Pugh v. Locke Case - Research Paper Example

On February 26, 1974, an inmate of G. K. Fountain Correctional Center filed a complaint concerning the state of inmates confined by the Alabama board of corrections or those who may be confined later (Robbins & Michael, 1977). The court found that those actions were maintained as class actions under Federal Rule 23(a) and (b) (2) (Gerald, 1978). Notably, the court investigated and found out that the defendants in both cases acted and refused to act on the ground set for the class. The defendants were sued in their official and individual capacities including the Governor of Alabama, the Commissioner of Alabama Board of Corrections, Deputy Commissioner of the Alabama Board of Corrections, the board members, the Warden of G. K. Fountain Correctional Center and the Warden of Kilby Corrections Facility.

These people were retained as individual defendants (Robbins & Michael, 1977). On April 16, 1974, the court-appointed counsel filed the amendment to the case. This complaint was filed on behalf of all inmates of the state penal system confined to, G. K. Fountain Correctional Center and those who underwent such violence (Gerald, 1978). The Alabama Board of Corrections was charged with the responsibility for managing these state penal institutions. The board operated four large institutions for male inmates, which were, G. K. Fountain Correctional Center, Holman Unit Prison, Kilby Corrections Facility and Draper Correctional Center (Robbins & Michael, 1977).

They also managed Julia Tutwiler Prison for women and the Frank Lee Youth Center for young men. The inmate populations of these institutions were in excess by 5000. The overcrowding of these institutions heightened, and inmates were crowded so much that they had to sleep on mattresses on hallways and even near urinals (Robbins & Michael, 1977). These made sanitation and security impossible to maintain. Alabama’s penal institutions were filthy. In a research carried out by a public health officer, he found roaches, flies, mosquitoes and other vermin in all stages of development.

The sanitary rooms were terrible and constituted to poor drainage systems. Strange odors emanated from these facilities due to the gross under maintenance of hygiene. Moreover, personal hygiene was not observed in these facilities. The parties predetermined that the state only provided for razor blades and soap to the inmates (Gerald, 1978). Items such as shampoo, toothbrushes, toothpaste, shaving cream and combs were unavailable to the inmates since the state did not provide. However, inmates who could afford the products were required buy them.

On the other hand, catering services were of poor quality in these facilities. Food was stored in unsanitary conditions. The storage units were dirty and infested with insects. The food service personnel who mostly comprised of inmates were unskilled on how to handle and prepare food. In addition, the inmates were not supplied with eating utensils. This forced them to use, old, dirty, tin cans. The food was unappetizing and unwholesome while at the same time dangerous for human consumption. An expert witness once toured the facilities.

Shockingly enough, he concluded that the conditions in the facilities were unfit for human habitation in every criterion (Robbins & Michael, 1977). The prison officials did not dispute evidence that most inmates are in a terrifyingly poor condition. Consequently, a