Free Other Notice - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

TERRY GODDARD Attorney General CATHERINE M. BOHLAND Assistant Attorney General State Bar No. 022124 1275 W. Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2997 Telephone: (602) 542-4951 Fax: (602) 542-7670 [email protected] Attorneys For Defendants IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Sheldon Walker, Plaintiff, v. Dora Schriro, et al., Defendants. No: CV04-0691-PHX-MHM (LOA) DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. 33)

Defendants1 provide the Court with notice of the District Court decision in Baptisto v. Schriro, 2006 WL 798879 (D. Ariz. March 28, 2006), regarding conditions of confinement of validated Security Threat Group "STG" members housed at the Arizona Department of Corrections "super-max" prison facility designated as Special Management Unit II "SMU II", Eyman Complex, Florence, Arizona. Baptisto v. Schriro is a consolidation of Baptisto v. Ryan, 03 CV 1393 PHX SRB; Diaz, vs. Schriro, 03 CV 1498 PHX SRB, and; Mullins vs. Stewart, 02-CV 1056 PHX SRB. In all three cases, the inmates alleged that the reduced calorie diet, restricted nature and duration of their out of cell exercise, and constant illumination of their cells at SMU II violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
1

Dora Schriro, Terry Stewart, Barbara Shearer and Conrad Luna. Document 46 Filed 04/13/2006 Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00691-MHM-LOA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

In Baptisto, the Court held that the nutritionally-balanced 2,800 calorie per day diet provided at SMU II is constitutionally adequate in light of the sedentary lifestyle of the inmates confined within a super-max prison. 2006 WL 798879 at *26-*28. The Court also held the lighting conditions at SMU II (constant cell illumination ­ reduced at night) is reasonably related to a legitimate penological interests of staff and inmate security and does not violate the Eighth Amendment. Id at *28-*31. Finally, the Court held that the limitations on the outdoor exercise do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Id at *31-*35. In addition, effective March 15, 2006, the ADC implemented significant changes to the STG policy. The new policy enables validated STG members to secure their release from SMU II through a "Step-Down" Program, outlined in revised Department Order ("DO") 806. (See revised DO 806, attached hereto as Exhibit 1.) The revised DO 806 permits inmates, who have been validated as STG members, to remove themselves from STG activity and demonstrate to Department staff that they are no longer involved with STG activity. (Id. at 806.08, 1.1.) The Step-Down Program prepares inmates for their eventual return into society. It is a system of incentives designed to encourage inmates to behave in a more civil, lessviolent manner, and to take full responsibility for their actions. Inmates can participate in the program after they complete 48 months as a validated STG member. (Id.) To initiate the step down process, the inmate must notify the Department staff in writing, of his desire to participate in the program and complete a 24 month period where he has not participated in any gang activity nor incidents of assaultive behavior, extortion or threats towards staff or other inmates. (Id. at 806.08, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.2.1, 1.2.2.2.) The inmate is required to successfully complete a polygraph examination that is specific to the inmate's intent in participating in the program. (Id. at 806.08, 1.2.3.) Should the inmate successfully complete the Step-Down Program, they may be released to the General Population.

Case 2:04-cv-00691-MHM-LOA

Document 46

2

Filed 04/13/2006

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 13th day of April, 2006. TERRY GODDARD Attorney General

s/ Catherine M. Bohland Catherine M. Bohland Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants Original e-filed this 13th day of April, 2006, with: Clerk of the Court United States District Court District of Arizona 401 West Washington Street, SPC 1 Phoenix, AZ 85003-2118 Copy mailed the same date to: Sheldon Walker, #102833 ASPC-Eyman-SMUII Post Office Box 3400 Florence AZ 85232 s/ Catherine M. Bohland Catherine M. Bohland IDS04-0388/RSK:G04-20896
#955872

Case 2:04-cv-00691-MHM-LOA

Document 46

3

Filed 04/13/2006

Page 3 of 3