Full opinion text
OPINION STAGG, District Judge. This suit, brought as a class action by inmates of the Ouachita Parish Jail, challenges conditions of confinement at the Parish Jail located on the top floor of the Ouachita Parish Courthouse. The suit was filed seeking declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C., § 1983 for alleged deprivations of the rights of inmates secured under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as certain statutory rights conferred by Louisiana law. The plaintiffs named as defendants various parish and state officials: (1) C. PAUL PHELPS, as Secretary of the Department of Corrections for the State of Louisiana; (2) DANIEL L. KELLY, as Fire Marshal for the State of Louisiana; (3) DR. J. T. HAMERICK, as Director of the Louisiana State Division of Health ; (4) WILLIAM CHERRY, as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Resources for the State of Louisiana ; (5) BAILEY GRANT, as Sheriff for the Parish of Ouachita; and (6) ARLAN E. RAWLS, BILLY BANKS, ROBERT C. DOWNING, A. E. PIERCE, III, WILLIE CRAIN, and BILLY F. WHILHITE, as members of the Ouachita Parish Police Jury. The plaintiffs challenged virtually every aspect of the operations and management of the Ouachita Parish Jail. The governing authority of each parish shall be responsible for the physical maintenance of all parish jails and prisons. In those parishes in which the governing authority operates the parish jail the governing authority shall pass all bylaws and regulations they may deem expedient for the police and good government of the jails and prisons being operated by the parish governing authority. After extensive discovery and tortuous negotiations, the parties hammered out a partial consent decree resolving some of the more troubling problems existing at the Ouachita Parish Jail (See Appendix A). The issues left for resolution concern conditions that plaintiffs contend are unconstitutional, either independently or as part of a total mix of conditions of confinement that fails to pass constitutional muster, and can be grouped under seven general headings: (1) Overcrowding; (2) Inadequate Supervision; (3) Visitation Rights; (4) Access to the Courts; (5) Censorship of Reading Material; (6) Sexual Discrimination; (7) Right to Sheets. During discovery, the parties reached an impasse over the issue of paraprofessional staff visiting inmates at the jail. After a hearing, the court ruled that paralegals on plaintiffs’ staff could interview inmates. This ruling was mandated by clear Supreme Court jurisprudence. See Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396,94 S.Ct. 1800, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974); Johnson v. Avery 393 U.S. 483, 89 S.Ct. 747, 21 L.Ed.2d 718 (1969). The remaining issues were tried before this court on May 15, 1979. In adjudicating suits challenging the conditions of confinement at a parish prison, the district judge finds his course well charted by several Fifth Circuit precedents. See e.g., Jones v. Diamond, 636 F.2d 1364 (5th Cir. 1981) (en banc); Miller v. Carson, 563 F.2d 741 (5th Cir. 1977); Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir. 1974). On most issues involved in this lawsuit, Judge Rubin’s en banc opinion in Jones v. Diamond will provide the benchmark: A prisoner, whether already convicted of a crime or merely awaiting trial, does not shed all his constitutional rights when he puts on jail clothing. While our “inquiry. . . into [state] prison management must be limited to the issue of whether a particular system violates any prohibition of the Constitution;” it is our duty, when jurisdiction is properly invoked, to protect prisoners’ constitutional rights, for “[t]here is no iron curtain drawn between the Constitution and the prisoners of this country.” Jones v. Diamond at 1368 (citations omitted.) But Judge Rubin also repeated the admonition that has been the common refrain of every recent Supreme Court case dealing with prisoners’ rights: “[0]ur task is limited to enforcing constitutional standards rather than assuming supervision of jail administration.” Jones v. Diamond at 1368. Stated time and time again throughout the protracted proceedings and negotiations in this case, this judge has a distaste for crossing that Rubicon which separates the federal government from state government. Great deference should be shown jail officials in matters that concern the day-to-day operations of their institution. Nevertheless, plaintiffs have presented substantial, often compelling, evidence of long-existing and continuing Constitutional violations. The evidence has established that the totality of conditions at the Ouachita Parish Jail violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Except in fashioning the necessary remedies, deference is no longer possible. I. Findings of Fact Many issues in this complicated litigation were settled in the partial consent decree attached as Appendix A. Culminating the parties detailed discovery was a meaningful stipulation of facts submitted by the parties at trial as Joint Exhibit 1: A. Stipulated Facts (1) Plaintiffs’ attorneys and the attorney for the Sheriff have reached an agreement on the dimensions of the cells and other pertinent areas within the jail. Those dimensions will be submitted to the court by stipulation; (2) As of May 15, 1979, inmates were not given the opportunity for outdoor exercise; (3) Visitors are limited to three family members and one friend; (4) Inmates without family members are not allowed to substitute friends for family members on the visitors’ list. (5) Ouachita Parish Jail has no library and does not supply reading material to inmates; (6) Guards on duty are allowed to censor the reading material brought to the jail; (7) Inmates eat in their cells, and there are no tables or chairs provided for them; (8) At times, overcrowding in both the women’s cells and men’s cells has required that some inmates sleep on the floor due to a shortage of bunks; (9) Inmates, other than trustees, do not leave their cells at any time during the day except for court appearances and consultation with attorneys; (10) As of May 15, 1979, no outdoor nor indoor exercise programs were in effect at the Ouachita Parish Jail; (11) The Ouachita Parish Jail does not have a law library and the Sheriff and Police Jury do not make available to inmates persons trained in law; (12) On visiting days, visitors must talk through a barrier and there is no privacy; (13) Inmates are not provided with sheets; (14) There are no written standards for the guards in the determination of what books or magazines will not be allowed in the jail; (15) Books brought to the jail by inmates’ friends and relatives have sometimes been kept from inmates without explanation; (16) Women inmates are not allowed to serve as trustees or to participate in work-release programs; (17) Women inmates who are convicted and who are minimum security risks are housed only at the Ouachita Parish Jail, and hence are housed in more restrictive conditions than are similarly situated men who are housed at the Ouachita Area Multi-Parish Prison Farm. B. By The Court Overcrowding (1) Constructed in 1926, the Ouachita Parish Jail is located on the fourth and top floor of the Ouachita Parish Courthouse, situated in downtown Monroe, the major city in Northeast Louisiana. The jail underwent an addition in 1966 and another renovation in 1971. (Hereinafter, the Ouachita Parish Jail will sometimes be referred to as “the jail”). (2) The jail contains 5,100 square feet and houses