Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DON J. YOUNG, District Judge. This cause came to be heard upon the First Report of the Special Master evaluating the compliance of the defendants with this Court’s order of July 30, 1971, as modified throughout the course of this litigation. The report was filed pursuant to the Court’s Order of December 17, 1976. No objections having been filed by any of the parties, the Court being fully advised in the premises, it is ORDERED that the report is in all respects confirmed. Said report is attached hereto as an Appendix, incorporated herein by reference, and made a part hereof as fully for all intents and purposes as if set forth at length herein. To the extent the First Report of the Special Master deals with ¶ 11 concerning the interpretation of the Court’s order of July 6, 1973, with regard to finding of a pre-trial bail release program, the Court adds the following clarification. In order to effect compliance with the prior orders of the Court with regard to funding of the aforesaid program, the Defendant County Commissioners must provide such funds as are necessary to support a viable program to meet the goals recognized in ¶ 11. In the July 6, 1978 Order, the Court recognized that funding of at least $14,000 per year is required to meet this end. This figure was not set, however, as a limitation on the obligation of said defendants to provide such funds as are necessary for the program. The Court therefore adopts the finding of the Special Master that the defendants are not in compliance with the provisions of ¶ 11. In confirming the First Report of the Special Master, the Court adopts the findings with respect to the state of compliance in all other aspects of the case as well. THEREFORE, FOR GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, it is FURTHER ORDERED that all of the named defendants, as well as their subordinates, proceed at once to effectuate full compliance with the July 30, 1971, Order of this Court, as modified by subsequent orders of the Court; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that all steps taken by the defendants and their subordinates to effectuate full compliance with that order, as modified, be supervised, coordinated, and approved by the Special Master, acting for the Court. In this connection, the Special Master shall have the authority to state to the defendants, their subordinates, and all persons acting in concert with them, or any of them, the actions required to be taken by them, or any of them, to effectuate full compliance, and to seek orders from the Court requiring any or all of said defendants, their subordinates, and persons acting in concert with them, or any of them, to show cause why they should not be punished as for contempt for failure to carry out such actions required; and it is FURTHER ORDERED, because of the disclosures of noncompliance contained in the First Report of the Special Master, that the Special Master shall continue to investigate the defendants’ state of compliance with the July 30, 1971, order of this Court, as modified, and shall make supplemental reports to the Court in the event that further or continuing instances of noncompliance are discovered. For this purpose, the Special Master shall have all of the authority granted to him by the December 17, 1976, order of this Court; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the prior order of the Court filed on July 30, 1971, is modified in the following respects: (1) The words “awaiting trial” in line 3 of the introductory statement to ¶ 6 are deleted. (2) ¶ 7 is deleted. (3) The words “and provisions for limitation or removal of visiting privileges for disciplinary purposes, or for abuse of visiting privileges” are deleted from subparagraph 17(h); and it is FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT the defendants, their employees, agents, successors, assigns, and all those in concert therewith are ENJOINED FROM: (1) Incarcerating more than one prisoner in any cell originally designed for single occupancy and from incarcerating more than a total of 226 prisoners in the housing modules containing cells on the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth floors of the Lucas County Correction Center. These limits shall not be exceeded unless there shall exist an extreme emergency where the protection of the public demands immediate confinement of a large number of persons and then the limits may be exceeded for not more than twenty-four (24) hours; (2) Employing the attorney/client booths in the Lucas County Correction Center for use in attorney/client visits until the booths are modified as ordered herein unless the visiting attorney requests in writing a non-contact visit; and it is FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the defendants, their employees, agents, successors, assigns, and all those in concert therewith are ENJOINED TO: (1) Remove the dividing wall in each of the attorney/client booths as well as to provide soundproof doors, adequate ventilation in the booths, and such furnishings as are necessary for attorney/client visits. (2) Employ the multipurpose rooms for use in attorney/client visits until the aforesaid modifications in the attorney/client booths are completed. (3) Provide adequate attorney/client visiting facilities on the second floor of the correction center. (4) Either install toilets and sinks in the two cells on the first floor of the correction center which do not contain toilet facilities (these cells are numbered 1074 and 1078 and are designated on architectural drawings as “psychiatric cells”) or remove the doors to the cells to render them unusable for occupancy by prisoners. The defendants shall notify the Court in writing within ten (10) days of the filing of this order which alternative they elect to follow. IT IS SO ORDERED. APPENDIX FIRST REPORT OF THE SPECIAL MASTER ON THE DEFENDANTS’ STATE OF COMPLIANCE Submitted by Vincent M. Nathan * TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction.......-............................-..................------------- 66 Paragraph 1 — Overcrowding....................................................... 71 Findings Relating to Compliance................................................. 73 Paragraph 2 — Use of Space in Jail.................................................. 74 Findings Relating to Compliance....................................-............ 75 Paragraph 3 — Lighting System of Jail................................................ 75 Findings Relating to Compliance.......................................-......— 77 Paragraph 4 — Food Service ......... — .........—.......-.............—....... 77 Minimum N utritional Standards............ — ...................-.............. 77 Temperature, Freshness, and Variety of Food...................................... 79 Sanitary Conditions..........-................................................ 81 Food Service Personnel-----------------------------------.....-......-.....— 83 Inspection by Public Health Authorities........................................... 84 Findings Relating to Compliance..................................... — ......... 85 Paragraph 5 — Medical Facilities---------------------------------------------------86 Findings Relating to Compliance................................................. 88 Paragraph 6 — Communication Rights of Pre-Trial Prisoners.............................. 