;:being provided thirty day reviews as required by the regul~__-C~.~.~,~epartment of. · :**--*:'~"~: ~'::'-: : :Corrections, (3) that he has not been provided-a pre~preg_ra, ma~s m__quired by 98-0285 MISCELLANEOUS the regulations of the Department, (4) the improper handling of misconducts and (5) an Eighth Amendment challenge to the night light in his cell, noise generated by other prisoners, limited mailing privileges, quality and preparation of meals, limited commissary privileges, quality of his pillow, alleged health hazards, alleged fire hazards, quality of the drinking water, and the adequacy of the law library. All of petitioner's complaints are institution specific and have been recently addressed and found wanting in this court. We will review them seriatim. I. Petitioner challenges his placement in the SMU at SCI Camp Hill. As set forth in Pugh v. Martin F. Horn, Commissioner, (98-0244 Misc., December 22, 1998): The geographic location of confinement of a prisoner is not a condition of confinement over which we have habeas corpus jurisdiction pursuant to Pa. Rule of Civil Procedure 1701(b) for prisoners confined at SCI Camp Hill.1 See Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 96 S.Ct. 2532, 49 L. Ed.2d 451 (1976). See 42 Pa.C.S. § 761 (a)(1). II. Petitioner maintains that he is not being provided thirty day reviews as required by the regulations of the Department of Corrections. In an opinion in support of an order entered on December 27, 1995, in Jacobs et al. v. Lehman et al., 45 Cumberland L.J. 64 (1995); aff'd 707 A.2d 249 (Pa. Commw. 1997); petition for -2- 98-0285 MISCELLANEOUS allowance of appeal denied _ Pa._ 1998 Pa. LX 1150,~ we described the operation of the SMU program at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill: The SMU opened in April, 1992, and is the most secure facility operated by the Department of Corrections. The purpose of the unit is to safely and humanely handle inmates whose behavior presents a serious threat to the safety and security of a facility, staff, other inmates or themselves. Inmates in the unit require the maximum custody level of security and control. All inmates entering the SMU are transferred from restrictive housing units (RHU), in the state correctional institutions throughout the Commonwealth. If inmates have been adjudicated into disciplinary custody status at those institutions, they are placed into Phase V of the SMU at Camp Hill. Otherwise they are placed into Phase IV administrative custody. Inmates in the SMU must progress through all phases through Phase I1. Inmates in Phases IV, III and II are all in administrative custody status. After successfully completing Phase II, inmates are transferred into the general population of a state prison somewhere in Pennsylvania. They remain in a Phase I control group unit at that institution for ninety days but that time can be extended by the institution '~Nith just cause." Inmates are not in administrative custody while in Phase I. Many inmates arrive in the SMU at Camp Hill having spent years in administrative custody. For those inmates, placement in the SMU actually allows them to be released from administrative custody status into general population quicker than if they remain in the RHU from which they were transferred. The SMU is a secure, self-contained facility wholly within the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill. There is an attached, fenced-in outside exercise yard. There are four hubs of single cells off a central control center housing up to one hundred inmates. Each cell has a window. The SMU has a self-contained air conditioning and ventilating system. Each cell has an air intake and exit vent .... Plastic shields are placed on cell doors when inmates are excessively loud or throw feces or urine (not that unusual an occurrence) on staff or other inmates. ·.. At the top of each cell is a small night-light type bulb behind an opaque surface that remains on at all times. The SMU is well-staffed with correctional officers and support personnel: up to seventeen on the 1. Jacobs involved the consolidation of the petitions of twenty-one counseled inmates for writs of habeas corpus. -3- 98-0285 MISCELLANEOUS day shift. Inmates and staff eat the same food prepared for about three thousand in the kitchens of the State Correctional Institution. The food is brought to the SMU and placed in large warmers. It is then delivered to the inmates who eat in their cells. Every inmate entering the SMU is provided a basic issue: toothbrush, toothpaste, soap, T-shirt, underwear, socks, sneakers, jumpsuit, towel and comb. In the winter inmates are issued a hat, gloves, coat and rubber boots that fit over the sneakers. Inmates in Phases V and IV receive one hour of outside yard five days per week. Phase III inmates receive one hour seven days per week, and Phase II, two hours seven days per week. Inmates shower three days per week. Inmates in Phases V and IV are allowed one newspaper and one magazine at a time. Religious materials are allowed but limited. Availability increases as inmates move through phases. Inmates may pay for correspondence courses in Phase IV. When an inmate reaches Phase III, he is provided idle pay and receives some commissary privileges. He .is allowed to have a radio in his cell. Material can be provided to allow study for a GED. When an inmate reaches Phase II, he is granted more privileges including a television in his cell. The inmate may complete a GED. He is