Full opinion text
OPINION MUIR, District Judge. This action was originally filed on October 30, 1975 by members of a class of all inmates subject to being placed in cells on the first floor of the Special Housing Unit (hereafter SHU) at the United States Penitentiary at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. That action, after trial, resulted in an injunctive order dated March 25, 1976 directed to the Warden of the Penitentiary. On November 17, 1978, a motion was filed seeking an order holding Warden Charles E. Fenton in contempt for alleged violations of the order of March 25, 1976. A hearing was held on the motion from March 6,1979 until March 29, 1979. The following are the Court’s findings of fact, discussion, and conclusions of law. I. Findings of Fact. 1. Under date of March 1, 1976, this Court filed a written opinion in the above-captioned case based upon findings and conclusions drawn from a trial held during January, 1976. (Undisputed) 2. On March 25, 1976, after seeking proposals from counsel, this Court entered an appropriate Order based upon such findings and conclusions. 3. The first paragraph of the Order of March 25, 1976 provides: “Defendant shall maintain the ventilation system on the first floor of the Lewisburg Penitentiary Special Housing Unit so that it provides an average minimum of nine air changes per hour, per cell.” (U) 4. The second paragraph of the Order of March 25, 1976, provides: “Defendant shall provide for an annual inspection of the ventilation system on the first floor of the Special Housing Unit by qualified ventilation personnel.” (U) - 5. The third paragraph of the Order of March 25, 1976, provides: “Defendant shall maintain the first floor section of the Special Housing Unit in accordance with the Bureau of Prison Policy Statement 7400.5D, July 7, 1975, on Inmate Discipline, or any succeeding policy statements which apply.” (U) 6. The fourth paragraph of the Order of March 25, 1976, provides: “Each inmate confined in Disciplinary Segregation shall be afforded the opportunity to shower at least two times per week and shall be permitted no less than two hours of exercise per week. Both of these requirements may be dispensed with if compelling security or safety reasons dictate otherwise and such exceptions are documented. Exercise is to be provided in two one-hour periods, provided, however, that if the circumstances so require, exercise periods may be reduced to one-half hour each so long as the two-hour minimum per week is maintained. Shower periods and exercise periods shall be provided at different times.” (U) 7. The fifth paragraph of the Order of March 25, 1976, provides: “Defendant shall follow Bureau of Prisons Policy Statement 7400.5D, July 7, 1975, on Inmate Discipline, or any succeeding policy statements which apply, with regard to placement of individuals in disciplinary segregation.” (U) 8. The sixth paragraph of the Order of March 25, 1976, provides: “Defendant shall continue to maintain in cells numbered 101, 102, 103, and 114 on the first floor of the Special Housing Unit sinks capable of control from within the cell, commodes capable of control from within the cell but supplemented by commode override control from outside the cell. The Defendant shall continue to maintain the windows on the first floor of the Special Housing Unit unpainted. The Defendant shall provide lighting in each cell with bulbs totaling not less than 140 watts during reasonable hours.” (U) 9. An extended period of inmate violence led to a Board of Inquiry into Lewis-burg Penitentiary operations in 1976. 10. The Board of Inquiry recommended a number of changes at the Lewisburg institution. 11. Defendant Charles E. Fenton was appointed Warden of the United States Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, and assumed the duties of Warden of the United States Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, on or about September 1, 1976. 12. Prior to his assignment to the Lewis-burg institution, Warden Fenton was Warden of the United States Penitentiary at Marion, Illinois. (U) 13. The Marion Penitentiary' has been the one maximum penal institution in the Federal Prison System. (U) 14. Previous to his assignment to the Marion Penitentiary, Defendant Fenton had been Warden of the Federal Correctional Institution at Oxford, Wisconsin. (U) 15. At all times relevant hereto, and in particular, from January 1, 1978 to the present, Defendant Charles E. Fenton has been the Warden at the United States Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, and as such has had overall responsibility for the management, maintenance, and operation of the institution and control over the staff at the Lewisburg Penitentiary, the inmates incarcerated therein, and in particular, the staff and inmates assigned to the first floor of the Special Housing Unit. 16. At all times relevant hereto, Warden Charles E. Fenton was aware of the provisions of the March 25,1976 Order entered in the above captioned matter, having read said Order in 1976. 17. This Court amended the Order of March 25, 1976 by inserting a Background to that Order on March 14, 1979. (Order filed March 14, 1979; D-43) (U). 18. The Special Housing Unit at the Lewisburg Penitentiary is divided into three floors. (U) 19. The part of the Lewisburg Penitentiary now referred to as the “Special Housing Unit” originally was designed and built with one level of segregation cells, that level being the bottom floor. 20. Expanded need for segregation facilities led to the upper two floors, which originally were designed and built for conventional housing, to be used as segregation cells after modifications were made in the upper two floors. 21. The third floor of the Special Housing Unit is normally used to house inmates assigned to Administrative Detention, while the second floor of the Special Housing Unit is used to house inmates who are holdovers, as well as those assigned to Administrative Detention. (U) 22. The second and third floors also have been used to house inmates in disciplinary segregation status, as well as prisoners having acute mental problems, marshal’s prisoners, and protection cases, among others. 23. The first floor, or “basement” of the Special Housing Unit, consists of 14 single cells, and is normally used to house inmates assigned to Disciplinary Segregation. (U) 24. The bottom floor of the Special Housing Unit also has been used for other prisoners who have high security priority, e. g., a highly assaultive prisoner in transit to the Control Unit at the United States Penitentiary, Marion, Illinois. (U) 25. The bottom floor occasionally has been used to provide single-cell housing for other inmates when that housing is not available elsewhere in the Special Housing Unit. 26. The national Federal Bureau of Prisons Policy Statement on the subject of Inmate Discipline, numbered 7400.5D, and dated July 7, 1975, defines “administrative detention” and “disciplinary segregation” in language subsequently utilized in the Local Policy Statement, No. NE 7400.5D. 27. Policy Statement NE 7400.5D, dated 9/9/75, on Inmate Discipline has been the applicable policy statement from January 1, 1978 to the present concerning conditions in Disciplinary Segregation and requirements for placement of individuals in Disciplinary Segregation. (U) 28. According to Policy Statement NE 7400.5D, Inmate Discipline, Administrative Detention is the status of confinement which results in a loss of some privileges which the inmate would have if assigned to the general population. (U) 29. According to Policy Statement NE 7400.5D, Inmate Discipline, Disciplinary Segregation includes the status of confinement of an inmate housed in an individual cell either by himself or with other inmates, separated from the general population, as a result of a hearing before the Institution Discipline Committee (IDC) in which the inmate has been found to have committed a prohibited act. 30. The 14 cells on the first floor of the SHU are separated, from the other areas of the SHU located in the basement by glass doors. 