Professor Miller – Prisoner Law
HISTORY OF PRISONERS’ RIGHTS
Ruffin v. The Commonwealth
FACTS: Ruffin was an inmate who killed a corrections officer while in Bath county but
he was tried, and found guilty, in Richmond. There was a statute that “all prisoner trials
be held within Richmond.” Ruffin appealed that his state constitutional rights were
violated by not being tried by an impartial jury of “his vicinage.”
ISSUE: What are the rights of Prisoners?
HOLDING: Prisoners have NO rights. They are a slave of the state. (The U.S. view of
Prisoner rights in the 1800’s)
REASONING: Bill of rights is for freemen and prisoners, while having some rights, do
not have all the same rights as freemen. Ruffin is in the state of “penal servitude.”
Professor Miller paraphrases and says, “anything beyond your life itself is a privilege.”
RULE: Prisoners are subject to the regulations of the institutions of which they are
inmates.
Siegel v. Ragen
FACTS: P’s are all inmates of State penitentiaries who allege that their rights granted
under the 8th and 14th amendments, and the Civil Rights Act (CRA), have been violated.
ISSUE: Do the P’s fall under the jurisdiction of the aforementioned amendments?
HOLDING: Yes, BUT their conditions are issues for the prison administrators to deal
with not the courts. (The “Hands-Off” Doctrine was the U.S. view of Prisoner rights in
the early to mid 1900’s.)
REASONING: The fact that P’s are incarcerated in a penitentiary does not deprive them
of the right to invoke the provisions of the Civil Rights Act, since that Act applies to any
person within the jurisdiction of the United States. All the matters in the complaint are
not issues of life or death or even serious bodily injury and therefore are matters of
internal administration.
RULE: The Court will protect State prisoners from death or serious bodily harm in the
hands of prison authorities, but is not prepared to establish itself as a “co-administrator”
of State prisons.
U.S. v. Ragen
FACTS: P brings suit under CRA that he was cruelly and violently beaten and assaulted
by D.
ISSUE: Can the Courts do anything to help the little whiny bitch, Ragen?
HOLDING: No, it is a state issue.
REASONING: There is no power for the Courts to exercise supervision over the states
regulation of its penitentiaries.
RULE: This continued the Hands-Off doctrine.
- In Screws v. U.S., A guard beat a black prisoner to death and was acquitted because he
did not intend to deprive him of his civil rights but rather he only wanted to kill him.
WTF!? Screws went on to get elected to public office.
- The Warren court granted more rights to Prisoners
1
- PLRA (1995) – Punished prisoners for bringing too many claims.
MAIL/CORRESPONDANCE AND PRISONERS’ RIGHTS
Morales v. Schmidt
ISSUE: Can a correctional officer prevent a prisoner from corresponding with his wife’s
sister?
2/22/06:
MAIL/CORRESPONDANCE AND PRISONERS’ RIGHTS
- Important landmarks that relate to Prisoner rights (see below)
- Bill of Rights (Amendments I – X) enacted in 1791
- Civil Rights Act (CRA) of 1871
- 14th Amendment, Section 1: Due Process clause “All persons born in the United States
and citizens thereof were afforded the rights of” Equal protection of the laws
- The Slaughterhouse Cases: the Supreme Court read these cases narrowly to construe the
14th Amendment.
1. its limitations of the Privileges and Immunities Clause to rights distinctive to
national citizenship (such as interstate travel) rejected the intent of the
Amendment’s Framers to protect civil rights such as the right to hold property.
- Slaughter-House Cases (1873) PG 421
Facts: New Orleans wanted to give a monopoly of slaughterhouses to a particular
company. The Ct held that the monopoly did not violate the due process clause.
Importance:
1. Narrow interpretation of privilege and immunity clause; it only protects citizens of
the US not of individual states. Privileges and immunities of state citizens are left to
the state for protection.
- The original intent of the 14th Amendment was to assure racial equality and freedom to
blacks.
