# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Robinson v. Story > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385017_0043%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1984 - **Citation:** 469 U.S. 1081 ## Text ps ioeons ) ottice Supreme Court, U.S, rFiLED 84-977 me JUL 1'7 1984 FY A IN THE SUPREME cour? ~~**N9ER L. STEvas, OF THE UNITED STATES— CLERK October Term, 1984 WILLIAM B. ROBINSON, (former) Commissioner of the Bureau of Correction; JAMES HOWARD, ( former) Superintendent of the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh; ROBERT MARONEY, Deputy Superintendent for Treatment at the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh; CHARLES ZIMMERMAN, (former) Deputy Superintendent for Treatment at the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh; JAMES A. WIGTON, Classification and Treatment Supervisor at the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh, et al., Petitioners Vv. STANTON STORY, GEORGE BROOKS, ROBERT JOYNER, LOUIS MCLEMORE, LARRY HOWARD, Respondents PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT LeROY S. ZIMMERMAN Attorney General ALLEN C. WARSHAW — Senior Deputy Attorney General Chief, Litigation Section ANDREW S. GORDON Deputy Attorney General Counsel of Record ‘Office of Attorney General 15th Floor, Strawberry Sq. JOSE HERNANDEZ-CUEBAS Harristown Building No. 1 Deputy Attorney General Harrisburg, PA 17120 (717) 783-1471 GREGORY R. NEUHAUSER Deputy Attorney General II. QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Whether a federal court, consistent with the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and principles of federalism, may enjoin state officials to conform their conduct to-~ state regulations when the court did not find a violation of the Constitution or federal statute to support its decision? Whether the district court's failure to conduct a review de novo of the record compiled before the magistrate, as required by federal statute, requires reversal of the district court's judgment, particularly where objections to the magistrate's report ‘tebwed questions of sufficiency of the evidence to support the magistrate's conclusions? TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW .... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...eeeeeeeeses iv OPINIONS BELOW ...ceecceccscscseces 1 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .....+e--. 1 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION INVOLVED . 2 STATUTES INVOLVED ..-ceeeeccccceses 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ..ceceeescecs a } REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ..... 1. The Decision Below Conflicts With Decisions of this Court and Involves an Jmportant Question of Federal Law Regarding the Propriety of a Federal Court Directing State Officials to Conform their Conduct to State Regulations in the Absence of any Violation Of Federal LAW ..cccesescecesecs 7 2. The Decision Below Conflicts with the Decision of Other Courts of Appeals as to the Requirements of the United States Magistrates Act eeeeoevoeveeevev ee eevee eeeeeeee2 0208 13 CONCLUSION eeeesveeeveeeeeeeeeeeee e808 aa APPENDIX Judgment Order, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, No. 83-5204, Dated April 18, 1984 w.ccceeecscesccccesss la Judgment Order, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, No. 83-5203, Dated DT) CUE Seeesedsesecccccceocscss 38 Opinion and Order, United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Dated Me RU Sees bbecsceéeseesacess Sa Report, Recommendation, Findings of Fact and Proposed Conclusions of Law of United States Magistrate, Gated January 26, 1983 ...ccccccccee 158 -iii- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES: PAGES Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) eeeeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees 10 Davis v. Scherer, No. 83-490 (June 28, 1984) eeeeeeeeeeeees eee oF Engle v. Isaac, No. 80-1430 April f 19 ) e@eeeee7e*7e5s853+oe*eeee#3#e#e#8e8e 10 sryaer v. Burke, 334 U.S. 1 4) eeeeeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 10 Hernandez v. Estelie, 711 F.2d 619 (5th Gals 1983) @eeeeeeseeeeeecse 14,16 Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44 (4th Cir.1982) e@eeeevee eee eeeeeeeer 14 Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, No. 681-2101 (January 23, 1984) eeeeseeneeeneeeeeeeeeeeete ll United States v. Lewis, 621 F.2d 1382 (5th Cir. 1980) ... 15 CONSTITUTION: U.S. Const. amend. VIII ...ccccce 2 STATUTES: 28 om §§ 631 et se o *@*eeseeee#ee##e¢ 2,7 me WeeGs SH GROLTDIULS cécéccoccce 2,13,14 28 a $§ 1254(1) e*eeeeee32ee3e¢es 1 . 42 o.e.G. $§ 1983 e*eeeeeese matters were filed by both sides to the litigation, and ultimately the Report and Recommendation and proposed findings of the Magistrate was filed and the parties were granted time in which to file any objections thereto. Objections ‘were subsequently filed on behalf of all parties, and the matter is now in a 6a posture for final disposition. It is provided in 28 U.S.C. $636 (b)(1) that where, as in the instant case, a matter is referred to a magistrate for proposed findings and recommendations for disposition, the parties shall have ten days to file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations. Thereafter, a District Judge must make a de novo determination of those portions to which objections is made. In United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 674 (1980) the Court recognized that “the statute calls for a de novo determination, not a de novo hearing." In this regard, the House Report, H.R. Rep. No.94-1609 at page 3 noted: "The use of the words ‘de novo determination’ is not intended to require the judge to actually conduct a new hearing on contested issues. Normally, the judge, on application, Ja will consider the record which has been developed before the magistrate and make his own determination on the basis of that record, without being bound to adopt the findings and conclusions of the magistrate. In some specific instances, however, it may be necessary for the judge to modify or reject the findings of the magistrate, to take additional evidence, recall witnesses, of recommit the matter to the magistrate for further proceedings. “With this in mind, we have examined the Magistrate's extensive summary of the testimony presented at the hearing as that summary was amended by the parties, and compared this record with the objections filed by the parties. Based on this examination we find the summary of testimony, as- amended, provides a thorough synopsis of the testimony presented at the hearings.! | The bulk of the objections filed by the parties appear to be legal rather lwe note that certain limited portions of the record of the hearings have been transcribed. 