Opinion
Case No. 86-CV-361 G
June 8, 2000
On June 5, 2000, plaintiffs, members of the inmate class housed on "B" block at the Wasatch unit of the Utah State Prison at Draper, made a motion for immediate injunctive relief. The basis of plaintiffs' motion is that under the injunction entered by this court in Baker v. Holden, 757 F. Supp. 1008 (D. Utah 1992), defendants were prohibited from double bunking inmates on "B" block until the block conformed to "D" block standards and until further order of the court. No further order of the court was entered and none was applied for by defendants. However, defendants contend "B" block was brought up to "D" block standards. Thus defendants contend they satisfied this Court's order in Baker.
Nothing in the injunction entered in 1992 in Baker specifically enjoined double bunking beyond a certain time limit, although evidence was received on the matter and the magistrate judge clearly considered this matter as to whether double bunking should be allowed in "D" block given the cell size and facilities. However, Judge Greene's order indicated nothing he extent of lockdown time. Baker, p. 1019. The reference to B block required a "showing that construction in B block of common areas on all three tiers similar to that accomplished at D block has been completed" before double bunking of B block. Id. Nothing addresses the extent of Lockdown of double bunked inmates. It would appear therefore, that the period of lockdown may not be a basis for contempt, but may be a basis for some form of future injunctive relief, but the issue may be more appropriately addressed in new action, as the relief is beyond what this court previously addressed. No position on this is taken at this time.
On May 30, 2000 the court issued an order on plaintiffs' contempt motion and required the parties to pursue certain procedures. That order remains in full effect, Until that order is complied with and defendants afforded an opportunity to address plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief, this court will not take immediate action, at this time, on plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief. Additional facts are needed. It is not an obvious basis for injunctive relief that no further order of the court as provided for in Baker was not entered if the conditions of confinement do not offend the Baker decree. The failure to obtain an order for double bunking would be insignificant. It is the conditions of confinement that must be determined and evaluated for purposes of contempt or injunctive relief. The Court's order of May 30, 2000 was designed to meet that requirement.
IT IS SO ORDERED