31. Within the area occupied by the 14 cells on the first floor of the SHU any cells which might be used to house prisoners in Administrative Detention status are not physically separated as a group from the remainder of the cells. 32. Most of the inmates who have been housed on the first floor of the SHU have been in Disciplinary Segregation or temporary Disciplinary Segregation status, and as such are entitled to' significantly fewer privileges than those inmates in Administrative Detention. 33. Cells 101,102,103 and 114 were used solely as disciplinary segregation cells for some time during Warden Floyd E. Arnold’s tenure at the Lewisburg Penitentiary. 34. The remaining cells on the first floor were used for either disciplinary segregation or administrative detention purposes. 35. Some time after arriving at the Lewisburg Penitentiary, as Warden, the Defendant, Charles E. Fenton, changed the institution’s procedures so that all cells on the first floor could be used for disciplinary segregation or administrative detention purposes. 36. Those inmates who are housed on the first floor of the Special Housing Unit who are not in Disciplinary Segregation or temporary Disciplinary Segregation status are considered by the penitentiary staff to be in Administrative Detention status. 37. Each of the doors to cells on the first floor of the Special Housing Unit has a small opening called a wicket which may be closed from outside of the cells. (U) 38. When Defendant came to the Lewis-burg Penitentiary cell door wickets were being used to seclude inmates from others who were working in cell corridors. (U) 39. During an inspection shortly after his arrival at Lewisburg, several inmates, and one in particular, attempted to intimidate Warden Fenton by threats and insults, at which the Warden directed that the inmates’ cell door wickets be raised to a closed position. 40. Defendant directed that the cell door wicket be closed for any prisoner who attempted to intimidate any staff member in the performance of his duties. (U) 41. Authority to close cell door wickets earlier had been delegated to the Supervisor of the Special Housing Unit, but, now orders to close wickets either must be cleared by the Warden in advance or presented for his review as soon as practicable. (U) 42. More recently transparent wickets have been installed on a number of cell doors on the first floor of the Special Housing Unit. (U) 43. As Warden, Defendant Fenton averages several visits weekly to the first floor of the Special Housing Unit. (U) 44. During his visits to the first floor of the Special Housing Unit, conditions of sanitation, food, temperature, discipline, and other operational details are observed. (U) 45. During his visits to all levels of the Special Housing Unit, Defendant converses with prisoners indicating a desire to do so, usually including several on the first floor. 46. When in the course of conversations with inmates, he has occasion to hear various complaints which concern operational matters on which logs are maintained, Defendant Fenton often personally checks the logs, if available, or directs that others do so. A. Ventilation. 47. Shortly after his arrival at Lewis-burg, Defendant discussed compliance as to paragraphs 1 and 2 of the March 25, 1976, Order with individuals employed in the Penitentiary’s Mechanical Services Department. (U) 48. Defendant was advised that, prior to his arrival, the first floor ventilation system had been made operational to comply with the first paragraph of the March 25, 1976 Order. (U) 49. Defendant further was advised that the Penitentiary’s Mechanical Services Department was complying with the second paragraph of the March 25, 1976 Order on an ongoing basis. 50. Defendant Fenton received a letter dated April 5, 1978 from Plaintiffs’ counsel concerning ventilation on the first floor of the Special Housing Unit. 51. Because counsel’s letter appeared to request more documentation than existed, Defendant directed that additional testing and documentation be obtained. 52. Defendant further directed that periodically the Penitentiary’s Mechanical Services Department should conduct ventilation tests and document the same. 53. Mr. Franklin E. Cook, pipefitter, conducted inspections of the ventilation system on the first floor of the SHU and performed maintenance during 1977 on the following dates: January 11 and 25; February 4 and 25; March 4 and 27; May 5, 19, and 31; June 30; July 14; August 11, 19, and 26; September 6, 16, and 30; October 14, 18 (unit cleaned), and 28; November 15, and 25; and December 20. (F. E. Cook). 54. Mr. Franklin E. Cook, pipefitter, conducted inspections of the ventilation system on the first floor of the SHU and performed maintenance during 1978 on the following dates: January 11; February 9 and 24; March 21; April 7, 11 and 24; May 5; June 1, 9 and 14 (unit cleaned); June 21; July 6 and 19. (F. E. Cook) 55. The first time that air flow tests were conducted in the cells on the first floor of the SHU after April 1, 1976 was during the week of April 10, 1978, several days after the attorney for the Plaintiff class wrote Warden Charles E. Fenton requesting documentation of compliance with paragraph 2 of the Court’s March 25,1976 Order requiring annual inspections of the ventilation systems. (P-97, P-98). 56. Mr. James Swartz, Engineering Technician, Mechanical Engineer at the Penitentiary, holds a Bachelor of Science degree from Bucknell University. (U) 57. Mr. Swartz ran tests to measure the minimum air change per cell, per hour, in cells on the first floor of the SHU on April 14, 1978. (Swartz) 58. Mr. Swartz conducted an air change test on December 15, 1978, and this test revealed an average minimum number of 9.01 air changes per cell per hour, including recirculated air, on the first floor of the SHU. (Swartz) 59. Mr. Swartz is not a “qualified ventilation” person. 60. Mr. David Bachman, a heating and ventilation contractor, conducted air change tests on the cells on the first floor of the SHÜ on February 8, 1979, and this test revealed an average minimum air change per cell, per hour of 4.5. (Bachman) (U) 61. Based upon the ventilation tests of David Bachman on February 8, 1979, it was determined that the number of air changes per hour for each of the cells on the first floor of the SHU were as follows: Cell 101 — 5.2; Cell 102 — 2.3; Cell 103-4.-9; Cell 104 — 5.9; Cell 105 — 4.25; Cell 106— 4.75; Cell 107 — 4.0; Cell 108 — 3.2; Cell 109 —3.7; Cell 110 — 4.0; Cell 111 — 5.1; Cell 112 — 5.2; Cell 113 — 7.3; Cell 114^-8.7. (U) 62. According to Mr. Bachman, the ventilation system on the first floor of the SHU on February 8,1979 provided approximately one half of the ventilation which it was providing on January 20, 1976. 63. The exhaust fan from the ventilation system on the first floor of the SHU is sufficient to provide the 9.0 air changes per hour per cell as provided for in the Court’s Order. 