8a than factual in nature. However, as to those matters where factual objections are raised, we find that the detailed summary of testimony, “as amended, provides an adequate basis for disposition of the matters raised. The individual plaintiff's have filed objections to the findings of the Magistrate concerning their individual claims. We have thoroughly examined those objections and find, as a matter of law, that they are without merit. This conclusion is further bolstered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hewitt v.Helms, U.S. ’ (No. 81-€38, filed February 22, 1983), 51 L.W. 4124, which was filed after the Magistrate filed his report and proposed findings. The plaintiffs have also challenged the findings of the Magistrate concerning the conditions in 9a the R.H.U. We have examined the record concerning the conditions in the R.H.U. and find them to be as set forth in the Magistrate's findings and with very limited exceptions, these conditions do not violate constitutional precepts. The defendants have also challenged the findings of the Magistrate. We have examined those findings in view of the record and the applicable law and merely clarify that as to the issue of exercise, the finding was that limiting exercise to fifteen to twenty minutes constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. While we do not direct that any minimal exercise period be permitted, we would direct that a conscious effort be made to _ enable inmates to receive exercise privileges in keeping with Pennsylvania regulations requiring that to the extent possible inmates receive two hours of exercise a 10a day. In all other respects the defendants' objections are without merit. An appropriate order will be entered. lla ORDER AND NOW, this 3rd day of March, 1983, after the plaintiffs in the above-captioned case filed aie civil rights complaint, and after an evidentiary hearing was held before a United States Magistrate, and after the Magistrate filed a detailed summary of the testimony, and the parties submitted additions thereto, and after a Report and Recommendation and Proposed Findings of Fact and Proposed Conclusions of Law was filed by the Magistrate, and ~-the parties were granted ten days in which. to file objections thereto, and in consideration of the objections filed by the plaintiffs and defendants, and upon de novo review of those matters to which objection was made, and upon independent review of the pleadings and the. Magistrate's Report and Recommendation 12a and Proposed Findings of Fact’ and Conclusions of Law, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation and Proposed Findings of Fact and Proposed Conclusions of Law of the United States Magistrate, as modified by the foregoing Memorandum Opinion, be adopted as the opinion of this Court, and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: l. The practice of double strip searehinn R.H.U. inmates both before and after visitations be abandoned, and that strip searches be limited to one search before a visit and one search after a visit; 2. Inmates housed in the R.H.U. be permitted more than fifteen to twenty minutes of exercise a day, and that to the extent possible they be permitted to enjoy that amount of exercise which is in conformity with Pennsylvania 13a regulations; 3. Within thirty (30) days, the defendants provide acceptable certification that the lighting the R.H.U. cells meets the standards established by the State Health Department; 4. The ventilation in the R.H.U. be brought in conformity with Department of Environmental Resources requirements, and certified as meeting those standards; 5. The food service in the R.H.U. be brought into conformity with Bureau of Corrections standards; 6. In mates in the R.H.U. be provided with laundry services similar to those enjoyed by inmates in the general prison population, and 7. Judgment be and is hereby entered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants in the total sum of $1.00. © United States District Judge 14a IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA STANTON STORY, GEORGE BROOKS, ROBERT JOYNER, LOUIS McLEMORE and LARRY HOWARD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs Vv. Civil Action No. 77-1204 WILLIAM B. ROBINSON, Commissioner of Bureau of Corrections, et al., Defendants MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION P OSED FINDINGS OF F AND PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RECOMMENDATION It is respectfully snunaiaitinn that judgment be entered against the plaintiffs and in favor of the defendants on all issues presented except the issues of strip searches and exercise, and that on these two issues judgment be entered against the defendants and in favor of the plaintiffs, and that the plaintiffs be 15a awarded nominal damages in the amount of $1.00; It is further recommended that within thirty (30) days the defendants provide acceptable certification that the light in the RHU cells meets the | standards established by - the State Health Department; It ic further recommended that ventilation in the RHU conform with Department of Environmental Resources requirements; It is further recommended that food service in the RHU conform with Bureau of Correction standards, And it is further recommended that laundry service, similar to that provided to other inmates, be provided to inmates in the RHU. 16a REPORT Stanton Story, George Brooks, Larry Howard, Louis McLemore and Robert Joyner have presented a civii rights complaint which they have been permitted to prosecute without the prepayment of costs. After the completion of pretrial procedures, the matter was assigned to the undersigned United States Magistrate for evidentiary hearing in conformity with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(b) (1)(B). Accordingly, on June 17, June 23, September 10, September 16, and September 21, 1981 and March 22, March . 23, March 24, March 25 and April 27, 1982 the matter came on for hearing. Following those hearings a summary of testimony was prepared and submitted to the parties with an order inviting suggested additions or deletions within ten days. That ten-day period has 17a elapsed and the matter is in a posture for final disposition. At the hearings, the plaintiffs testified as to their individual claims and as to the general conditions of the Restricted Housing Unit at the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh ("SCIP"). According to the plaintiffs, these facts state a cause of action under the provisions of 42 U.S.C $1983 and they invoke the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to Section 1343 of Title 28, United States Code. Named as defendants in this action are William B. Robinson, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Corrections; James Howard, the former Superintendent of the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh; Robert Maroney and James Wigton, Deputy Superintendents of the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh; 18a Charles Zimmerman, a former Deputy Superintendent of the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh; Charles Kozakiewicz, a former correctional officer of the State $ Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh; Steven Mallinger, the librarian of the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh; Michael Ferris, a counselor at the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh and Correctional Officers Krall, Batisma, Robeson and Twyman of the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh. I. PLAINTIFF HOWARD At the above mentioned hearings, Larry Howard testified that his consti- tutional rights were violated by his being found guilty of possession of implements of escape. On September 5, 1977, plaintiff Howard was quentitonet by defendant Kozakiewicz about some grey powder, 19a screws and pamphlets found in an unidentified locker in the electric shop where Howard worked. After questioning plaintiff Howard was placed on "J" Range and later given a copy of the charges against him. (P-Ex 37) On September 7, 1977 a misconduct hearing was conducted. Major Weyandt, Officer Bailey and Officer Batisma comprised the misconduct hearing committee. The infraction was read to plaintiff Howard and