89 Outgoing Mail------------------------------------------------- — ------------ 89 Incoming Parcels and Letters -...... — ......................................... 90 Availability of Writing Materials and Postage-------------------------------------- 91 Telephone Privileges---------------- 91 Findings Relating to Compliance —-------------------------------------------— 92 Paragraph 7 — Communication Rights of Sentenced Inmates------------------------------ 93 Findings Relating to Compliance------------------------------------------------- 95 Paragraph 8 — Attorney/Client Visiting Facilities------------------------------------— '95 Findings Relating to Compliance------------------------------------------------- 97 Paragraph 9 — Physical Alterations and Repairs---------------------------------------- 98 Findings Relating to Compliance------------------------------------------------- 100 Paragraph 10 — Library Services and Censorship---------------------------------------- 100 Library Services-------------------- 100 Censorship---------------------- 102 Findings Relating to Compliance------------------------------------------------- 103 Paragraph 11 — Pre-Trial Release Program-------------------------------------------- 103 Findings Relating to Compliance------------------------------------------------- 106 Paragraph 12 — Purchase of Jail Food------------------------------------------------ 107 Findings Relating to Compliance------------------------------------------------- 108 Paragraph 13 — Medical Services--------------------------------------------------— 108 Findings Relating to Compliance---------------------------------------------- — 113 Paragraph 14 — Guard Surveillance---------------------------------------------------113 The Old Jail_________________________________________________________________ 114 The Lucas County Correction Center--------------------------------------------- 116 The R.P.U. Reevaluation ------------------------------------------------------- 119 The Staffing Consultants-------------------------------------------------------122 Occupancy of the Lucas County Correction Center-----------------------------------127 Findings Relating to Compliance-----------------------------------------------— 129 Order of May 8, 1974 — Inmate Offense Reports ------------------------------------— 129 Findings Relating to Compliance_________________________________________________ 133 Paragraph 15 — Programmed Instruction for Jail Personnel-------------------------------134 Findings Relating to Compliance-------------------------------------------------135 Paragraph 16 — Selection and In-Service Training of Jail Personnel —---------------------136 Findings Relating to Compliance.............. — --------------------------------139 Paragraph 17 — Programming-------------------------------------------------1-----139 Classification and Diagnostic Procedures..........................................140 Work/Study Release............. 143 Group and Individual Counseling------------------------------------------- 144 Educational Programs------------------ 146 Recreation ------- 148 Religious Programs------------- 150 Work Programs--------------------------------------------------------------152 Visiting Programs_____________________________________________________________153 Findings Relating to Compliance-------- 158 Paragraph 18 — Daily Cleaning------1-----------------------------------------------159 Findings Relating to Compliance--------------- 160 Paragraph 19 — Linens, Clothing, and Toilet Articles---------- 160 Findings Relating to Compliance----------------- 161 Paragraph 20 — Punishment of Inmates Awaiting Trial-----.............. 161 Findings Relating to Compliance------------- 162 Paragraph 21 — Use of Isolation_________________________ 162 Findings Relating to Compliance_________________________________________________164 Paragraph 22 — Discipline------------------------------------- 165 Findings Relating to Compliance_________________________________________________166 Conclusion------------------------------- 167 Appendices------------------- 170 * Professor of Law, The University of Toledo INTRODUCTION On January 21, 1977, the Court issued an order appointing a Special Master in this case; shortly thereafter, the Special Master employed a second year law student, Fraser McAlpine, to serve as his assistant. The report which follows, as well as the negotiation, research, and investigation which underlie it, constitute a joint effort on the part of the Special Master and his assistant, the latter’s contribution to the project having been invaluable. During the six months which have passed between the appointment of the Special Master and the filing of this report, a very substantial amount of time has been devoted to meetings between the Special Master and the defendants with regard to the evacuation of the old Lucas County Jail and the occupancy of the new Lucas County Correction Center. It was not until April 22,1977, that agreements reached in the course of these meetings resulted in the occupancy of the third floor of the new facility by female inmates and selected male inmates. On May 18, 1977, all inmates were transferred from the old jail. During the course of the negotiations which occurred prior to the occupancy of the new facility, the Special Master raised a number of matters which he believed required resolution before the new facility could be occupied. These related to correctional officer staffing levels, lighting in the cells, the nature of the booths provided for attorney/client visits, and the unfinished and unusable state of the outdoor exercise decks on the housing floors of the facility. The first related directly to the safety of inmates housed in the new jail, and the others raised the prospect of physical alterations which might interfere with occupancy of the facility. The results of negotiations with respect to all of these matters are described fully in the report which follows. During the time that these negotiations were occurring, the final stages of construction of the new jail were being completed and the Special Master and his assistant were attempting to gather the data and information necessary for this report. It is with regret that the Special Master must report that his efforts to develop the required data and information were impeded by the repeated failure of the Correction Administrator and his staff to provide routine information and documentation. In the course of his first meetings with the Correction Administrator (the chief administrative officer of the jail) the Special Master asked that certain material be forwarded to him on a weekly or monthly basis. These requests are summarized in a letter written by the Special Master to the Correction Administrator on February 28,1977. As materials failed to arrive, the Special Master both orally and in writing repeated his requests and indicated the nature of the material which was not being received. As this report is being written, the Special Master has failed to receive all of these records although most are maintained routinely and are required for the internal operation of the jail. Although the Special Master requested “reports of all incidents of physical or sexual assault of inmates, attempted suicides, and any other incidents resulting in injury to an inmate or staff person,” he is personally aware of a number of such incidents which have not been reported to him. The same can be said with respect to “reports of all plumbing problems resulting from inmate misbehavior.” Of