This case involved a class action lawsuit filed by inmate Nazareth Gates against the superintendent of the Mississippi State Penitentiary alleging unconstitutional conditions and practices at the prison in violation of the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. An investigation by the U.S. government found evidence of racial segregation, inadequate healthcare and living conditions, and brutality against inmates. The court ruled many conditions at the prison violated inmates' constitutional rights and ordered sweeping reforms to eliminate discrimination, end harsh disciplinary practices, and improve infrastructure and living conditions.

1. Seth Osmun
Legal Research & Writing
Prof. Shipp
3/24/15
Gates v. Collier
349 F. Supp. 881 (1972)
1. Parties
Nazareth Gates et. al, plaintiff, an inmate confined at Mississippi State
Penitentiary, Parchman, MS
vs
John Collier et al., defendant, superintendent at Mississippi State Penitentiary
2. Facts
On February 8th, 1971 Nazareth Gates, an African-American inmate confined at Mississippi
State Penitentiary, located at Parchman, MS, along with multiple unnamed inmates, filed a class
action suit against the superintendent of the penitentiary, who at the time was Thomas Cook.
Cook left the position just after the suit was filed, and his replacement, John Collier, was then
substituted as the defendant.

2. Gates brought suit in the United States District Court of Mississippi’s Northern District
alleging that “defendants, by their method of prison administration, have deprived the inmates
of rights, privileges and immunities secured to them by the First, Eighth, Thirteenth and
Fourteenth Amendments.” Gates also alleged that “negro inmates have been segregated and
discriminated against on the basis of race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of The
Fourteenth Amendment.” Gates sought injunctive relief to remedy the defendant’s misconduct
and a declaratory judgement that the practices and conditions existent at the penitentiary were
unconstitutional.
On August 23rd, the United States, having investigated thoroughly the conditions at
MSP, joined the lawsuit as a plaintiff, pursuant to 42 USC 2000h-2 agreeing with the existence
of the constitutional claims laid out by Gates. The government’s complaint alleged that,
“the defendants have, contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment, maintained a system of
prison facilities segregated by race; and, additionally, the defendants have failed to
provide the inmates with adequate housing, medical care, and protection from assault
from other prisoners, that the conditions of the sewerage disposal and water systems
create an immediate health hazard, and that prison officials have permitted the
custodial staff, including inadequately trained armed trusties, to inflict cruel and unusual
punishment upon inmates in violation of the Eighth Amendment.”
Like Gates, the government also sought injunctive relief to remedy these conditions. They were
perhaps most appalled by the use of the “cage bosses”, or trusties armed (often with loaded
shotguns or billy clubs) and authorized to keep the peace between inmates and enforce prison

3. rules. These inmates were not screened for potentially violent behavior, and investigators who
visited the prison alleged that many had mental impairments and/or convictions that made
them uniquely dangerous and unsuited to being placed in positions of power over other
inmates.
The government also noted that there was, in fact, active racial segregation in all
aspects of prison life at the Penitentiary. Black and white inmates were separated into different
barracks by race, assigned different jobs based on race, and black inmates were often subject to
harsher punishments and greater restrictions than white inmates found guilty of the same
infractions. The most severe punishment was a trip to the “dark hole”, an unlit, tiny 6’x6’ cell
where inmates were stripped naked, shaved of all hair on their head and left without hygienic
supplies or adequate food. The cell was never cleaned, and inmates confined there were not
allowed to wash themselves.
Inmates considered especially troublesome were confined in the Maximum Security
Unit, with each wing containing 13 of these cells. Brutality against prisoners in the MSU was
well known, and some of the more draconian punishments specific to MSU included depriving
inmates of mattresses, food, and hygiene supplies, forced administration of milk of magnesia,
handcuffing of inmates to the fence or to the bars of their cells for lengthy periods of time,
shooting at or around inmates to keep them standing in the yard, lashings by whip, use of an
electric cattle prod on inmates.

