Penology, CJ 207
Chapter 11
Corrections Law and
Inmate Litigation
1
Objectives
• Objectives
– Provide a brief history of inmate litigation
– Illustrate some case law dealing with probation and
parole
– Understand the range of issues presented in inmate
lawsuits
– Show the legal dimensions of the death penalty
– Anticipate some future issues that may arise in
correctional law
2
Introduction
• Introduction
– Prisons have traditionally been closed systems
– It has been difficult for the outside world to learn
about conditions inside the prison
– This is partly because of there geographic isolation
– Moreover the public really didn’t want to know
about what went on inside prisons
3
Introduction
• The Change
– The Attica Prison Riot in 1971
– The riot at the Penitentiary of New Mexico
– Both of the above incidents informed policy makers
and private citizens that something was wrong in the
nation’s prisons
4
Introduction
• The Change
– According to Rhodes “What was wrong was
endemic to all secure facilities in the country
• Rising inmate populations
• Aging prison facilities
• Restrictive state budgets
5
Introduction
• The Change
– What could be done about it?
• Lawsuits
– Holt v. Sarver (1970)
– Pugh v. Locke (1976)
– Challenged a broad range of prison conditions
6
Introduction
• The Change
– By June 2000
• 357 state and private facilities were under court
orders or consent decree to improve the general
conditions of confinement or limit their
populations
7
The History of Inmate Litigation
• The Hands Off Period (1871-1963)
– Ruffin v. Commonwealth (1871)
• The court held that prisoners are slaves of th
estate and so have no more rights than slaves do
• Offenders suffered a “Civil Death”
– Prisoners forfeited some if not all of their
citizenship rights
– This non-person status allowed courts to ignore
inmates pleas (Hands Off Approach)
8
The History of Inmate Litigation
• The Hands Off Period (1871-1963)
– Ruffin v. Commonwealth (1871)
• The Courts justification
– The court was reluctant to involve itself in
individual state issues
– The justices had little if any corrections
expertise
– The security of the prisons, intervention would
interfere with safety issues in the prison
9
The History of Inmate Litigation
• The Rights Period (1964-1978)
– In the 1060s attitudes were changing in the U.S.
• Civil rights were being claimed by a number of
groups
– Racial minorities, women, resident aliens,
persons with handicaps
– Several of these groups had filed and won
lawsuits to change their social conditions
– Based on this courts became more receptive to
these types of suits
10
The History of Inmate Litigation
• The Rights Period (1964-1978)
– Prisoner Rights were being recognized
• Monroe v. Pate (1961)
– Simplified the procedure for suing state
officials in federal courts for alleged violations
of constitutional rights
11
The History of Inmate Litigation
• The Rights Period (1964-1978)
– Prisoner Rights were being recognized
• Cooper v. Pate (1964)
– Challenged the free exercise of religion by
Black Muslim prisoners
– The Civil Rights Act of 1971 (42 USC 1983)
provided an appropriate mechanism by which
to challenge states actions
12
The History of Inmate Litigation
• The Rights Period (1964-1978)
– The Supreme Court was willing to take a “HandsOn” approach to state prisoner litigation
– State prisoners could now challenge confinement by:
• A Writ of Habeas Corpus
• A Civil Rights Claim
– AKA a Section 1983 Suit
13
The History of Inmate Litigation
• The Deference Period (1979-Present)
– Bell v. Wolfish (1979)
• The Court ruled in favor of inmates on one issue
but in favor the corrections department in four
issues
• Now inmates would lose on most prisoners’ rights
issues
• Only the most blatant violations of prisoner rights
result in victories
14
Inmate Litigation and Postconviction Relief
• Access to the Courts
– Habeas Corpus appeals allege that their confinement
is unjust and that the state should demonstrate why
their incarceration should continue
• Challenge the legality incarceration
15
Inmate Litigation and Postconviction Relief
• Access to the Courts
– Between 1962 and 1963 the Court ruled on three
cases that expanded Habeas Corpus relief
• Townsend v. Sain
• Fay v. Noia
• Sanders v. U.S.
– As a result the number of Habeas Corpus based
lawsuits from 1980 to 2000 increased 204%
• Tripled
16
Inmate Litigation and Postconviction Relief
• Access to the Courts
– Other alleged state deficiencies
• Ineffective assistance of counsel
• Due process concerns
• Trial court error
• Fifth Amendment protections
• Detention and punishment concerns
• Prosecutor misconduct
• Police misconduct
• Charges to the jury
17
Inmate Litigation and Postconviction Relief
• Access to the Courts
– Between 1980 and 2000 civil rights claims by state
inmates increased more than 97%
– To file a Section 1983 action:
• The defendant must be a person
• The defendant must be acting under color of law
• The injury to the inmate must involve a violation
of a protected right
• The defendant must have been personal involved
– An exception is “Vicarious Liability”
18
Inmate Litigation and Postconviction Relief
• Access to the Courts
– Vicarious Liability can fall under two circumstances
• Failure to train
• Failure to supervise
• The supervisors failure to train or supervise
caused the injury
19
Inmate Litigation and Postconviction Relief
• Access to the Courts
– Why did lawsuit increase?
