Part II
Constitutional Law of Corrections
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
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
Opening the Gates

As noted earlier, until the 1960s,
courts generally had a “hands-off”
attitude towards prisons and inmate
complaints
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
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”
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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”
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
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
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
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
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
Lewis v. Casey: cont’d


Supreme Court did not overrule Bounds,
just limited it
Court also emphasized the message of
deference to prison authorities
Murray v. Giarratano (1989)

Counsel need not be provided to
inmates in collateral attacks on their
sentences, even in death penalty cases
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
