Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections

1. Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections

2. Chapter 6 – Access to Courts • Introduction: Chapter looks at how inmates get into court to get their complaints heard • Amendments do not specifically provide this right • Yet, the courts, and most importantly, the Supreme Court, have found that inmates do have a right of access to the courts

3. Chapter Outline • Opening the Gates • Ex parte Hull • Johnson v. Avery • Shaw v. Murphy • Bounds v. Smith • Lewis v. Casey • Murray v. Giarratano • Wolff and Martinez • Frivolous Complaints and Frequent Filers

4. Opening the Gates • As noted earlier, until the 1960s, courts generally had a “hands-off” attitude towards prisons and inmate complaints

5. Pre-1960: Ex parte Hull (1941) • Michigan regulation required prison official to review inmate legal documents before inmate could send to court • U.S. Supreme Court (Court) struck down regulation – this is a leading decision for the principle that prison officials can’t screen, censor, or interfere with an inmate’s submissions to courts

6. Johnson v. Avery (1969) • Leading part of the abandonment of the “hands off” philosophy • Prison regulation barred one inmate from assisting another in preparing legal documents • Inmate was disciplined for violating this regulation • Such inmate assistance is commonly known as “jailhouse lawyering”

7. Johnson v. Avery : cont’d • Court noted, like in Hull, that inmates were to have access to courts to present complaints • Case based constitutionally on provision protecting the writ of habeas corpus (Article 1, Section 9)

8. Johnson v. Avery : cont’d • Court held unless State provided reasonable alternatives to help inmates prepare petitions for post-conviction relief, prison could not enforce regulation barring inmates from assisting other inmates

9. Shaw v. Murphy (2001) • Prison regulation barred inmates in separate housing locations from assisting one another • Inmate law clerk charged with, and found to have violated, prison regulation, including interference with due process hearings • Inmate sued, in part claiming violation of first amendment rights, including the right to provide other inmates with legal assistance

10. Shaw v. Murphy: cont’d • Court held that inmates do not have such a special 1st Amendment right • Cited Turner v. Safley (1987) standard – restrictions on inmate’s constitutional rights are allowed if reasonably related to legitimate penological objectives • Inmate not able to show prison regulations were unrelated to such objectives

11. Bounds v. Smith (1977) • Expanded Johnson v. Avery constitutional protections • Bounds – issue was whether States must protect inmates’ right of access to courts by providing law libraries or alternative sources of legal information

12. Bounds v. Smith: cont’d • In Bounds, lower court had found state did not provide assistance for inmates to prepare their petitions to the courts • District court required state to come up with a plan to ensure access to the courts • State responded with a plan to provide seven libraries in facilities around the state • Inmates objected to the plan, saying it did not go far enough

13. Bounds v. Smith: cont’d • District court approved the state plan, and held the state did not have to provide legal assistance in addition to the libraries • Appeals court affirmed district court, with one amendment to the state’s plan – that female inmates were to have access rights to library facilities similar to the men’s

14. Bounds v. Smith: cont’d • Supreme Court held that the “fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts requires prison authorities to assist inmates [in filing ‘meaningful’ legal papers] by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law”

15. Bounds v. Smith: cont’d • Law libraries not constitutionally required • Provided there is alternative means of adequate legal assistance • Court left decision of means to States

16. Bounds v. Smith: cont’d • Bounds seen as holding that access to courts is guaranteed for habeas corpus and also for civil rights (constitutional) complaints (Section 1983) • In practice, no distinction made in most prisons on inmate legal actions, even if not one of the above • Basis – improper for prison officials to scrutinize an inmate’s legal work or to interfere with an inmate’s legal mailings • Most prisons today have law library access

17. Lewis v. Casey (1996) • In Casey, the lower federal courts held that the Arizona Department of Corrections wasn’t meeting Bounds standards - said the Department was providing inadequate assistance • Supreme Court criticized lower courts for not deferring to the judgment of the prison officials regarding the type of law library and other legal assistance offered

18. Lewis v. Casey: cont’d • Court held lower court ruling on type of relief too broad based on limited number of inmate complaints • Court said record indicated only two inmates were shown to have been injured (by not getting their legal matters drafted or filed) • Court held only limited relief to address specific violations should have occurred, not a system-wide corrective plan

19. Lewis v. Casey: cont’d • Court, in Casey, limited the guidelines of Bounds • In Casey, Court held inmates’ rights to court access encompass • Direct appeals from their convictions • Habeas corpus actions, and • Section 1983 lawsuits • Court held the required assistance was that needed for initial preparation and filing, not for later litigating steps

20. Lewis v. Casey: cont’d • Supreme Court did not overrule Bounds, just limited it • Court also emphasized the message of deference to prison authorities

21. Murray v. Giarratano (1989) • Counsel need not be provided to inmates in collateral attacks on their sentences, even in death penalty cases

22. Wolff (1974) and Martinez (1974) • Cases deal with attorney-client (inmate) contacts • Must be a balance between • Government’s need for proper oversight of inmate activities, including legal ones, for the security and the orderly running of the institution, and • The needs of the attorney and inmate to have adequately and specially protected opportunities for communications (phone, visits, and mail)

23. Wolff and Martinez: cont’d • Wolff primarily prison discipline case, but one part of decision governed inspection of attorney mail sent to inmates • Nebraska regulation provided for inmate legal mail to be opened (not read) and inspected for contraband • Had to occur in the presence of the inmate

24. Wolff and Martinez : cont’d • Court held attorney mail required more protection than ordinary mail • When mail is identified on the envelope as attorney mail, the Court approved the mail being opened and inspected (not read) in presence of the inmate • Serves prison security concerns • Protects confidentiality of mail contents

25. Wolff and Martinez : cont’d • Martinez primarily dealt with inmate mail restrictions, but also addressed attorney visits • The issue was whether it was permissible for California to restrict attorney visiting privileges to members of the bar and licensed private investigators

26. Wolff and Martinez : cont’d • Lower court ruled that the regulation was an “unjustifiable restriction on the right of access to the courts” • Supreme Court agreed but recognized that any requested practice must be weighed against legitimate penal interests

27. Wolff and Martinez : cont’d • As a result, today prisons allow paralegals and law students, as well as other professional assistants, to have legal visits in the same manner as attorneys • Attorney must identify the person who is to have the visit, and the attorney is responsible for supervising the work (and professional behavior) of the assistant

28. Frivolous Complaints and Frequent Filers • Inmates clearly have right of access to courts, but what about inmates who abuse • Recent legislative actions (for example, the PLRA) and court interpretations have led to procedures to prevent such abuse • Inmates pay filing fees • Dismissal by court of frivolous claims • “Three strikes” provisions