allowed outside of his cell without cuffs. He must work for which he receives work pay. The failure to work constitutes misconduct. Phase V inmates are allowed one non- contact visit per month with an immediate family member. Phase IV, III and II inmates are allowed one non-contact visit per week, not limited to an immediate family member. All inmates are allowed non-contact visits with legal counsel. There is a mini-law library in the SMU accessible to all inmates. The library is in two adjoining cells and an inmate in one cell is allowed to pass materials to an inmate in the other. Either in the mini-law library or through requests and receipt of materials from the main law library at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, inmates have access to the legal materials required by the Pa. Code, Title 37 § 93.8. An inmate can sign a sick log on any day. He is then seen by.a physician's assistant who comes to the SMU every day. The physician assistant refers the inmate to a physician when warranted. Medical emergencies are referred to the infirmary serving the entire Camp Hill prison. When required, medical care is provided in outside hospitals. Inmates may file written grievances. There is an established administrative policy for the review of grievances, and appeals from dispositions. All written misconducts are heard within six days by the hearing examiner for the entire State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill. A -4- 98-0285 MISCELLANEOUS charged inmate may testify and call witnesses. The maximum penalty that can be imposed for any misconduct is ninety days disciplinary custody in Phase V, although penalties for separate offenses may be consecutive. An adjudicated misconduct is the only way an inmate can be placed into Phase V disciplinary custody. The inmate can appeal the merits of the charge and the sanction imposed for a misconduct in a three-step process: (1) to the inmate program manager, (2) the Superintendent of the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, and (3) to the Central Office Review Committee of the Department of Correct'ions, a three member-panel, including an attorney, appointed by the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections. Absent a successful appeal, any time received in disciplinary custody for an assault cannot be reduced. The hearing examiner can reduce up to one-half the penalty for a non-assault misconduct following a thirty-day review of an inmate's status. Placement in administrative custody Phases IV, III and II is for management purposes. Therefore, transfers between those phases, forward or backward, do not require formal disciplinary hearings. In practice, each inmate has a thirty-day review by a unit management team. Comments are solicited from the staff who work with the inmate. A written report of each thirty-day review is provided to the inmate and forwarded to the Superintendent of the Camp Hill Institution. Transfers between phases are subjective based on review of an inmate's progress or lack of progress. Transfers to higher phases are made for adverse conduct. However, if an inmate's actions result in a written misconduct, an adjudication must be conducted by a hearing examiner based on an objective standard, which is the only way an inmate can be placed into Phase V disciplinary custody. An inmate's progress through the administrative custody phases of the SMU is behavior driven. Inmates are allowed more privileges as a reward for good conduct as they advance through phases with the ultimate goal of returning to the general population of a prison. The goal is to change behavior that has previously been determined to constitute a threat to the safety and security of a facility, staff, other inmates, or to the inmate himself. When an inmate reaches Phase II, his accessibility to other inmates and staff is a barometer that is used to determine how amenable he is in dealing with those in authority and his peers. The average time an inmate spends in the SMU is one and a half to two years. The average time for each phase is two to six months. Some inmates completed all -5- 98-0285 MISCELLANEOUS phases in nine months. Some inmates have remained in the SMU since it opened in April, 1992. As we stated in Jacobs: Inmates are treated individually. There are no set time periods for each phase, and the time spent in each phase varies from inmate to inmate. The more dangerous an inmate has been, the more cautious the administrators are in moving that inmate through phases. About seventy-five percent of inmates who have been returned to general population have remained in that status. In Jacobs, contrary to the assertions of the Department of Corrections, we held that petitioners had a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause regarding the continuation of their confinement in the SMU because that confinement constituted an atypical, significant hardship in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.2 We issued a writ of habeas corp.us that required a 30-day review for an inmate in custody in the SMU by a Program Review Committee as defined in the Department's regulations. We stayed the order pending the Department's appeal. Following the affirmance of the order in the Commonwealth Court and the denial of the Department's petition for review in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, we found in Cook v. The Department of Corrections, et al., (98-0106 Misc., December 21, 1998), Bundy v. Department