64. When Mr. Bachman consulted with Plaintiffs for the purpose of the original action, he based his recommendation as to the required number of air changes in the SHU in part upon those recommended for public restrooms. 65. The ventilation standard for a prison cell block propounded by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) is a minimum of 7 cubic feet per minute (cfm) per person, and a recommended level of 10 to 15 cfm. (Swartz, Bachman) (U) 66. The ventilation standard for a prison cell block propounded by the American Correctional Association (ACA) is a minimum of 10 cfm per person. (Swartz) (U) 67. The air flow in cells on the first floor of the SHU averages 30 cfm per cell. (Swartz, P-281) (U) B. Showers and Exercise. 68. Inmates confined in Disciplinary Segregation were routinely afforded the opportunity to shower at least two times per week except when compelling security or safety concerns dictated otherwise. 69. When compelling security or safety concerns prevented correctional officials from giving Disciplinary Segregation inmates the requisite two showers per week, the omission was adequately documented. 70. Inmates confined in Disciplinary Segregation were afforded the opportunity to partake of at least two hours of exercise per week in two one-hour periods or their equivalent except when compelling security or safety concerns required otherwise. 71. When less than two hours of exercise per week was provided, the omission was properly documented. C. Placements in Disciplinary Segregation. 72. During the discovery phase of the civil contempt proceedings, Plaintiffs requested various information and documents concerning inmates known to have been place on the first floor of the SHU without a prior hearing. In addition, Plaintiffs requested the names of, and information and documents concerning other inmates who have been placed on the first floor of the SHU. (U) 73. The penitentiary kept no central listing or file of any type which would record those inmates who had been placed on the first floor of the SHU. However, the Special Housing Unit Log Book prior to September 19,1978, routinely listed the number of the cell in the SHU to which a person was assigned from general population. 74. The SHU Log Books for the period January 6, 1978 through September 18, 1978, indicate that during this period 1053 inmates were moved from general population to the SHU. Of these 1053 entries, 957 contain the number of the SHU cell in which the inmate was initially placed. The remaining 96 entries do not contain such a cell designation. (Stipulation) (U) 75. The SHU Log Books for the period of January 6, 1978 through September 18, 1978, indicate that during this period 2062 inmates were admitted to the SHU from areas other than the general population of the United States Penitentiary, Lewisburg. Of these 2062 entries, 720 contain the number of the cell in the SHU 'in which the inmate was initially placed. The remaining 1342 entries do not contain such a cell designation. (Stipulation) (U) 76. Since the only document resembling a centralized listing of inmates who have been placed on the first floor, i. e., the Special Housing Unit Log Book ceased listing such placements as of September 19, 1978, Plaintiffs were unable to prove all other possible violations of the March 25, 1976 Order which might have existed following September 18, 1978. 77. On February 11, 1978, inmate Allen Best was received at the Lewisburg Penitentiary from another institution and was immediately placed in a cell on the first floor of the SHU without first having received a hearing before the IDC, and at a time when no incident report had been filed against him for any alleged misconduct. 78. Best is an extremely assaultive offender; he has a history of impulsivity and frequent misbehavior. 79. Upon commitment to Lewisburg, inmate Best refused to submit to fingerprinting and prints were taken only after he was forceably restrained. 80. While in a Connecticut institution for robbery Best had been involved in serious assaults. Because he was a serious management problem he was transferred to the Federal System. 81. At approximately 8:40 P.M., on February 13, 1978, while confined on the first floor of the SHU in Administrative Detention status, Best became hostile and insolent toward three officers by yelling in a loud voice and spitting in the face of one of the officers. (P-1) 82. Best while remaining on the first floor of the SHU was not provided a hearing before the Institution Discipline Committee (IDC) until February 17, 1978. This hearing was held on charges that he was insolent towards a staff member on February 13, 1978 while on the first floor of the SHU. (Exhibits P-1, P-2). 83. Best was found by the IDC to have committed the prohibited act charged. 84. The IDC withheld statutory good time (SGT) for the month of February, placed Best in Disciplinary Segregation, and scheduled him for review on February 24, 1978. (P-1, P-2) 85. On the afternoon of August 13,1978, inmate Robert Chappelle had to be moved from the pitcher’s mound of Softball Field # 2 in the main recreation yard where he was sitting with an aluminum baseball bat across his legs preventing other inmates from using the field. (P-6, D-60, Mr. Thomas) 86. Inmate Chappelle was charged with disrupting activities in the yard and giving a false statement to a staff member, which charges resulted in an Incident Report. (P-6). (U) 87. As a result of this Incident Report, and prior to any hearing before the IDC, inmate Chappelle was moved to the first floor of the SHU. (D-60, D-61, Mr. Thom- . as) 88. Robert Chappelle received a hearing before the IDC on August 16, 1978. 89. The IDC found that Chappelle had committed the prohibited acts of conduct which disrupts or interferes with the orderly running of the institution and providing a false statement to a staff member. 90. The IDC placed Chappelle in Disciplinary Segregation status, referred him for a mental health evaluation and recommended a disciplinary transfer. (P-8, Mr. Thomas) 91. On August 19, 1978, during his exercise period in the SHU gym, Chappelle refused to leave the area and be escorted to his assigned cell. (D-62) 92. On August 28, 1978, inmate Chappelle and three other inmates created a serious disruption in the SHU by banging on their cell doors and shouting at staff members. (P-193, Mr. Mort) 93. Although each of the four inmates was given a direct order to stop his disruptive conduct, each refused to stop and instead attempted to encourage others to join in their demonstration. (P — 193, Mr. Mort) 94. Although he submitted to having restraints placed upon him, inmate Chappelle made hostile and insolent remarks, including profanity, wherein he was heard to state “Yeah, you can place the cuffs on me any day because I know by your fucking rules you must take them off tomorrow at the same time.” (P-193, Mr. Mort) 95. Inmate Chappelle participated in a major disturbance in the SHU on December 16, 1978. (D-53, Humme) 96. On August 27, 1978, while assigned to quarters C-X, general population, inmate Charles Howard, Jr., was charged with refusing to obey an order of a staff member, which charge resulted in an Incident Report. (P-9) (U) 97. As a result of this Incident Report, inmate Howard was immediately placed on the first floor of the SHU, prior to receiving an IDC hearing. (P-11, P-279) (U) 98. Inmate Howard was placed in cell 110 on the first floor of the SHU at approximately 5:20 P.M. by Lt. John Klopf. (P-9, P-11) 99. Inmate Howard received a hearing before the IDC on this charge on August 30, 1978. (P-10) 100. The IDC found that Howard had committed the prohibited act of refusing to obey an order of a staff member; the IDC placed him in Disciplinary Segregation status, withheld SGT for the month of August, and scheduled him for review on September 6, 1978. (P-10) (U) 101. On August 7, 1978, a disturbance erupted on the “red top” area outside the institution’s inmate dining rooms when inmate McCollum who had just learned that his cell had been “burned out” by other inmates broke away from correctional staff escorting him to the correctional supervisor’s office in the east corridor. (Hudson, Mort) 102. Inmate McCollum proceeded to assault a number of prisoners in the inmate dining room. (Hudson, Mort) 103. A large group of inmates gathered quickly on the “red top” area and refused to leave after being ordered to do so by staff members. 