particular importance, the Special Master requested copies of all Inmate Offense Reports (grievances) filed by inmates. The Special Master has obtained several such reports from inmates and is aware of the existence of others which have not been forwarded to him by the Correction Administrator. Difficulties have been encountered as well in obtaining cooperation in the posting of required notices. In his letter of February 28, 1977, to the Correction Administrator, the Special Master made the following statement: . it is absolutely essential that we take steps immediately to see to it that the notice of my appointment (the revised edition) be posted at all times in all ranges in the jail as well as in the medical cells and the juvenile ward. On the occasion of numerous visits to the old jail, the Special Master noted that these notices were not posted and brought this matter to the attention of the Correction Administrator and other members of the staff. With the move to the new facility, these notices came to be posted only sporadically if at all. On the occasion of a tour of the jail held on June 13, 1977, the Special Master was unable to locate a single copy of the notice of his appointment in any of the housing areas. The absence of these notices has impeded severely communication between inmates and the Special Master. Much of what has been described above, in the opinion of the Special Master, reflects less any deliberate effort on the part of the Correction Administrator to impede investigation than it does the simple failure to recognize the need to assign a high priority to compliance with the Court’s order. Six years of litigation have not yet impressed upon all of the principals that the Court’s order is something to be taken seriously, let alone a matter of overriding importance. In addition, it must be said that the general inefficiency and absence of clear lines of communication encountered in the jail by the Special Master have interfered with the development of information and data required for this report. On too many occasions written policies and actual practice do not coincide. Indeed in a number of instances, high ranking administrators are in disagreement about what the policies of the institution actually are. The problem is compounded by the absence of written records which could be used to verify what procedures in fact are followed. A careful effort has been made in this report to distinguish between policy and actual practice and to provide verifying data when it has been available. Before moving to a description of the organization of this report, the Special Master must comment upon the new physical facility which is the focus of this litigation. In its second opinion in this case, the Court made the following observation: . if a beautiful brand new jail were built and operated the way the present jail is operated, there would be little improvement in the difficulties at first, and what improvement there was would very rapidly disappear. Jones v. Wittenberg, 330 F.Supp. 707, 712 (N.D.Ohio 1971). The Court’s observation was indeed prophetic. While the construction of a new jail has eliminated, at least for the time being, the worst of the problems of overcrowding, separation of prisoners, and filth, this large and complicated structure has created a complex set of new problems to be overcome if adequate services, programming, and surveillance are to be accomplished. To say that the new structure is an improvement over the old Lucas County Jail, which was built in the last decade of the 19th century, is not to say very much. A better standard against which to measure the new facility is that provided by the National Sheriffs’ Association: a. To provide decent and humane care for inmates b. To protect the public by securely detaining persons who present a danger to the community or to themselves c. To meet the correctional needs of the inmates by providing services which will help overcome their handicaps and permit them to live law-abiding lives after their release. After acknowledging these to be the purposes of the Lucas County Correction Center, the Toledo/Lucas County Criminal Justice Regional Planning Unit summarized its opinion of the new facility in the following terms: It is our opinion and the opinion of the experts we have consulted that on the whole, the new Lucas County Jail is an excellent facility which the entire community can be proud of. With this statement the Special Master and the experts he has consulted respectfully disagree. In the course of his tour of the new facility, Dr. F. Warren Benton, the Director of the Oklahoma Department of Correction, observed to the Special Master that the new jail is based primarily upon 19th century conceptions of correctional architecture, the only exceptions being those areas which are more reminiscent of the 18th century. Mr. William G. Nagel of the American Foundation’s Institute of Corrections, in a report received by'the Special Master, likened the new Lucas County Jail to one described in Mr. Nagel’s highly regarded study of American correctional facilities, The New Red Barn : Our first impression of almost all the jails inspected was that they were designed in hypocrisy. Often built as part of a criminal justice complex or civic center, they are frequently, on the exterior, inoffensive and even attractive structures. The approaches are attractively landscaped, sometimes even including fountains and reflection pools. One Warden proudly noted that no bars are visible to outsiders — a now frequent ploy. The overwhelming impression once inside is that the modern American jail, like its predecessor of the last century, is a cage that has changed only superficially. The concepts of repression and human degradation are remarkedly intact. Mr. Nagel commented at several points in his report about the difficulties of inmate movement which would be experienced in the new institution: My experience has been that high-rise institutions operating off an elevator core, with doors and elevators remotely controlled, do not lend themselves to any ease of movement from the house modules to the recreation area. And as a result, the recreation areas are used much less frequently and under much more structured restrictions than are necessary or desirable. The fact that provisions have been made for classrooms and for a library are both very positive, but my same reservations exist relative to their use because highrise elevator core institutions, remotely controlled, do not lend themselves to movement from housing units to central activity space such as classrooms and libraries. Finally, Mr. Nagel summarized his observations in the following words: I would say that the design of the Lucas County Jail has many imperfections, including its overemphasis on steel and electronic devices. I think it is designed as the most restrictive alternative for the untried, rather than the least restrictive alternative. I think its visiting arrangements are archaic, as are its holding cells on the first floor and maximum security blocks on the top floor. Mr. Anthony S. Kuharich, a jail consultant employed by the Toledo/Lucas County Criminal Justice Regional Planning Unit to submit a report on the staffing requirements of the new jail, characterized the new jail as “essentially a maximum security . facility.” Mr. Wayne Patterson, the Director of Corrections for the City and County of Denver, Colorado, acknowledged that: There are many aspects of the facility which fall short