• Rapid expansion of U.S. prisons populations
• Inmates filed more lawsuits
20
Inmate Litigation and Postconviction Relief
• Access to the Courts
– In 1980, Congress passed the Civil Rights of
Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA)
• The intent of the law was to reduce the number of
Section 1983 claims filed by state inmates by
requiring prisoners to exhaust all state
administrative remedies before filing a federal suit
21
Inmate Litigation and Postconviction Relief
• Access to the Courts
– In 1996, Congress passed the Prison Reform
Litigation Act (PRLA)
• The intent of the law was to reduce the number of
appeals in federal courts by inmates
• Required inmates to pay appropriate appellate fees
• Didn’t take away their ability to file (forma
pauperis [indigent]), but couldn’t claim poverty if
a previous lawsuit was dismissed as frivolous or
malicious
22
Inmate Litigation and Postconviction Relief
• Legal Assistance and Legal Access
– Johnson v. Avery (1969)
• Centered on a prison regulation that prohibited
inmates form giving one another help
• This banned jailhouse lawyers or writ writers
• The knowledge or writ writers gave them power
over other inmates and this concerned
administrators
• Only prohibited the above if the state did not
supply legal assistance to inmates
23
Inmate Litigation and Postconviction Relief
• Legal Assistance and Legal Access
– Bounds v. Smith (1977)
• The Court extended the states’ responsibility to
provide legal aid to inmates
• Now inmates must have meaningful legal access
– An adequate stocked law library within the
institution or
– Legal assistance or a paralegal or attorney
24
Inmate Litigation and Postconviction Relief
• Legal Assistance and Legal Access
– Bounds v. Smith and Johnson v. Avery
• The Court made it clear that the effective
assistance of counsel could well be one of the
Constitution’s most fundamental due process
rights
25
Laws & Litigation/Probation and Parole
• Laws & Litigation/Probation and Parole
– Mempa v. Rhay (1967)
• The right of an accused, to be represented by an
attorney is not confined to the trial alone
• Counsel is required at every stage where
substantial rights or the accused may be affected
• Sentencing and the revocation of probation,
qualifies as a critical stage
26
Laws & Litigation/Probation and Parole
• Laws & Litigation/Probation and Parole
– Morrissey v. Brewer (1972)
• The state of Iowa believed that parolees do not
enjoy a basic right to conditional release from
prison, rather parole is a privilege extended by the
executive branch of government
• The Court stated parole is an integral part of
correctional practices and occurred too regularly
to be considered a privilege
27
Laws & Litigation/Probation and Parole
• Laws & Litigation/Probation and Parole
– Morrissey v. Brewer (1972)
• The Court stated the parole revocation hearing
should be a two step process:
– The arrest and preliminary hearing
– The revocation hearing
28
Laws & Litigation/Probation and Parole
• Laws & Litigation/Probation and Parole
– Morrissey v. Brewer (1972)
• And the parolee should have the following rights
– Written notice of the alleged violation
– Disclosure of evidence against the parolee
– Opportunity to be heard in person, present
witnesses and documentary evidence
– Right to confront and cross examine adverse
witnesses
29
Laws & Litigation/Probation and Parole
• Laws & Litigation/Probation and Parole
– Morrissey v. Brewer (1972)
• And the parolee should have the following rights
– Heard by a neutral and detached hearing body
– A written statement of th efact finders
concerning the evidence relied on and the
reasons for revoking parole
– But the government doesn’t have to provide
counsel
30
Laws & Litigation/Probation and Parole
• Laws & Litigation/Probation and Parole
– Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1973)
• Probationers should have the following rights
– Notice of alleged probation violations
– Preliminary hearing to decide if probable cause
exists
– The opportunity to appear, present witnesses
and evidence
– The opportunity to confront
witnesses/evidence
31
Issues Raised by Corrections Lawsuits
• Issues Raised by Corrections Lawsuits
– The two most common causes of inmate litigation
are:
• Crowding
• Visitation/mail/telephone policies
32
Issues Raised by Corrections Lawsuits
• Issues Raised by Corrections Lawsuits
– Crowding
• The appellate courts have never held that
crowding itself is an issue
• But crowding affects many aspects of prison
operation
• Prisons are filled beyond operational capacity
• In Texas the whole prison system is under court
order because of persistent overcrowding
33
Issues Raised by Corrections Lawsuits
• Issues Raised by Corrections Lawsuits
– Crowding
• Bell v. Wolfish (1979)
– The Supreme Court ruled on the
constitutionality of double bunking
– “double bunking” does not necessarily
constitute cruel and unusual punishment
34
Issues Raised by Corrections Lawsuits
• Issues Raised by Corrections Lawsuits
– Medical Care
• Corrections officials felt they could save money
by cutting services
• Many correctional facilities have been staffed
with physician’s assistants or inmates who were
“medical technicians”
• Today a physician visits the facility on a regular
basis and is on call supplemented by nurses…
35
Issues Raised by Corrections Lawsuits
• Issues Raised by Corrections Lawsuits
– Medical Care
• Estelle v. Gamble (1976)