104. The correctional staff almost lost control of the situation on August 7, 1978. The emergency siren was sounded and additional employees were summoned to assist in the quelling of the disturbance. (Hudson, Mort) 105. On August 7, 1978, while assigned to general population, inmate Frederic Cox was taken from population directly to Cell 107 on the first floor of the SHU, without a prior IDC hearing, pending investigation of possible participation in a group demonstration. (P-21) 106. Inmate Cox remained on the first floor of the SHU until some time between August 22 and August 28, 1978, during which period he was not given an Incident Report, was not given an IDC hearing and was not found guilty of any infraction by the IDC. (P-22, P-23, P-24) 107. As a result of the alleged investigation involving Cox, inmates Ronald Cooley, Larry Peterson, and Alexander Patton, were likewise moved from general population to the first floor of the SHU without having received an Incident Report or a hearing before the IDC (P-279, P-13, P— 225, P-226, P-202, P-205). 108. The reason for placing inmates Cooley, Peterson and Patton in the SHU was for investigation of a large group disturbance in general population, the penitentiary officials apparently having received information that these inmates were encouraging other inmates to become disruptive. (U) 109. Although encouraging others to riot or engage in disruptive activities is a rule infraction at the penitentiary, none of the four inmates was ever charged with any rule infraction and none ever received any incident report concerning the August 7, 1978 incident. 110. Inmates Cooley and Peterson remained on the first floor of the SHU from August 7, 1978 until August 12, 1978, during which time they received no hearing before the IDC. (U) 111. Inmate Alexander Patton was kept on the first floor of the SHU from August 7, 1978 until sometime during the week of August 22, 1978, during which time he received no IDC hearing. 112. On December 7, 1978, inmate Ronald Cooley received an Incident Report charging him with threatening another with bodily harm, insolence toward a staff member, and conduct which disrupts. (D-51, Humme) (U) 113. On December 13, 1978, inmate Cooley received a hearing before the IDC on the December 7 Incident Report; at this hearing he was found to have committed the prohibited acts charged and the IDC ordered him placed in Disciplinary Segregation. (D-52) (U) 114. Although housed on the third floor of the SHU on December 16, 1978, inmate Cooley was in Disciplinary Segregation status as a consequence of IDC action on December 13, 1978. (D-52) (U) 115. On December 16, 1978, a disturbance broke out on the second and third floors of the SHU. During said disturbance, various inmates, while housed in locked cells, yelled and kicked on their doors for several hours. In addition, several unknown inmates threw burning pieces of cloth into the hallways or out of the second and third floor windows. 116. During the December 16, 1978 disturbance, a riot squad of correctional officers was assembled under the direction of Warden Fenton and a number of inmates were removed from the second and third floors and placed in temporary Disciplinary Segregation status on the first floor of the SHU. 117. During this major disturbance in the SHU on December 16, 1978, inmate Cooley while confined on the third floor of the SHU became disruptive, started banging on his door, and demanded to be fed; other inmates on the third floor joined Cooley’s disruptive activities and started banging on their doors and shouting. (P-285) (U) 118. Inmate Cooley was charged with encouraging others to riot and conduct which disrupts, which charges resulted in an Incident Report being filed against him. (P-14) 119. The charges against inmate Cooley on December 16, 1978, were referred to the Federal Bureau of Investigation which officially declined prosecution as of December 26, 1978. (P-14) 120. During the period following the December 16, 1978, incident an emergency situation existed in the SHU. (Hudson's, Humme’s and Wicka’s notations on reverse side of BP-IS-lll’s; Testimony of Hudson, Wicka, Mort, Humme, Fenton, Sinsheimer) 121. Inmate Cooley did not receive a hearing on the December 16, 1978 charge until January 3, 1979, during which time he was held continuously on the first floor of the SHU. 122. On December 16, 1978, as a result of the disturbances on the second and third floors, the following inmates, in addition to inmate Cooley, were moved to the first floor of the SHU from either the second or third floor of the SHU without a prior hearing and placed in disciplinary segregation status: G. McCollum, A. Patton, R. Warren, R. Resting, R. Chappelle, F. Rnight, R. Winston, D. DeSantos, R. McCue, J. Massaro, H. Williams, C. Marts, Buerrero, E., Totaro, S., and P. VanScoy. (D — 45) 123. Approximately six of the above inmates were transferred from Lewisburg on December 26,1978, after having been given a December 22, 1978 IDC hearing on the Incident Reports filed against them as a result of the December 16, 1978 incident. Between December 16, 1978 and their transfer, these inmates remained on the first floor of the SHU. (U) 124. Of the remaining inmates who were placed in temporary Disciplinary Segregation as a result of the December 16, 1978 incidents, none received a hearing before the IDC prior to January 3,1979, even though they remained continuously on the first floor of the SHU. (U) 125. All sixteen inmates placed on the first floor of the SHU on December 16, 1978, were issued clothing on that date, except inmate Chappelle and H. Williams who refused to accept clothing. (Humme, Thomas) 126. Restraints were removed from all sixteen inmates on the first floor of the SHU on December 16, 1978, at approximately 11:30 P.M. on that date. (D^45, Thomas) (U) 127. By 11:30 P.M. on December 16, 1978, inmates Chappelle and H. Williams decided to accept clothing and clothing was issued to both. (Thomas) (U) 128. The IDC hearings on charges against seven of the inmates involved in the December 16, 1978 disturbance in the SHU were delayed until December 23, 1978, pending referral and possible investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation which declined to investigate on December 22, 1978. (Mr. Mort) (U) 129. On April 16,1978, Samuel Frustino, an inmate serving a “split sentence” pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3651, was transported from the Penitentiary’s Farm Camp and placed in Administrative Detention status in a cell on the first floor of the SHU. (P-28, P-29, R. Sinsheimer, Warden Fen-ton) (U) 130. Inmate Frustino was placed in a single cell on the first floor in Administrative Detention status in order to separate him from long term offenders housed in the SHU. (Sinsheimer, Fenton). 