Source
Automatically imported from: http://commons.somewhere.com:80/rre/1998/Prison.Law.book.ban.html
Content
This web service brought to you by Somewhere.Com, LLC.
Prison Law book ban
``` [Although I believe that people who commit crimes should repent and do their time, no decent human being who has been reading the newspapers lately in California can deny the importance of giving state prisoners effective access to a law library.]
---
This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help@weber.ucsd.edu
---
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 21:44:59 +0000 From: leslie36@ix.netcom.com Sender: owner-prisonact-list@igc.org Organization: Prison Activist Resource Center Subject: Prison Law book ban
Prison Law Libraries
The Need for Legislative Action
--------------------------------------------------------- The California Department of Corrections has proposed new regulations to limit prisoners' access to law libraries. At the same time, they have announced plans to eliminate the published case decisions from the law libraries. These two actions signal the need for legislative oversight.
In response to this situation, State Senator John Vasconcellos introduced SB 2059, which would amend Penal Code section 2601 to provide for the right of reasonable access to a law library, include case reporters. Hearings on the bill will be held in Sacramento on April 14, 1998.
Background
Prisoners have very real legal needs. There are obvious needs relating to criminal convictions. There are also needs focusing on the conditions they face while incarcerated. Prisoners may be forced to seek help from the courts to get adequate medical c are; to obtain protection from assault by staff or by other prisoners; or, to deal with a range of conditions of confinement. They may need to address any number of civil issues, such as workers compensation, the preparation of a will, parental rights, o r the defense of a civil lawsuit.
Most prisoners in California are on their own in meeting legal needs. After the direct appeal of their criminal convictions in state court, they have no right to counsel should they seek federal review. There is also no right of counsel in most civil act ions. Nonprofit offices, such as the Prison Law Office, can only address a fraction of the issues presented to them.
Because most prisoners cannot afford to hire counsel, they depend upon the prison law library as the means to research these issues. The law library has been regarded as a lifeline to the courts -- something that is the right upon which all other rights depend. Toussaint v. McCarthy, 926 F.2d 800 (9th Cir. 1990).
In many cases, prisoners have used the knowledge gained in law libraries effectively. The Attorney General points to frivolous cases filed by prisoners -- such as a lawsuit brought by a prisoner alleging that the state put implants in his brain (an actio n that says more about mental health care than it does about the legal system). But nonfrivolous caseshave resulted in important decisions affecting prisoners and society as a whole.
Over 30 years ago, a prisoner submitted a handwritten petition to the US Supreme Court. The resulting suit, Gideon v. Wainwright, secured the right of counsel for indigent defendants, something that is now regarded as a hallmark of our legal syste m.
Closer to home, prisoners in California's "super-maximum" Pelican Bay filed numerous suits on their own alleging excessive force and lack of medical or mental health care. Eventually a federal court found a pervasive pattern of brutality -- including sho otings, one prisoner being boiled alive, other prisoners hog-tied for hours in their cell. It found problems with medical and mental health care, and a system that drove some prisoners past the brink of sanity. It ordered significant changes throughout the prison. Madrid v. Gomez, 889 F.Supp. 1146 (N.D. Cal. 1995.)
An action filed by a prisoner forced the state legislature to abide by the single subject rule when it sought to limit visiting rights in a budget bill. Another prisoner brought suit on his own after San Quentin prevented him from receiving a copy of the constitution provided by the state of California -- a suit that resulted in the court striking down the prison procedures. Law libraries were essential to these actions and provided an important safeguard in the face of arbitrary or unlawful state action s.
In 1996, the United States Supreme Court overturned a very broad injunction governing law library access, an injunction that went beyond most established constitutional standards. In so doing, it held that prisoners had no constitutional right to bring a ctions outside of challenges to their conviction or conditions of confinement. It held that prisoners must show that denial of law library access caused them actual injury in these cases. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. ___, 135 L.Ed.2d 606, 116 S.Ct. 2174 (1996).
The Department of Corrections has used Lewis to introduce a number of proposed changes to law library regulations. The propsed changes underscore the need for legislation to protect access to an adequate law library.
Law Library Books
In 1966, prisoners filed suit alleging that the lack of law library materials, in particular the published decisions of the state and federal courts violated constitutional rights of access to court. Four years later, they won.