he was shown the grey powder, screws, pamphlets, a pipe cap and an envelope addressed to him that had been found in a locker in the electric shop. Plaintiff Howard was not permitted to question the reporting officer. Although he was offered an opportunity to submit his version of the incident he refused to do so because he was also under police investigation for the same incident. Plaintiff Howard told the 20a hearing committee that he would not testify to both prison and police officials. He was permitted to call witnesses and did so. An inmate Taylor attended the hearing on plaintiff Howard's behalf and questioned = the propriety of charging plaintiff Howard with possession of the powder, etc. without more proof than an envelope of his connecting him with the locker in which the items were found. Plaintiff Howard was found guilty and sentenced to 180 days in the Restricted Housing Unit ("RHU"). During his incarceration in the RHU, Plaintiff Howard received six monthly reviews by the Program Review Committee (PRC). (P-Ex 8). Plaintiff Howard told the PRC that he wanted a new hearing on his misconduct and that, after the state police investigation was completed, he would submit his written 2la version of the incident to the hearing committee. (D Ex-A). On February 6, 1978 a misconduct hearing was conducted. Because the misconduct hearing committee did not know if the police investigation was completed, plaintiff Howard refused to submit his version of the incident. This procedure was repeated on February 22, 1978 when plaintiff Howard again refused to submit his version because the police investigation was not completed. At the evidentiary hearings on this civil rights suit plaintiff Howard testified that he did not try to make gunpowder; that the grey substance produced at the misconduct hearing was never proven to be gun powder; that the grey substance was never found to be under his control and that no informant testimony was presented at the hearing. 22a Deputy Wigton testified that it is common practice at SCIP to write up a misconduct on an inmate who is also subject to criminal prosecution for the same incident. Defendant Kozakiewicz testified that he was the reporting officer on the misconduct. As result of a routine search of the electric shop, graphite, a knife, pipe caps and a book on guerilla warfare were found in a locker identified as being used by plaintiff Howard. Mr. Kozakiewicz wrote up the misconduct. “He appeared at the misconduct hearing on September 8, 1977, as a witness, not as a member of the committee itself. Mr. Kozakiewicz did not remember if plaintiff Howard had been questioned by prison officials while under police investigation other than being offered by the opportunity to submit his written version of the 23a incident at the misconduct hearing. Plaintiff Howard raises two questions--whether due process was denied him at the misconduct hearings and whether he was subject to double jeopardy by being questioned by prison officials while under police investigation. In Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), the Court held that an inmate must be given advanced written notice of the charges against him; that he has the right to call witnesses and present evidence in his behalf and that he be given a written statement by the misconduct hearing committee of the evidence relied upon. | Plaintiff Howard testified at the evidentiary hearings that he received a copy of the charges against him; that an inmate Taylor was present at the misconduct hearing as a witness 24a in his behalf; that he was offered an opportunity to submit a written statement of his version of the incident and that he received a written statement of the decision of the hearing committee. Plaintiff Howard was not permitted to confront the correctional officers who wrote up the misconduct against him. However, the Court in Wolff Ve McConnell, supra at 568, addressed this issue at length, expressing concern that: © ",.ein the current environment, where prison disruptiqn remains a serious concern to administrators, we cannot ignore the desire and effort of: many States,..., and the Federal Government to avoid situations that may trigger deep emotions and that may scuttle the disciplinary process as a rehabilitation vehicle." The Court went on to hold that due process does not require that an inmate be permitted to .confront a reporting officer or inmate and that the decision 25a to permit such confrontation is left to the discretion of the administrators of the correctional institution. Plaintiff Howard also argued that he would not testify or write his own version of the incident because that would place him in “double jeopardy" in that he was also ander police investigation. It has been held in Kerns v. Parratt, 672 F.2d 690 (8th Cir. 1982), that charges brought against an inmate by the prison administration while criminal charges are pending do not place the inmate in “double jeopardy." ‘Thus, the offer of an opportunity for plaintiff Howard to submit his written version of the incident does not constitute a violation of his rights under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. 26a II. PLAINTIFF STORY Plaintiff Stanton Story contends that his constitutional rights were violated by the excessive use of force applied by prison officials in conducting a search of his person and by the misconduct hearing committee's decision finding him guilty of possession of contraband. On September 15, 1977, plaintiff Story was receiving a visit from family members. He excused himself to go to the men's room and was met on the way by Officer Salvay. Plaintiff Story testified that Officer Salvay grabbed him and dragged him to the Major's Office. He testified that at’ the Major's Office he was jumped by a number of correctional officers who were trying to pry his mouth open. Plaintiff Story asked what was going on and was accused of having contraband in his mouth. He 27a denied having anything in his mouth and refused to open it. He was taken to the Strip and Search Room and back again to the Major's Office where defendants Maroney, Kozakiewicz and Weyandt were present with other correctional officers. | Plaintiff Story testified that while he was nantoettes correctional officers tried to force his mouth open with a tongue depresser and metal objects; that defendant Kozakiewicz and Officer Batisma were hitting him and choking him in an effort to open his mouth and that nothing was recovered from his mouth in the search. 7 On September 15, 1977, plain- tiff Story received misconducts’~ for possession of contraband (marijuana) and disobeying a direct order. (D-Ex B,C). Major Weyandt, Officer Bailey and Counselor Good conducted the misconduct hearing on September 19, 1977 and 28a defendant Kozakiewicz and Sgt. Robertson were witnesses at. that hearing. Plaintiff Story was permitted to call witnesses but did not request any. He did submit his written version of the incident. Plaintiff Story was’ found guilty of the charges and was sentenced to 180 days in the RHU. At the evidentiary hearing on this civil rights suit, Major Weyandt testified that he was present when Story was searched in September 1977, but that he did not participate in the search. Major Weyandt was also the chairman of the hearing committee that sertened the incident. Major Weyandt testified that he believed he was impartial even though he had witnessed the incident. He stated that in 1977 SCIP had a policy permitting officers who had witnessed ! nientihasinns to participate in —_ misconduct hearings on those incidents. 