131. Inmate Frustino was released from the SHU on April 18, 1978, following a hearing before the Unit Disciplinary Committee (UDC). (P-28, P-29) 132. On July 31, 1978, while assigned to quarters in general population, inmate John Haley was moved directly to the first floor of the SHU for investigation of sex pressure, exerted by him on another inmate, without first having received a hearing before the IDC. (P-44, P-279, Log Book, D-64) 133. Inmate Haley remained on the first floor of the SHU until sometime during the week of July 31, 1978, and received no IDC hearing during the time that he remained on the first floor. 134. On August 14, 1978, at approximately 7:30 P.M. while assigned to cell 314 on the third floor of the SHU, inmate Gerald Harris was charged with fighting with his cell mate, which charge resulted in an Incident Report. (P — 48) 135. As a result of this charge, inmate Harris was immediately moved to the first floor of the SHU and placed in Disciplinary Segregation status without first having received a hearing before the IDC. No memo concerning temporary placement in Disciplinary Segregation was forwarded to the Regional Director. (P-47, P-50) 136. Inmate Harris did not receive an IDC hearing until August 18, 1978, but remained on the first floor of the SHU continuously from August 14,1978 through the date of the hearing. (P — 49, P-47) 137. The IDC found that inmate Harris had committed the prohibited act of fighting with his cell mate and placed him in Disciplinary Segregation. (P-49) (U) 138. Inmate Harris’ cell partner, inmate Wellons, No. 40013, was placed in Disciplinary Segregation as a result of the August 14, 1978 incident in which he fought with his cell mate, Harris. (P-50) 139. On August 14, 1978, inmate Wellons was placed immediately in Disciplinary Segregation on the first floor of the SHU without first having received a hearing before the IDC and without any indication that this was a temporary placement in Disciplinary Segregation. (P-50) 140. Also on August 14, 1978, inmate Bias, No. 00652, was removed from Administrative Detention to Disciplinary Segregation on the first floor of the SHU because of an alleged fight, which fight was a separate incident from the incident involving inmates Wellons and Harris. (P-50) 141. On April 1, 1978, while assigned to a cell on the third floor of the SHU, inmates Joseph Hill and William Gladney allegedly refused to permit a third inmate to be admitted to their cell and as a result of this refusal, were immediately moved to the first floor of the SHU and placed in temporary Disciplinary Segregation status without a prior hearing before the IDC. (P-52, P-53) 142. Defendant Fenton by Memo of April 7, 1978, to the Regional Director, documented this temporary placement in Disciplinary Segregation as required by Policy Statement NE — 7400.5D. (P — 53) 143. Inmate Hill remained in temporary Disciplinary Segregation status until his release from the SHU on April 3,1978 at 6:00 P.M. An Incident Report was never filed against him on this incident, and he was never given a hearing on the incident before the IDC. (U) 144. On March 8, 1978, inmate Richard Hilleary while assigned to a cell on the third floor of the SHU was moved to the first floor of the SHU without a prior IDC hearing on the alleged grounds that he and other inmates on the third floor of the SHU had been planning a food strike, that this activity caused hostile feelings from other inmates in the SHU, and that there was therefore a need to separate him from the Administrative Detention (ADDT) general population. (P-55, P-56, P-57, P-58). (U) 145. Inmate Hilleary remained on the first floor of the SHU until March 17,1978, and during that period no Incident Report was filed against him and he did not receive a hearing before the IDC on any rule infraction during this period. (P-55, P-57, P-58, Sinsheimer). 146. In addition to inmate Hilleary, the following inmates were likewise moved from the third floor of the SHU to the first floor of the SHU on March 8, 1978 as a result of the alleged plans for a food strike, said move occurring without a prior hearing by the IDC: inmates Gerald, Oscar Washington, Ehly, Richard Picariello, and Lawrence Kearney. (P-279) (U) 147. These last named six inmates, upon being placed in cells on the first floor of the SHU, were placed in said cells without clothing, and they did not receive any clothing for several hours. 148. Upon being placed in cells on the first floor, the wickets on the cell doors of these inmates were closed, and remained closed for several days. 149. On August 27, 1978, while assigned to quarters in general population, inmate John C. Hyman was charged with refusing to obey an order, insolence, and interfering with the taking of count, which charges resulted in an Incident Report. (P-60) (U) 150. As a result of these charges, inmate Hyman was immediately moved from general population to a cell on the first floor of the SHU without having received a hearing before the IDC. (P-62, P-279) (U) 151. Inmate Hyman did not receive an IDC hearing on the charge until August 30, 1978. (P-61) 152. On August 30, 1978, the IDC ordered his placement in Disciplinary Segregation. (P-60, P-61, P-62) 153. On October 5, 1978, inmates James Jordan and Isaac Taylor were being escorted to the SHU for investigation, at which time inmates Taylor and Jordan were charged with creating a disturbance in resisting placement in the SHU. (P-70, P— 73, P-74, P-75) (U) 154. Both inmates Taylor and Jordan physically resisted and had to be carried to the SHU. (P-74, D-63) 155. The staff initially intended to place both Taylor and Jordan in Administrative Detention status in the SHU for investigation, but it became necessary to place both in temporary Disciplinary Segregation status because of their disruptive conduct en-route to the SHU. (P-74, D-63) 156. The investigation of the October 5, 1978, Incident Report was delayed due to an ongoing investigation and referral of the charges to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. (P-70, Brookmole) (U) 157. As a result of this alleged disturbance, inmates Jordan and Taylor were immediately placed on the first floor of the SHU, in temporary Disciplinary Segregation status, without first having received a hearing before the IDC. (U) 158. Inmates Taylor and Jordan remained on the first floor of the SHU in temporary Disciplinary Segregation status until October 11, 1978. (P-72) 159. Inmates Jordan and Taylor did not receive an IDC hearing on the October 5, 1978 incident until October 18, 1978. 