an average of 120 inmates. The jail operates in conjunction with the Ouachita Area Multi-Parish Prison Farm. (Hereinafter referred to as “the farm.”) (3) At any time, the jail may house convicted prisoners serving parish time, convicted state prisoners awaiting appeal or transfer, and pre-trial detainees. Pre-trial detainees generally comprise over 50% of jail population. Although most of the population is short-term, some of the inmates have been in Ouachita Parish Jail for as long as five years. The citizens of Ouachita Parish have long recognized that problems existed on top of their courthouse: On Ouachita Parish Jail — We found this jail to be well-kept and clean. There were 123 prisoners incarcerated there during our inspection. Living conditions are extremely crowded and there is no room for expansion. For these reasons, we ask that the voters of Ouachita Parish give due consideration to the election set for April 7. PX -4, March 30,1979 Report of the Ouachita Parish Grand Jury. The Grand Jury report introduced into evidence as Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 2 contained similar statements. But the sounds of coins clanging out of the coffers caused needed changes to' be neglected. (4) The evidence conclusively established that the Ouachita Parish Jail is desperately overcrowded. Although the situation has been ameliorated since the institution of this suit, on the day of trial, all experts, including defendants, testified that the jail was severely overcrowded. (5) The layout of the jail as shown in Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 6 is unusual in that there is not one long hall with dormitory-type cells. Instead, the top floor of thé courthouse has been divided into several compartments containing cell blocks, a dormitory and individual cells. This haphazard layout belies any contention that the current design is the optimum use of the space available. (6) Although the number of inmates housed in the jail varies, the daily jail report containing inmate population and classification showed a high of 133 inmates. This is more than twice the number of inmates allowed by the State Fire Marshal’s regulations for a cellblock facility. (7) The dimensions of the various cells and the square feet per inmate housed is as follows: Cellblocks 1. Includes the shower space. 2. Total square footage for dormitory-type cells includes the shower space 3. These cells are not regular rectangles and the compulation of square footage requires the subtraction of the square footage taken up b> outcroppings in the cell wall. (8) Plaintiffs’ Exhibits No. 17 through 22 consisted of various professional publications in the field of prison administration. These books and pamphlets, cover all aspects of prison administration and maintenance; each also contained a statement on suggested square footage per inmate. The consensus is 80 square feet per man when inmates are locked in for more than 10 hours per day: There is one inmate per room or cell, which has a floor area of at least 60 square feet, providing inmates spend no more than 10 hours per day locked in, exclusive of counts; when confinement exceeds 10 hours per day, there are at least 80 square feet of floor space, (important) Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 18, American Correctional Association: Manual of Standards for Adult Correctional Institutions, § 4142, p. 27. This court is mindful of the teaching in Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 543 to 544 n.27 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1876 n.27, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979): And while the recommendations of these various groups may be instructive in certain cases, they simply do not establish the constitutional minima; rather, they establish goals recommended by the organization in question. For this same reason, the draft recommendations of the Federal Corrections Policy Task Force of the Department of Justice regarding conditions of confinement of pretrial detainees are not determinative of the requirements of the Constitution. See also Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 2400 n.13, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981). These space requirements can be the springboard launching our discussion of the overcrowded condition at the Ouachita Parish Jail. Even more telling is the State Fire Marshal’s opinion that 60 square feet per inmate should be allowed for cell-type incarceration and 80 square feet per prisoner for dormitory-type space. (9) The small number of square feet allotted each inmate at the Ouachita Parish Jail is particularly compelling since the prisoners rarely leave their cells except for court appearances, medical problems or attorney visits. As stated by Warden Scraggy, this situation is known as “total lock-down” where nobody moves 24 hours a day. When coupled with a total lock-down situation, the small square footage per inmate becomes particularly egregious. (10) Both plaintiffs’ expert, Warden Scraggy, and defendants’ expert, Nina Sulzer, agreed that the facility was overcrowded. In their testimonies, each expert also stated that they did not blindly apply a mathematical formula to determine the number of inmates to be housed on the top of the Ouachita Parish Courthouse; rather, each viewed the physical plan and considered its vagaries before rendering an opinion on the number of inmates that may constitutionally be housed. (11) This condition of overcrowding plus total lock-down has been eased since this lawsuit was instituted. The defendants have agreed to open an outdoor recreation area on the roof of the jail with exercise scheduled for one hour, three days a week. Exercise, educational opportunities and other activities will greatly ease the overcrowded conditions at the jail. (12) Unfortunately, the current physical structure of the jail does not allow freedom of movement by the inmates and idleness is the hallmark of each day: breakfast served 5:30 to 6:30; 9:00 — court call; 10:30 to 11:30, mail call and lunch served; supper served 3:30 to 4:00; lights out — 10:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 12:00 Saturday and Sunday. Prisoners are fed in their cells with the food pushed under a dirty cell door and slid on the floor. Since there is no day room or cafeteria for most cells, many of the prisoners sit on their bunks or toilets to eat. (13) The showers and toilets are not segregated from the living quarters. The toilet and shower stall are located at the end of the cell. There is no partition separating the toilet from the bunk area and there is no shower curtain on the stall. Dr. Ware testified that on his inspection of the jail, no announcement was made by the deputies to notify inmates of a visitor. Dr. Ware could see the facilities in use as he toured the jail. (14) Total lack of privacy, inability to escape from the presence of other inmates and total idleness causes the overcrowded conditions of Ouachita Parish Jail to be constitutional deprivation with devastating physical and emotional consequences. (15) Dr. Ware was accepted as an expert in forensic psychiatry. He toured the prison and drew upon literature in the field as well as his own experience with forced confinement situations. In his opinion, the Ouachita Parish Jail is grossly overcrowded by about 15 to 20 square feet per inmate. These conditions will increase homosexual activity and encourage aggressive and psychotic or suicidal behavior since there is no territorial space allotted an inmate. Dr. Ware