Hutto v. Finney

Petitioners
Terrell Don Hutto, et al.
Respondents
Robert Finney, et al.
Petitioners' Claim
That confining prisoners to isolation cells for more than 30 days is not a violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and that the Department of Corrections is exempt from paying the attorney fees of the defendant under theEleventh Amendment.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioners
Garner L. Taylor, Jr.
Chief Lawyer for Respondents
Philip E. Kaplan
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, John Paul Stevens (writing for the Court), Potter Stewart
Justices Dissenting
Warren E. Burger, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, Byron R. White
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
23 June 1978
Decision
Found that conditions in the Arkansas penal system violated the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments and therefore constituted cruel and unusual punishment.
Significance
The ruling distinguished between acceptable and unacceptable punitive measures in prison and was one of the first successful prisoner lawsuits against a correctional system. The Court determined that isolation for a duration less than 30 days may be constitutional. However, solitary confinement coupled withthe prison's living conditions did constitute cruel and unusual punishment,because it jeopardized the health and safety of the inmates.
Background
Prisoners' rights litigation grew out of the Fourteenth Amendment, which applied the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment to the state level, empowering the accused to challenge their sentences and to seek more humane treatment in prison through lawsuits. Prison riots in the 1950s drew attention to the living conditions and the disciplinary measures used in penitentiaries. The U.S. Supreme Court began reviewing state prison policies and activities during the 1950s, which sparked concern for the well-being of prisonersthroughout the country. Prisoner lawsuits against the conditions and practices of the Arkansas correctional system began around 1969.
In 1970, Holt v. Sarver ushered in the era of legal battles between Arkansas and its prisoners. As result, the courts became aware of the treatmentof prisoners in the Arkansas penal system as well as aware of the indifference to the problems by medical staff. This case helped eliminate the torturingof prisoners and the use of prisoners as guards. Here the courts, for the first time, found a whole prison system faulty and in violation of human rightsgranted by the Constitution. Judge Henley, who heard the case, characterizedthe Arkansas prison system as a "dark and evil world completely alien to thefree world." Holt v. Sarver successfully cleared the way for furtherlitigation by prisoners not only in Arkansas, but also around the country.
The Violations Continue
Hutto v. Finney was a sequel to Holt v. Sarver and within thiscontext, inmates objected again to the prison living conditions and disciplinary methods used by the Arkansas prison system. The state correctional systemwould confine as many as 11 people to isolation cells "eight-by-ten foot rooms without windows" for indefinite periods of time. These isolation cells provided only a sink and a toilet that could only be flushed from outside. Furthermore, inmates confined to the isolation cells received mattresses at night,which were collected in the morning, and although some prisoners had infectious diseases, the mattresses were randomly distributed the next night--a practice that could easily spread diseases around the prison. Prisoners considered these conditions a violation of their constitutional rights, a view the district court already shared.
Hearing the trial first, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District ofArkansas determined that the prison conditions did constitute cruel and unusual punishment. In addition, the court ordered that the Arkansas Department ofCorrection limit the number of inmates confined in each isolation cell, place a bunk in each cell, stop the low-calorie diet in isolation cells, and confine prisoners to isolation cells for no more than 30 days. Furthermore, the court argued that prison officials acted in bad faith by not improving prisonconditions as ordered by previous court decisions and consequently awarded the respondents' attorney's fees paid by the Department of Correction. The Department of Correction appealed the award of attorney's fees as well as the 30day maximum limit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth District agreed with the district court's decision and charged the Department another attorney's fee for the appeal services.
Hutto and the Arkansas Department of Correction then took their dispute to the Supreme Court, maintaining that a isolated confinement period of more than30 days did not violate prisoner's constitutional rights and that the Department of Correction, as a branch of the state government, was immune to the lower courts' award of attorney's fees under the Eleventh Amendment.
In June of 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court finished reviewing the Federal District Court's decision and upheld its 30-day limit on confinement in isolation cells because the lower court had given the Arkansas correctional system repeated opportunities to improve the cruel and unusual conditions in the isolation cells. The Court reasoned that the 30-day limit would prevent overcrowdingand hostility resulting from long periods of confinement, and that this limitwould not interfere with prison operations and administration. Moreover, theSupreme Court majority agreed with the district court's awarding of fee to be paid out of the state's Department of Correction's budget, supporting its finding that prison officials acted negligently in not correcting the system'sviolations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The majority concluded that the Civil Rights Attorney Fees Awards Act of 1976 supported the Court ofAppeals decision, since the other party prevailed.
Some Justices Back Petitioner
On the other hand, Justices Powell, Burger, White, and Rehnquist disagreed with awarding of the attorney's fees and contended that the Civil Rights Attorney Fees Awards Act did not authorize the court of appeals to override the Department of Correction's Eleventh Amendment immunity. The Eleventh Amendment prohibits individuals and companies from suing states, granting this privilegeonly to other states. Justice Rehnquist further argued that the Constitutiondid not prohibit isolation for a period longer than 30 days in any straightforward way and that the court of appeals should not penalize the Arkansas treasury for the negligence of the prison officials.
Supreme Court Upholds Decision
Nonetheless, the majority agreed with Justice Stevens's opinion and the Courtdecided to impose the 30-day maximum limit on solitary confinement and to charge the Arkansas Department of Correction attorney's fees in an effort to rid the system of its human rights violations once and for all. Stevens arguedthat he found "no error in the court's conclusion that, taken as a whole, conditions in the isolation cells continued to violate the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment" and that "the 30-day limit [would] help to correct these conditions." Consequently, Hutto v. Finney, like Holt v. Sarver and other related cases, stands as a landmark case concerning prisoner rights trials and legislation. This case is one of the successful challenges to prison conditions where the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision and ordered improved living conditions for the entire state correctional system.
Related Cases

• Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 (1910).
  
• Holt v. Sarver, (1970).
  
• Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976).

Holt v. Sarver
The Cummins Farm of the Arkansas State Penitentiary was 15,000 acres in sizeand held approximately 1,000 male inmates. The unit produced cotton, rice, and various other produce. Rather than prison cells, the inmates were housed inopen barracks with rows of beds. As most armed guards were inmates serving as "trustees," violent attacks and sexual assaults were common. No rehabilitative or training programs existed.
In 1965, Lawrence J. Holt and several other inmates filed suit against RobertSarver, Arkansas commissioner of corrections. They claimed their often extended isolation cell confinement, inadequate medical care, and lack of protection from assaults constituted cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. In an unprecedented response, Federal District Judge J. Smith Henley found that the entire Arkansas system violated the Constitution. Theisolation cells were overcrowded and filthy, and the guard trustee system bred hatred and violence. In sum, the overall conditions were "alien to the free world." The court assumed temporary supervision of prison operations.
Until Holt, federal court decisions simply identified the unconstitutional character of specific prison practices. The 1969 decision became a watershed ruling for judicial involvement in prison reform by prescribing detailedremedies. An avalanche of court cases followed across the nation in which prisons and county jails were found unconstitutional.
Sources
Jackson, Bruce. Killing Time: Life in the Arkansas Penitentiary. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1977.