– Established the standard of “deliberate
indifference”
– If corrections officials knew but did nothing
about an inmate’s physical or medical
condition and that the failure to act had a long
term effect on the inmate’s condition
36
Issues Raised by Corrections Lawsuits
• Issues Raised by Corrections Lawsuits
– Food
• Cooper v. Pate (1964)
– States must consider inmates special dietary
needs, religious or medical
– Ex. Muslims do not eat pork which is one of
the most common items in prison diets
37
Issues Raised by Corrections Lawsuits
• Issues Raised by Corrections Lawsuits
– Fire
• Fire standards:
– Fire extinguishers
– Flame retardant materials in inmates clothing
and bedding
38
Issues Raised by Corrections Lawsuits
• Issues Raised by Corrections Lawsuits
– Staffing
• Inmates have petitioned for additional custodial
and treatment staff to meat safety and service
levels
• Inmates have also questioned deployment of staff
– The Court has refrained from telling
corrections officials how to use their staff
39
Issues Raised by Corrections Lawsuits
• Issues Raised by Corrections Lawsuits
– Inmate Programs and Services
• Education, recreation and general llibrary services
• Prison time is unproductive
• Education and recreation programs can make the
facility run smoother
40
Issues Raised by Corrections Lawsuits
• Issues Raised by Corrections Lawsuits
– Institutional Governance
• Visiting and correspondence policies,
administrative segregation, classification policies,
discipline and grievances
• Institutions may discipline inmates for infractions
of the rules, but there must be a process of
reviewing complainants
41
Recent Trends in Inmate Litigation
• Gender and Staff
– Lee v. Downs (1981)
• Could a female inmate, while being examined by
a doctor, be forced to remove her clothing in the
presence of male Cos?
• Because the inmate was willing to remove her
clothes, if the male officers would withdraw, this
was a violation of her constitution right to privacy
42
Recent Trends in Inmate Litigation
• Gender and Staff
– Timm v. Gunter (1990)
• Male inmates stated that their rights were violated
when female officers saw them showering, using
toilet facilities, dressing and sleeping
• The Court held that opposite sex surveillance of
male inmates, performed on the same basis as
same sex surveillance, is not unreasonable
43
Recent Trends in Inmate Litigation
• Sexually Explicit Materials/Internet
– Ramirez v. Pugh (2004)
• The BOP has a policy that prohibits inmates from
possession or displaying nude pin-up photos in
their cells and from receiving magazines of
sexually explicit nature
• An inmate challenged the BOP restriction against
receiving sexually explicit material
• The BOP policy was upheld
44
Recent Trends in Inmate Litigation
• Sexually Explicit Materials/Internet
– Currently no state allows inmates to have direct
access to the internet
– Inmates have access to the internet
• Personal visits
• Letters
• Phone calls
• MySpace.com
45
Recent Trends in Inmate Litigation
• Smoke Free Environment
– Environmental tobacco smoke is a potential health
risk
– Inmates cannot choose their cellmates
– In Helling v. McKinney (1993) the Court recognized
the potential harm that might result from exposure to
environmental tobacco smoke and noted that actions
should be taken to reduce or eliminate that harm
46
Recent Trends in Inmate Litigation
• Excessive Force
– Hudson v. McMillian (1992)
• Hudson was taken from his cell in handcuffs and
was assaulted by officers during transportation
• Was this cruel and unusual punishment?
• Although Hudson did not sustain injuries the
Court decided that the officers actions were
malicious and sadistic and violated Hudson’s
Eighth Amendment protections
47
Recent Trends in Inmate Litigation
• The Impact of Inmate Litigation
– Harris and Spiller, prison lawsuits have four
outcomes
• Qualitative improvement in the prisons cited in
the suits
• The suits have not undermined the states authority
• The suits have not created “country club” prisons
• Federal judges have not taken over the day to day
administration of the prisons
48
Recent Trends in Inmate Litigation
• The Impact of Inmate Litigation
– There are Pros and Cons of lawsuits
• There are positive changes
• It opens the doors for other lawsuits that may be
without substance
• Most lawsuits are won by the administration
49
Capital Punishment and Prisoner Litigation
• Capital Punishment
– There are more than 3,200 prisoners currently on
death row
– Remember in Furman v. Georgia (1972) the
Supreme Court struck down the death penalty in
Georgia and most states as unconstitutional because
of the overly broad jury discretion
50
Capital Punishment and Prisoner Litigation
• Capital Punishment
– Then in Gregg v. Georgia (1977) the Supreme Court
allowed the restructured death penalty policy that
created a bifurcated system of adjudication
• First the issue of guilt is decided
• Second is the sentencing phase
– Aggravating circumstances
– Mitigating circumstances
• Both must be unanimous
• 37 of 38 states have automatic appeals
51
Capital Punishment and Prisoner Litigation
• Capital Punishment
– States are in no hurry to execute individuals
• California 646
• Texas 411
• Florida 372
• And the number increases every year
– Increasing costs
52
Backdrops:
www.animationfactory.com
- These are full sized
backdrops, just scale them up!
- Can be Copy-Pasted out of
Templates for use anywhere!
53