testified that he saw signs of evident emotional and mental trauma similar to that noted by the district court in Adams v. Mathias, 458 F.Supp. 302, 305 (M.D.Ala. 1978), aff’d 614 F.2d 42 (5th Cir. 1979): The overcrowded conditions overtaxed the plumbing and sanitary facilities, increasing the hazards to health. In addition, forcing inmates to live in too close proximity with other inmates is psychologically debilitating and leads to an increase in tension and problems. This overcrowding also poses a protection problem. (16) Warden Scroggy also testified that when an inmate has approximately 22 square feet of space in a total lock-down situation incidents of inmate violence such as rape and fights are increased. (17) Several of the cells in the Ouachita Parish Jail had no windows. Rats and roaches infest the cell areas. The only real inmate activity besides limited reading and television viewing is gambling. (18) This overcrowding and total lock-down situation is more intense for the women in the facility since they are not allowed to be trustees and enjoy a more open dormitory-type cell. Inadequate Supervision (19) A necessary concomitant to overcrowding is inadequate supervision of inmates allowing for increased inmate violcnce and self-abuse. At the time that the lawsuit was instituted, the Ouachita Parish Jail was desperately understaffed. The few guards were poorly trained. Only a high school diploma and a lie detector test separated any individual from a guard’s uniform. No special training in corrections was required nor was any test administered to determine if character defects existed which would flag a potentially brutal or sadistic applicant. The prerequisites for being a guard at the jail are the same as being a patrol deputy with the general work force of the Ouachita Parish Sheriff’s Department. (20) The reason for this lack of training is unclear. Warden Scroggy testified that LSU-Baton Rouge has a three-day training course in corrections. The staff will come to the facility to deliver the course. The National Association of Corrections will pay the costs of this course and even offer its technical assistance at no additional charge. National courses are taught in Boulder, Colorado, for both male and female corrections administrators. There is a Department of Corrections school located in Louisiana. State and Federal funds were available through the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. Both Warden Scroggy and defendants’ expert Nina Sulzer testified that forty to eighty hours of training were necessary for prison guards. This training should be supplemented yearly. The guards at the Ouachita Parish Jail receive no training whatsoever other than on-the-job experience. (21) Concurring with the experts, Director Sullivan agrees that he is understaffed. At the time the suit was filed, up to 140 inmates could be monitored by two to three deputies. These deputies would also have the responsibility for all booking and paper work which would consume a large part of one deputy’s time. Currently, a new matron has been hired to handle the female inmates. Deputy Simmons testified that on Tuesday through Friday, four deputies plus himself and Director Sullivan handle the jail. On Saturday, there are three deputies and on Sunday and Monday, two. In the evening, two deputies are on duty. (22) Considering the large inmate population and the compartmental shape of the cellblocks in the Ouachita Parish Jail, the court finds that the jail is drastically understaffed. (23) Testimony established that several cells could not be checked by a casual glance: some were closed by steel doors with only a viewport and others were poorly lighted with obstructing physical structures. In some cells, the deputy would have to physically enter the cell to make an adequate inspection. The situation is especially severe at night when all inmates in the bullpens are locked down. (24) The only way an inmate could get the attention of a deputy was to raise a noise, either by hollering or by banging on the cell bars. The ineffectiveness of this particular type of alarm system is obvious. Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 8, Jailer’s Daily Security Log, contains several incidents of a deputy’s failure to respond to such an alarm. (25) Camera monitors are not in the actual cells, but only the run-arounds. Cells A, B, J, H and all female cells have no camera monitor whatsoever. The poor lighting renders the existing monitors functionally questionable. (26) The unfortunate results of this inadequate staffing and almost total lack of meaningful supervision is non-existent prisoner protection. Acknowledging the inmate bias, the court found inmates Donnie Hicks and Darrell Newton to be credible witnesses who testified that fights, sexual threats, prisoner beatings and homosexual rapes were a reality in the Ouachita Parish Jail. The court was particularly alarmed at the testimony establishing the number of beatings that were accomplished by weapons. Director Sullivan testified that shakedowns did occur and weapons would be found. (27) The court finds that these shakedowns were infrequent and that prisoners had easy access to weapons such as broomsticks, razorblades, wire and rope. (28) In discovery responses, defendants admitted convictions for rape occurring inside the Ouachita Parish Jail. Defendants attempted to impeach the credibility of an inmate who testified that he was raped at the age of 18 in the Ouachita Parish Jail. Whether this one incident occurred or not, “[c]ourts have taken judicial notice that most acts of violence go unreported in prison.” Ramos v. Lamm, 485 F.Supp. 122, 141 (D.Colo.1979), modified 639 F.2d 559 (10th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1041, 101 S.Ct. 1759, 68 L.Ed.2d 239 (1981). (29) Even a cursory review of the medical records, and Jailer’s Daily Security Log, shows an unusually high rate of stabbings, assaults, fights, threats, suicide attempts and self-mutilation. Female inmate, Sandra Topazi, testified that an inmate by the name of Regina Brown attempted suicide on more than one occasion. A review of these exhibits also shows that deputy patrols were infrequent and haphazard and that inmates’ attempts to get the guard’s attention by banging on cell bars were often ignored. The following summary was compiled in plaintiff’s post-trial brief and contains incidents from Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 8: Disturbance and fire in C-l and C-2. 3/21/77: Fight in D cell. 3/31/77: . Bobby Simpson bang the door to G cell. Upon checking Simpson told me that Inmates Larry Mercer and James Foste had cut their arms and was bleeding pretty bad. Called the Sgt. and sent them to the hospital.” 4/11/77: "Shift ran pretty smooth, an awful lot of bar rattling, must not have been important. They finally quit.” 4/14/77: "Heard rattling in G cell. Sent Hall help to check due to fact I was very busy. Inmate Macleod had been hit with a broom and was bleeding very bad from a head wound ...” 5/22/77: Inmate refused to go into his cell at lockdown. He told deputies he had been beaten with a plunger handle. He also told deputies a knife had been pulled on him and that he had boon 5/22/77: Inmate swallowed wood splinters, pieces of plastic spoon and 4 razor blades. 5/23/77: “At approx. 2145 hrs. “D” cell was noisy; Upon checking Jerry Ronquill and Olinde were fighting, I moved Ronquill to "A” cell with Gary Davis.” 