160. By memo from Warden Fenton, the Regional Director was informed of the temporary placement of inmates Jordan and Taylor in Disciplinary Segregation in compliance with the Policy Statement. (P-75, D-63) 161. Inmate Jordan was moved from the first floor to the third floor of the SHU on October 11, 1978. (P-72) 162. Inmate Jordan was seen by the IDC for a seven day review on or about October 11, 1978 at which time the IDC decided to return Jordan to Administrative Detention status pending investigation and review by the UDC on the Incident Report of October 5, 1978. (D-69) (U) 163. Inmate Jordan received. an IDC hearing on the October 5, Incident Report on October 18,1978, at which he was placed in Disciplinary Segregation status. (P-70, P-71) (U) 164. On September 4, 1978, inmates Ronald Resting and Phillip VanScoy were moved directly from population to the first floor of the SHU for investigation of the killing of inmate Gonzalez without first having received an IDC hearing. (P-279, P-238) (U) 165. Inmates Resting and VanScoy were placed on the first floor to separate them from another inmate who had provided information against them regarding the killing and who was housed on the second floor of the SHU. (Hudson) 166. Both inmates were kept on the first floor of the SHU through September 8, 1978, when they each received an IDC hearing on charges unrelated to the investigation. (P-81, P-238) (U) 167. On September 8,1978, following his hearing before the IDC on a September 4 incident Report, inmate Resting was placed in Disciplinary Segregation status. (P-80, P-81) (U) 168. On September 8,1978, following his hearing before the IDC on an Incident Report charging him with possession of contraband, inmate VanScoy was placed in Disciplinary Segregation status. (P-238) (U) 169. On October 16, 1978, following hearings before the IDC, inmates Resting and VanScoy were found to have committed the prohibited act of fatally stabbing inmate Gonzalez and were placed in Disciplinary Segregation. (P-79, P-236) 170. At approximately 10:10 A.M. on November 28,1978, inmate Resting assaulted inmates Schlobohm and Fortune while exercising in the SHU gymnasium. (P-85, Brookmole) 171. Inmate Resting struck inmate Fortune numerous times in the head and continued kicking Fortune when he fell to the floor. (P-85, Brookmole) 172. Inmate Fortune received a multifractured jaw and numerous cuts and abrasions. (P — 85, Brookmole) 173. Inmate Resting then assaulted inmate Schlobohm, striking him in the left eye and also kicking Schlobohm as he fell to the floor. (P-85, Brookmole) 174. Inmate Schlobohm received a bruised and swollen eye and several abrasions. (P-85, Brookmole) 175. As a result of charges relating to these incidents, in November 28, 1978, inmate Resting was immediately moved to the first floor of the SHU in Disciplinary Segregation status without first having received an IDC hearing. (P-87, P-88, P-89) 176. By Memo dated November 30,1978, Warden Fenton informed the Regional Director of the temporary placement of inmate Resting in Disciplinary Segregation in accordance with the Policy Statement NE— 7400.5D. (P-89) (U) 177. The investigation of the November 28,1978, assault on Fortune and Schlobohm by Resting was delayed because of a referral of the charges to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. (P-85, Brookmole) (U) 178. The Federal Bureau of Investigation declined on December 7, 1978 to go forward with the investigation of the assaults on inmates Fortune and Schlobohm by inmate Resting. (P-85, Brookmole) (U) 179. Inmate Resting did not receive an IDC hearing on this charge until December 13, 1978 but nevertheless remained on the first floor of the SHU in temporary Disciplinary Segregation until sometime during the week of December 5, 1978. (P-89, P— 90, P-92) 180. At the December 13, 1978, IDC hearing inmate Resting was found to have committed the prohibited act of assaulting inmates Fortune and Schlobohm and was placed in Disciplinary Segregation. (P-86). 181. On December 16, 1978, during a riotous situation in the Administrative Detention area on the third floor of the SHU inmate Phillip VanScoy refused an order to leave his cell. Force was used and inmate VanScoy was placed in restraints and in Temporary Disciplinary Segregation status on the first floor of the SHU. During the riotous incident on this date inmate VanScoy encouraged others to riot by his assaultive actions. (P-239) 182. By teletype message dated December 18, 1978, Defendant Fenton advised the Regional Director of the temporary placement of inmate VanScoy in Disciplinary Segregation in compliance with Policy Statement 7400.5D. (D-45) (U) 183. Investigation of the Incident Report issued to inmate VanScoy regarding the December 16, 1978 disruption was delayed until December 27, 1978, because of the magnitude of the incident, the number of persons involved in the incident, and the referral to the Federal Bureau of Investigation which officially declined to investigate on or about December 26, 1978. (P-239) 184. On January 4, 1979, inmate VanScoy received a hearing before the IDC and was found to have committed the prohibited acts charged and was continued in Disciplinary Segregation status on the first floor of the SHU. (P-240) 185. On December 16, 1978, an object appearing to be a lock pick was found in inmate VanScoy’s property. (D-38) 186. An Incident Report was written, the matter was investigated following a declination of investigation by the FBI on December 26,1978, and an IDC hearing was held on this charge on January 4, 1979, at which time the IDC found that inmate VanScoy had committed the prohibited act charged and continued him in Disciplinary Segregation status on the first floor of the SHU. (D-38, D — 40) 187. On January 1, 1979, inmate VanScoy threw his tray of food out of his cell hitting- Correctional Supervisor Wicka and Food Service Foreman Elliott. (U) 188. An incident report was written, an investigation was conducted, and an IDC hearing was held on January 4, 1979. (U) 189. Inmate VanScoy admitted to the IDC that he hit Mr. Wicka with his food tray; the IDC found him to have committed the prohibited acts of insolence toward a staff member and conduct which disrupts; and continued him in Disciplinary Segregation status. (D-39, D-41) (U) 190. On April 26,1978, while assigned to the third floor of the SHU and while in the visiting room, inmate Frank Knight was charged with an assault upon a staff member, which charge resulted in an Incident Report. (P-102) (U) 191. On August 22, 1978, while assigned to a cell on the second floor of the SHU in Administrative Detention status, inmate Knight was charged with insolence toward a staff member, which charge resulted in an Incident Report. (P-116) (U) 192. On August 23, 1978, while assigned to a cell on the second floor of the SHU in Administrative Detention status, inmate Knight was charged with refusing to obey an order of a staff member, insolence toward a staff member, and conduct which disrupts the orderly running of the institution, which charge resulted in an Incident Report. (P-118, P-119) (U) 193. On August 27,1978, while assigned to a cell on the second floor of the SHU in Administrative Detention status, inmate Knight was charged with threatening to kill an officer, which charge resulted in an Incident Report. (P-122) 194. As a result of this charge, inmate Knight was moved to a cell on the first floor of the SHU without first having received an IDC hearing. (P-124, P-126) 195. On August 28, 1978, inmate Knight received a hearing before the IDC on the incident reports dated August 22, 1978, and August 23, 1978. At this hearing which inmate Knight refused to attend, the IDC found him to have committed the prohibited acts as charged. 