Prisoners' Rights Regarding Access to Court

TO:

FROM: Kevin E. McCarthy, Principal Analyst

RE: Prisoners' Rights Regarding Access to Court

You requested information on the class action lawsuit against the Department of Correction (DOC) regarding prisoners' access to the courts. You also requested a discussion of the law on the subject, particularly with regard to the state's obligation to provide prison libraries.

In Smith v. Meachum Case No. 3:93CV01537(PCD), (D. Conn. filed February 2, 1994), inmates at four Connecticut prisons have filed a class action suit against DOC. They allege that DOC has violated their due process and equal protection rights under the U.S. Constitution. They claim that the prison libraries and the DOC-funded Legal Assistance to Prisoners (LAP) program do not provide adequate access to the courts, as required under the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. They also claim that the state has violated the Equal Protection Clause by providing greater resources to the women's prison at Niantic than to the remaining prisons in the DOC system. The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief.

DOC is seeking summary dismissal of the case. It notes that the federal courts have repeatedly held that the LAP program meets the state's obligation to provide access to the courts. DOC rejects the plaintiff's equal protection argument, which is based on a consent order that DOC argues cannot serve as a precedent.

The leading case in this area is Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 824 (1977). In this case the U.S. Supreme Court held that states must provide access to the courts for indigent prisoners to safeguard their due process rights under the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that states could provide such access through law libraries or legal assistance programs. It also held that states must provide equivalent access to men and women prisoners. In response, the state of North Carolina developed a plan to establish a system of law libraries staffed by inmate paralegals. But it failed to implement the staffing component. The district court, in Smith v. Bounds, 657 F. Supp. 1327 (E.D.N.C. 1986), subsequently approved a plan in which the state provided legal access through the use of legal services attorneys.

The case law in this area primarily deals with whether states have (1) maintained adequate libraries or legal assistance programs and (2) given prisoners adequate access to these resources. The Supreme Court has recently accepted for review a case (Casey v. Lewis, 43 F.3d 1261 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. granted) that orders the Arizona Department of Corrections to provide an extensive system of libraries and legal assistance.

Introduction. DOC provides access to the courts primarily through the LAP program; it also provides law libraries at some prisons. Since 1972 the nonprofit Connecticut Prison Association has administered LAP under contract with DOC. In February 1994 inmates at DOC's Cheshire, Garner, MacDougall, and New Haven prisons filed suit in federal district court, alleging that the state had failed to meet its obligation to provide adequate access to court for its indigent prisoners. The court certified the plaintiffs as representing a class in August 1995.

This past summer DOC made several changes in the rules governing the program, which went into effect October 1, 1995. DOC also put the program out to bid. The Connecticut Prison Association chose not to bid, claiming that program does not meet the state's constitutional obligation to provide access to the courts. DOC and the association have extended their contract until December 31, 1995 to resolve or transfer pending cases. The association will continue to operate LAP through October. The enclosed Connecticut Law Tribune article discusses this controversy in greater detail.

Allegations. The plaintiffs claim that the resources at DOC libraries are insufficient to protect prisoners' right of access to the courts. They note that there is no library at MacDougall. They claim that libraries at Cheshire and New Haven (1) are open for limited hours on weekdays only, (2) do not have procedures for emergency access, (3) can serve only a limited number of prisoners per day (12 at Cheshire and 10 at New Haven), and (4) have inadequate supplies. They allege that Garner suffers from similar shortcomings.

Several plaintiffs claim that they were denied adequate access to the library. For example, one plaintiff claims that he was permitted access to the library only once although he had requested access four to six times. Another plaintiff claims that he requested access to the library several times to pursue a claim against his cellmate for attacking him, but that his requests were denied.

The plaintiffs claim that many prisoners are incapable of using the libraries because of limited education or an inability to speak or understand English. They claim that the state's primary means of providing access to court, the LAP program, is inadequate. They note that, at the time the suit was filed, LAP had five attorneys, one of whom is assigned exclusively to the women's prison at Niantic pursuant to a consent order. The remaining four attorneys serve approximately 12,000 prisoners. (After the suit was filed, the number of lawyers working for the LAP program increased to six.)

The plaintiffs claim that funding provided by DOC for the program has not kept pace with the prisoner population, which has tripled in the previous 10 years. They note that the program's total budget for 1993 (the year before the suit was filed) was $257,508. (The FY 1995-96 budget is $750,000.) They claim that, because of its limited staff and budget, the program cannot represent all indigent prisoners with meritorious claims or take on cases that require significant resources for extended periods of time.