29a Defendant Kozakiewicz testified that force was used on plaintiff Story because he resisted a search after being given a direct order to open his mouth. Plaintiff Story was kicking, butting with his head and flailing his arms while correctional . officers were attempting to open his mouth. At that time, force was used. Defendant Kozakiewicz stated that he believed that the amount. of force used against plaintiff Story did not equal the force of a “beating.” Deputy Maroney testified that he was present when plaintiff Story was searched and that something wrapped in tape was recovered from his mouth. Plaintiff Story raises two questions--Whether the use of force by prison officials was a violation of his constitutional rights and whether the presence of Major Weyandt on the bearing 30a committee after he had witnessed the incident underlying the misconduct constituted a violation of his rights. In Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1033 (2a Cir. 1973), cert. denied 414 U.S. 1033 (1973), the Court enunciated a test for determining whether an inmate's constitutional rights had been violated by the use of force. In the opinion, the Court stated: "eer a court must look to such factors as the need for the application of force, the relationship betv3en the need and the amount of force used, the extent of injury inflicted, end whether force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for’ the - very purpose of causing harm." This test has been followed in other circuits as well. See: Lock Vv. Jenkins, 641 F.2d 488 (7th Cir. 1981); Putnam v. Gerloff, 639 F.2d 415 (8th Cir. 1981); King v. Blackenship, 636 F.2d 70 (4th Cir. 1980); Furtado v. 3la — Bishop, 604 F.2d 80 (iet Cis. ~-1i879), cert. denied 444 U.S. 1035 (1979); Meredith v. State of Arizona, 523 F.24 481 (9th Cir. 1975). In the instant case, the testimony reveals that plaintiff Story was resisting ‘the efforts of correctional officers to extract centraband from his mouth; that he was flailing his arms and legs and butting with his head. It does not appear from the testimony that the efforts of the defendants and others in attempting to extract the contraband were made for malicious or sadistic purposes. Thus, their actions do not constitute an unconstitutional use of force against plaintiff Story. The second question presented by plaintiff Story is whether his constitutional rights were violated by the fact that Major Weyandt, who had 32a witnessed the events of September 15, 1977, was also the chairman of the hearing committee on the misconduct. In Meyers v. Alldredge, 492 F.2d 296, 306 (3d Cir. 1974), the Court held: ",..the requirement of an impartial Cinstitutional] triunal prohibits only those officials who have ae direct personal or otherwise substantial involvement, such as major participation in a judgmental or decision-making role, in the circumstances underlying’ the charge from sitting on the disciplinary body. This would normally include only those such as the charging and the investigating staff officers who were Girectly involved in the incident. It would not include those who are only tangentially affected by the alleged misconduct, such as prison officials who may have some administrative connection with such misconduct prior to hearings." See also: Rhodes v. Robinson, 612 F.2d 766, 773 (3d Cir. 1979). In the present case, Major Weyandt did not participate in the search of plaintiff Story. Although he was present at the search, his involvement did not rise to the level of a "direct personal or otherwise 33a substantial involvement" in the events of September 15, 1977. In addition, Major Weyandt testified at the evidentiary hearing that he believed he was impartial even though he had witnessed the incident. Therefore, Major Weyandt's. participation as chairman of the misconduct hearing on plaintiff Story was not improper and did not violate the mandate in Wolff v. McDonnell, supra. III. PLAINTIFF JOYNER ; At the above mentioned hearings, Plaintiff Robert Joyner testified that his constitutional rights were violated by his incarceration in the RHU for ten months after the expiration of his disciplinary sentence. On August 6, 1977, Joyner was placed in the RHU to serve 180 days in disciplinary custody “close" for 34a attempted escape, possession of implements of escape and attempted assault on Defendant Kozakiewicz. Following the completion of the sentence he remained in the RHU for an additional ten months without the benefit of any extra privileges. After plaintiff Joyner completed his sentence he was maintained in the RHU in administrative custody "close" which differs from disciplinary custody "close" in that there is no definite term or sentence to be served and there are more privileges afforded the inmate, including the possible receipt of prison wages. Plaintiff Joyner did not receive a separate hearing when his status changed. The PRC ‘ reviewed plaintiff Joyner's case monthly. (P-Ex 15, 26). In the reviews the PRC’ stated that plaintiff Joyner was considered an 35a — escape risk and that he also had to be separated from the staff. In addition, the PRC reviews show that the PRC was seeking to have him transferred out of SCIP to the State Correctional Institution at Graterford. At the evidentiary hearing in this civil rights suit, defendant Maroney testified that plaintiff Joyner received only one misconduct while in the RHU. (P-Ex 27). The misconduct was for possession of a “fishing line” which was used to pass books or other items from cell to cell in the RHU. As result of his being found guilty of the | misconduct, plaintiff Joyner was denied yard privileges for ten days. Deputy Wigton cestified at the evidentiary hearing that it was possible in 1979 that plaintiff Joyner was not informed of his change in status from disciplinary custody to administrative 36a custody and that he may not have received the greater privileges that accrue to inmates in administrative custody. Defendant Kozakiewicz testified at the evidentiary hearing that the original misconduct for which plaintiff Joyner was placed in the RHU centered around plaintiff Joyner's attempt, along with some other inmates, to throw him off the top tier of a general population cell block. Defendant Kozakiewicz testified that he was not asked to give input to the PRC's decisions to maintain plaintiff Joyner in administrative custody. ~ He stated that he had not received any threats from plaintiff Joyner while he was housed in the RHU and that when plaintiff Joyner was ultimately released from the RHU back into the general population nothing happened between then. 37a In Helms v. Hewitt, 655 F.2d 487 (3d: Cir. 1981), the Court addressed the question of whether an inmate is entitled to a hearing, comporting with the standards enunciated in Wolff v. McDonnell, supra, when he is placed in administrative segregation. The Court. found that an inmate confined in administrative custody must be afforded a hearing either before confinement or within a reasonable period after confinement. This requirement is based on a liberty interest created through Title 37, Pa. Code Sections 95.101-95.108 wherein the procedure for dealing with violations of prison rules and for maintaining control and security within the institution is established. The Court held in Helms that because the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania created this Liberty interest, the requirements enunciated in Wolff must be met before 38a an inmate may be placed in administrative custody. Although the Court did not address the factual situation in which ‘plaintife Joyner had found himself, it can be reasoned that an inmate in disciplinary custody has a reasonable expectation that he will be returned to the general population upon the completion of his ijisciplinary sentence and that plaintiff Joyner's shift from disciplinary custody to administrative custody without the benefit of a hearing was denial of due process. | While it is true that in Helms v. Hewitt, supra, the Court held that inmates are entitled to a hearing before being placed in administrative custody, it must be remembered that Helms was decided in June 1981, while the change in status of plaintiff Joyner took place in 1977. The decision in Helms should 39a not be given retrospective application. In Linkletter .v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 629 (1965), the Supreme Court weighed the question of prospective or retro- spective application of its decisions by “...