Texas. Dept. of Criminal Justice. Office of the General Counsel.

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) manages offenders in state prisons, state jails and private correctional facilities that contract with TDCJ. The agency also provides funding and certain oversight of community supervision and is responsible for the supervision of offenders released from prison on parole or mandatory supervision. The Department of Criminal Justice came into being in 1848 when "An Act to Establish a State Penitentiary" was passed by the Second Texas Legislature. The act established a governing body of the penitentiary as a three-member Board of Directors, appointed by the Governor, with the approval of the Senate. The Board was responsible for creating and distributing a set of rules and bylaws for the administration of the penitentiary, overseeing the treatment of convicts, preparing an annual inventory of property, and making an annual report to the Governor.

In 1881, the Legislature reorganized the prison system, abolishing the Board of Directors, and creating in its place a Penitentiary Board, consisting of the governor, the state treasurer, and the prison superintendent (Chapter 49, 17th Legislature, Regular Session). In April 1883, the administrative system was again reorganized, with the board comprised of the governor and two commissioners appointed by the governor (Chapter 114, 18th Legislature, Regular Session). In 1885, the board composition changed once more, now consisting of three commissioners appointed by the governor (House Bill 562, 19th Legislature, Regular Session). This board was succeeded by the Board of Prison Commissioners in 1910, which was composed of three commissioners appointed by the governor (Senate Bill 10, 31st Legislature, 4th Called Session). Convicts, or inmates, were housed and worked in one of the two prisons or on one of several state prison farms. The shop industries slowed down while the prison farms expanded. This arrangement made it more difficult to provide education and other reform measures. Such measures were generally practiced at Huntsville, with some teaching extended to a couple of prison farms by the early 1900s.

The Texas Prison Board replaced the Board of Prison Commissioners as the governing body for the Texas Prison System in 1927, increasing in size to nine members (House Bill 59, 40th Legislature, Regular Session). The members of the board were appointed by the governor, with senate approval, to six year overlapping terms. During the Board's tenure, 1927-1957, the Board made changes in the system including more emphasis on prison reform, teaching, recreation--including the establishment of the Texas Prison Rodeo--and a new method of classifying inmates. The Texas Prison System became the Department of Corrections in 1957 (Senate Bill 42, 55th Legislature, Regular Session). This Department was governed by the Board of Corrections, composed of nine members appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the senate to six year overlapping terms.

In 1989, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) and the Board of Criminal Justice were created (House Bill 2335, 71st Legislature, Regular Session). The Board is composed of nine members appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the senate to six year overlapping terms. This new agency absorbed the functions of three agencies: the Department of Corrections, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, and the Texas Adult Probation Commission. The Department of Corrections, which was responsible for the operation of the prison system, is now the Institutional Division of the Department of Criminal Justice. This Division still manages the housing of inmates within the prison system.

The prison system has changed since the 1900s. A major penal reform program was initiated in 1947, modernizing agricultural production, initiating industrial production by inmates, and providing improvements in physical facilities for inmates and employees. A Construction Division was created in 1948 to make use of inmate labor, prison-made brick, and concrete for new building projects. In 1963, the Prison-Made Goods Act authorized an Industries Program to produce materials for internal use and for sale to qualified agencies in the state while providing occupational skills training to inmates. Other services available to inmates include education, recreation, religion, and physiological and psychological health care. The Windham School District was created in 1969 to offer GED certificates or high school diplomas to inmates. Junior college and senior college classes are available. Rehabilitation programs offer vocational training, work furlough programs, and community services to aid inmates in securing work upon release and making the adjustment and transition into society. Legal services are also available to inmates through the Office of the General Counsel.

In 1974 a class action suit was filed by inmate David Ruiz and others on behalf of the inmates in the Texas prison system against the director W.J. Estelle, Jr. and the Texas Department of Corrections. Hearings began in 1978 and legal action continued through the 1990s. The courts found the conditions of confinement violated the United States Constitution and appointed a special master and monitors to supervise implementation of the court-ordered changes. These changes have included reduction of crowding in the prisons and the development of better living, health, and working conditions for inmates. Federal oversight of the Texas prison system ended in 2002.