of the ideal, both in the efficient use of space and consolidation of services provided. While Mr. Patterson went on to describe the new facility as “pleasantly appointed” and “painted in appropriate decor,” the Special Master fails to understand how the fixed tables and backless stools, which constitute the only furnishings in. the housing areas, can be described as pleasant appointments. Even the Toledo/Lucas County Criminal Justice Regional Planning Unit has recommended that: Each living module (dayroom) should be provided with additional seating of a comfortable nature. The additional chairs should be well spaced to provide for effective utilization of existing space. Such seating should be designed to withstand heavy use. We believe this recommendation is directly related to inmate safety and offer the following quote from Dr. Hartung in this regard: “Men are in forced contact but they do not want to be in forced contact all the time. A good deal of bickering or conflict will be avoided if other seating is provided so they can sit by themselves when they wanted.” (sic) As, to Mr. Patterson’s reference to the appropriateness of the choice of color, the Special Master is more in agreement with Mr. Nagel’s observation concerning the sixth floor, which is intended to house the most dangerous and aggressive prisoners in the jail: The sixth floor should be repainted before any inmates are placed in it. It has been painted in a red-orange, the very color that psychologists have found to be the most provocative in terms of aggressive responses. Finally, the Special Master has noted the following observation made by Mr. Robert Christensen, Correctional Services Administrator for the North Central Regional Office of the United States Bureau of Prisons, another consultant employed by the Toledo/Lucas County Criminal Justice Regional Planning Unit: The emphasis on the floor plan is to provide as little physical contact between staff and prisoners as possible. The facility lends itself well to this concept by providing several observation points and television coverage. The Special Master agrees that the architectural design of the housing floors “lends itself well” to providing “as little physical contact between staff and prisoners as possible,” but does not believe that this is a desirable architectural feature of the new facility. Returning to the basic functions of a jail enumerated by the National Sheriffs’ Association, the Special Master acknowledges that he does not possess sufficient expertise to comment extensively upon the physical security of the new facility. Apparently, a number of experts who toured the new jail for the Toledo/Lucas County Criminal Justice Regional Planning Unit believe the institution to be secure. Experience which has been gained already, however, indicates that inmates can open windows in their cells for the purpose of passing contraband and can enter the ventilating duct shafts located in the housing areas. In addition, one inmate almost removed his entire cell window with little more than his bare hands. Because the Court’s order is not related directly to these security aspects of the new facility, the Special Master has not attempted to obtain the benefit of expert opinion in this area. What is clear to the Special Master, however, is that little emphasis was given to the provision of “decent and humane care for inmates.” The Toledo/Lucas County Criminal Justice Regional Planning Unit has pointed out, with respect to prisoners incarcerated in the Lucas County Jail, that “the vast majority of these persons (70%) have not been convicted or sentenced for any crime.” When this fact is taken into account, the steel cages containing small windowless cells on the sixth floor, the failure to provide any semblance of comfortable seating in the dayroom areas, the failure to install adequate light for reading, the construction of archaic and dehumanizing visiting facilities, and the provision of padded cells without sinks or toilets for inmates who are mentally disturbed are all the more inexcusable. With respect to meeting “correctional needs of the inmates by providing services,” it is true that the new jail, as originally designed, contained four classrooms. All of these were converted to other non-educational uses within the first few weeks of occupancy of the new facility. It is true that the new jail contains what Mr. Nagel described as “probably the largest indoor recreation space I’ve seen in any County jail in the United States,” a library, a chapel area, multipurpose rooms, and medical facilities. The problem is that use of these facilities may be minimized (and in some cases rendered impossible) by the core elevator concept unless the jail’s administration is willing to develop creative and innovative solutions to this problem. In addition, as will be described in greater detail in this report, the presence of visiting facilities, and therefore visitors, on the housing floors will make simultaneous programming and visitation very difficult. The programming and service facilities which have been constructed fail to reflect the input and advice of those who will use them. The Food Service Director has described to the Special Master the failure of the planners and designers of the facility to accept his advice with respect to the configuration and arrangement of the new kitchen. Suggestions of the doctor as well as those of the Medical Director were ignored when the medical area was designed, with the result that this area is deficient in a number of important respects which are described in later portions of this report. Outside citizens groups such as the Jail Action Improvement League were not even permitted to have input in the design of the new facility, and the recommendations of a committee of the Toledo/Lucas County Correction Council, an organization whose members are possessed of substantial correction expertise, were largely if not completely ignored. In assessing the capacity of the new jail to “provide decent and humane care for inmates” and “to meet the correctional needs of the inmates by providing services which will help overcome their handicaps and permit them to live law-abiding lives after their release,” one should consider the restatement of these objectives by Professor Hans W. Mattick, the Director of the Center for Research in Criminal Justice at the University of Illinois Chicago Circle, who reported his observations of the new jail: At the minimum, a jail should not do any harm to its staff or inmates, i. e., it should not expose the staff or inmates to dangerous or unhealthy conditions and it should not contribute to the further maladjustment of persons remanded or sentenced there. At the optimum, a jail should provide the opportunity for the staff (as representatives of the community) to have a constructive influence on the lives of the inmates and thereby increase the probability of their successful re-integration into the community upon their release. In the opinion of the Special Master, a substantial amount of ingenuity and skill on the part of the jail’s administration will be required to meet the minimum, let alone the optimum objective set forth by Professor Mattick. One’s sense that more could and should have been done in planning and designing the new jail to promote humane care and adequate programming is accentuated by the fact that this new facility will stand for 75 to 100 years. As Dr. Benton said in his report, however: Since the facility is completely