- Looking to the prior history of the rule in question, its purpose and effect, and whether retrospective operation will further or retard its operation." Looking first to the prior history of the rule in question, the decision in Helms is an expansion of the Supreme Court decision in Wolff -v. McDonnell, supra, to include those inmates placed in administrative custody among the inmates who must be given a hearing before being removed from the general prison population. At the time of plaintiff Joyner's change of status, those inmates placed in administrative custody were not required to be given a hearing that comported with the stan- dards enunciated in Wolff. Plaintiff 40a Joyner did receive monthly PRC reviews and was informed that he was. being maintained in the RHU as a security risk while the PRC attempted to effectuate a transfer for him to another correctional facility. _ ‘The purpose of the ruling in Wolff and its expansion in Helms is to protect the individual against arbitrary institutional action. Wolff Ve McDonnell, supra at 558; Helms Vv. Hewitt, supra at p. 502. The retros- pective application of Helms would neither further nor hinder its operation. However, it would impose an unfair hardship upon the prison adminis- trators who complied with the due process requirements as they existed at the time of the change in plaintiff Joyner's status. In Wolff v. McDonnell, supra, at p. 574, the Supreme Court refused to 4la grant retrospective application to their ruling stating that: "“...-great weight should be given to the significant impact a retroactivity ruling would have on the administra- tion of all prisons in the country, and the reliance prison officials placed, in good faith, on prior law not requiring such procedures." Applying this standard, it would appear that retrospective application should be denied. A finding otherwise would necessitate the prison system to review its files for those inmates whose status was changed from disciplinary custody to administrative custody without the benefit of a hearing. It would then require a determination of whether or not those changes in custody would be upheld. In the instant case, the requirements existing at the time of the plaintiff's change of status were met. Thus, although his change of status did not meet the constitutional requirements 42a enunciated four years later in Helms, those requirements did not apply at the time Joyner's status was changed. IV. PLAINTIFF McLEMORE At the above mentioned evidentiary hearings, plaintiff Louis McLemore testified that his constitutional rights | were violated because he was unable to confer with witnesses and establish a defense before he received the misconduct hearing which ultimately led to his incarceration in the RHU. On August 25, 1977 at 11:30 a.m. plaintiff McLemore received a misconduct charging him with possession of a broom handle. At that time, he was placed on "J" Range until August 26, 1977 at 1:00 p.m. when a disciplinary hearing was held on the misconduct report. (D-Ex E). Deputy Wigton testified that a 43a SCIP, misconduct hearings may not be conducted until at Least twenty-four (24) Hours after an inmate has received a copy of his misconduct report and no later than six (6) days after receipt of the misconduct. However, Deputy defendant Wigton testified that it would not be a violation of Pennsylvania Directive 801 to hold a= misconduct hearing within twenty-four hours of receipt of the misconduct report. As previously stated, the Court in Wolff held that certain procedural requirements must be met in order for an inmate to be provided due process in a disciplinary hearing. Included among them is the requirement that an inmate receive advanced written notice of the charges against him at least twenty-four hours before his disciplinary hearing is conducted. The purpose of ue requirement is to provide the inmate an 44a opportunity to prepare a defense to the charges. In the present case, plaintiff McLemore was provided twenty-five and one-half hours to prepare his case, Plaintiff McLemore argues that during this time he was held in segregation in ‘“eveatientive’ status and that he was unable to contact any witnesses in his behalf. Plaintiff McLemore still was permitted to request inmate representation and inmate witnesses to be present at his misconduct hearing. The fact that plaintiff McLemore was unable to physically contact any witnesses in his behalf does not constitute a violation of his right to due process. V. PLAINTIFF BROOKS At the above mentioned evidentiary hearing, plaintiff George R. 45a Brooks testified that his constitutional rights were violated by virtue of his transfer from the Allegheny County Jail to SCIP and his subsequent incarceration in the RHU at SCIP. The testimony elicited at the evidentiary hearings reveals that in September 1977 plaintifé Brooks was involved in an incident at the Allegheny County Jail in which he threatened jail staff with a handmade knife. (D Ex-I). This incident marked plaintiff Brooks as a security risk and as_ such he wes transferred to SCIP where security is more strenuous. Upon arrival at SCIP Lt. James Higgins, a correctional officer at SCIP, wrote up plaintiff Brooks for disrupting prison routine and threatening on officer at the Allegheny County Jail. (P Ex-80). As_ ranking officer at the time, Lt. Higgins also approved the misconduct. 46a The report of the disciplinary proceedings (P-Ex-80) reveals that plaintiff Brooks was given a copy of the misconduct report on September 19, 1977 at approximately 9:35 p.m. He received a disciplinary hearing on September 21, 1977. which was held in the RHU. Defendant Kozakiewicz and Officer Bailey were present as members of the hearing committee. Plaintiff Brooks testified that he had requested inmate Owens-El to be his representative at the misconduct hearing and that defendant Kozakiewicz would not permit him to be present. Defendants Kozakiewicz and Deputy Wigton testified that it is a policy at SCIP to hold disciplinary - hearings for infractions incurred at the Allegheny County Jail when the inmate is transferred to SCIP. An inmate from the Allegheny County Jail receives a copy of the misconduct setting forth the reasons 47a underlying his transfer and a hearing to determine if the inmate should be placed in the general population or a more secure unit. At the hearing, information from the county jail would be provided to the hearing committee. For the most part, a staff member from ‘the county jail would not be present at the disciplinary hearing at SCIP because of policy considerations, logistics and manpower shortages. Defendant Kozakiewicz testified that an inmate transferred to SCIP from any county jail would receive a hearing at SCIP even if a hearing had already been held on the incident underlying his transfer at the county jail. Such a hearing would concern’ the inmate's change of jail and any information concerning the reasons underlying his transfer would be provided to the hearing committee. 