of CorreCtions, (98-0448 Misc., April 5, 1999), and Green v, Martin F, Horn, et al,, (98-0171 Misc. December 22, 1998),3 that the Department of Corrections amended its regulations on August 27, 1998, effective (1974). See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L. Ed.2d 935 3. Cook and Bundy are both on appeal. -6- 98-0285 MISCELLANEOUS September 8, 1998, redefining the Program Review Committee in DC-ADM 801.7 as follows: A committee consisting of three (3) staff members that conducts Administrative Custody Hearings, periodic reviews, makes decisions regarding continued confinement in the Restricted Housing Unit (RHU) and/or Special Management Unit (SMU), and hears all first level appeals of misconducts. The committee shall consist of one (1) staff member from each of the following staff classifications: 1. Deputy Superintendent, 2. Inmate Program Manager or Unit Manager, and 3. Commissioned Officer The Superintendent may designate other staff as committee members. However, if such designations are made, they must be in writing and a list of all designees must be maintained by the Superintendent. Whenever a PRC is convened, at least one (1) member of the committee must be a staff member who is not directly involved in the administration of the RHU/SMU in which the inmate is currently housed. The Superintendent of SCI Camp Hill issued a directive on December 23, 1998, naming eleven people who can act if a deputy superintendent is absent from a Program Review Committee meeting. All eleven persons are management personnel from outside of the SMU. The difference between the Department's current regulation under which it is operating and the prior regulation that the Department was not following is that one of the two deputy superintendents has been replaced on the Program Review Committee by a commissioned officer, and one member of the review committee must now be a staff member who is not directly involved in the administration of the SMU. The practice of the Department that led to our entry of a writ of habeas corpus in Jacobs was that the 30-day reviews of an inmate's status in the SMU were -7- 98-0285 MISCELLANEOUS conducted only by personnel connected with the daily operation of that unit in violation of the Department's own regulation. The regulation adopted effective September 8, 1998, prohibits that practice. As we found in Cook, Bundy and Green, the SMU is now operating with a Program Review Committee as defined in DC-ADM 801-7, and this procedure does not deny petitioner due process of law.4 III. Petitioner raises the same issue as was raised in Bundy regarding an alleged failure of the Department of Corrections to provide him a prescriptive program as set forth in its policy statement for the SMU, Number 6.5.7 at VI C 3. We said in Bundy: Initially, each inmate in the SMU must undergo an evaluation by unit staff to determine a baseline of current status, potential for growth, and motivation to change in a number of program areas. These include but are not limited to. education, mental status, vocational skills, drug/alcohol abuse history, social skills and emotional stability. After the baseline is established, staff must develop a prescriptive program with goals and objectives being defined for each area and deadlines for accomplishment of these goals. This prescriptive program must necessarily be more comprehensive than those developed for general population inmates because they must contain specific mention of the extent of freedom and access to materials that each inmate will be afforded. For example: materials, supplies, teaching methods, program content, treatment modality, objectives, etc. In developing and implementing prescriptive programs, the unit management approach must be employed to ensure the inclusion of 4. In Harris v. Martin F. Horn, Commissioner, et al., (97-0389 Misc. December 22, 1998), we granted petitioner the same relief as we granted to the petitioner in Bundy. Harris subsequently filed a petition to hold defendant in contempt for failing to comply with the order. We dismissed the petition for contempt upon a finding that the Department of Corrections had changed its policy and was then conducting thirty day reviews pursuant to the requirements in DC-ADM 801-7, and (2). -8- 98-0285 MISCELLANEOUS security staff in order that the safety and security of the institution and the unit are not compromised. (Emphasis added.) After petitioner was admitted in disciplinary status to the SMU on July 15, 1997, baseline goals were set for him to: (1) comply with special management unit procedures, (2) cooperate with special management unit staff, (3) maintain a clear conduct record, (4) maintain an appropriate level of personal hygiene, and (5) maintain cleanliness of his cell. These goals are set for every inmate admitted to the SMU in disciplinary status and they must be met to advance out of Phase V. When petitioner arrived in the SMU he had accumulated approximately two years of disciplinary custody time at SCI Greene. Since his arrival in the SMU he has accumulated twenty-six class 1 misconducts. He has never made any serious effort to comply with the baseline goals necessary to advance into Phase IV. Notwithstanding, petitioner argues that he has been denied due process because he has not been provided with a specific, as compared to what he describes as a "generic," prescriptive program that he maintains is required by the Department's policy statement. This argument fails because