- Court’s early view (1800’s) of Prisoner rights were that there were none (Slave of the
state)
- Court’s later view (early to mid 1900’s) was that prisoner rights were issues of state
matters, not federal
- It wasn’t until the Warren court that the 14th Amendment was applied as it was
intended; this was when the bill of rights were incorporated into the 14th Amendment
Procunier v. Martinez
FACTS: Class Action for prisoners brought against Procunier (Director of the California
Department of Corrections) challenging the rules strictly regulating Prisoner mail.
ISSUE: Can prisons regulate prisoners’ mails in this way?
HOLDING: No, they need to establish “minimum procedural safeguards.”
REASONING: Regulations fairly invited prison officials to apply their own standards.
Prisoners’ rights to their mail are grounded in the 1st Amendment and are protected from
“arbitrary governmental invasion.”
2
RULE: There should be a system where inmates are notified of a letter rejection, the
author of the letter be given a chance to protest that decision and the complaints be
referred to a prison official other than the one who originally rejected the
correspondence..
Pell v. Procunier
FACTS: 4 California prison inmates and 3 journalists filed a §1981 suit challenging the
constitutionality of a regulation promulgated by the California Department of Corrections
that prohibited prisoners from making face-to-face interviews with individuals inmates of
their choice. The prison was seeking to prevent incarcerated gang members from still
holding sway in the criminal community.
ISSUE: Is it Constitutional to prohibit prisoners from conducting one-on-one interviews
with the media?
HOLDING: Yes
REASONING: There are other methods of communication and this regulation was
content-neutral. The burden on the prisoners was outweighed by the governmental
interests.
Bell v. Wolfish
FACTS: “Publisher-only” rule permitted inmates to receive books and magazines from
outside the institution only if the materials were mailed directly from the publisher or a
book club. The prison was concerned about safety & contraband (which could be sealed
within the book, drugs, weapons, etc.).
ISSUE: Does this policy violate the 1st Amendment rights of prisoners?
HOLDING: No
REASONING: Rule operates in a neutral fashion and is not particularly restrictive on the
reading material that prisoners can obtain.
Turner v. Safley (1987)
FACTS: Coed – facility with both male and female prisoners. Two regulations are at
issue here: (1) regulating correspondence (2) regulating marriage between prisoners
ISSUE: Do these 2 regulations violate the 1st Amendment rights of prisoners?
HOLDING: No for correspondence and ?? for marriage
REASONING: Prohibition on correspondence is reasonably related to valid correctional
goals.
- (Turner) (1) 1st Amendment: Rights of prisoners get “rational basis” standard,
“reasonable” (2) applies reasonableness standard to all impingements on prisoners
constitutional rights
2-27-06:
VISITATION RIGHTS AND PRISONERS
- Doyle:
- internal balance
- prisoners have all the rights
3
- people on the outside
- subject to lpos
- “accommodating” private rights
Block v. Rutherford (1984)
FACTS: Pre-trial detainees sue for Central Jail policy of denying pretrial detainees
contact with their spouses, relatives, children and friends.
ISSUE: Whether pretrial detainees have a right guaranteed by the United States
Constitution to contact visits?
HOLDING: No, the Constitution does not require that detainees be allowed contact
visits when responsible, experienced administrators have determined, in their sound
discretion, that such visits will jeopardize the security of the facility.
REASONING: There is a valid, rational connection between a ban on contact visits and
internal security of a detention facility is too obvious to warrant external discussion.
Contact visits invite a host of security problems.
Overton v. Bazetta (2003)
FACTS: The State of Michigan, by regulations, places certain restrictions on visits with
prison inmates.
ISSUE: Whether the regulations violate the substantive due process mandate of the 14th
Amendment or the 1st or 8th Amendments as applicable to the States through the 14th
Amendment.
HOLDING: No
REASONING: The restriction undoubtedly makes the prisoner’s confinement more
difficult to bear but it does not fall below the standards of the above mentioned
amendments. This is not a dramatic departure from accepted standards for conditions of
confinement.
3-1-06:
VISITATION RIGHTS AND PRISONERS
- It’s a jail not a prison: This is why pretrial detainees automatically go to the necessary
and proper (?? not sure this is what she said ??) clause of the Constitution.