48a In addition, an inmate _ going through a hearing on his transfer from county jail would be permitted inmate representation and inmate witnesses. According to defendant Kozakiewicz, in plaintiff Brook's case, inmate Owens- El was not permitted to be present at the misconduct hearing because’ the request was for inmate Owens-El . to witness the hearing and not for inmate Owens-El to represent plaintiff Brooks or testify on his behalf. The court, in Cobb v. Aytch, 643 F.2d 946 (3d Cir. 1981), addressed the issue of transfers of pretrial detainees | from county facilities in Philadelphia to state correctional institutions across - the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Court examined the federal rights that accrue to a pretrial detainee and held that’ the right to access to counsel and the right toa. 49a speedy trial were hampered by the transfer to a state correctional facility. In addition, the Court held that in accordance with Pennsylvania law the Court of Common Pleas in the county in which the pretrial detainee was held pending trial must review the transfer either before it occurs or, in exigent circumstances, after the transfer but within a reasonable time. In the instant case, plaintiff Brooks was transferred from the Allegheny County Jail to the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh without the benefit of review by the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County either before he was transferred or within a reasonable time there-after. Although a hearing was conducted at SCIP by the prison officials, this was insufficient to meet the requirements of Cobb v. Aytch, supra at 961 in which the Court 50a specifically held that the transfer hearing is to be held “in a Pennsylvania tribunal independent of the _ prison systen." Plaintiff Brooks' transfer’ to SCIP took place in September 1977 while the decision in Cobb v. Aytch, supra, was handed down in March 1981. This decision should not be given retrospective application. Applying the test in Linkletter v. Walker, supra at 629, we must weigh the question of prospective or retrospective application of Cobb by ",.elooking to the prior history of the rule in question, its purpose and effect, and whether retrospective operation will further or retard its operation." The litigation of Cobb spanned eight years. The complaint was filed in June 1973. In July 1975 a _ consent decree was filed binding the Commonwealth not to accept pretrial 5la detainees at state correctional institutions unless the pretrial detainee consented. . On appeal in July 1976, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's affirmance of the consent decree and remanded the case for trial. In January 1977, the Bureau of Corrections issued A memorandum requiring the completion ‘and acceptance of a Petition for Transfer from, the conduct of a transfer hearing and the submission of the Petition to the Court of Common Pleas for approval before a pretrial detainee could be transferred to a state correctional institution, The Court in Cobb explained that “CtjJhis memorandum, while it states a policy of the Commonwealth defendants as of January 1977, is neither a _ statute nor a regulation having the force of law, and the policy it states may be changed at any time." Cobb v. Aytch, supra at 950. The case 52a was heard at trial in January 1979 ana cross appeals were taken from. the decision of the District Court that same year. The final opinion of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals was filed on March 13, 1981. Thus, it is evident from the recitation of the history of this case that at the time plaintiff Brooks was transferred from the Allegheny County Jail to SCIP there dia not exist a clear rule governing such action. The second part of the Linkletter test for retrospective application of a ruling is to look to the purpose and effect of the ruling and whether its retrospective application would “further | or retard its operation". The purpose of the ruling in Cobb is to ensure that pretrial detainees are afforded their right to counsel and to a speedy trial. 53a Retrospective application of this ruling would not further or retard its operation because the individuals to whom it would apply have already completed their trials and sentencing or have been release. In the instant case, the decision in Cobb should not be given retrospective application. In addition, plaintiff Brooks alleges that the misconduct hearing he received at SCIP did not comport with the requirements enunciated in Wolff v. McDonnell, supra.: As previously stated, the Court in Wolff held that an inmate must be given advanced written notice of the charges against him; that he has the right to call witnesses and present evidence in his behalf and that he be given a written statement by the sievcasuct hearing committee of the evidence relied upon. 54a At the evidentiary hearing in this civil rights suit, it was established that a copy of the misconduct report was given to plaintiff Brooks on September 19, 1977 at approximately 9:35 p.m. On September 21, 1977, plaintiff Brooks received a misconduct hearing at which time he submitted his written version of the incident. Plaintiff Brooks requested that inmate Owens-El be his witness, however, that request was denied because inmate Owens-El was not at the Allegheny County jail when the incident sail sae the basis of the misconduct took place. In addition, plaintiff Brooks received a written statement by the misconduct hearing committee. (P-Ex 80). Thus, the misconduct hearing procedures enunciated in Wolff were met. 55a VI. THE RESTRICTIVE HOUSING UNIT (RHU) In addition to their individual claims, the plaintiffs allege that the conditions of their confinement in the RHU constituted a violation of their constitutional rights. The RHU is a separate building on the SCIP grounds. There are four ranges above ground in the RHU - U, V,- W, and X. Each range has nine or ten cells. Below ground there is another range.) The RHU is manned from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. by a lieutenant, a sergeant and five correctional officers, and from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. by a sergeant and one correctional officer. lfhis subterranean portion of the RHU has been the subject of other litigation. Mayberry v.- Maroney, 558 F.2d 1159 (3rd Cir. ). 