196. On August 28, 1978, Defendant Fenton sent a memorandum to the Regional Director advising him of the placement of inmate Knight in temporary Disciplinary Segregation status on August 27, 1978, in accordance with Policy Statement 7400.5D. (D-66) (U) 197. On August 28,1978, inmate Knight and three other inmates created a serious disruption in the SHU by banging on their cell doors and shouting at staff members. (P-193, Mr. Mort) 198. Although each inmate was given a direct order to stop, each refused to stop his disruptive conduct, attempting instead to encourage others to join in their demonstration. (P-193, Mr. Mort) 199. When approached and given a direct order to place his hands on his cell door slot in order that handcuffs be applied, inmate Knight replied: “If you motherfuckers want me you will have to come in and get me and be prepared to fight because I am going to get my licks in.” (P-193, Mr. Mort) 200. Inmate Knight physically resisted correctional officers on August 28, 1978, and struck a blow with his fist to the forehead of Correctional Supervisor Kerstetter before the inmate finally was controlled. (P-193, Mr. Mort) 201. On January 30, 1979, inmate Knight threw urine on Mr. K. Kauffman, caseworker, while in the SHU. (Knight) (U) 202. On March 7, 1979, at 7:05 A.M. while housed on the second floor of the SHU, inmate Frank Knight was charged with yelling abusive language at a prison employee and threatening to throw a cup of urine on him, which charge resulted in an Incident Report. (P-293) (U) 203. At 7:45 A.M. inmate Knight was involved in another incident which resulted in charges of refusing an order from a staff member and insolence. Inmate Knight was later taken to this Court for the purpose of testifying in this action. Upon his return to the institution at approximately 5:00 P.M., he was placed on the first floor of the SHU in temporary Disciplinary Segregation status without first having received a hearing before the IDC. (D-44) 204. On March 8, 1979, Warden Fenton sent a memorandum to the Regional Director advising him of the placement of Frank Knight in temporary Disciplinary Segregation on March 7,1979, in accordance with Policy Statement 7400.5D. (D-44) (U) 205. On March 9, 1979, inmate Frank Knight received a hearing before the IDC at which time he was found to have committed the prohibited acts charged and the IDC ordered him retained in Disciplinary Segregation status. (Knight) (U) 206. At approximately 8:30 P.M. on September 4, 1978, inmate Ronald Little was observed attempting to exit D Dining Room with an unidentified female guest. (P-147, P-148) (U) 207. When inmate Little was told that he could not escort the female guest to the lavatory, he shouted at the correctional officer and attracted the attention of the large number who were attending a religious banquet in the inmate dining room. (P-147, P-148) (U) 208. Little was charged with insolence and conduct which disrupts, which charge resulted in an Incident Report. (P — 147) 209. As a result of this charge, inmate Little was immediately placed on the first floor of the SHU on September 4, 1978, without first having received a hearing before the IDC, which hearing was eventually held on September 8, 1978. (P-279, P-149) 210. A BP-IS-116 form dated September 15, 1978, reflects that inmate Little’s placement in the SHU on September 4, 1978, was to Administrative Detention. (D-67) (U) 211. On September 8, 1978, at 12:15 P.M. inmate Little received his hearing before the IDC on the September 4, 1978, Incident Report; the IDC found that he committed the acts charged per the inmate’s own admission, and placed him in Disciplinary Segregation. (P-149) (U) 212. During the week of August 8,1978, inmate Larry Logan, while assigned to a cell on the second floor of the SHU, was moved to the first floor of the SHU without a charge and without a prior Incident Report for allegedly yelling at an officer from his second floor window. (P-154) 213. No charge was lodged against Logan for this incident and he was not given an IDC hearing. No memorandum concerning the move was submitted to the Regional Director. 214. Inmate Logan was physically placed on the first floor as he claimed he was a “single.” (P-154) (U) 215. Inmate Logan denied yelling at the officer and stated that he would commit suicide unless he was moved out. (P-154) (U) 216. After being moved to the first floor of the SHU, inmate Logan banged continually on his door and yelled until at least midnight, disturbing the other inmates on the first floor. (P-154) 217. Sometime between February 28, and March 6, 1978, Lieutenant Wicka directed that the wicket on Logan’s cell door be closed until March 14, 1978, because of Logan’s loud, disruptive yelling. (P-152) 218. On April 14, 1978, inmate Richard McCue received an Incident Report which charged that on April 13, 1978, while in transit from the United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, and the Federal Correctional Institution, Petersburg, he attempted, or planned to escape by cutting a bar on the Bureau of Prison’s bus. (P-164) (U) 219. Following a hearing before the' IDC, inmate McCue was placed in Disciplinary Segregation. (McCue) (P — 165) 220. On July 4, 1978, while assigned to a cell on the third floor of the SHU, inmate McCue was charged with threatening his cellmate, which charge resulted in an Incident Report. (P — 170) (U) 221. As a result of this charge, inmate McCue was immediately moved to the first floor of the SHU on July 4, 1978 without first having received an IDC hearing. (P— 169, P-172) (U) 222. Inmate McCue admitted in testimony before this Court that on July 4,1978, he threatened to take inmate Harmon, his cell mate, “off the count.” (McCue) 223. Inmate McCue also testified before this Court that to take a person “off the count,” means to kill that person. (McCue) 224. Inmate McCue received his IDC hearing on this charge on July 12, 1978. (P-171) (U) 225. Inmate McCue admitted to the IDC on July 12 that he might have said that he was going to “take the other inmate off the count” but that it was just a poor choice of words. (P-171) (U) 226. The IDC found that inmate McCue committed the prohibited act of threatening another with bodily harm and placed him in Disciplinary Segregation status on July 12, 1978. (P-171) (U) 227. On September 20, 1978, while assigned to a cell on the third floor of the SHU, inmate McCue was charged with possessing a piece of mirror, a double edged razor blade, and eight small pieces of sandpaper, which charge resulted in an Incident Report. (P-173) 228. As a result of this charge, inmate McCue was immediately placed on the first floor of the SHU in temporary Disciplinary Segregation on Wednesday, September 20, 1978, without first having received an IDC hearing. (P-175, P-176) 229. On Thursday, September 21, 1978, inmate McCue was afforded a hearing before the Unit Discipline Committee which referred the matter to the IDC for disposition. (P-173) (U) 230. Inmate McCue received his hearing before the IDC on September 25, 1978, the following Monday. (U) 231. On September 25, 1978, the IDC found that inmate McCue had committed the prohibited acts charged and placed him in Disciplinary Segregation. (P-174) (U) 232. Defendant Fenton by memorandum of September 25,1978, reported this temporary placement in Disciplinary Segregation to the Regional Director in compliance with Policy Statement 7400.5D. (P-178) (U) 233. On October 3, 1978, inmates R. McCue, J. Rainey, H. Colomb, P. Jorgenson, J. Bryan and R. Casebeer while assigned to cells on the second and third floors of the SHU, were immediately moved to cells on the first floor of the SHU in temporary Disciplinary Segregation for an