Cooper v. Morin (1979)
FACTS: Monroe county jail has very limited visitation rights for its inmates which
happed to be about 90% pretrial detainees
ISSUE: Whether a pretrial detainee has a right to contact visitation with her family.
Whether such a visit may be limited to 10 minutes and whether the penalties imposed for
infraction of rules for behavior of jail inmates must be related to particular offenses.
HOLDING: Pretrial detainees ARE entitled to contact visits of reasonable duration as a
matter of State, though not Federal constitutional right, but ARE NOT entitled to a
revision of the jail system of discipline under either the Federal or State constitution.
REASONING: A balancing act is required of the harm to the individual versus the
benefit the Government is trying to obtain.
4
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: RELIGION AND PRISONERS
Stovall v. Bennett
FACTS: Prisoners wanted to start a Mormon religion service in their prison. The prison
Chaplain, Weber, refused their request claiming that they only wanted to start a “white
man’s religion” similar to black Muslims. Weber verbally threatened the prisoners who
sought Mormonism with punitive actions.
ISSUE: Were there 1st amendment rights violated?
HOLDING: Yes
REASONING: Weber’s statement was intimidation.
O’lone v. Estate of Shabaz
FACTS: Muslim prisoners challenged a policy which prevented them from attending a
weekly Muslim congregational service. The reason behind the policy was that there were
security risks in returning prisoners from day work.
ISSUE: Does this policy violate the 1st amendment?
HOLDING: No
REASONING: The regulations alleged to infringe constitutional rights were reasonably
related to legitimate penological objectives.
3-6-06:
- Sherbert v. Vemer (US - 1963) – balancing test/CSI +LRM (burden of gov’t)
Stovall v. Bennett (Ala. 1979)
Truer v. Safley (US 1987)
O’lone v. Shabazz (US 1987)
- Employment Division v. Smith (US 1990)
@ RFRAF 1993
Alameen (EDNY 1995)
Brimeyer (8th Cir. 1997)
@ RLUIPA of 2000
- Cutter v. Wilkenson (2005)
- Free exercise/establishment of religion from Constitution
- Exercise of religion is permitted so long as it doesn’t contradict penological objectives
- Religious adherence v. everybody else (neutral? Generally applicable? Incidental
burden of free exercise?)
- US S.Ct: Generally applicable laws + incidental burden are okay
- RFRA – Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993
Alameen v. Coughlin:
FACTS: Sufi Muslim state inmates brought action challenging correctional facility
policy prohibiting display of black dhikr beads to aid in reciting or recalling the names of
Allah.
ISSUE: Is this policy allowed?
HOLDING: No
5
REASONING: RFRA requires the policy serve compelling interests. The inmates
demonstrated that the policy imposed substantial burden on their religious practice. The
prison’s argument that the beads can be used for gang identification did not satisfy that
the ban on the beads was the least restrictive alternative. BUT neither the 1st or 14th
Amendment provides the inmates with any opportunity for relief.
Williams v. Brimeyer(1997):
FACTS: Williams brought action against prison officials when he was denied mail from
a white supremacists group.
ISSUE: Is this blanket ban allowed?
HOLDING: No
REASONING: Even though material expressed racist and separatist views, they did not
counsel violence and there was no evidence they ever caused disruption.
3-8-06:
- Will national security become an even bigger priority than internal security?
- When reading cases; you should be looking for if it’s “get tough” language or what type
it actually is.
- Grievous loss:
3-22-06:
- Procedural due process is not an affirmative right, does not compel you to do
something, but rather gives you a process.
- Answer question (Wolff case):
- What is the type of liberty interest involved? Good time credits
- What is source of protection for that liberty? Due process from state statute
§1983
- What is the legal standard? (test or consideration of DP) From MorrisseyScarpelli: 2 procedures that need to be extended (advanced written notice & written
statement)
- What is the extent of deviation from the preceding standard? Urged to follow
these 2 procedures
- Policy concerns? Yeah yeah YEAH!!