petitioner takes paragraph VI C 3 of the p.olicy statement out of context with the entire stated policy for the SMU. The policy statement at paragraph VI C 2 immediately preceding paragraph VI C 3 cited by petitioner, states: Modified access to programming is necessary for the effective management of Special Management Housing Unit inmates. The absence of programming creates idleness and results in disruptive incidents. The frequency, magnitude, nature, and delivery of programming will be modified due to the type of inmate housed in the SMU, and the need for increased security and control. (Emphasis added.) At paragraph V, the policy statement sets forth the overall policy of the SMU: It is the policy of the Department of Corrections to maintain Special Managements Units (SMU) within the system to handle disruptive or violent inmates in a safe, secure, and humane manner. Inmates placed within these units are assigned based upon their long term inability to adjust to general population and/or the dangerous nature of their behavior. They, therefore, represent a risk to the well being of other inmates and staff and/or -9- 98-0285 MISCELLANEOUS threat to the orderly operation of the facility. It is specifically designed to restore these inmates to stable participation within the general population or other appropriate status within a Department of Corrections institution. (Emphasis added .) Paragraph VI C 1 provides: The basic philosophy of the SMU is that inmates who have the capacity to change will be given the opportunity to progress through specific phases within the SMU based upon their behavior and ability to adjust under reduced levels of supervision. Each phase will offer progressively more privileges and services. All movement between phases is based on the inmate meeting certain criteria. Inmates in disciplinary custody will start at Phase V; inmates in administrative custody will begin at Phase IV. (Emphasis added.) The phases of the SMU are described in paragraph VI C 6: (a) (b) (c) (d) Phase V - This is fbr inmates in disciplinary custody and their privileges and services are established by Administrative Directive 801. Inmates must stay in this phase until the expiration of their disciplinary custody time or until the PRC or Unit Management team releases them from disciplinary custody. Security and control are maintained at a maximum level. Phase IV - This is the first administrative custody phase and is the starang point for all transfers in administrative custody status. These inmates will receive the required minimum of privileges and services established by the Administrative Directive 802. Security and control are maintained at a maximum level. Phase III - This is still considered to be administrative custody, but the inmate is eligible for additional privileges and services. In this phase, in-cell programming will be increased to allow the inmate supervised cell study programs from the Education and Activities Departments. Security and control practices are reduced. Phase II - This is the first time that the inmate will be allowed out individually or in small groups though the inmate is still listed as administrative custody status. It will -10- 98-0285 MISCELLANEOUS (e) be his/her introduction to out-of-cell programming within the unit and to interaction with other inmates in the same phase. Because these inmates are in a modified release program, small out-of-cell group activities may be allowed. This will include group counseling, small group yard activities, and educational classes and blockout. As inmates progress in this level, they may be assigned as block workers or janitors. Completion of this phase will be followed by a transfer recommendation to the inmate's parent or other designated institution. Phase I - Phase I will be general population status in the inmate's designated institution.4 (Emphasis added.) Paragraph VI D titled "Advancement Within Unit" states: Upon reception into the unit, the inmate will undergo an evaluation by the unit management team who will establish a baseline of behavior and a program needs assessment. From this, the team will develop an observable and measurable prescriptive program with definite goals and objectives and short-range time limits. Great care must be given to developing the prescriptive program because of the need for specific limits with regard to freedom of mobility and access to materials. (Emphasis added0 ... The overall policy of the SMU as reflected in its Policy Statement is to alter disruptive or violent behavior of an inmate with a goal of reestablishing general population status in one of the facilities operated by the Department of Corrections. Reaching that goal entails reaching the baseline goals to progress out of Phase V disciplinary status. That process as outlined in Policy Statement 6.5.7, and its application to petitioner, when viewed as a whole does not violate petitioner's due process rights. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L. Ed.2d 418 (1995). 4. The unit management team referred to in subparagraph (a) has been deleted. Movement from Phase V to Phase I is now determined by the Program Review Committee (PRC) as defined by DC-ADM 801.7 effective September 8, 1998. -11- ~ ~'-'--~' faiture to do so warrants the dismissal'of-the claim. Common-wealth-~Maute~3 _ _~_~ ;~ · 'Pa. SUper. 220 (1978). Furthermore, Pa~ RUle of CivilPrOCedb-re 1701(b) dibe~ nbt" ~ 98-0285 MISCELLANEOUS IV.