Born in 1942, David Ruiz was one of 13 children in a migrant worker family, and grew up in Austin, Texas. He was twice-convicted for armed robbery and was serving a 12-year sentence in the Texas Department of Corrections (TDC), in the Eastham Unit, when he filed his hand written writ of habeas corpus in 1972 against the Department of Corrections. He was asking for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that the conditions of his confinement violated his constitutional rights. He and other writ writers involved in other suits were able to obtain the services of attorney William Bennett Turner (of San Francisco) through funding from the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) Legal Defense Fund. In 1974 Ruiz's complaint was combined with seven other complaints to form the class action suit, Ruiz v. Estelle . The case was initially assigned to the U. S. District Court in Tyler. The venue was changed to Houston, with federal Judge William Wayne Justice assigned to hear the case. The plaintiffs' case concerned issues involving prison overcrowding, security and supervision, health care, disciplinary procedures, limitations on access to courts, and deficiencies in fire safety, sanitation, work safety, and hygiene. Private counsel was appointed to represent the prisoners and the United States Department of Justice intervened in the case on behalf of the plaintiffs. The Texas Attorney General's Office represented the Department of Corrections and the State of Texas, with additional outside counsel later joining the defense. The trial is perhaps the longest civil rights trial in the history of the American justice system. The trial started on October 2, 1978 and lasted 159 days, in which 349 witnesses testified and over 1500 exhibits were entered into evidence. In order to protect inmate witnesses, Judge Justice issued a protective order in the fall of 1979 for the 96 inmates who testified allowing them to transfer to federal custody. Seventy-eight of the witnesses requested and were granted such transfers.

On December 10, 1980, Judge Justice issued his Memorandum of Opinion, finding that the prisons were overcrowded; that the recreational facilities, health care, hearing procedures for disciplinary actions, and prisoner access to courts were wholly inadequate; and that fire safety and sanitation standards violated state law and the United States Constitution. The court directed the parties to draft a plan for providing general relief in addition to correcting deficiencies in the areas noted. In March 1981 the court signed a partial consent decree (filed in April 1981) mandating widespread changes in the prison system. Shortly thereafter, the court appointed a special master to "observe, monitor, find facts, report or testify as to his findings, and make recommendations to the court concerning steps which should be taken to achieve compliance." Monitors were appointed by the court to assist the special master and to oversee the implementation of court-ordered changes. In effect, the federal government began its oversight of the Texas prison system.

One of the most troubling issues concerning TDC at the time was prison overcrowding. In some cases inmates were triple-celled. TDC was ordered by the court to reduce the number of inmates per cell, eventually settling on two to a cell, based on size restrictions of the cells. In order to reduce prison overcrowding, TDC was able to get money from the state to build several new dorms at existing prisons and eventually a few new prisons. It also worked with the Board of Pardons and Paroles to push through any inmates eligible for parole and on May 10, 1982, TDC temporarily stopped accepting prisoners. The doors were reopened on May 17, 1982.

In the 1980s a number of court rulings were handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and most were appealed by the Department of Corrections. The court generally decreed the parties work together to develop a plan to solve each of the outstanding issues. One issue of particular interest was that of building tenders. Tenders were inmates given special responsibility by the guards including overseeing the work of fellow inmates. On April 14, 1982, the parties presented to the court a plan (Stipulation Modification to the Consent Decree) in which TDC would be prohibited from allowing prisoners to have any position of authority, to assist in counting other prisoners, to possess weapons, to escort other prisoners, to influence cell assignments, or to have access to another prisoner's medical or institutional record. The plan provided a method for dismantling the building tender system and was approved by the court.