- Meecham: No 14th amendment liberty interest involved in a transfer
- Hewitt: Inmate wanted to stay in general population
-
Wolff v. McDonnell
FACTS: An inmate filed a class action suit under § 1983 claiming that disciplinary
proceedings at the prison failed to conform to the requirements of due process of law.
ISSUE: Was P’s due process rights violated?
HOLDING: The procedures required represent a reasonable accommodation between the
interests of the inmates and the needs of the institution.
Related Issues: That actual restoration of good-time credits could not be ordered in civil
rights action, but that declaratory judgment with respect to procedures for imposing loss
6
of good-time, as a predicate to a damage award, would not be barred; that due process
required that prisoners in procedure resulting in loss of good-time or in imposition of
solitary confinement be afforded advance written notice of claimed violation, written
statement of fact findings, and right to call witnesses and present documentary evidence
where such would not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals;
that confrontation, cross-examination and counsel were not constitutionally required; that
due process requirements were not to be applied retroactively so as to require that prison
records containing determinations of misconduct not in accord with required procedures
be expunged; that mail from attorneys to inmates could be opened by prison officials in
the presence of the inmates; and that in considering adequacy of legal assistance available
to inmates, it was necessary that capacity of the single legal advisor appointed by the
warden be assessed in the light of demand for assistance in civil rights actions as well as
in the preparation of habeas writs. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
3/27/06:
- FOR ASSIGNMENT: Bring in the law and show that you know the issues but don’t
answer it as an issue-spotting question.
Jackson v. Bishop
FACTS: Actions by Arkansas prisoners for, inter alia, injunction against use of strap as
disciplinary measure. The United States District Court granted relief to extent of
enjoining use of strap until its use should be surrounded with proper and adequate
safeguards, and petitioners appealed.
ISSUE: Can Prison guards spank the inmates with a strap?
HOLDING: The Court of Appeals, Blackmun, Circuit Judge, held that any use of strap,
since cruel, violated prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Decree vacated and
case remanded with direction.
Whitley v. Albers
FACTS: Prisoner shot in leg during quelling of prison riot brought section 1983 action
against prison officials, alleging violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. The United
States District Court directed verdict in favor of prison officials, but the United States
Court of Appeals reversed in part.
ISSUE: Is it okay to shoot someone during a riot?
HOLDING: On grant of certiorari, the United States Supreme Court, Justice O'Connor,
held that: (1) infliction of pain in course of prison security measure was Eighth
Amendment violation only if inflicted unnecessarily and wantonly, and (2) shooting of
prisoner during quelling of riot, without prior verbal warning, did not violate prisoner's
right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Reversed.
Hudson v. McMillian (1992)
FACTS: Prisoner brought federal rights suit, alleging his Eighth Amendment rights were
violated by beating he received from state correctional officers. The United States
District Court entered judgment in favor of prisoner, and correctional officers appealed.
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that prisoner had no claim
7
because his injuries were minor and required no medical attention. Prisoner petitioned for
certiorari.
ISSUE: Can you beat the poop out of prisoners?
HOLDING: The Supreme Court, Justice O'Connor, held that use of excessive physical
force against prisoner may constitute cruel and unusual punishment even though prisoner
does not suffer serious injury.
Judgment of Court of Appeals reversed.
3-29-06:
Wilson v. Seiter
FACTS: Prisoners brought action against prison officials alleging cruel and unusual
punishment. The United States District Court granted officials' motion for summary
judgment and prisoners appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
ISSUE: Whether a prisoner claiming that conditions of confinement constitute cruel and
unusual punishment must show a culpable state of mind on the part of the prison officials.
HOLDING: The Supreme Court held that prisoners claiming that conditions of
confinement constituted cruel and unusual punishment were required to show deliberate
indifference on part of prison officials.
Helling v. McKinney
FACTS: Prisoner brought civil rights action against prison officials, alleging violation of
Eighth Amendment due to his exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS).
ISSUE: Whether the health risk posed by involuntary exposure of a prison inmate to
environmental tobacco smoke can form the basis of a claim for relief under the 8th
Amendment.