Finally, the plaintiffs claim that the contract between DOC and the Connecticut Prison Association creates an inherent conflict of interest for the association. They note that DOC is the sole funding source for the LAP program; at the same time, LAP is responsible for representing prisoners, many of whom may have claims against DOC. In addition, LAP is contractually obligated to assist DOC in the defense of litigation regarding court access complaints.

Relief Sought. The plaintiffs are seeking a judgment declaring unconstitutional DOC's failure to provide the class with (1) meaningful civil legal assistance that guarantees them adequate access to the courts and (2) the same level of assistance as the prisoners as Niantic. The class is seeking to enjoin DOC from failing to provide such assistance. The class is also seeking reimbursement of their costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

DOC plans to move for a summary dismissal of the case. It argues that Bounds requires states to provide libraries or legal assistance programs, but not both, to provide access to the courts. DOC notes that the Second Circuit has held in Spates v. Manson, 644 F.2d 80 (2d Cir. 1981) that the availability of the LAP program and the Public Defender Service satisfies the state's obligation to provide meaningful access to the courts. The court found that there was no indication that prisoners with nonfrivolous complaints have been rejected by LAP. This decision has been followed by the district court several times, most recently in Anderson v. Meachum (Civil No. 3:94CV925(AHN) Ruling (D.Conn. December 22, 1994) and Narducci v. Meachum (Civil No. 3:94CV02032 Ruling and Order (D.Conn. Nov. 28, 1994). DOC also notes that LAP uses lawyers to give prisoners access to the courts, while Bounds allows states to provide such access through legally trained people who are not lawyers.

DOC also rejects the plaintiff's equal protection argument. It notes that the consent order explicitly states that it cannot be used as precedent.

In Bounds, the Court held that prisoners have a right of meaningful access to courts under the Due Process Clause. Access to the courts has been defined, in Knop v. Johnson, 685 F. Supp. 636 (W.D. Mich. 1993) aff'd. in part, vac. in part on other grounds 977 F.2d 996, cert. denied 113 S.Ct. 1415 as getting the courthouse door opened in such a way as it will not be automatically shut on the prisoner.

The right of access applies to civil rights cases involving constitutional claims and habeas corpus and other proceedings challenging the fact of confinement; some courts have held that it applies more broadly. The right of access is not absolute. Prisons may impose reasonable restrictions to facilitate penal administration, meet budgetary constraints, or protect the courts from abuse (cf. 72 C.J.S. Prisons and Rights of Prisoners § 106). Prisons have considerable discretion in how they provide access, according to Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974).

The courts have issued conflicting opinions as to whether a state can be ordered to provide access through both libraries and legal assistance programs. The Fourth and Eleventh Circuits have ruled that states need not provide both types of resources. This ruling is contained in Smith v. Bounds 538 F.2d 541, 542 (4th Cir. 1975) and Hooks v. Wainwright, 775 F.2d 1433, 1435 (11th Cir. 1985), cert. denied 479 U.S. 913 (1986), respectively. But more recently, the Ninth Circuit has affirmed a lower court decision in Casey which ordered the provision of both types of resources. The lower court order was comprehensive, specifying such things as the contents of the libraries, qualifications of librarians, and the number and training requirements for legal assistants.

Under 42 USCA § 1983 anyone who deprives a person of his constitutional rights under color of state law is liable for damages. There have been dozens of cases brought under this section alleging that a prisoner has been denied access to the courts. The denial of access can occur through the inadequacy of a library or legal assistance program, or by inadequate access to these resources.

The adequacy of a library is determined by whether it provides meaningful access to the courts (Robbins v. South, 595 F. Supp. 785 (D.Mont., 1985)). Several decisions have held that states had failed in their obligation to provide access to the courts because their prison libraries were too small, lacked key resources, or were inadequately staffed. In Ramos v. Lamm, 485 F. Supp. 122 (D. Colo. 1979), affirmed in part, set aside in part on other grounds 639 F.2d 559, cert. denied 450 U.S. 1041, the court held that a library was inadequate because it contained only half of the volumes recommended by the American Association of Law Libraries Committee on Law Library Services to Prisoners. The court in White v. Sullivan, 368 F. Supp. 292 (D. Ala 1973) held that a library consisting of only a few volumes of state code did not constitute a sufficient legal library. The court directed the state to maintain a library consisting of certain specified items. In Wade v. Kane, 448 F. Supp. 678 (D. Pa. 1978), aff'd 591 F. 2d 1338, the court held that a law library was inadequate if it did not contain the Federal Reporter, 2d Series. In contrast, the court in Wattson v. Oleson, 660 F.2d 358 (8th Cir. 1982) found a North Dakota prison library adequate. The libraries holdings included complete federal and state statutes, Corpus Juris Secundum, Supreme Court Reports, Federal Supplement, and regional and federal reporters.

