Texas seeks end to federal court oversight of prisons

NEW ORLEANS - Texas asked a federal appeals court Monday to free the state's prisons from 19 years of oversight by a judge, arguing that the once-hellish conditions behind bars have undergone ''amazing'' improvement.

The case stems from a 1972 lawsuit by inmate David Ruiz, who claimed that conditions in the Texas prison system were so brutal that they amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. U.S. District Judge William Wayne Justice agreed in 1981, and placed the system under his watch.

The state spent billions on new prisons and improvements, and most federal controls were lifted in 1992. Last year, Justice noted that Texas had made dramatic improvements but decided to retain oversight.

Texas has argued that 140,000-inmate system has been reformed, with new facilities, higher staffing levels and more training.

Arguments Monday before a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals centered on whether inmates are still largely at the mercy of predatory prisoners and whether guards use too much force.

Gregory Coleman, an assistant Texas attorney general, said that while there are still instances of inmate-on-inmate violence, the prison system has evolved into one of the country's safest.

During hearings last year, prisoners told of being sexually assaulted by other inmates. Justice later wrote that Texas inmates ''live in fear - a fear that is incomprehensible to most of the state's free-world citizens.''

''Sitting there listening to that testimony for a day or two is not a pleasant experience,'' Coleman said Monday. ''But it does not show a systemwide violation. Texas has done an amazing job of reducing violence.''

Donna Broby, a lawyer for the inmates, said that Texas prisoners have to go through four levels of officers before a complaint about violence is officially recorded, making the state's statistics worthless.

''We don't have good information about violence in the Texas prison system,'' she said.

Broby also said guards in Texas have a policy of ''force as a first resort.''

The court did not indicate when it would rule.