6/20/77: (at 6/21/77) "... a lot of noise coming from C-l. Upon checking Inmate Curtis Ray Talley who had been running his head - about all those “niggers and Boys” in the Bullpen was at this time wanting to get out of cell. His sporting blood had turned to chicken crap. I removed 2 sections of Broom handle and a coil of wire from last cell - I moved Talley to “E" cell and told inmates in C-l I wanted all their guns or knives and chains or there would be a shakedown in the morning. I suggest a shakedown be held and contraband be removed. Sgt. notified.” 8/12/77: (at 8/3/77) No recordation of subsequent shakedown. 8/21/77: “I got Peter White out of F-l and ho informed (at 8/4/77) me that there were some wire wea|»ns in every cell except # 4 and over the shower.” No recordation of subsequent shakedown. 8/14/77: Escape of inmate. (at 8/4/77) 8/21/77 “At 1930 hours: Loud knocking from L 1. Upon checking I found Inmate Jerry Brown B/M in a seizure. After having Cowboy, Gene Wall, and a couple of other trustees bring Brown out to desk he started coming out of seizure. I could tell that someone had stabbed Brown several times. ... Jerry Brown at this time told me that he was sitting in cell # 2 of L-l when Willie Myles began accusing him of taking $7.00 from_Scott a black male at this time Myles started stabbing him. Brown was stabbed 2 times on left arm, 1 time above left pap (sic), once on right shoulder (front) and once on outer side of elbow . .. Also several shanks and sticks in L-l This cell needs a good shakedown.” No record of subsequent shakedown. 9/6/77: Rape of Michael Brantley. Brantley's father (at page came to the jail and asked that Brantley be 8/8/77) put in a cell by himself. "I advise Mr. 9/6/77: (at pago 8/8/77) Branlloy at this time wo had 146 inmate in jail and did not have a place to put him I asked him for what reason did he want his son in a cell alone. He said his son told him that inmates in L 1 are fooling with him. I asked Michael had they bother him in any way. He said no, but that they were trying to. I then told his father I would move him to ‘D’ but that he would have to sleep on the floor. I then went back to C-l with Michael to get his belonging as to getting him out. I talked to him. He said that three blacks had rape him last night. I asked would he give me their names. He said no, that he didn’t want anything done about it because they told him they would kill him ...” Sgt. J. B. Simmons. 9/13/77: 1430 hrs. “On the above date and indicated time I reported a rape of W/M. Subject Garland Wayne White has been raped while in cell block F-l.” 10/30/77: 2310 hrs. “Heard noises coming from B cell. Upon checking found inmate Walker getting beat up. Held off Inmate while got Walker out of cell ...” 12/20/77: "At approximately 2030 hrs. inmates in L 1 starting beating on the cell door. I went back to ask them what was wrong and nobody would say anything. I then notice Inmate Nathaniel Jones lying on the floor at the back of the cell. His head had been busted open and he had also been bitten in the chest and who knows what else . . ” 1/1/78: 0030 hours. There was a noise in E cell. Ujxm checking two inmates had been fighting. Inmate Byrd had hit Inmate Joiner in the face with his fist. An outside patrol was called and transported Inmate Joiner to the hospital. 1/6/78: “On this date and time Inmate Robert Byrd in E coll stuck Bobby Chinger with a piece of broomstick. This is about the 3rd night in a row that he and others in this cell have attacked recent lock ups, Chinger was only locked up for about 10 minutes.” 1/22/78: “At approx. 1905 hrs. heard loud noises coming from ‘K tank’. Someone was hollering for Help. I called the operator and advised him something was happening in ‘K tank’. I went back to ‘K tank’ to check. Found Clarence Adams on his knees in hallway. I locked everyone else in their cells. Sergeant O’Conner and myself went inside and hand cuffed him and brought him to the office to talk to him - Clarence Adams advised Sergeant Conner and myself that Isac Smith and Thom Adams had beat him up.” 1/23/78: Fight in G cell. Took stick and antenna away from inmates. 1/26/78: Fight in “g” cell. Doctored John Lowery and moved two inmates to C -1. 1/27/78: “John Kim stated that he had broken his hand when he hit David Johnston on the head about 1930. A car was called to lake inmate Johnston to Conway. 1/28/78: (at 1/29/78) "At 2010 hrs heard loud noise in G cell. Ujxm checking Jerry Ronquillo had cut his left wrist. Deputy willis and myself applied medication and bandages and returned him to “G” cell. 2/23/78: “Inmate Parnell had cut his left wrist three or four times. Sergeant Simmons advised he saw him swallow a piece of broken razor blade. Deputy Rogers took him to Conway. 5/3/78: “The count is wrong as usual. I had a card in the (H’s) on Grover Horton, he’s signed out on the page for 5-02 78 but his card is marked through on date, time, and auth. What is his status. There is no cell location on his card. Where is Donald White? Its not on the card. He’s not on the book. I should be one over. (I located him in “E” cell. The count is now correct. This is a problem nearly every night.” 5/05/78: "I received Inmate Jackson and Surratt from farm for fighting. I put Inmate Jackson in C-l, Surratt in C-2. Surrat was hit from behind by persons unknown possibly (Charlie Carter) and had to be sent to Conway for stiches in right eye and behind right ear.” 5/10/78: "About 1830 hrs. knock on F 2 and answered by intercom and was told 2 inmates had cut wrist. Doctored Yvonne Burger and bandaged Carolyn Rose wrist.” 5/26/78: “I Deputy Walker received a phone call from Attorney Jean Osborn about 1800 hrs this date. He wanted to know why Carolyn Davis was put in the same cel) with Carolyn Rose. He said Rose’s sister had called him, stating her family was going to sue the sheriff department, because we allowed Davis into the same cell with Rose, and Davis raped her. Sgt. Simmons came up to the jail to talk with this att. We sent Carolyn Rose to Conway at 2200 hrs. She arrive back at 2245 hrs. Deputy Susan Stuart give me a container which had a bie jxm cap in it, this was found by Dr. Caufman up in Carolyn Rose ...” 5/30/78: “At approx. 1615 hrs. Dy. Trichel and Dy. Sulli(at 6/2/78) van observed a fight in L 1. Upon checking L-l inmate Charlie Center and Rodney Eakers were fighting. Dy. Sullivan, Dy. Trichel, Dy. May and myself removed Eakers from L-l to medical room. We observed a few bruises and scratches but nothing serious. At approx. 1850 sent Inmate Rodney Eakers to Conway for a check.” 6/17/78: Fight in C-2. 2/12/79: “The light in C-l and C 2 need to be replaced. In C-2 there are so many lights out you can’t see the camera or to make a good head count without a flash light. The above request was also written up on 2/7/79”. 2/15/79: Fight in C-l. 2/28/79: (Page 3-2-79) “At 0535 hrs. Marco Thucos and Joseph McCarthy got into a fight over the irays. Called Lt. Brown to have Thucos and McCarthy taken to hospital.” 