HOLDING: The Supreme Court held that: (1) prisoner's Eighth Amendment claim could
be based upon possible future harm to health, as well as present harm, arising out of
exposure to ETS; (2) prisoner stated cause of action for violation of his Eighth
Amendment rights; and (3) on remand consideration must be given to circumstances in
prisoner's new prison location, including nonsmoking policies, in determining whether
objective element of Eighth Amendment claim, exposure to excessive ETS, and
subjective element, deliberate indifference to prisoner's situation, were still present.
4/3/06:
- Different types of Prison searches: Body cavity (inmate naked), strip searches (squat &
cough), clothed body searches, pat searches, cell “shake down” search, visual
surveillance (showering, toiletries, undressing)
- 4th Amendment privacy, 8gth Amendment CU&P (consistent with LPO?), u + WIPP
emotional pain, 1st Amendment (religion)
- Relation between searches and sexual abuse
- Consent?
- Title VII – BFOQ
- p. 573, “4th Amendment has no applicability to a prison cell”
8
4/5/06:
- Custodial Sexual Misconduct & Prisoner-on-Prisoner rape
- take note of dothard, Hudson and gardner in relation to this subject
- major amendments involved in this subject 4th (unwanted search and seizures unreasonable) & 8th (cruel and unusual punishment – pain!)
- Never been a US Supreme Court Decision on cross-sex searches
- Would prisoner-on-prisoner rape be reduced if there were greater privacy?
- Is there a penological purpose served by prisoner-on-prisoner rape? It keeps the prisoner
settled down because they’re not sexually frustrated.
- Wolves/Daddies/Jockers/Men (penetrators)
- Homosexuals
- Bottoms/Queens/Fags/Punks/Pussies (penetrated)
- Prison Rape Elimination Act: (2003) Major provisions of PREA (P.L. 108-79) include:
(1) Development of standards for detection, prevention, reduction, and punishment
of prison rape; (2) Collection and dissemination of information on the incidence of
prison rape; and (3) Award of grant funds to help state and local governments
implement the purposes of the Act. The Act applies to all public and private institutions
that house adult or juvenile offenders and is also relevant to community-based agencies.
- How do courts deal with liability on the part of correction officials?
- For there to be an 8th amendment violation, there needs to objective risk and subjective
knowledge and risk
Farmer v. Brennan
FACTS: Farmer, an aspiring transsexual, sought medical treatment to complete his
transformation into a woman (he was about ½ way there). Farmer was beaten and raped
by other inmates after being placed in the general population. He brought suit alleging a
violation of the 8th amendment (cruel & unusual punishment). Prisoner who was
transsexual brought Bivens suit against prison officials, claiming that officials showed
"deliberate indifference" by placing prisoner in general prison population, thus failing to
keep him from harm allegedly inflicted by other inmates.
ISSUE: Was the 8th amendment violated?
HOLDING: The Supreme Court held that: (1) prison officials may be held liable
under Eighth Amendment for denying humane conditions of confinement only if
they know that inmates face substantial risk of serious harm and disregard that risk
by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it, and (2) remand would be
required to determine whether prison officials would have liability, under above
standards, for not preventing harm allegedly occurring in present case. Vacated and
remanded.
4-10-06:
- Is there a counter-argument to be made that prisoners don’t get the same level of care
that civilians get?
- legal standards for prisoner medical care:
- 8th Amendment proscribes U & WIP = “deliberate indifference to the serious medical
needs of prisoners”
- DI = recklessness, more than negligence
9
- Whose indifference?
Estelle v. Gamble
FACTS: State prisoner filed a pro se complaint against various prison officials under
civil rights statute for failure to provide adequate medical care. The United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, at Houston, dismissed the cause and the prisoner
appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed and
remanded, and denied rehearing en banc.
ISSUE: Under respondant’s 1983 complaint, did petioners subject him to cruel and
unusual punishment in violation of the 8th amendment?