4. Other conditions that were noted by officials who visited the prison were inadequate
supplies of drinkable water, open sewer lines on the property, lack of adequate healthcare, lack
of protection from assault and abuse, unnecessary censorship of incoming mail and housing
conditions so deplorable that the Court later described them as “sub-human” and “unfit for
human habitation under any modern concept of decency.” Inmates were also found to lack
access to appropriate educational and rehabilitative programming.
3. Prior Proceedings
This action began as a civil rights class action lawsuit started by plaintiff Nazareth Gates
and fellow inmates in the N.D. of Mississippi, filed on February 8th, 1971.
4. Issue
The court agreed to consider multiple substantive issues related to the allegations made
by Gates, including but not limited to: unlawful segregation of/discrimination against inmates
based on their race, inadequate, dangerous and unsanitary housing and health services,
indifference to the safety of inmates, censorship of mail unrelated to institutional security and
cruel and unusual punishments inflicted on prisoners. The court also considered whether those
allegations, taken as a whole, amounted to violations of the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth
amendments to the U.S. Constitution. They also sought to determine that if such violations did
exist, whether the petitioners’ prayer for injunctive relief should be granted.

5. 5. Holding
After making multiple investigative trips to Parchman, documenting interactions with
staff and inmates, and reviewing extensive evidence submitted by plaintiff’s counsel, Attorney
Roy Haber (which he had been collecting for over a year), the court found prima facie that living
conditions for the inmates housed there existed were so appalling that the court noted that
“…the living conditions provided for the inmates are generally deplorable and subhuman.” The
court was equally disturbed by the extensive use of the “trustee” system, noting that “the
evidence is replete with instances of instances of inhumanities, illegal conduct and other
indignities visited by inmates who exercise authority over their fellow prisoners.” The court
further condemned some but not all aspects of the use of the “dark hole”, the arbitrary nature
of punishments, inadequate staffing and the general state of disrepair and filth that
encompassed inmates housing, medical and living facilities.
The Court determined that “Parchman, in certain material respects, has been, and
continues to be, maintained in a manner violative of rights secured to inmates by the United
States Constitution, and also contrary to Mississippi law.” The Governor of Mississippi, John Bell
Williams, conceded as much during the trial, saying “"We are, in effect, Your Honor, admitting
that the constitutional provisions have been violated."
After finding for Gates and his fellow litigants, the Court issued a sweeping decree
ordering substantial changes to the way in which Parchman was operated. These included
elimination of all racial segregation and discriminatory practices, elimination of the trustee
system, an end to mail censorship, reform of disciplinary procedures to ban corporal

6. punishment and preserve the due process rights of inmates, and improvements to the
infrastructure of barracks and other facilities to bring them in to compliance with state and
federal law.
Furthermore, the defendants were ordered to develop and submit for the approval of
the Court a “…comprehensive plan for the elimination of all unconstitutional conditions in the
inmate housing, inadequate inmate housing, inadequate water, sewer and utilities, inadequate
firefighting equipment, inadequate hospital and other structures condemned by this court in its
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.” The Court set a deadline of December 20th, 1972 for
the defendants to comply with the order.
6. Reasoning
The Court relied heavily on the evidence submitted by Haber, reports from federal
investigators who visited Parchman, and Gates’ original allegations in determining that
corrections officials had violated both Federal and Mississippi law in their treatment of
prisoners. The court noted previous case law had established clear guidelines for what
constituted cruel and unusual punishment by citing Wright v. McCann (387 F. 2nd 519 (1967) for
their condemnation of excessively harsh disciplinary procedures such as the infamous “dark
hole”, and also cited the conclusion of Cruz v. Beto (405 U.S. 319 92 S. CT 1079, 31 L.Ed. 2d.
263, 267 (1972) that “Federal Courts sit not to supervise prisons but to enforce the
constitutional rights of all ‘persons’ which include prisoners…persons in prison, like other
individuals, have the right to petition government for redress of grievances…”.

