Government opposes Texas on prison case By PAUL WEST Washington Bureau WASHINGTON — In its first for- mal response to this week's Supreme Court ruling, the Justice Department said Friday that the court's approval of two prisoners per cell in Ohio has no direct bearing on the issue of crowded conditions at the Texas De- partment of Corrections in Huntsville. And despite Gov. William P. Cle- ments' plea to Attorney General Wil- liam French Smith that the Reagan administration join Texas' request for a delay, the Justice Department for- mally opposed a stay in implementa- tion of a federal judge's order against the state prison system. At the same time, the Justice De- partment appeared willing to give in to Texas on several relatively minor points and suggested that the case be sent back to federal district court in East Texas for further hearings. In a 34-page brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Or- ..leans, the Justice Department said: "A comparison of the conditions of confinement within TDC (Texas Department of Corrections) to those within SOCF (the Southern Ohio Correction- al Facility) reveals that the institutions are quite different in many respects." In the Ohio case, decided by the Supreme Court, "it appears that the only serious complaint of the inmates was that they were confined two to a cell," said the Justice Department. "In contrast, the trial judge in the (Texas) case found pervasive con- stitutional violations throughout the prison system." Texas Attorney General Mark White had asked the appeals court to delay implementation of U.S. District Judge William Wayne Justice's solu- tion to the Texas prison crowding until the appeals court had a chance to rule. Among other things, Judge Justice has ordered that no more than half of Texas' prisoners be doubled up in cells of 60 square feet or less by Aug. 1, 1982. A delay of that portion of the Texas judge's order is unwarranted, the Justice Department ar- gued. It said that the Supreme Court, in ruling on the Ohio case on Monday, found no evidence that crowded cells by themselves produced greater pris- on violence, but in Texas overcrowding has been shown to contribute to brutality and violence by inmates against their cellmates. At the same time, the federal government said that in light of recent measures passed by the Leg- islature increasing spending for the prisons and oth- er new information, it would have no objection to the Texas case being sent back to Judge Justice for further hearings. Because of the official state Juneteenth holi- day, lawyers at the Texas attorney general's office could not be reached for comment. In a policy shift, the federal government indi- cated a willingness to give in to Texas officials on several points. For the first time, the Justice De- partment formally questioned Judge Justice's au- thority to require a sweeping reorganization of Tex- as facilities, including reducing the size of units and decentralizing prison administration. Echoing President Reagan's conservative phi- losophy of government, the Justice Department stated: "The size and managerial organization of state prison systems would appear to be matters that are best left to those charged with the respon- sibility for running the system." The Justice Department also indicated agree- ment with the state's request for delays in imple- menting portions of the lower court order dealing with construction of new prison facilities and con- tinued use of the Huntsville Unit hospital. The fed- eral government praised the state's "good faith ef- forts" in improving the quality of health care at Huntsville since the trial. State attorneys filed their request for a stay on June 1, calling Judge Justice's solution to prison problems "ill-conceived approaches of highly ques- tionable validity." They claimed the court order would have "catastrophic consequences for TDC management and institutional security and order." In its response Friday, the Justice Department said the state failed to meet appeals court guidelines for a stay, generally granted only as an extraordi- nary remedy. The Justice Department said the state was un- able to prove that any of the findings in Judge Justice's December 1980 opinion were clearly erro- neous. It said additional information provided by the state claiming that the order would be harmful to the prison system should first be considered by the district court.