56a The cells in the RHU are fur- nished with a bed made of a concrete slab approximately 6-1/2' by 2-1/2' covered with two mattresses, a toiiet encased in concrete and a sink. Lighting is provided by 60 watt lightbulbs suspended from fixtures in the . corridor ceiling outside the 2 cells. A. Sanitation The plaintiffs allege that adequate sanitation could not be maintained while they were in the RHU because ‘they were not provided with cleaning supplies with which to clean their cells. Deputy Maroney testified at the 2puring the pendency of this suit we made an unannounced visit to the RHU and viewed the cells, and it would appear that the testimonial description accura- -tely reflects the appearance of these cell blocks. : | 57a ciiianienaiaeeeiiiiaai mia deal nad Pee silat aks ain ine ce al Pee ig” evidentiary hearings that in 1977 RHU inmates were provided with rags with which to clean their cells and that, at present, disinfectant powder, a water bucket and a rag or brush are provided to RHU inmates. Thus, in fact, the REU inmates were permitted some items with which to clean their cells. In view of security requirements it is properly within the discretion of the institution administration to limit what types of items are provided to these inmates. Jones v. Diamond, 594 F.2d 997 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. dismissed 453 U.S. 950. (1981). B. Lighting The plaintiffs also allege that lighting was inadequate in the RHU cells. Plaintiff Howard was prescribed glasses while he was housed in the FHU. Plaintiff Brooks had to sit on the floor by the cell door in order to read and 58a had been given eyedrops while housed in the RHU. Plaintiff Joyner testified that the light switch was under the control of the RHU officers and that the lights would be turned on and off as the officers saw fit. Deputy Maroney testified that the light fixtures are located outside the RHU cells in order to avoid any injury to the inmates or the staff and that research is being conducted on installing a ‘new light fixture that could be maintained in the individual cells that would not endanger’ the | inmates or staff. At present, 60 watt light bulbs are being used in the corridor fixtures. In the recent past, 100 watt lightbulbs were being used until it was discovered that the electrical system in the RHU shorted-out when the higher wattage lightbulbs were being used to correct the situation. 59a Deputy Maroney testified that the minimum standard for lighting is 30 candlefeet per cell. While we have not been presented with evidence demonstrating whether or not the lighting in the cells is ade~quate, to a larger extent this may be attributed to the inability of the indigent, pro se plaintiffs to secure such information. Under these circumstanstances, it is recommended that the defendants be required within thirty (30) days to provide acceptable certification that the lighting in the RHU cells conforms with the standards established by the State Health Department or else correct the lighting to comport with those standards and then file an appropriate auenhtbiecben: C. Ventilation In addition to sanitation and lighting, the plaintiffs allege that: the 60a ventilation system in the RHU is inadequate. Deputy Wigton testified that the RHU had undergone and passed a number of inspections of the heating and ventilation system by the Department of Environmental Resources. Deputy Maroney added that the RHU was constructed to provide fresh air ventilation and that the RHU is thermostatically controlled to provide an average temperature of 72° Fahrenheit. Because the only standard available to the Court to measure the adequacy of the ventilation system in . the RHU is that adopted by the Depart- ment of Environmental Resources, it is recommended that the Court rely on their decisions that the RHU has fulfilled all requirements to provide adequate ventila- tion in that unit. D. Personal Hygiene The plaintiffs also allege that 6la i A SRE LPR IIE RLS ihe Ke Ts Pea eP arene pene cena tess ane ; plaintiff Story in an attempt to confiscate the contraband. 92a 25. Contraband we recovered from plaintiff Story's mouth. 26. On September 15, 1977, plaintiff Story received a copy of a misconduct report charging him with possession of contraband and failing to comply with a direct order. 27. On September 19, 1977, Story received a misconduct hearing at which time he submitted his written version of the incident. 28. Defendant Major Wayandt chaired the misconduct hearing committee. 29. Plaintiff Story was permitted to call witnesses in his behalf but | declined to do so. 30. On September 19, 1977, plaintiff Story was found guilty and sentenced to 180 days in the REU. 31. Plaintiff Story received a copy of the written statement of the hearing committee and was advised of his right 93a to appeal its decision. — 32. The correctional officers involved in the search of plaintiff Story used force to subdue the plaintiff, who was flailing his arms, butting with his head and kicking ehane 33. The correctional officers involved in the use of force did not act with malicious or sadistic intent. 34. Defendant Weyandt was merely a witness to the search of plaintiff Story on September 15, 1977 and his membership on the hearing committee which conducted the misconduct hearing on plaintiff Story on September 19, 1977 does not violate plaintiff Story's rights. 35. Plaintiff Story has failed to prove that the defendants violated any right assured to him under the Constitution or the laws of the . United States. 94a 36. On August 6, 1976, plaiutiff Robert Joyner was placed in the RHU under disciplinary custody maximum to serve a 180 day sentence for possession of implements of escape and attempted assault on a correctional officer. 37. After plaintiff Joyner completed the sentence he was maintained in the RHU but his status was changed from disciplinary custody maximum to administrative custody maximun. 38. Plaintiff Joyner did not receive a hearing of any kind prior to or at the time of his change in status. 39. During plaintiff Joyner's sixteen month incarceration in the RHU he received monthly reviews by the PRC. 40. Plaintiff Joyner also received a copy of the rationale of the PRC which stated generally that plaintiff Joyner was being maintained in the RHU as a security risk and that the PRC was 95a attempting to obtain a transfer for him to another correctional institution. 41. Plaintiff Joyner was maintained in the RHU in administrative custody .in conformity with the federal requirements in existence at the time of his change in status. 42. On August 25, 1977, at 11330 a.m., plaintiff Louis McLemore received a copy of a misconduct report charging him with possession of a broom handle and he was placed on "J" Range in investigative status. 43. On August 26, 1977 at 1:00 p.m., plaintiff McLemore received a sheconinct hearing. 44. Misconduct hearings were held not less than 24 hours after no more than 6 days after an inmate has received a copy of the misconduct report. 4s. Plaintiff McLemore has failed to prove that the defendants violated any 96a right assured to him under the Constitution or the laws of the United States as to his individuai claims. 46. In September 1977 plaintiff George Brooks was an inmate at the Allegheny County Jail awaiting sentencing. 47. In September 1977 plaintiff Brooks was involved in an incident. at the Allegheny County Jail in which he threatened jail staff with a homemade knife. 48. In September 1977 plaintiff Brooks was transferred from ‘the Allegheny County Jail to the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh and upon arrival was placed in the RHU upon a determination by Lt. Higgins that he posed a security risk. 49. On September 19, 1977 plaintiff Brooks received a copy of a misconduct report concerning the events at the 97a Allegheny County Jail. 50. The correctional officers involved in the incident at the Allegheny County Jail were not present at the misconduct hearing conducted on September 21, 1977 at the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh. Si. Plaintiff Brooks' request that inmate . Owese-ti be | present at his misconduct hearing was denied because inmate Owens-El was not present at the Allegheny County Jail when the incident occurred. : 52. Plaintiff Brooks was found guilty of the misconduct and _ was sentenced to 180 days in the RHU. 53. The Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County did not review plaintiff Brooks' transfer either before it occurred or within a reasonable time thereafter. 