In Gilmore v. Lynch, 319 F.Supp. 105 (1970), a three-judge panel of the federal district court held that case reporters were fundamental to any legal research. It pointed out that before a prisoner files an action, he or she must know the court ru les, must know what constitutes valid grounds for an action, and must know which facts are legally significant to the court. This information can only be obtained if one has access to case decisions.
This injunction provided law library books throughout the prison system. However, in 1997, the State brought an action to terminate the injunction under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).
Prisoners pointed to a secret memorandum that outlined plans to remove federal and state court decisions from the law libraries. They argued that without these reporters, a prisoner could not bring or defend a court action. The cour t held that because law library books were still being provided under the Gilmore injunction, prisoners had not yet suffered actual injury -- the threat of injury was too "abstract" to justify continuing relief under the PLRA. This order has now b een stayed pending appeal.
The threat of actual injury that was judged to be too abstract will become real and concrete should the books actually be removed. The lack of law library books has been judged unconstitutional in the past and there is every reason to believe that it wil l be judged unconstitutional again once this hurdle is met. Yet, there is no reason why prisoners should suffer such injury or the State exposed to such liability when Legislative action is available to resolve the issue.
Regulations
In 1997, Department of Corrections proposed regulations to limit prisoners' access to law libraries. (Notice of Rule Change, No. 97/07.)
The proposed rules would limit law library access to two hours every ten days -- a restriction that would make it very difficult for a trained lawyer to file or defend an action, let alone an indigent prisoner who has little knowledge of the law. Althoug h courts have recognized the importance of "jailhouse lawyers" in providing assistance to other prisoners with legal needs, the regulations would seemingly make it impossible for such assistance to continue.
The proposed regulations also provide that there is no obligation for law library access past the "initial pleading." As defined in the rules, an initial pleading would not include summary judgment motions, which are commonly brought by the State in priso ner cases. The rules would leave prisoners with the ability to bring an action to the court door, but unable to defend an action once it is there.
In an unpublished decision, a federal district court recently castigated the state attorney general's office for making inaccurate arguments that are difficult for prisoners to respond to -- that problem is sure to increase if the prisoner has no access t o a law library.
The Importance of Legislative Action
Several years ago, a state court of appeal observed that we have required prisoners to abide by the law, and it is important that we keep faith in return. In re Monigold, 205 Cal.App.3d 1225, 1229 (1988). The State has told prisoners that they sho uld follow the law and punished them because they did not do so. Yet, it appears that it seeks to effectively deny them access to the law. This is fundamentally unfair and is certain to increase tensions in the prison system.
If prisoners do not have the ability to know the law and to seek redress for their grievances, then some may feel that their only recourse is to take action outside of the law. New York learned that lesson after the Attica riots and established a legal s ervices office to assist prisoners. Ensuring access to an adequate law library would be a minimal step that the Legislature could take to maintain respect for the legal system.
Without access to an adequate law library, prisoners who seek to bring an action will be left to their own devices. This can only increase the number of frivolous suits. Apart from the higher court costs, the consequences of this to prisoners are enormo us. The PLRA mandates a court to dismiss any civil rights action if a prisoner has brought three previous suits that have been dismissed. Thus, some prisoners may find themselves with no means to bring claims to court.
The law library restrictions should be seen in the context of the prison industry as a whole. A few years ago, the California Department of Corrections enacted regulations to reduce media access. When the Department cut back on media access, they acknow ledged that overcrowding, inexperienced officers, and other problems have created tensions in the prison system. The law library restrictions are yet another means to reduce oversight in the face of these problems.
The Department's actions are also part of a series of restrictions that have imposed tighter grooming standards, reduced family visits, and banned recreational weights. Restricting the rights of prisoners is an easy means of appearing to be tough on crim e and reducing budget requests. Yet, it is not cost effective in the long run as prisoners return to society.
The Legislative Analyst's Office and the Little Hoover Commission have both stressed the need to increase programs that can help prisoners become responsible citizens. Removing law library books and law library access will further erode that process. Leg islative action is needed.
---
4-08-98 Return to Main Page
+-+ sent by the Prison Activist List
To unsubscribe, send email to
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. ```
This web service brought to you by Somewhere.Com, LLC.