HOLDING: The Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Marshall, J., held, inter alia, that while
deliberate indifference to prisoner's serious illness or injury constitutes cruel and
unusual punishment in violation of Eighth Amendment, prisoner's pro se complaint
showing that he had been seen and treated by medical personnel on 17 occasions within
three-month period was insufficient to state a cause of action against physician both in his
capacity as treating physician and as medical director of the corrections department, but
case would be remanded to consider whether a cause of action was stated against other
prison officials. Reversed and remanded.
4-12-06:
- Guest speaker
4-17-06:
- Shackling pregnant women prisoners during birth – is it necessary? Most of use would
say no and the article leans toward better security outside of the room which would have
the same effect. The shackling also can cause blood clots or other serious medical
problems.
- FOR FINAL PAPER; DISCUSS THE POLICIES, LEGAL ISSUES AND
POLICY ISSUES in depth!
4-19-06:
ENEMY COMBATANTS
- Differences between Enemy Combatants and regular prisons: Citizens vs. non-Citizens
(application of US Constitution)
- Due process, Habeas Corpus, Afforded a right to a hearing with an impartial jury
- US vs. extraterritorial prisons (also military prisons)
- Military vs. Criminal detention
- Enemy Combatants can be detained until the cessation of hostilities – what does the
cessation of hostility means? When will it end?
- Enemy Combatant – need to be picked up in the heat of battle? Is that true? Know-it-all
law student says so.
- Sources of law: International Humanitarian law – law of war
- These individuals are not subject under the Geneva Convention
- SC ruled that cannot suspend writ of habeas corpus and that combatants should receive
a trial by some neutral decision making
10
- Congress passed a detainee act in 2004 that would restrict their rights to legal
challenges
- Treatment at Abu Gharib is routine in US
- Graner had a poor record in the past as a CO
- Lane McCotter, Civilian Administrator who had a checkered past as an official helped
to officially start Abu Gharib
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
FACTS: Yaser Esam Hamdi, a Louisiana-born Saudi-American, was seized in
Afghanistan; the government says he was fighting with the Taliban. The United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., said the military has the right
to keep him indefinitely without access to a federal court.
ISSUE: Can U.S. citizens, seized overseas during military operations, be held without
access to American courts?
HOLDING: No
RULING: Mr. Hamdi has the right to use American courts to argue that he is being held
illegally. His case now returns to a lower court.
Rasul v. Bush and Al Odah v. United States(2004)
FACTS: Sixteen detainees of various nationalities, seized in Afghanistan and Pakistan
during operations against the Taliban in late 2001 and 2002, claimed they have the right
to access to federal courts. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit said federal courts do not have jurisdiction over them.
ISSUE: Can non-citizens, seized during military operations, be held without access to
American courts?
HOLDING: No
RULE: Detainees at Guantanamo Bay have the right to use American courts to
argue that they are being held illegally.
Rumsfeld v. Padilla
FACTS: Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen, was arrested in Chicago on suspicion of plotting to
detonate a radioactive device. He was transferred to military custody and has not been
criminally charged. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New
York, found his detention unconstitutional.
ISSUE: Can a U.S. citizen designated as an enemy combatant be detained without access
to a federal court?
HOLDING: Not Decided
RULE: Mr. Padilla should have sought release from the Federal District Court in South
Carolina, where he is being held, instead of from a court in New York. Mr. Padilla must
refile his challenge in South Carolina.
- For exam, you will get 3 different questions: First one will be a fact pattern and you are
to write a court opinion from 3 different time periods, so understand the distinction
between the different eras/approaches to prisoner rights
- There will also be a straight issue-spotter type question using current law
- She’s not sure about 3rd
11
5-1-06:
- Recidivism is up about 60%
- Today, we are talking about Immigrants and prison policy
- Typical path for a hypothetical case: Lakeview Shock to the Buffalo Federal Detention
Center to Mexico
- Criminal Aliens v. Illegal Aliens
- 3 Categories of deportations:
- Extended border enforcement (excludable) – plenary power
- National security (terror suspects)
- Illegal aliens (due to criminal convictions)
- What are the practical problems that occur when you’re deporting criminals? The
country of origin does not want them back.
12