3/1/79: "... took inmate Michael Thomas to Conway because he fell and hit his head.” 3/4/79: “The above date relieved Dy. Ron Brown of 118 inmates. At 0850 hrs. Radio operator Dy Carrol Wright called Dy Hammond and advised him a rope was hanging off top of the building on the East Side next to the South end of building. Dy. Hammond and I went to ‘K’ tank and found that we had four inmates missing.” The log and prisoners’ testimony establish that guards were often slow to respond to inmate alarms. On occasion, guards allowed the inmates to fight. The court is aware that these entries were only made when problems occurred and does not give a true cross-section of the type of supervision rendered on a 24 hour basis. But the testimony of the inmates established a high frequency of violence in the Ouachita Parish Jail. Director Sullivan himself testified that patrols were sometimes infrequent. At the time of trial, 90 minutes may separate patrols. Given the overcrowded conditions and the compartmental physical structure of the jail, the court finds that the type of supervision rendered by the guards of the Ouachita Parish Jail is constitutionally deficient. (30) Defendants’ expert testified that there should be a ratio of one guard to every six inmates to ensure proper security. She also testified that some type of alert system such as an emergency light similar to the one in use in hospitals could increase the prisoners’ safety. She testified that the present conditions at the jail did not meet the standards for inmate security. She testified that at least five deputies plus a supervisor should be present during the day shift. On the night shift three deputies should be sufficient if there was a continuous patrolling and each area visited every one-half hour on a random, non-scheduled basis. Warden Scroggy agreed with this estimate but would require more frequent patrolling. (31) This court is aware that a jail is not a pleasant place to be and houses persons often convicted of violence against other men. A certain degree of fear for physical safety is inherent in any facility incarcerating criminals. But the degree of fear and violence in the Ouachita Parish Jail clearly passes the level of that allowed by the Constitution: Primary responsibility of jails is to protect society from those it considers dangerous. Likewise, inmates must be protected from each other. Sufficient security is therefore a necessity in any jail. Smith v. Sullivan, 553 F.2d 373, 380 (5th Cir. 1977). Visitation (32) Visiting hours at the Ouachita Parish Jail are on Saturday from 9:00 to 11:00 or from 2:00 to 4:00. The parties have stipulated that no contact visitation is allowed. Children under 14 years of age are not allowed in the jail at any time. (33) Visitation is conducted in a common room through one of three port windows. There is virtually no privacy and always a high level of noise. (34) The view windows are supplemented by small holes for vocal communication. It is impossible to speak into these holes while maintaining visual contact with the visitor. Plaintiffs’ psychiatric expert, Dr. Paul Ware, testified that the visitation viewports were the most traumatic part of his inspection. He described the visitation room and the small windows with four holes beneath the windows. Dr. Ware testified that it was impossible to look and talk at the same time. In his opinion, effective communication was impossible. His striking analogy was the effectiveness of stating “I love you” to a person whose face you could not see. (35) The evidence established that the current visitation facilities are inadequate in that they do not provide effective communication between inmates and their visitors. The inadequacy of these facilities was not justified by any legitimate security concern. (36) Director Sullivan testified that children were not allowed into the jail since they should not be exposed to this type of environment. Defendants did not attempt to explain why children were allowed to visit prisoners at the Ouachita Multi-Parish Prison Farm. Dr. Ware testified that there was no mental or emotional effect on a child seeing his parent in jail. In fact, he testified that the effect on the child would he more positive than negative since he would know where the absent parent was located. The State has a heavy burden in justifying a regulation which has the effect of depriving family members from visitation. See e.g., Moore v. City of East Cleveland, Ohio, 431 U.S. 494, 499, 97 S.Ct. 1932, 1935, 52 L.Ed.2d 531 (1977). The evidence is simply devoid of any legitimate reason for not allowing children to visit in the jail. (37) The officials of the Ouachita Parish Jail testified that security reasons did not allow contact visitation. Contraband could be smuggled into the jail and no facility for searches existed. (38) Defendants’ expert, Nina Sulzer, testified that there was no contact visitation allowed at the Jefferson Parish Jail where she was a consultant since contraband would be smuggled into the jail. Warden Scroggy testified that contact visitation was allowed except for armed robbers, rapists and murderers. Dr. Ware was emphatic in his testimony that physical contact was necessary for emotional and mental health. He testified that touch is literally essential to stay alive. People deprived of touching even resort to beating or physical abuse to get the requisite contact. (39) Although the court does find that many experts have testified to the importance of contact visitation and the debilitating effects caused by the denial of this visitation, the security risks that would accompany contact visitation cannot clearly he handled in the facility as it exists. Access to the Courts (40) The parties stipulated that the Ouachita Parish Jail does not have a law library and that defendants do not provide the inmates with personnel trained in the law. The evidence established that inmates are not allowed hardbound books except a Bible. A hardbound law book is prohibited within the confines of the Ouachita Parish Jail. Inmates are allowed to possess only two books in their cell at any one time. (41) Because of this obvious lack of legal assistance, defendants attempted to prove that adequate access to the courts was provided by the attorney appointments of the district judges. Judge Fred Fudicker, one of the five judges of the Fourth Judicial District, Ouachita Parish, Louisiana testified that the Indigent Defender Board would be appointed to represent prisoners in criminal matters and in habeas proceedings in which a hearing was required. Judge Fudicker further testified that no attorney had ever been appointed to represent a prisoner in a habeas corpus proceeding since none had been requested. (42) It was clear from Judge Fudicker’s testimony that no assistance was provided in the drafting of petitions. Legal assistance is not available to inmates who wish to file civil suits challenging conditions of incarceration or to question matters that have arisen while confined. In fact, Judge Fudicker stated that civil petitions not stating a cause of action or habeas corpus petitions deemed to be frivolous would be dismissed before an attorney was appointed. A prisoner could have an indigent defender appointed to represent him in an appeal, but he would first have to make such a request and have the knowledge to know an appeal was needed. Obviously, Judge Fudicker could testify for his procedures, but not for the procedures of the other four district judges since no written guidelines exist for the handling of the prisoners’ legal needs. The court finds that inmates of the Ouachita Parish Jail are unconstitutionally deprived of their access to the court system. Inmates are not allowed a law library or legal assistance for the initial preparation of habeas corpus petitions and civil complaints. The appointment of an attorney at any stage of the proceeding is left to the discretion of the trial judge. Inevitably, this discretion will vary with each of the five district judges since no written guidelines exist. (44) Defendants attempted to circumvent this deprivation by referring to the attorney staff of the North Louisiana Legal Assistance Corporation. This court is intimately familiar with the statutes and regulations establishing the Legal Services Corporation. See White v. North Louisiana Legal Assistance Corporation, 468 F.Supp. 1347 (W.D., La. 1980). In 42 U.S.C., § 2966 et seq., and 45 C.F.R. 1600 et seq., the framework of a Legal Services Corporation is established. The number of staff attorneys is determined by the number of poor people in the parish area served by the corporation. North Louisiana Legal Assistance Corporation does not have the manpower or the funds to provide the representation of all inmates at the Ouachita Parish Jail and other institutions in its service area. Censorship of Reading Material (45) The parties stipulated that the guards on duty were allowed to censor the reading material brought to the jail. Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 5 is a Life magazine that inmates were not allowed to receive. (46) Although the parties produced little evidence on this issue at trial, it is apparent that no guidelines exist for the censorship of the inmate reading material. Director Sullivan testified that deputies do censor magazines but no guidelines exist. The individual deputy determines if the material is obscene. (47) The court finds that the discretionary censorship of reading material at the Ouachita Parish Jail violates the prisoners’ First Amendment rights. This limitation on the First Amendment right was not justified by any substantial governmental interests and is proscribed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974). (48) The apparent concern of the jail officials was that sexually explicit material should not enter the cells. Although Dr. Ware argued to the contrary, the court need not decide what is or is not obscene within the prison walls. The defendants have not promulgated guidelines to assist the reviewing guard. The present system does not provide for an independent review of the censor’s decision. Guidelines and an accompanying review are required by the standards set forth in the Fifth Circuit decision of Guajardo v. Estelle, 580 F.2d 748 (5th Cir. 1978). The defendants’ failure to comply with this established case law is a direct violation of the prisoners’ First Amendment rights. Sex Discrimination (49) The parties stipulated that women were treated differently from men: women are not allowed to serve as trustees or to participate in work release programs, and women inmates who are convicted will be housed only at the Ouachita Parish Jail and not at the Ouachita Area Multi-Parish Prison Farm. (50) This differentiation was dramatically shown at trial by the testimony of Sandra Topazi. Miss Topazi was sentenced to five years in the Ouachita Parish Jail. Her male accomplice who pleaded guilty to the same offense was sentenced to five years at the Ouachita Area Multi-Parish Prison Farm. Miss Topazi never leaves her cell and cannot be a trustee. The evidence established that conditions at the farm were considerably different from the jail. (51) Prisoners incarcerated at the farm enjoy contact visitation. Prison farm inmates engage in a work release program so that most inmates are gainfully employed in such things as logging, automotive mechanics and farming. Programs of drug and alcoholic abuse are available as well as numerous physical activities such as sports and exercise programs. It is possible for an inmate to pursue his high school education. A bookmobile visits every Saturday. Prisoners enjoy better food, more open space and receive sheets and pillows. The living accommodations are in open dormitory style with 75 single bunks in one building. Footlockers are at the end of each bunk and showers at the end of the dorm. Warden Scroggy testified that the prison population of the farm was generally relaxed and gainfully employed. (52) The justification for not housing women at the farm — money was not available for the structural changes in the physical plan so that the male and female population could be separated. Warden Scroggy testified that men and women should be treated the same. In his own jail, Caddo Correctional Institute, there is a separate dorm for women. This dorm is surrounded by a chain-link fence and female guards are hired. Most military correctional institutes are now sexually integrated. (53) The defendants stated that a woman could not be a trustee at the Ouachita Parish Jail since this would allow opportunities for sexual contact between inmates. The court is of the opinion that this problem could be eliminated by proper supervision. Defendants’ expert, Ms. Sulzer, testified that women could be trustees. (54) The evidence established that female prisoners are treated differently from their otherwise similarly situated male counterparts. The defendants advanced no compelling reason for this disparate treatment. The court finds that the current situation existing at the Ouachita Parish Jail violates the equal protection rights of its female inmates. Right to Sheets (55) Although jail rules state that sheets will be provided to inmates, the parties stipulated that the inmates are not provided with sheets. Sheriff Grant testified that sheets are not provided because no funds are available. (56) Defendants also introduced evidence that sheets could be a security risk. Ms. Sulzer stated that sheets are not provided at her institution since they may clog the plumbing. Warden Scroggy stated that sheets present no security risk and are issued at CCI. (57) The inmates at the Ouachita Parish Jail are provided a mattress cover. The mattress cover resembles a mummy bag; an inmate can crawl between the two layers of cloth and tie the cover so that all but his head is covered. One inmate testified that personal safety could be endangered if an inmate had his arms inside the mattress cover since he would not be able to protect himself from attacks by other inmates. (58) Without a sheet, an inmate is forced to decide between sleeping on a plastic mattress and covering himself with his mattress cover or sleeping on his mattress cover and going without a cover. This dilemma presented by the plaintiffs assumes that the prisoner will not place himself between the two layers of his mattress cover. The court finds that the defendants did not provide sheets to inmates because of a legitimate security concern as well as for the protection of the plumbing systems and general cell area cleanliness. There is no constitutional deprivation by the state’s failure to provide sheets for the mattress since they do provide a mattress cover. (59) The court finds that the jail area as a whole is clean and not unduly infested with rats or other pests. The prisoners are provided with the basic items of personal hygiene, and for the most part, the sanitation facilities function properly. With the changes that will be accompanied by the partial consent decree, the jail facility should function in a constitutional manner provided the overcrowding and lack of supervision is corrected. The court finds these last two items to be egregious and in need of remedy. II. Conclusions of Law (1) This court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C., § 1343(3) and (4) which authorizes a federal district court to hear suits brought under 42 U.S.C., § 1983. The plaintiffs also seek declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C., § 2201 and § 2202. This court has pendent jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims arising under Louisiana state law. Plaintiffs presented a substantial federal claim and the state and federal claims