constructed, the County should seek to do the best with what it has. All of these observations concerning the physical design of the new Lucas County Correction Center have not been put forward by the Special Master in order to carp; nor should they be taken as implying undue criticism of all of the defendants in this case, several of whom assumed their official positions too recently to be in a position to affect the design of the structure. As much of the remainder of this report will make clear, however, the physical configuration of the new jail is directly related to the achievement of a state of compliance with a number of the provisions of the Court’s order. Thus, at the outset one must be aware that full compliance with the Court’s order will require some alteration of the physical facility as well as the development of policies, procedures, and practices on the part of the jail’s administration and staff. In its opinion of July 9, 1971, the Court ordered counsel for the plaintiffs to prepare and submit an order expressive of the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in that opinion. That order was submitted to and approved by the Court. The report which follows measures the conduct of the defendants against the language of that order and against that contained in modifications subsequently approved by the Court. The references to numbered paragraphs of the Court’s order correspond to numbers utilized in that final order. Each provision of the Court’s order is discussed, and findings with respect to compliance have been made by the Special Master in each instance. As a general rule, the Special Master has not attempted to propose plans for obtaining compliance in those areas in which findings of noncompliance have been made. In a few such instances, however, specific recommendations have been made. These recommendations relate primarily to matters which have been the subject of lengthy discussion and negotiation between the Special Master and the defendants in this case. Upon the Court’s adoption of the findings of the Special Master contained in this report, the process of developing additional compliance plans can commence. PARAGRAPH 1 WITHIN NINETY (90) DAYS OF THIS ORDER, REDUCE THE INMATE POPULATION OF THE LUCAS COUNTY JAIL TO NO MORE THAN TWO PERSONS PER CELL. THIS LIMIT SHALL NOT BE EXCEEDED UNLESS THERE SHALL EXIST AN EXTREME EMERGENCY WHERE THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC DEMANDS IMMEDIATE CONFINEMENT OF A LARGE NUMBER OF PERSONS AND THEN THE LIMIT MAY BE EXCEEDED FOR NOT MORE THAN TWENTY-FOUR (24) HOURS EXCEPT THAT: (a) IF A PROGRAM OF REMODELL-ING TAKES PLACE WHICH REQUIRES THE TEMPORARY VACATION OF SOME CELL BLOCKS, THE LIMITATION OF TWO PERSONS PER CELL MAY BE EXCEEDED DURING SUCH REMO-DELLING. (b) IF SUCH PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING ARE CONVERTED FROM CELL HOUSING TO OPEN DORMITORY HOUSING, THIS ORDER MAY BE MODIFIED UPON APPLICATION. As applied to the former Lucas County-Jail, Paragraph 1 established an inmate population limit of 162. This figure is based upon the existence of 51 cells in three large cellblocks, 29 cells in six small cell-blocks and one cell used for juvenile offenders. This total of 81 cells permitted a population of 162 assuming double occupancy. For the purpose of determining the capacity of the old jail, two medical cells on the third floor of the facility have been excluded. Since these cells were intended to house physically ill prisoners, they could not be considered in computing the number of cells available for the regular inmate population. The same is true of a single “isolation” cell in one of the small cellblocks on the first floor of the jail, which cell was designated for occupancy by mentally disturbed and violent inmates. Daily population reports maintained by the jail administration from February 4, 1977 through April 22, 1977, reflected an average daily population of 180.4. During this period the lowest daily population was 167 and the highest was 197. Thus more than 162 inmates were housed in the facility on every day for which population reports were submitted to the Special Master. During the period covered by these reports, there was no “extreme emergency” requiring protection of the public and constituting a justification for deviation from the population limit imposed by the Court. No program of remodelling took place during that period and no portions of the structure were converted to open dormitory housing. On April 22,1977, 30 inmates were moved to the newly constructed Lucas County Correction Center. From this date until May 18, 1977, when the old structure was totally evacuated, the daily population level in the old jail remained within the limit established by. the Court. During the period of overcrowding observed by the Special Master after his appointment, no more than two inmates were assigned to any cell. Inmates unable to be accommodated in cells were given beds in the dayroom areas adjoining the cells. On several occasions persons serving weekend sentences and other inmates were provided with nothing more than a mattress on the floor, and on one weekend, female inmates were moved to a conference room on the third floor of the jail where they slept on mattresses on the floor. This situation was alleviated only when the American Red Cross agreed to provide cots for several days until releases could be effected to reduce the population level. On virtually all occasions observed by the Special Master, four persons were incarcerated in the room designated for juvenile offenders. Although written with the old facility in mind, Paragraph 1 has obvious ramifications for the administration of the new Correction Center. Almost all regular housing cells on the third, fourth, and fifth floors of the new facility contain 72.1 square feet. One cell in each of the four person modules on these floors contains 92.6 square feet. Sixth floor “maximum security” cells contain 50.6 square feet. It is clear that all cells in the facility, apart from three 15 person holding areas on the first floor, were designed for single cell occupancy. Only one bunk is attached to the wall of each cell and fixed furnishings in the dayroom areas provide seating for only one inmate per cell. In designing cells for single occupancy, the planners of the Lucas County Correction Center were complying with current correctional standards relating to construction of new facilities. The American Correctional Association recommends single cell occupancy, and the minimum standards for local criminal detention facilities proposed by the Nebraska State Bar Association Committee on Correctional Law and Practice prohibit construction of multiple occupancy cells. The National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals recommends maintenance of single occupancy cells containing at least 80 square feet. Any effort to house more than one inmate in the regular housing cells in the new facility will raise a serious constitutional question. In the recent case of Wolfish v. United States, 428 F.Supp. 333 (D.C.N.Y.1977), Judge Marvin Frankel held unconstitutional the practice of double celling in cells originally intended for single occupancy. Many of the cells involved in that litigation contained a total floor space of 75 to 77 square feet; others varied from slightly less than 115 square feet to almost 123 square feet. In the course of his opinion, Judge Frankel cited six recent opinions condemning double celling as