investigation into an alleged escape plan without first having received a hearing before the IDC. (P-279, P-307) 234. Defendant Fenton by memorandum of October 4, 1978, reported the temporary placement of inmates Bryan, Jorgenson, Colomb, Casebeer, Rainey and McCue in temporary Disciplinary Segregation at approximately 10:45 P.M., on October 3, 1978, to the Regional Director in compliance with Policy Statement 7400.5D. (P-307) (U) 235. Inmates McCue and Bryan and possibly the other inmates did not receive an Incident Report, nor an IDC hearing, but nevertheless were kept in Disciplinary Segregation for three days. 236. During what was a major disturbance in the SHU on December 16, 1978, inmate McCue was among the group of inmates who exhibited disruptive conduct, i. e., setting fires, throwing burning items from cell windows, refusing to leave their cells and assaulting staff members. (D-45, Fenton, McCue) 237. Inmate McCue was among a group of inmates who had to be removed forcibly from their cells on December 16, 1978 and placed on the first floor of the SHU in Disciplinary Segregation status. (D-45, Fenton, McCue) (U) 238. Restraints were removed from inmate McCue at approximately 11:30 P.M. on December 16, 1978. (Thomas) (U) 239. Defendant Fenton by teletype message of December 18, 1978, reported the temporary placement in Disciplinary Segregation of inmate McCue and the following inmates: Totaro, Buerrero, Knight, Cooley, Patton, Warren, McCollum, Masaro, Marts, DeSantos, Williams, Chappelle, VanScoy, Winston and Resting to the Regional Director in compliance with Policy Statement 7400.5D. (D-45, Fenton) (U) 240. In the judgment of Defendant Fen-ton, the conduct of inmate McCue and the others placed on the first floor on December 16, 1978, in temporary Disciplinary Segregation status threatened life and property. (D^45, Fenton) (U) 241. The fifteen inmates placed on the first floor could not be physically controlled within the physical confines of Administrative Detention in the judgment of Warden Fenton. (D-45, Fenton) (U) 242. Inmate McCue received an IDC hearing on December 22, 1978, and was transferred to the United States Penitentiary, Marion, Illinois, on December 26, 1978. (U) 243. Inmate Joseph Bryan’s central file contains no Incident Report or evidence of IDC action in connection with his temporary placement in Disciplinary Segregation on October 3, 1978. (Stipulation) (U) 244. With respect to the October 3, 1978 placement in Disciplinary Segregation for investigation of an alleged escape, inmate Bryan was released from Disciplinary Segregation status to Administrative Detention status on October 5, 1978. (Bryan) (U) 245. On June 22, 1978, while assigned to a cell on the third floor of the SHU, inmate Gregory Micklus was charged with having contraband in his cell, namely, a stinger which is an electrical wire “hot-wired” to an electrical circuit within the cell, which charge resulted in Incident Reports against the inmate. (P-184) 246. In the view of the correctional staff, the “hot-wire” posed a very serious security risk and safety hazard because the wire was found to have been plugged into an outlet in the cell. (P-184) 247. The “hot-wire” could have been attached to the cell door and if combined with a minimal amount of water could have caused injury to staff or to inmates. (P— 184, Hudson) 248. Electrical “hot wires” or “stingers” are prohibited in the SHU and are not commonly found in the unit. (Hudson) 249. As a result of this charge, inmate Micklus was moved immediately on June 22, 1978 to cells on the first floor of the SHU in Disciplinary Segregation status without first having received an IDC hearing. (P— 184, P-185). 250. Micklus did not receive an IDC hearing until June 28, 1978, during which time he was kept in Disciplinary Segregation. (P-184) 251. At his IDC hearing on June 28, 1978, the Committee exonerated inmate Micklus of the charge and ordered the Incident Report and all related documents expunged from his record. (P-184, P-182) 252. Following his IDC hearing on June 28, 1978, inmate Micklus was returned to Administrative Detention status. (P — 182) (U) 253. As Correctional Officer Kahn was waking inmate Ronald Newman at about 4:45 A.M. on July 1, 1978, the inmate grabbed the officer and ripped his shirt. (P — 197—P—197.1, P-198, Brookmole) 254. Inmate Newman was charged with assaulting a correctional officer in connection with this incident and an Incident Report was issued thereon. (P — 197) 255. As a result of this charge, inmate Newman was moved at approximately 5:30 A.M. on July 1,1978 to the first floor of the SHU without first having been afforded a hearing before the IDC. 256. Sometime during the period July 1 through July 7, 1978, inmate Newman was moved from the first to the third floor. (P-200, Thomas) (U) 257. The investigation of the July 1, 1978, Incident Report was delayed until on or about July 6, 1978, due to a referral of the charge to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. (P — 197.1, Brookmole) (U) 258. Inmate Newman received a hearing before the UDC on Friday, July 7, 1978. (P-197) (U) 259. Inmate Newman received his IDC hearing on Monday, July 10, 1978, at which time he was found not guilty of assault but guilty of conduct which disrupts, and placed in Disciplinary Segregation. (P-199) (U) 260. At approximately 8:25 A.M. on December 16, 1978, correctional staff proceeded to inmate Alexander Patton’s cell on the second floor of the SHU and ordered him to place his hands through the wicket so that he could be handcuffed. (P-285, Wicka) (U) 261. One of the officers explained to inmate Patton that he had to go downstairs to be interviewed about an Incident Report that had been submitted against him. (P-285, Wicka) (U) 262. Inmate Patton refused to be handcuffed, shouting that he was not going anywhere with anybody. (P-284, Wicka) (U) 263. The correctional officers entered inmate Patton’s cell, wrestled him out, and carried him down to the first floor of the SHU. (P-285, Wicka) (U) 264. While inmate Patton was being processed on the first floor he threatened to kill Correctional Officer Shuman if he ever got the chance. (P-285, Wicka) (U) 265. After inmate Patton was placed in a cell on the first floor, he shouted and threatened to kill Officer Shuman and other officers. (P — 285, Wicka) 266. On April 14, 1978, inmate Randolph Peoples had been ordered to move from one cell to another in order to make room for inmates arriving on the Lewisburg bus from Atlanta and Petersburg. (P-213) (U) 267. Inmate Peoples refused to move and he was placed in restraints and moved to the first floor of the SHU in Disciplinary Segregation status. (P — 213) 268. No memorandum was sent to the Regional Director concerning the incident. 269. An Incident Report was not written on this incident because of an oversight by staff during the emergency conditions in the SHU following arrival of the bus. (P— 213) 270. When inmate Peoples was seen by the IDC on April 17, 1978, he. again refused to be placed in a cell with another inmate. (P-215) (U) 271. Sometime during the period April 18 through April 24, 1978, inmate Peoples was returned to a cell on the third floor of the SHU. (P-216) (U) 272. Inmate Peoples was released from the SHU at 10:00 A.M. on April 24, 1978. (P-216) (U) 273. On August 27, 1978, while assigned to general population, inmate Peoples was charged with refusing to obey an order of a staff member, which charge resulted in a