7. The Court cited as additional primary authority the regulations existing at the time in
Mississippi law, including Mississippi Codes §7930 (propercare,treatmentandfeedingof prisoners),
7942 (wholesome food prepared under sanitary conditions) and 7959 (efficient hospital and medical
services).The factthatthe Defendantshadblatantlyviolatedbothstate andFederal lawswasone of the
most damning aspects of the case, and undoubtedly led the Court to side with Gates and his fellow
inmates in condemning the conditions at Parchman.
7. Counter-Analysis
Although the ruling in Gates v. Collier is, on the surface, a well-reasoned and arguably just
outcome,othercourtshave criticizedaspectsof the ruling.InFelicianov.Barcelo(497F.Supp. 14, (1979)
the Court, in a case involving findings of fact extremely similar to those at Parchman, cited Gates v.
Collierincondemningsolitary confinement, but unlike Gates v. Collier, where the court claimed it was
not able to assess the constitutionality of the “dark hole” itself, the judge declared that if conditions
inside the solitaryconfinementcellsweredangeroustohumanhealthand/or lacking in proper bedding
and hygiene supplies( whichwasspecifically alleged to exist at Parchman, and which the court agreed
was an issue) then such conditions did rise to the level of a constitutional violation.
Anotherissue withthe Court’srulingexists in the Court’s attempt to remedy the conditions by
ordering the defendants to come up with a plan, but not requiring them to do so immediately (but
rather 3 months from the decision rendered by the Court). If the conditions at Parchman were so
barbaric andinhumane that they could only be described as “sub-human”, then why did the Court not
immediatelydemand,bywayof an injunction,thatthe defendantsactona plan drawn up not by prison
officials, but by the court itself, given that the defendants had already shown near complete
indifference to enforcing the laws and regulations already in place regarding treatment of prisoners?
Doingso wouldhave grantedmore immediaterelieftothe plaintiffs,andwouldnot have further drawn

8. out Gates’ hard fought pursuit of justice. The Court undoubtedly had the power to do so, and their
failure to act in a timelier manner to remedy such gross injustices reflects poorly on the justices.
8. Comments
Gates v. Collier came to the Courts at a turbulent time in the history of American criminal
justice. The previousyearhadseenaviolentuprisinginAtticaCorrectional Facility,where an estimated
1,000 inmates demanding better living conditions and an end to a myriad of abuses rioted, taking 42
correctional officershostage,endinginthe deathof 10 civilianpersonnel and33 inmates.Itremainsone
of the most violent prison riots to date. 5 years prior, in 1967, a scathing report authored by President
LyndonJohnson’s CommissiononLawEnforcementandAdministrationof Justice declaredthat , “Life in
many institutions is at best barren and futile, at worst unspeakably brutal and degrading. . . . The
conditions in which they live are the poorest possible preparation for their successful re --entry into
society, and often merely reinforce in them a pattern of manipulation and destructiveness.”
Prisons seemed ripe for reform, and activists, emboldened by the clear need for change and
rulings such as this case, sought to create penal systems more focused on rehabilitation than simply
punishment.Theywouldgoonto advocate more educational andvocational training,more openprison
designs, andotherreformstomake correctional institutionsmore humane.Thisdreamhowever, would
be cut short by the electionof RonaldReagan.Asalaw andorder conservative,Reagan’s“waron drugs”
saw the introduction of harsh mandatory minimum sentences, an increase in the use of solitary
confinement,andarapidexpansionof prisonpopulations,especiallyinthe numberof African-American
males entering the system. Reform advocates were painted as “soft” on crime and as enablers of
criminal behavior, and this harsher, more punitive mentality took root in criminal justice policy.
The results of this thinking are easily seen today. The US leads the world in mass
incarceration.Prisonersare aginginprison,costingtaxpayersmore and more every year as their health

9. fails.Unrestandviolence,spurredbyovercrowdingandfrustrationbybothinmatesandstaff,continues
to plague many prisons. Of those who do finish their time, 68% return to prison within 3 years, a
numberwhichfareclipsesevenneighboringcountries’ recidivismrates. Ex-convicts enter into a society
whollyunwillingtoreintegratethem,sufferingjobdiscrimination,alienation,voterdisenfranchisement,
and a lifetime of ostracism as effective second-class citizens. Are these men and women, years after
Gates v.Collier,alsodeservingof humanrights ? Might we consider their legal status in today’s society
to be,echoingthe Courts’words,“sub-human”?Perhapswe oughttoconsiderthat,like Nazareth Gates
and his fellow inmates, these individuals deserve to be treated as citizens endowed with the same
constitutional protections and basic decency that those of us in the “free” world enjoy.