unconstitutional. In the opinion of the Special Master, the purposes of Paragraph 1 of the Court’s order were to relieve an intolerable state of overcrowding in the old jail and to provide housing facilities which would meet at least minimal constitutional requirements. In view of current correctional and legal standards requiring single cell occupancy in new facilities, this paragraph should be interpreted to forbid multiple occupancy of all cells in the Lucas County Correction Center which were constructed for occupancy by only one inmate. As the remainder of this report makes clear, compliance with numerous provisions of the Court’s order will be difficult enough in the absence of overcrowding; double celling, in the opinion of the Special Master, will render full compliance virtually impossible. On the basis of single occupancy, 226 inmates can be housed on the regular housing floors of the new jail. This figure does not take into account the existence of 14 cells on the second floor which are intended for inmates requiring medical attention and ten cells which are intended to hold unclassified inmates awaiting transfer to a regular housing module upon completion of the classification process. It also' ignores the presence of 20 cells and three 15 person rooms on the first floor of the facility designed to hold incoming inmates for a period of no more than 12 hours prior to their removal to the classification area on the second floor. Finally, the total of 226 does not include those inmates who will be housed in dormitories on the second and fifth floors. The Work Release dormitories located on the second floor will accommodate approximately 80 inmates and the trusty dormitory on the fifth floor held 24 trusties as of June 29, 1977. FINDINGS RELATING TO COMPLIANCE It is the finding of the Special Master that the defendants were in a state of noncompliance with Paragraph 1 of the Court’s order during the period of observation described above in the former Lucas County Jail. It is the further finding of the Special Master that the purposes of Paragraph 1 apply with full force to the new Lucas County Correction Center and that such purposes will be thwarted by multiple occupancy of any cell in the new facility other than the three 15 person holding areas on the first floor and the dormitories located on the second and fifth floors. PARAGRAPH 2 TERMINATE THE USE OF SPACE IN THE JAIL BUILDING FOR ANY PURPOSE NOT DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN JAIL OPERATIONS AND MAKE WHATEVER CHANGES ARE NECESSARY TO FIT ALL USABLE SPACE IN THE JAIL BUILDING TO JAIL USE. In the course of numerous inspections of the old Lucas County Jail, the Special Master observed that all space in the building was being used for activities directly involved in the operation of the facility. Like Paragraph 1 of the Court’s order, Paragraph 2 was designed to alleviate to the extent possible the condition of extreme overcrowding which existed in the facility in 1971. In addition, effectuation of that provision of the Court’s order created at least limited space for recreation and other program activities. The construction of the n'ew Correction Center has addressed and to a large extent eliminated the problems of overcrowding and lack of space for programming dealt with by this paragraph. In the event that overcrowding or space limitations affecting programming should develop, however, Paragraph 2 will have obvious and direct application to the new facility All space on the third through the sixth floors of the recently opened Correction Center has been allocated for inmate housing and for program activity. For reasons which appear later in this report, however, certain space on these floors is not usable at this time. Because of the inadequacy of the small booths which have been provided for attorney/client visits, more fully described in that portion of this report relating to Paragraph 8 of the Court’s order, these areas cannot be regarded as usable. Likewise, the failure to provide a secure outer perimeter has rendered eight exercise decks on these floors unusable. As is pointed out in the Special Master’s discussion of subparagraph 17(e) of the Court’s order, these decks are necessary for the development of an adequate recreation program. The second floor of the new facility is devoted to a number of functions directly involved in jail operations. The southern half of the floor is assigned to the medical department and to inmate classification. Large areas on the north and east sides of the floor are being utilized by the Work Release Program. Administrative offices and a library occupy the remainder of the space on this floor. Large open lobby areas on the second, through the sixth floors of the new jail constitute severely underutilized space. These lobbies, each containing more than 4000 square feet, are used only for inmate, staff, and other movement on each floor. These spaces are potentially usable for other activities and may well be needed in order to remedy shortcomings discussed in this report with respect to inmate food service and the visiting program. The booking and incoming inmate holding areas occupy roughly the northern third of the first floor. Directly adjoining are the center lobby area and the main control room for the facility. The remainder of the first floor is devoted to administrative offices for the Sheriff and employees working the Sheriff’s Department. While some of these offices are used for purposes not directly involved in the operation of the jail, the assignment of this space to activities relating to the overall administration of the Sheriff’s Department is appropriate and does not interfere in any way with the functioning of the jail itself. All space on the basement floor of the new facility is either unassigned or relates directly to jail operations. This floor contains the kitchen, staff dining room, laundry facility, and other maintenance rooms. The subbasement floor contains a multipurpose recreation room, a chapel area, staff lockers, other staff support areas, and offices for the Criminal Justice Training and Education Center which will be responsible for training incoming jail staff. One large area on this floor remains unassigned. FINDINGS RELATING TO COMPLIANCE It is the finding of the Special Master that the defendants were in a state of compliance with Paragraph 2 of the Court’s order during the period of the Special Master’s observation of the former Lucas County Jail. In addition, all space assigned in the new facility either relates directly to jail operations or is being used for purposes which do not interfere with the operation of the facility. Unusable space represented by the present attorney/client visiting booths and the unfinished exercise decks, because these are necessary for activities mandated by other provisions of the Court’s order, must be altered. Failure on the part of the defendants to accomplish these necessary changes will constitute noncompliance with Paragraph 2 of the Court’s order. PARAGRAPH 3 WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THIS ORDER PRESENT A PLAN TO THIS COURT TO CORRECT THE LIGHTING SYSTEM OF THE JAIL SO AS TO BRING IT INTO CONFORMITY WITH SECTION VII, § 7.04 OF REGULATION Al-68 OF THE TOLEDO DISTRICT' BOARD OF HEALTH. THE PLAN SHALL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT EACH SEPARATE CELL IS A HABITABLE ROOM WITHIN THE MEANING OF SAID REGULATION AND EACH LIGHT FIXTURE SHALL PROVIDE SUFFICIENT FOOT-CANDLE (LUMEN) ILLUMINATION IN EACH CELL TO PERMIT THE READING OF A NEWSPAPER ACCORDING TO ACCEPTED STANDARDS. Section 7.04 of Regulation Al-68 of the Toledo District Board of Health, referred to in the text of this paragraph of the Court’s order, reads as follows: Where there is electric service available from power lines which are not more than 300 feet away from a dwelling, every habitable room of such dwelling shall contain at least two separate floor or wall-type electric convenience outlets or one such convenience outlet and one supplied ceiling-type electric light fixture; and every water closet compartment, bathroom, laundry room, furnace room and public hall shall contain at least one supplied ceiling or wall-type electric light fixture. Every such outlet and fixture shall be properly installed, shall be maintained in good and safe working condition, and shall be connected to the source of electric power in a safe manner. Ceiling and wall-type fixtures shall be properly switched. Inspection by the Special Master of the old Lucas County Jail disclosed the presence of a supplied ceiling-type electric light fixture in each of the cells in that facility. In addition, fixtures had been installed in the dayroom areas, although a number of these had been destroyed by inmates and had not been replaced at the time of these inspections. No cell or dayroom area in the former facility contained a wall-type electric convenience outlet. Because of the imminence of the opening of the new Lucas County Correction Center at the time of the appointment of the Special Master, no effort was made to determine the degree of illumination provided by light fixtures installed in the cells or the dayroom areas. Paragraph 3 of the Court’s order constituted a clear mandate to planners to provide adequate lighting in the cell and day-room areas of the new jail. The quoted Board of Health regulation required each such area to be designed to include at least one ceiling-type electric light fixture capable of providing sufficient illumination to permit normal reading activity and one wall-type electric convenience outlet. Each cell in the new facility is provided with at least one electric light fixture. All cells on the first floor are provided with one ceiling-type fixture, while cells on the second through the fifth floors and ten cells on the sixth floor are provided with one ceiling-type fixture and one wall-type fixture. Forty-eight cells on the sixth floor are provided with one wall-type fixture. Thus it is apparent at the outset that the new structure fails to comply with the requirement that “every habitable room . . . contain at least . . . one supplied ceiling-type electric light fixture” (emphasis added). There are no convenience outlets in any of the cells in the new structure. The light fixtures which have been installed in the cells are recessed and contain a three-part covering retarding illumination. The first of these covers is a sheet of transparent tempered glass. Over this glass has been installed a sheet of smoked lexan. Finally, the fixture is covered by a steel plate containing small holes through which the light is diffused. The result is that the cells, in the absence of natural light, are in a state of semi-darkness. Light meter readings taken by a lighting consultant employed by the architects for the new Center disclosed an illumination level ranging from zero to occasionally as many as eight to ten footcandles. Because of the location and the limited area of diffusion of the fixtures, the illumination level is extremely uneven in all of the cells. Common experience makes it clear that the lighting is insufficient for the purpose specified in Paragraph 3 of the Court’s order. Section BB-59-28 of Chapter BB-59 of the Ohio Building Code provides that all cells in newly constructed correctional facilities must have “not less than 15 footcandles of artificial light”. The Special Master has been told by the architects that the original lighting specifications for the building “implicitly required” fixtures which would provide this level of illumination. Accepted industry standards, however, require a substantially higher level of illumination. The Illuminating Engineering Society recommends that 30 footcandles of illumination be provided in jail cells. That same level of illumination is recommended for the reading of books, magazines, and newspapers in other types of structures. A recent report of conditions in the Cook County Jail in Chicago, Illinois, prepared by two environmental health specialists for the United States Department of Justice, contained the following observation: A minimum of 30 footcandles is necessary for maximum speed of seeing (for reading), for prevention of eye fatigue and eye strain. Higher levels of illumination are necessary for inmates with poor vision or eye defects, which are common health problems for those in lower socioeconomic classes. The majority of the incarcerated offenders are in this class. The parties entered into a stipulation regarding the provision of adequate lighting in the new facility, which stipulation was approved by the Court and filed on April 13, 1977. The pertinent portion of that stipulation reads as follows: That lighting fixtures sufficient to provide an illumination level of 30 footcandles per cell will be obtained and installed as promptly as possible in the new Lucas County Correction Center. On May 10,1977, the architects issued Field Bulletin No. 9 listing contemplated changes in the lighting of cells, and on May 11,1977, the architects informed counsel for the defendant County Commissioners that an appropriate fixture had been located. The proposed fixture has been evaluated by the architects and their lighting consultant and has been used with apparent success at other correctional facilities, including the Los Angeles County Jail and the Illinois Mental Health Center at Chester, Illinois. The proposed fixture, which will contain three 40 watt flourescent bulbs and a % inch tempered lens with a diffuser to prevent glare, has been observed by the Special Master’s assistant during a demonstration in the Lucas County Correction Center. These fixtures will be surface mounted on the ceiling of each cell and appear to provide 30 or more footcandles of illumination throughout most of the cell including the areas most likely to be used for reading. Illumination provided by these fixtures will be more even throughout the cell area, less heat will be produced by their use, and lower maintenance expenses will be incurred. As of the date of this report, however, no steps have been taken to install the new fixtures. FINDINGS RELATING TO COMPLIANCE It is the finding of the Special Master that the artificial lighting system of the new Lucas County Correction Center is not in compliance with Paragraph 3 of the Court’s order. When new lighting fixtures are installed in accordance with the stipulation agreed to by the parties and approved by the Court, each cell will contain a ceiling-type electric light fixture as required by § 7.04 of Regulation Al-68 of the Toledo District Board of Health, which fixture will provide sufficient footcandle illumination in each cell to permit the reading of a newspaper according to accepted standards. Replacement of fixtures in all cells must be expedited, however, in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation. Because Paragraph 3 of the Court’s order relates to “the lighting system of the jail,” it is the finding of the Special Master that the