- Petitioner has not plead that-he has exhausted administrative remedies with respect to his claim regarding the alleged improper:'handling of-his misconducts~---The provide this CoUrt with jurisdiction-in:habeas corpus~to act as 'a court-of appealffmm_~:_.:~_-~ ~ ~ adjudications of misconduct ..... ;.~;-.~_. V. Petitioner maintains.that the-condition of his confinement in the SMU constitute~'~ruel and inhuman punishm~ri't: In Com-monwealth~ex rel':Bryan~'¥: ....... H~ndHCk;'444'Pa. 83 (1971), the Sul~rti'e~Cob-tt of Pennsylvania-held:~that~habeas '-" CorPus is available to secure relief from conditions~cOnstitutingcrub/and:unusuat punishment, 'even though the detention itself is legal." The court stated that habeas-~--.~--:- ' ~-:~COrPuS should never be denied "[o]ut:ofhanddnthe face of a requestfer-relief: .~: --~ ~:~- :":based.on a 'patent'and serious.:dePr~Oi¥'of~a:co~nstitu~io,-iat~right~ (Emphasis added~.) The court affirmed a' firiding' of a panel of-j~dges-i~-:-Philadelphia CoUntythat conditions 'at Holmesbur~'~riso-n~'w~Te~;disgusting-and degrading? -"depriVed the: petitioners of theright ~o be free'from CrUel and unusUabpunish~e~-"~as guaranteed by the Eighth Amendmeht"to'"thb' Uhited~States C-O~titu-tien:~ Thee tri_al~ :court had concluded that Holmesburg~as~overdr(~w~ded andpoorly:equipped ;: the:: :: ~ ~:~: 'Cells were verminous, wet and badly ventilated; other areas of the-p~ison were; ........... SulSStandard; there iwere insufficient gU~'~ls'~n .prb-potti~h--to--th-e--pp~onr-population -12- 98-0285 MISCELLANEOUS resulting in numerous assaults and other crimes; and the prisoners were subject to random beatings by the guards. The Supreme Court stated that while the proscriptions in the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution are not easily or exactly defined, the broad and idealistic concepts of dignity, civilized standards, humanity and decency are the hallmarks to be applied. The court added the following caveat: We do not mean to indicate by our present ruling that it is the function of the courts to superintend the treatment and discipline of prisoners in penal institutions. This is the responsibility of those in charge of the prison itself and those officers, both state and local, who are given supervisory powers. We also emphasize that habeas corpus should not be entertained on the slightest pretext or merely to correct prison conditions which can be remedied through an appeal to prison authorities or to an administrative agency. But, we do mean that where the conditions of the confinement are so cruel and callous as the evidence in the present case establishes, the courts may grant relief through habeas corpus in order to protect the petitioner's fundamental and basic rights. (Emphasis added.) We have examined Eighth Amendment claims similar to petitioners in Jacobs, Cook and Bundy. In Jacobs we personally inspected the SMU. After conducting hearings in all of these cases we concluded: Just as there are people in all walks of life who deal with others poorly, there are likely some personnel within the SMU who do not always treat the inmates as they should be treated. However, after examining all of the evidence, we are satisfied that there is no pattern of mistreatment of the inmates in the SMU. Quite to the contrary, we find that the staff goes the extra mile in working with their difficult charges in a demanding and dangerous effort to successfully integrate them back into the general populations of the state prison system. There is no doubt that the level of confinement and restrictions imposed on inmates in the SMU is formidable. A change of conduct and attitude over time is the only way an inmate can progress through the demanding phases of -13- 98-0285 MISCELLANEOUS the SMU and return to general population. Obviously, that is very difficult for inmates who are the most disruptive, and sometimes the most dangerous, in the entire Pennsylvania prison system. These inmates have earned their way into the SMU, many of them by assaulting staff or other inmates, and they must earn their way out. The physical setting is spartan and creature comforts are minimal; however, the SMU is as safe for an inmate as a prison setting for disruptive and dangerous prisoners can reasonably be. The facility is new, sanitary, well-maintained and well-staffed. It is not for this court to second guess the level of confinement and control exercised over these inmates because of their past behavior and, often, their intransigent behavior within the SMU. We find that these inmates are not subject to serious deprivations of constitutional rights whereby relief is warranted from any conditions that would constitute cruel and inhuman punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Their individual difficulties regarding the conditions of their confinement can and should be addressed through prison grievance and appeal procedures, not habeas corpus. (Footnote omitted.) CONCLUSION Because all of the claims raised by petitioner have been heard and rejected we will dismiss the within petition for a writ of habeas corpus without a hearing. AND NOW, this ORDER oF COURT day of April, 1999, the amended petition of Thomas E. Woods for a writ of habeas corpus, IS DISMISSED. By the Court,.//¢/,/ Edgar B. B~¢e-y, -14- 98-0285 MISCELLANEOUS Thomas E. Woods, DE-4522, Pro se SCI Camp Hill P.O. Box 200 Camp Hill, PA 17001-0200 Mark E. Guzzi, Esquire Assistant Counsel Department of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 For Respondents :saa -15-