In Gilmore v. Lynch, 319 F. Supp. 105, 110 (N.D.Cal.1970) aff'd sub nom. Younger v. Gilmore, 404 US 15 (1971) the Court held that a regulation limiting the scope of a law library violated indigent prisoners' rights to equal protection and to access to the courts. The Court found that such prisoners were unable to take advantage of state laws permitting them to communicate with private counsel and to buy personal law books. It held that the denial of the prisoners' rights caused by the inadequate library outweighed the state's interests in economy and standardization. The Court reaffirmed this position in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 US 539 (1974).

In Messere v. Fair, 752 F. Supp. 48 (D. Mass. 1990) the court held that a Massachusetts prisoner imprisoned in Connecticut under an interstate compact was denied access to the courts. It found that the Connecticut prison library had no Massachusetts materials, such materials were available only from Massachusetts in response to requests for specific pages from specific volumes, and the prisoner had no access to legally trained personnel to assist him.

Several courts have ruled that a library which is generally adequate may not necessarily provide access for people who are illiterate or who do not understand English. These cases include Cruz v. Hauck, 627 F.2d 710 (5th Cir. 1980) and Acvedo v. Forcinito, 820 F. Supp. 826 (D.N.J. 1993). In U.S. ex rel. Para-Professional Law Clinic v. Kane, 656 F. Supp. 1099 (E.D. Pa. 1987), affirmed 835 F.2d 285, cert. denied 485 U.S. 993, the court took this line of argument further. It found that while the library was adequate to protect the rights of most prisoners, it was not adequate to protect the rights of prisoners in segregated confinement or those who were functionally illiterate. As a result, the state's closure of a legal assistance program unconstitutionally deprived these prisoners of their access to court.

Several decisions, in contrast, have ruled that the absence or inadequacy of a law library does not always unconstitutionally limit access to the courts. In the leading Connecticut case, Spates v. Manson, 644 F.2d. 80 (2d Cir. 1981) the court held that the state could meet its obligation to provide access to the courts without maintaining libraries if it furnished prisoners with court-appointed lawyers. If a prisoner awaiting trial is represented by counsel, the equal protection clause does not require that the state also provide him access to a law library (State v. Downing, 446 P.2d 519 (Or. 1988) In Kelsey v. State of Minn., 622 F.2d 956, (8th Cir. 1980) the court held that even though the library's inventory, updating, and hours were inadequate, prisoners were not deprived of their right of access to the courts because alternative means of access were available. Finally, the court in Berry v. Dept. of Corrections, 697 P.2d 711 (Ariz. App. 1985), held that it is not necessary for every prison, however small, to have a library.

Bounds held that access could be provided by people trained in the law as an alternative to prison libraries. In addition to using lawyers, the Court suggested the use of paralegals and law students in volunteer or clinical programs, and inmates trained to work under a lawyer's supervision. The court in Knop held that paralegals could provide access to the courts in lieu of library facilities for segregated prisoners. More generally, Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349 (9th Cir. 1981)) upheld the use of paralegals to provide access. The use of law student interns was upheld in U.S. v. Blue Thunder, 604 F.2d 550 (8th Cir. 1979) cert. den. 444 U.S. 902.

The only case we were able to find regarding the number of legally trained people an assistance program must provide was the appeal of Bounds. In Smith v. Bounds, 657 F. Supp. 1327 (E.D.N.C. 1986), the district court adopted a plan providing for 10 legal services attorneys, i.e. one for each 1,000 prisoners.

In Younger, the Court held that a state cannot enforce a regulation barring prisoners from obtaining assistance from fellow prisoners if it fails to provide some form of adequate legal assistance. But a prison can impose reasonable restrictions on such “jailhouse lawyers,” including bans on their being paid for their services (Johnson v. Avery, 393 US 483 (1969)). The court in Woods v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332 (9th Cir. 1990) held that a system of inmate law clerks and satellite law libraries was constitutionally sufficient. The court held that there was no denial of access, since the plaintiff could get materials he needed and receive assistance from other prisoners in preparing his legal materials, and that he had failed to show that prison officials interfered with his efforts to file a civil suit for deliberate indifference to his medical needs.