Court’s reference to § 7.04 of Regulation Al-68 of the Toledo District Board of Health does not require the installation of a wall-type electric convenience outlet as specified by that section. Such an outlet is not necessary in order to provide sufficient illumination in the cell and thus does not appear to be required in order to bring about a state of compliance with this provision of the Court’s order. PARAGRAPH 4 IMMEDIATELY, TAKE STEPS TO INgERE THAT FOOD AND FOOD SERyjEE AT THE JAIL MEET THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AND STANDARDS: (a) MINIMUM NUTRITIONAL STANDARDS SHALL BE MAINTAINED AS DISCLOSED BY THE TESTIMONY OF MRS. M. DeOLIVEIRA AND THE EXHIBITS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH; (b) FOODS SHALL BE SERVED AT THE PROPER TEMPERATURES, FRESH, AND IN REASONABLE VARIETY; (c) SERVING METHODS SHALL MEET MINIMUM HEALTH AND SANITARY STANDARDS FOR FOOD SERVICE IN RESTAURANTS; (d) KITCHEN, KITCHEN EQUIPMENT, FOOD STORAGE, AND SANITATION SHALL MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR RESTAURANTS; (e) ALL PERSONS, WHETHER PRISONERS OR EMPLOYEES, WORKING IN AND AROUND THE KITCHEN AND THE HANDLING AND SERVING OF FOOD IN THE JAIL SHALL MEET THE APPLICABLE RESTAURANT HEALTH REQUIREMENTS; (f) THE JAIL KITCHEN AND FOOD SERVICE SHALL BE REGULARLY INSPECTED BY THE PUBLIC HEALTH AUTHORITIES ON THE SAME BASIS AS RESTAURANTS SERVING THE PUBLIC, AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS OR REQUIREMENTS MADE BY THE PUBLIC HEALTH AUTHORITIES AS THE RESULT OF SUCH INSPECTIONS SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE DEFENDANTS WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED THEREFOR BY SAID PUBLIC HEALTH AUTHORITIES. Minimum Nutritional Standards. On several occasions following the filing of the final order in this case, nutritionists employed by the City of Toledo Board of Health have visited the jail. What follows is a brief description of these visits and the evaluative comments contained in various reports submitted by the nutritionists. The first such visit occurred on April 18, 1972. While the nutritionist did discuss food service operation with the jail’s food service supervisor, the report of that meeting states, “The nutritionist did not in any way evaluate the program.” A second visit by nutritionists occurred on June 27, 1972. On the occasion of this visit they met with the institution’s Food Service Director and evaluated cycle menus for the months of July, August, and September. Based upon standards recommended by the National Research Council, the nutritionists made the following findings with respect to the adequacy of these menus: Nutrients Food Value Calories Adequate Protein Adequate Riboflavin Adequate Niacin Adequate Iron Adequate Calcium Adequate Thiamin Adequate Vitamin A Probably adequate if fortified margarine is used Vitamin C Inadequate In explaining the finding of adequacy of calorie content in the menus which were evaluated, the nutritionists established a range of 2,400 to 3,000 calories needed by a male between the ages of 18 and 75 years of age depending upon age, height, and weight. The nutritionists’ findings with respect to the adequacy of food value in these menus assumed males weighing between 130 and 154 pounds and standing between 67 and 69 inches in height. The evaluation assumed a needed calorie range of 1,700 and 2,300 for females between the ages of 18 and 75 depending upon age, height, and weight and was based upon the needs of females weighing between 119 and 128 pounds and standing between 62 and 64 inches in height. In conclusion, the nutritionists made the following observation: From this evaluation, it appears that the menus are nutritionally adequate, except for Vitamin C, if the food items and size servings (as noted on menus) are served to the residents (emphasis added). With respect to the inadequate provision of Vitamin C, the nutritionists recommended the serving of one of the following food servings daily: 1 medium orange or V2 cup juice 1 grapefruit or V2 cup juice 2 medium tomatoes or 1 cup juice V2 large cantaloupe 1 cup strawberries % cup broccoli IV2 cups cabbage, raw/shredded Finally, the nutritionists recommended less frequent repetition of certain food items, greater consideration of color, textures, temperatures, consistencies, and combinations in planning menus, and serving of eggs three times per week. They pointed out that they would require additional information concerning the food service operation in order to make “a more complete evaluation.” The next evaluation of jail menus by nutritionists occurred on June 27, 1973. In a report of that meeting dated July 17, 1973, the nutritionists stated that they were unable to evaluate menus for Vitamin C content because they did not know the Vitamin C content of fruit drinks being served to inmates. They indicated that the menus were deficient in calcium content unless inmates were receiving two glasses of milk per day. The average daily calorie content of menus over a three week period was 1,973 and thus deficient. (In this report the nutritionists recommended a daily caloric intake of 2,400 to 2,800 calories for inactive men ranging in age from 18 to 55.) On July 2, 1973, the nutritionists again visited the jail and their findings are reported in the document dated July 17, 1973 and referred to above. On the occasion of this visit, the nutritionists actually observed the serving of food at the noon meal and were served the same meal which was provided to inmates. They found their meal to be “well prepared, tasty, and adequate as to amounts.” In the course of their report of this visit, the nutritionists made the following recommendation: A three or five week seasonal menu cycle would be beneficial for both ordering and preparing food. This should be submitted to the nutritionists for reviewing before menus are served. The next instance of involvement by nutritionists with the jail’s food service operation is reflected by a report of June 7,1977, containing an evaluation of four menus submitted by the jail’s Food Service Director. These menus are attached as Appendix A, page 170 infra. Based upon standards recommended by the National Research Council for adult males and females, ages 18 to 75 years, the nutritionists made the following findings with respect to these menus: Nutrients Food Value Calories (average approximate 2,550) Adequate Protein Adequate Riboflavin Adequate Niacin Adequate Iron Adequate Calcium Adequate Thiamin Adequate Vitamin A Probably adequate if fortified margarine is used. It is also recommended that a dark yellow or dark green vegetable be served every other day. Vitamin C Inadequate Roughage Inadequate The nutritionists concluded their statement of findings with the following observation: Thus, it appears that the menus are nutritionally adequate except for Vitamin C and roughage, if the food items and size servings (as noted on menus) are served to the residents (emphasis added). In the course of this report, the nutritionists expressed concern about the temperature of the food which was served and about the size of portions actually served. They repeated their recommendation with respect to the serving of certain specified foods on a daily basis in order to provide adequate Vitamin C content. In. order to meet the roughage requirement, they recommended the serving of raw fruits or vegetables on a daily basis. Finally, the nutritionists repeated their recommendation that “color, taste combination, and