On March 6, 1990 Judge Justice ordered the parties to start negotiations on finding solutions to the remaining issues so a comprehensive final order in the case could be issued. The parties submitted a proposed final judgment to the court on August 13, 1992; it was approved on December 11, 1992. Topics addressed included staffing, support services for inmates, discipline, administrative segregation, work health and safety, use of force, access to the courts, maintenance of facilities, programming and recreational activities, visitation, crowding, new facilities, monitoring, health services, psychiatric services, death row conditions, and enforcement procedures.

In March of 1996 TDCJ asked the court to vacate its final judgment, citing the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 (b). The federal Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) was signed into law on April 26, 1996. TDCJ wanted to end the district court's supervision of the Texas prison system and on May 21, 1996, asked the court again to vacate its final judgment, pursuant to the PLRA. The court declined to vacate the judgment. Two Texas legislators, Representative John Culberson and Senator J.E. Brown, asked the district court to allow them to intervene in the lawsuit. The plaintiffs and TDCJ opposed this move and the judge declined their motion to intervene on November 24, 1997. Following amendments to the PLRA the legislators appealed and on November 20, 1998, the Fifth Circuit Judge (William Lockhart) reversed the district court's ruling and remanded the case.

On May 6, 1998, TDCJ again asked the district court to terminate the final judgment, pursuant to the PLRA, under its two-year termination provision. Judge Justice again declined to do so, reaffirming his view that the PLRA was unconstitutional (June 19, 1998). Because a supplemental motion filed by the defendants on September 6, 1996 to terminate the judgment had still not been officially ruled on, they petitioned the Fifth Circuit Court for a writ of mandamus to end the delay in the case and force the district court to make a ruling. The Fifth Circuit ruled that the district court would have to issue a ruling within 31 days of an evidentiary hearing on the motion. Hearings were held in January and February 1999. On March 1, 1999, Judge Justice ruled he would not terminate the final judgment order. This order was appealed by the defendants and the United States filed a cross-appeal. The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the case. The district court, under remand, then reconsidered its decision. Judge Justice determined that constitutional violations still existed in three major areas: administrative confinement segregation, failure to provide reasonable safety to inmates against abuse and assault, and excessive use of force by correctional officers. Federal oversight would continue only in these areas until the parties could craft remedial changes to correct these violations. A final judgment, ending federal oversight of the prison system, was issued on June 17, 2002. The case was dismissed by the court, with prejudice. David Ruiz was released in 1983, but it was short-lived. He was back in the prison system when the final ruling came down. He died in November 2005, in the prison hospital in Galveston.

Basic changes resulting from this suit which the TDCJ had to implement included: filing reports on the number of inmates and space per inmate, requiring the TDCJ to reduce inmate population, eventually resulting in only two inmates per cell; preserving verbatim records of all disciplinary hearings; giving inmates in administrative segregation the opportunity for regular exercise; ensuring that inmates be allowed access to courts, counsel and public officials; developing and implementing a system for classification of inmates; developing concise standards and procedures governing the use of physical force against TDCJ prisoners; developing programs, standards, and procedures concerning inmate health care; dismantling the building tender system; developing programs, standards, and procedures concerning special needs prisoners; and developing standards and procedures for the use of inmates in support service capacities.

A number of pleadings were filed by Ruiz, et al., each naming the director of the prison as the first defendant, thus the style changes from Ruiz vs. Estelle (the director at the time of the original suit) to, for instance, Ruiz vs. McKaskle, etc., changing when the director of the prison system changed.

(Sources: Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, Ruiz v. Estelle (article by Mike Fagan, 4/24/2008) ; Texas Observer, editorial about David Ruiz, on December 2, 2005; the website of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Final Chapters of the Ruiz case ; - all online sources were checked in the fall of 2008 and confirmed on December 3, 2008; An Account of the Ruiz v. Estelle Civil Action, Working Paper No. 04-02-83, by Allen Sapp, Jr., Texas Department of Corrections, February 1983; ;, and from the records themselves.)

From the guide to the General Counsel's Office Ruiz litigation case files (Part I), 1964, 1971-2001, undated, bulk 1981-1989, 1996-1999, (Texas State Archives)

See the online finding aid for the agency history.