arise from a “common nucleus of operative fact.” United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 1138, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966). See also, Miller v. Carson, 563 F.2d 741, 760 (5th Cir. 1977); Taylor v. Sterrett, 499 F.2d 367, 368 (5th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 983, 95 S.Ct. 1414, 43 L.Ed.2d 665 (1975). (2) The plaintiffs have satisfied all requirements to proceed as a class action and all defendants are properly before the court. The parties stipulated that defendants’ actions occurred under color of state law. (3) As stated earlier, this court adheres to the prevailing Supreme Court attitude concerning a federal court’s intervention into jail administration: Traditionally, federal courts have adopted a broad hands-off attitude toward problems of prison administration. In part this policy is the product of various limitations on the scope of federal review of conditions in state penal institutions. More fundamentally, this attitude springs from complementary perceptions about the nature of the problems and the efficacy of judicial intervention. Prison administrators are responsible for maintaining internal order and discipline, for securing their institutions against unauthorized access or escape, and for rehabilitating, to the extent that human nature and inadequate resources allow, the inmates placed in their custody. The Herculean obstacles to effective discharge of these duties are too apparent to warrant explication. Suffice it to say that the problems of prisons in America are complex and intractable, and, more to the point, they are not readily susceptible of resolution by decree. Most require expertise, comprehensive planning, and the commitment of resources, all of which are peculiarly within the province of the legislative and executive branches of government. For all of those reasons, courts are ill equipped to deal with the increasingly urgent problems of prison administration and reform. Judicial recognition of that fact reflects no more than a healthy sense of realism.... Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 405, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 1807, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974). Accord, Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 2400 n.13, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 531, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1870, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979); Jones v. Diamond, 636 F.2d 1364 (5th Cir. 1981) (en banc). (4) But when constitutional deprivations are established, the federal court is bound to discharge its duty to protect constitutional rights. Procunier v. Martinez, supra; Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 98 S.Ct. 2565, 57 L.Ed.2d 522 (1978); Smith v. Sullivan, 611 F.2d 1039 (5th Cir. 1980). “[T]he Constitution does not stop at the prison gate, but rather inures to the benefit of all, even to those citizens behind prison walls.” Battle v. Anderson, 447 F.Supp. 516, 524 (W.D.Okl., 1977). Although the plaintiffs attacked various facets of the Ouachita Parish Jail which allegedly violated different constitutional provisions, the primary source of attack springs from the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. (5) It has been both a settled and first principle of the Eighth Amendment that penal measures are constitutionally repugnant if incompatible with the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society,” Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101, 78 S.Ct. 590, 598, 2 L.Ed.2d 596 or if they “involve the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 171, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2924, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). Accord, Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285, 290, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). A measure is unnecessary and wanton if found to be “totally without penological justification.” Gregg v. Georgia, supra, 428 U.S. at 183, 96 S.Ct. at 2929. See generally, Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584, 97 S.Ct. 2861, 53 L.Ed.2d 982 (1977). (6) The Eighth Amendment’s limitations upon the conditions in which the federal government may confine those convicted of a crime are applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 82 S.Ct. 1417, 8 L.Ed.2d 758 (1962). Challenges to conditions of confinement are valid Eighth Amendment attacks since such conditions may constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Rhodes v. Chapman, supra; Estelle v. Gamble, supra; Hutto v. Finney, supra; and, Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 97 S.Ct. 1401, 51 L.Ed.2d 711 (1977). (7) In the Fifth Circuit, the courts have examined the totality of conditions to determine if the overall jail environment amounts to cruel and unusual punishment proscribed by the Eighth Amendment: In determining whether conditions of confinement are unconstitutional under the eighth amendment or the fourteenth amendment, we do not assay separately each of the institutional practices but look to the totality of conditions. These principles apply when the conditions of confinement compose the punishment at issue. Conditions must not involve the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain, nor may they be grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime warranting imprisonment. In Estelle v. Gamble, supra, we held that the denial of medical care is cruel and unusual because, in the worst case, it can result in physical torture and in less serious cases, it can result in pain without any penological purpose. 429 U.S. at 103 [97 S.Ct. at 290]. In Hutto, supra, the conditions of confinement in two Arkansas prisons constituted cruel and unusual punishment because they resulted in unquestioned and serious deprivations of basic human needs. Conditions other than those in Gamble and Hutto, alone or in combination, may deprive inmates of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities. Such conditions could be cruel and unusual under the contemporary standard of decency that we recognized in Gamble. 429 U.S. at 103-104 [97 S.Ct. at 290-91], But conditions that cannot be said to be cruel and unusual under the contemporary standards are not unconstitutional. To the extent that such conditions are restrictive and even harsh, they are part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society. Jones v. Diamond, 636 F.2d 1364, 1368 (5th Cir. 1981) (en banc); Williams v. Edwards, 547 F.2d 1206 (5th Cir. 1977). The principle first appeared in Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291, 1309 (5th Cir. 1974): Each factor separately, i.e., overcrowding dormitory barracks, lack of classification according to severity of offense, untrained inmates with weapons, lack of supervision by civilian guards, absence of a procedure for confiscation of weapons, may not rise to constitutional dimensions; however, the effect of the totality of these circumstances is the infliction of punishment on inmates violative of the Eighth Amendment, as determined by the trial court. Accord, Smith v. Sullivan, 553 F.2d 373 (5th Cir. 1977); Miller v. Carson, 563 F.2d 741 (5th Cir. 1977). Applying this principle to the facts found by this court, the conditions of confinement at Ouachita Parish Jail violate the Eighth Amendment rights of convicted inmates housed at this parish jail. (8) While the Eighth Amendment applies to convicted prisoners, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits conditions that amount to punishment of the unconvicted. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979); Jones v. Diamond, 636 F.2d 1364 (5th Cir. 1981) (en banc); Miller v. Carson, 563 F.2d 741 (5th Cir. 1977); Mitchell v. Untreiner, 421 F.Supp. 886 (N.D. Fla.1976). To determine if an existing prison condition equals “punishment” the Supreme Court provides the following test: In evaluating the constitutionality of conditions or restrictions of pretrial detention ... we think that the proper inquiry is whether those conditions amount to punishment of the detainee. * * * * * * . . . Absent a showing of an expressed intent to punish on the part of detention facility officials, that determination generally will turn on “[wjhether an alternative purpose to which [the restriction] may rationally be connected is assignable for it, and whether it appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned [to it].” [Citation omitted.] Thus, if a particular condition or restriction of pretrial detention is reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective, it does not, without more, amount to “punishment.” Conversely, if a restriction or condition is not reasonably related to a legitimate goal — if it is arbitrary or purposeless — a court permissibly may infer that the purpose of the governmental action is punishment that may not constitutionally be inflicted upon detainees qua detainees. [Citation omitted.] Courts must be mindful that these inquiries spring from constitutional requirements and that judicial answers to them must reflect that fact rather than a court’s idea of how best to operate a detention facility. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 535-539, 99 S.Ct. at 1872-1874. (Footnotes omitted.) (9) Pretrial detainees account for over fifty (50%) percent of the inmates in Ouachita Parish Jail. These inmates have not been found guilty of any crime. Some are awaiting arraignment; others have had only a judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to the extended restraint of liberty following arrest. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 104, 114, 95 S.Ct. 854, 863, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975). They all share a common status — inability to make bond. Considering the strong presumption of innocence enjoyed by every accused, these unconvicted inmates deserve a closer scrutiny when conditions of confinement are examined. (10) The importance of this distinction between the convicted prisoner and the inmate restrained without adjudication was recognized by the Supreme Court in Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 671-2, n. 40, 97 S.Ct. 1401, 1412-13 n.40, 51 L.Ed.2d 711 (1977): Eighth Amendment scrutiny is appropriate only after the State has complied with the constitutional guarantees traditionally associated with criminal prosecutions. See United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303, 317-318, 66 S.Ct. 1973, 1979-1080, 90 L.Ed. 1252 (1946) .... [T]he State does not acquire the power to punish with which the Eighth Amendment is concerned until after it has secured a formal adjudication of guilt in accordance with due process of law. Where the State seeks to impose punishment without such an adjudication, the pertinent constitutional guarantee is the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Accord, Bell v. Wolfish, n.16. The same “totality of conditions” standard is appropriate when analyzing the alleged constitutional deprivations of pretrial detainees. Miller v. Carson, supra, n.6; Mitchell v. Untreiner, supra at 894. Considering that the restraints imposed on pretrial detainees are simply measures to assure their presence at trial, constitutional deprivations become particularly egregious. Based on the findings of this court, the defendants’ policies and practices violated the due process clause; any punishment of a person presumed innocent is unconstitutional. (11) Finding the totality of conditions at the Ouachita Parish Jail constitutionally deficient pretermits a differentiation between pretrial detainees and convicted prisoners for most of the issues involved in this case. Jail security is the sole justification for treatment of both classes of prisoner. Consequently, except where noted, our analysis and holdings will apply to both categories of inmates. Taylor v. Sterrett, 532 F.2d 462, 470 n.11 (5th Cir. 1976). Overcrowding (12) The two recent Supreme Court cases dealing with overcrowding are factually inapposite to the conditions at Ouachita Parish Jail. In Bell v. Wolfish, the court described the Metropolitan Correctional Center, the facility in question, as follows: The MCC differs markedly from the familiar image of a jail; there are no barred cells, dank, colorless corridors, or clanging steel gates. [Constructed in 1975,] [i]t was intended to include the most advanced and innovative features of modern design of detention facilities. As the Court of Appeals stated: “[I]t represented the architectural embodiment of the best and most progressive penological planning.” [Wolfish v. Levi] 573 F.2d at [118] 121. The key design element of the 12-story structure is the “modular” or “unit” concept, whereby each floor designed to house inmates has one or two largely self-contained residential units that replace the traditional cellblock jail construction. Each unit in turn has several clusters or corridors of private rooms or dormitories radiating from a central 2 -story “multipurpose” or common room, to which each inmate has free access approximately 16 hours a day. 441 U.S. at 525, 99 S.Ct. at 1866-67. Most of the inmates at MCC spent less than thirty (30) days at the facility. (One female prisoner at Ouachita Parish Jail was serving a five year sentence.) The jail in Rhodes v. Chapman was constructed in 1970 with gymnasium, workshops, schoolrooms, “day-rooms”, barbershop and library. The district court described this physical plant as “unquestionably a top-flight, first-class facility.” 101 S.Ct. at 2395. The Ouachita Parish Jail stands in stark contrast. (13) This court has found the jail grossly overcrowded. This overcrowding affects the mental and emotional well-being of the prisoner as well as increasing the threat to personal security. Failure to provide adequate living space to convicted persons constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Gates v. Collier, supra; Newman v. State of Alabama, 349 F.Supp. 278 (M.D. Ala.1972), aff’d in part, 503 F.2d 1320 (5th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 948, 95 S.Ct. 1680, 44 L.Ed.2d 102 (1975); Adams v. Mathis, 458 F.Supp. 302, 308 (M.D.Ala.1978), aff’d 614 F.2d 42 (5th Cir. 1979); Ramos v. Lamm, 485 F.Supp. 122 (D.Colo.1979), modified, 639 F.2d 559 (10th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1041, 101 S.Ct. 1759, 68 L.Ed.2d 239 (1981). (14) The failure to provide a pretrial detainee with an environment that does not impair his mental and emotional health is punishment and violative of his Fourteenth Amendment rights. Anderson v. Nosser, 456 F.2d 835 (5th Cir.) (en bane), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 848, 93 S.Ct. 53, 34 L.Ed.2d 89 (1972); Adams v. Mathis, supra. (15) Mindful of the mandate of Bell v. Wolfish, this court will set no space standards but a maximum number to be incarcerated will be established, except for brief periods upon the proper showing of grave public emergency. Jones v. Diamond, supra. In determining this maximum number the court considered the total square footage, the maze-