There have been many cases dealing with the adequacy of access to resources that afford prisoners access to the courts. The court found that prisoners housed in a protective custody unit were denied adequate access to the court in Griffin v. Coughlin, 743 F. Supp. 1006 (N.D. NY 1990). The prisoners were limited to two books at one time, which they had to reserve in advance, and were denied contact with the general population inmate law clerks. The court ordered the state to submit a plan providing meaningful access to the courts. In Williams v. Lane, 851 F.2d 867 (7th Cir. 1988) the court found that prisoners' constitutional rights had been violated due to the prison's failure to provide adequate access to the courts. The court found that prisoners were required to be locked in a cage in the library and had to depend on a clerk to retrieve materials, and could not attend special library programs. In Shookoff v. Adams, 750 F. Supp. 288 (M.D. Tenn. 1990) the court held that the state violated the rights of jailed juveniles held in secure facilities who had no access to law libraries and virtually no meaningful opportunities to consult with trained legal assistants.

In Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040 (9th Cir. 1989) a prisoner's allegation that he had been denied access to a law library and witnesses were sufficient to raise issue of material facts as to denial of his constitutional rights, even though the actions may have been justified by security concerns. Similarly, in Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132 (9th Cir. 1987) the court held that an arrestee's allegation that a sheriff denied him access to a library altogether in his effort to contest an extradition order raised cognizable claims under 42 USCA § 1983.

Other decisions have held that restrictions on access to a library do not unconstitutionally restrict access to the courts. The court in Kendrick v. Bland, 586 F. Supp. 1536 (E.D. Ky. 1984) held that prison officials are free to reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner in which library facilities are used, so long as prisoners have reasonable access to the courts. In Hatfield v. Bailleaux, 290 F.2d 632, (9th cir. 1961) cert. denied 368 US 862, the court ruled that prisoners had adequate access to the courts in spite of limits on access to the library. It found that, in practice, prisoners in ordinary confinement experienced no more than one day's delay in gaining access to the library where they had about three hours per visit to work on legal matters, and that prisoners in the segregated ward were allowed 49 hours per week to study law and prepare legal documents in their cells. In Woods the court held that restrictions in library access caused by confinement to an administrative segregation unit did not impede meaningful access to the courts, since the prisoner was able to get needed books and supplies as well as assistance from other inmates. In Wilkie v. State, 644 P2d 508 (Nev. 1982) the court held that the right to access of a prisoner who was representing himself was not infringed even though he was confined to a maximum security cell without access to the library, because he had two court-appointed standby lawyers from whom he could receive legal materials. The Sixth Circuit, in Walker v. Johnson, 544 F. Supp. 345 ( E.D.Mich 1982) aff'd in part and rev'd in part sub nom. Walker v. Mintzes, 771 F.2d 920 (6th Cir. 1985) reversed a lower court decision ordering an increase in library hours. It directed the court to consider, on remand, whether any prisoner had been denied adequate access to court.

Several courts have held that a prisoner must specify the harm caused by the denial of access to a library. The court in Vandelft v. Moses, 31 F.3d 794 (9th Cir. 1994) distinguished between allegations of inadequate access to resources, which require that the plaintiff show an actual injury, from allegations of inadequate resources, where this showing is not needed. In Martin v. Davies, 977 F.2d 336, (7th Cir. 1990) reh. den, en banc (7th Cir. 1990 US App LEXIS 21916) the court held that a pretrial detainee failed to state an actionable claim under federal law in failing to articulate how the lack of access to the library limited his access to the court or his opportunity to prepare a defense. In Hossman v. Spradlin, 812 F.2d 1019 (7th Cir. 1987) the court held that a prisoner must specify what material he was deprived of due to limited access to the library and how this deprivation resulted in denial of access to the courts. It also held that meaningful access to the courts is not denied as a result of inconvenient or even highly restrictive

regulations governing use of the library. In Jensen v. Satran, 303 NW 2d 568 (N.D. 1981) the court found that prison rules that limited access to the library, which was open only 30 hours per week to four prisoners at a time, did not necessarily impede access to the courts, where the prisoners failed to show specifically how the rules hampered their legal activities.