Born in 1942, David Ruiz was one of 13 children in a migrant worker family, and grew up in Austin, Texas. He was twice-convicted for armed robbery and was serving a 12-year sentence in the Texas Department of Corrections (TDC), in the Eastham Unit, when he filed his hand written writ of habeas corpus in 1972 against the Department of Corrections. He was asking for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that the conditions of his confinement violated his constitutional rights. He and other writ writers involved in other suits were able to obtain the services of attorney William Bennett Turner (of San Francisco) through funding from the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) Legal Defense Fund. In 1974 Ruiz's complaint was combined with seven other complaints to form the class action suit, "Ruiz v. Estelle." The case was initially assigned to the U. S. District Court in Tyler. The venue was changed to Houston, with federal Judge William Wayne Justice assigned to hear the case. The plaintiffs' case concerned issues involving prison overcrowding, security and supervision, health care, disciplinary procedures, limitations on access to courts, and deficiencies in fire safety, sanitation, work safety, and hygiene. Private counsel was appointed to represent the prisoners and the United States Department of Justice intervened in the case on behalf of the plaintiffs. The Texas Attorney General's Office represented the Department of Corrections and the State of Texas, with additional outside counsel later joining the defense. The trial is perhaps the longest civil rights trial in the history of the American justice system. The trial started on October 2, 1978 and lasted 159 days, in which 349 witnesses testified and over 1500 exhibits were entered into evidence. In order to protect inmate witnesses, Judge Justice issued a protective order in the fall of 1979 for the 96 inmates who testified allowing them to transfer to federal custody. Seventy-eight of the witnesses requested and were granted such transfers. On December 10, 1980, Judge Justice issued his Memorandum of Opinion, finding that the prisons were overcrowded; that the recreational facilities, health care, hearing procedures for disciplinary actions, and prisoner access to courts were wholly inadequate; and that fire safety and sanitation standards violated state law and the United States Constitution. The court directed the parties to draft a plan for providing general relief in addition to correcting deficiencies in the areas noted. In March 1981 the court signed a partial consent decree (filed in April 1981) mandating widespread changes in the prison system. Shortly thereafter, the court appointed a special master to "observe, monitor, find facts, report or testify as to his findings, and make recommendations to the court concerning steps which should be taken to achieve compliance." Monitors were appointed by the court to assist the special master and to oversee the implementation of court-ordered changes. In effect, the federal government began its oversight of the Texas prison system. One of the most troubling issues concerning TDC at the time was prison overcrowding. In some cases inmates were triple-celled. TDC was ordered by the court to reduce the number of inmates per cell, eventually settling on two to a cell, based on size restrictions of the cells. In order to reduce prison overcrowding, TDC was able to get money from the state to build several new dorms at existing prisons and eventually a few new prisons. It also worked with the Board of Pardons and Paroles to push through any inmates eligible for parole and on May 10, 1982, TDC temporarily stopped accepting prisoners. The doors were reopened on May 17, 1982. In the 1980s a number of court rulings were handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and most were appealed by the Department of Corrections. The court generally decreed the parties work together to develop a plan to solve each of the outstanding issues. One issue of particular interest was that of building tenders. Tenders were inmates given special responsibility by the guards including overseeing the work of fellow inmates. On April 14, 1982, the parties presented to the court a plan (Stipulation Modification to the Consent Decree) in which TDC would be prohibited from allowing prisoners to have any position of authority, to assist in counting other prisoners, to possess weapons, to escort other prisoners, to influence cell assignments, or to have access to another prisoner's medical or institutional record. The plan provided a method for dismantling the building tender system and was approved by the court. On March 6, 1990 Judge Justice ordered the parties to start negotiations on finding solutions to the remaining issues so a comprehensive final order in the case could be issued. The parties submitted a proposed final judgment to the court on August 13, 1992; it was approved on December 11, 1992. Topics addressed included staffing, support services for inmates, discipline, administrative segregation, work