98a 54. Plaintiff Brooks has failed to demonstrate a violation of any rights individually assured to him under the Constitution or laws of the United States. 55. The plaintiffs were provided with materials to clean their cells in the RHU. | 56. Lighting was provided to the individual cells in the RHU by 60 Watt lightbulbs positioned in the corridor ceilings outside each RHU cell. 57. The ventilation system in the RHU provided an adequate supply of fresh air. 58. The sinks in the RHU_ cells furnished the plaintiffs with hot and cold running water. 59. Inmates in the RHU were provided with razors under strict supervision. 60. Restrictions on clothing were imposed on RHU inmates. 99a 61. Meals were served to RHU inmates in their cells by RHU_ correctional officers. 62. The plaintiffs received a substitute food choice when pork was being served. 63. The plaintiffs were not permitted to go to the law library while they were housed in the RHU. 64. In 1977 there was no policy for the provision of law books to _ RHU inmates, but the library would provide specific information from the volumes requested. 65. RHU inmates could receive visits from 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. 66. RHU inmates were subjected to four strip searches during the visiting procedure--one strip search before they left the RHU for a visit, the second strip search when -they . actu at the strip and search room to change into 100a visiting clothes, the third strip search in the strip and search room after the visit and the fourth strip search when they returned to the RHU. 67. A strip search is an observation of the naked body placed in a prone position. 68. Between the time an RHU inmate = strip searched in the RHU and the time he was strip searched in the strip and search room he was-7 placed in restraints and did not come into contact with any other inmates. 69. Between the time an RHU inwate was strip searched in the _ strip and search room after a visit and the time he was strip searched back in the RHU he was placea in restraints and did not come into contact with any other inmates. 70. RHU inmates were permitted approximately fifteen. to twenty minutes of exercise on weekdays only. 10la 71. The Pennsylvania Statutes require that all inmates be provided at least two hours of physical exercise daily. 72. ##The plaintiffs, while housed in the RHU, were not permitted to attend religious services with the _ general prison population and religious services were not conducted in the RHU. 73. The plaintiffs were permitted to receive visits from their spiritual advisor during the day and these visits were conducted at their cell door. 74. Notary services were euetbenie to the plaintiffs every Wednesday so long as they had submitted a written request a week in advance. 78. The plaintiffs were not permitted to participate in educational programs with che general prison popu- lation and educational programs were not conducted in the RHU. 102a 76. The administration at SCIP restricted the items the plaintiffs and other RHU inmates could purchase at the commissary based on security consid- erations. 77. SCIP employed two full-time doctors. 78. There were four psychiatrists, two doctors of psychology and three assistants providing psychiatric services at SCIP. 79. SCIP employed nurses who provide medical coverage for eighteen hours a day. 80. The plaintiffs have not demonstrated a denial of any required medical treatment. IX. Proposed Conclusions of Law 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action brought under the provisions of 42 103a U.S.C. § 1983 pursuant to the provisions of Section 1343 of Title 28, United States Code. ) 2. Plaintiff ‘Howard was afforded the rights enunciated in Wolff v. McDonnell, supra. 3. Plaintiff Howard has failed to prove that the defendants violated any rights assured to him individually under the Constitution or laws of the United States. 4. An individual who has witnessed an event underlying . a misconduct may be a member of _ the hearing committee on that misconduct so long as his involvement in the event was not direct or substantial. 5. Plaintiff Story has failed to prove that the defendants violated any right assumed to him, individually, under the Constitution or laws of the United States. 104a 6. Plaintiff Joyner has failed to prove that the defendants violated any rights assured to hin, individually, under the Constitution or laws of the United States. 7. Plaintiff McLemore has failed to prove that the defendants violated any rights assured to him, individually, under the Constitution. or laws of the United States, 8. Plaintiff Brooks has failed tO prove that the defendants violated any rights: assured to hin, individually, under the Constitution or laws of the United States, 9. The sanitation in the RHU is in conformity with existing requirements. 10. The lighting in the cells in the RHU must conform with minimal standards established by the State Health Department. Pundit Caden abe reel ai. The ventilation in the RHU conforms with the standards established by the Department of Environmental Resources. 12. Within the parameters of institutional safety, the inmates in the RHU are provided with articles for personal hygiene. 13. Inmates in the RHU should be provided with laundry services similar to those enjoyed by other prison inmates. | | 14. Food service in the RHU must be in conformity with Bureau of Prison standards. 15. Inmates in the RHU are provided with adequate access to library materials within the needs of maintaining institutional security. | 16. Visitation privileges of RHU inmates comports with nintued requirements. 106a 17. The double strip searches. of RHU inmates before and after visitation is unreasonable. 18. Inmates in the RHU must be permitted to enjoy minimal exercise privileges established by the Bureau of Prisons, with adequate safety precautions. 19. Limitations of exercise of RHU inmates to 15-20 minutes on week iays is unconstitutional. 20. talebée in the RHU enjoy a reasonable opportunity to exercise their religious beliefs in conformity with the necessity for maintaining institutional security. 21. Reasonable notary services are available to inmates in the RHU. 22. The denial of an. opportunity to participate in inetitetional educational programs for RHU inmates is necessitated by 107a institutional security requirements. 23. Inmates in the RHU are not unreasonably barred from purchasing certain articles from the prison commissary. 24. The medical treatment provided for inmates in the RHU does not violate any constitutional standards. 25. Judgment should be entered against the plaintiffs and in favor of the defendants on all issues except those concerning strip searches’ and exercise privileges of inmates in the RHU, and on these issues damages in the amount of $1.00 should be awarded. Respectfully submitted, ROBERT C. MITCHELL United States Magistrate ited: January 25, 1983 108a BEST AVAILABLE COPY --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385017_0043%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.