health and safety, use of force, access to the courts, maintenance of facilities, programming and recreational activities, visitation, crowding, new facilities, monitoring, health services, psychiatric services, death row conditions, and enforcement procedures. In March of 1996 TDCJ asked the court to vacate its final judgment, citing the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 (b). The federal Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) was signed into law on April 26, 1996. TDCJ wanted to end the district court's supervision of the Texas prison system and on May 21, 1996, asked the court again to vacate its final judgment, pursuant to the PLRA. The court declined to vacate the judgment. Two Texas legislators, Representative John Culberson and Senator J.E. Brown, asked the district court to allow them to intervene in the lawsuit. The plaintiffs and TDCJ opposed this move and the judge declined their motion to intervene on November 24, 1997. Following amendments to the PLRA the legislators appealed and on November 20, 1998, the Fifth Circuit Judge (William Lockhart) reversed the district court's ruling and remanded the case. On May 6, 1998, TDCJ again asked the district court to terminate the final judgment, pursuant to the PLRA, under its two-year termination provision. Judge Justice again declined to do so, reaffirming his view that the PLRA was unconstitutional (June 19, 1998). Because a supplemental motion filed by the defendants on September 6, 1996 to terminate the judgment had still not been officially ruled on, they petitioned the Fifth Circuit Court for a writ of mandamus to end the delay in the case and force the district court to make a ruling. The Fifth Circuit ruled that the district court would have to issue a ruling within 31 days of an evidentiary hearing on the motion. Hearings were held in January and February 1999. On March 1, 1999, Judge Justice ruled he would not terminate the final judgment order. This order was appealed by the defendants and the United States filed a cross-appeal. The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the case. The district court, under remand, then reconsidered its decision. Judge Justice determined that constitutional violations still existed in three major areas: administrative confinement segregation, failure to provide reasonable safety to inmates against abuse and assault, and excessive use of force by correctional officers. Federal oversight would continue only in these areas until the parties could craft remedial changes to correct these violations. A final judgment, ending federal oversight of the prison system, was issued on June 17, 2002. The case was dismissed by the court, with prejudice. David Ruiz was released in 1983, but it was short-lived. He was back in the prison system when the final ruling came down. He died in November 2005, in the prison hospital in Galveston. Basic changes resulting from this suit which the TDCJ had to implement included: filing reports on the number of inmates and space per inmate, requiring the TDCJ to reduce inmate population, eventually resulting in only two inmates per cell; preserving verbatim records of all disciplinary hearings; giving inmates in administrative segregation the opportunity for regular exercise; ensuring that inmates be allowed access to courts, counsel and public officials; developing and implementing a system for classification of inmates; developing concise standards and procedures governing the use of physical force against TDCJ prisoners; developing programs, standards, and procedures concerning inmate health care; dismantling the building tender system; developing programs, standards, and procedures concerning special needs prisoners; and developing standards and procedures for the use of inmates in support service capacities. A number of pleadings were filed by Ruiz, et al., each naming the director of the prison as the first defendant, thus the style changes from "Ruiz vs. Estelle" (the director at the time of the original suit) to, for instance, "Ruiz vs. McKaskle," etc., changing when the director of the prison system changed. (Sources: Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, Ruiz v. Estelle (article by Mike Fagan, 4/24/2008 (http://clearinghouse.wustl.edu/)); the Texas Observer (http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2091), editorial about David Ruiz, December 2, 2005; the website of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Final Chapters of the Ruiz case (http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/mediasvc/connections/SeptOct2002/agency2_v10no1.html); all online sources were checked in the fall of 2008 and confirmed on December 3, 2008; "An Account of the Ruiz v. Estelle Civil Action," Working Paper No. 04-02-83, by Allen Sapp, Jr., Texas Department of Corrections, February 1983; and from the records themselves.)

From the description of General Counsel's Office Ruiz litigation case files 1964, 1971-2001, undated bulk 1981-1989, 1996-1999. (Texas State Library & Archives Commission). WorldCat record id: 310732446