Briefs of Leading Cases in Corrections

Rolando V. del Carmen, Susan E. Ritter, Betsy A. Witt

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781315531670
• Edition: 6
• Topic: Droit
• Subtopic: Droit public

Briefs of Leading Cases in Corrections, Sixth Edition, offers extensive updates on the leading Supreme Court cases impacting corrections in the United States—prisons and jails, probation, parole, the death penalty, juvenile justice, and sexual assault offender laws. Each chapter contains an introduction to the topic area, making the book more user-friendly and a better source of succinct legal information than before. All cases are briefed in a common format to allow for comparisons among cases and include facts, relevant issues, and the Court's decision and reasoning. The significance of each case is also explained, making clear its impact on prisoners and corrections in general. The book provides students and practitioners with historical and social context for their role in criminal justice and the legal guidelines that should be followed in day-to-day correctional activities. Twenty-one cases have been added, including those in a new section on the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.

CHAPTER

Prisons and Jails

1

Introduction

Habeas Corpus Case

Section 1983 Case

Introductory Cases

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987)

Shaw v. Murphy, 532 U.S. 223 (2001)

A. Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act

Wall, Director, Rhode Island Dept. of Corrections v. Kholi, 562 U.S. 545 (2011)

Gonzalez v. Thaler, Director, Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutional Division, 131 S. Ct. 2989 (2012)

Burt, Warden v. Titlow, 134 S. Ct. 10 (2013)

B. Clemency and Commutation

Ohio Parole Authority v. Woodard, 523 U.S. 272 (1998)

C. Conditions of Confinement—In General

Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979)

Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991)

Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993)

Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002)

Barber et al. v. Thomas, Warden, 130 S. Ct. 2499 (2010)

Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington et al., 132 S. Ct. 1510 (2012)

D. Conditions of Confinement—Double Celling

Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981)

E. Consent Decree—Modification

Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992)

F. Court Access

Ex parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546 (1941)

United States v. Muniz, 374 U.S. 150 (1963)

Cooper v. Pate, 378 U.S. 546 (1964)

Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483 (1969)

G. Counsel

United States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180 (1984)

Murray v. Giarratano, 492 U.S. 1 (1989)

Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977)

Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996)

McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849 (1994)

Martinez v. Ryan, Director, Arizona Dept. of Corrections, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012)

H. Damages and Defenses

Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982)

Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983)

Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193 (1985)

Richardson et al. v. McKnight, 521 U.S. 399 (1997)

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections et al. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206 (1998)

Correctional Services Corporation v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001)

United States v. Georgia et al., 546 U.S. 151 (2006)

Ortiz v. Jordan. 131 S. Ct. 884 (2011)

I. Disciplinary Hearings

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974)

Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976)

Superintendent, Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985)

Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995)

J. Discrimination Based on Money

Smith v. Bennett, 365 U.S. 708 (1961)

K. Discrimination Based on Race

Lee v. Washington, 390 U.S. 333 (1968)

Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499 (2005)

L. Due Process

Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (1976)

Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5 (1980)

Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981)

Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986)

Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (2005)

Haywood v. Drown et al., 556 U.S. 729 (2009)

M. Force—Use of Deadly Force in Correctional Facilities

Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (1986)

N. Force—Use of Nondeadly Force in Correctional Facilities

Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992)

Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34 (2010)

Kingsley v. Hendrickson et al., 135 S. Ct. (2015)

O. Habeas Corpus

Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982)

Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989)

McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467 (1991)

Wilkinson et al. v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005)

Dodd v. United States, 545 U.S. 353 (2005)

Gonzales v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005)

Mayle, Warden v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644 (2005)

Wood v. Milyard, Warden, et al., 132 S. Ct. 1836 (2012)

Coleman v. Johnson, 132 S. Ct. 2060 (2012)

P. Prison Litigation Reform Act

Miller et al. v. French et al., 530 U.S. 327 (2000)

Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001)

Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002)

Woodford et al. v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006)

Q. Mail and the First Amendment

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987)

Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989)

Shaw v. Murphy, 532 U.S. 223 (2001)

Beard v. Banks, 542 U.S. 40 (2006)

R. Medical Care and Psychological Treatment

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976)

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988)

Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990)

Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 127 (1992)

Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003)

Brown et al. v. Plata et al., 131 S. Ct. 1910 (2011)

S. Freedom of the Press

Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (1974)

Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1 (1978)

T. Protection of Inmates from Injury

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989)

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994)

U. Religion

Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972)

O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (1987)

Sossamon v. Texas, et al., 131 S. Ct. 1651 (2011)

Holt v. Hobbs, Director Arkansas DOC, 574 U.S. (2015)

V. Searches and Seizures

Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984)

W. Administrative Segregation

Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460 (1983)

X. Punitive Segregation

Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678 (1978)

Y. Self-Incrimination

McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 (2002)

Z. Transfer

Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1976)

Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236 (1976)

Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (1980)

Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238 (1983)

AA. Union Membership and Activities

Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners’ Labor Union Inc., 433 U.S. 119 (1977)

BB. Visitation

Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576 (1984)

Overton v. Bazetta, 539 U.S. 126 (2003)

INTRODUCTION

The problem of prisoners and prisoners’ lawsuits has been endemic in the United States criminal justice system for decades now. That problem will not soon go away. The April 23, 2008, issue of the New York Times published the article, “Inmate Count in U.S. Dwarfs other Nations,” which stated that “the United States has less than 5 percent of the world’s population. But it has almost a quarter of the world’s prisoners.”¹ It also says the following:

China, which is four times more populous than the United States, is a distant second, with 1.6 million people in prison.

[The United States] has 751 people in prison or jail for every 100,000 in population. The only other major industrialized nation that even comes close is Russia, with 627 prisoners for every 100,000 people. The others have much lower rates. England’s rate is 151; Germany’s is 88; and Japan is 63. The median among all nations is about 125, roughly a sixth of the American rate.

The good news is that the number of prisoners in the United States continued to grow each year until recently. In 2008, the year the above article was published, the prison population in the United States began to decline. This trend continued for four years until the population began to level off. In 2012, the lowest number of prisoners were admitted to state and federal prisons since 1999. California had the most significant decrease, due mainly to a federal mandate to relieve overcrowding in their prisons (refer to the case of Brown v. Plata in this text).

Access to court is a highly protected right in the United States. This includes access to court by prisoners and whoever might be in detention. This basic constitutional right and the burgeoning prison population create a perfect storm for prison litigation. This chapter looks at the more important prison law cases, their facts, issues, holdings, and case significance.

“Hands Off” Becomes “Hands On”

There once was a time when courts did not accept, try, or decide cases filed by prisoners. That was the “hands off” era. That era was influenced by the following considerations: (1) that prisoners got the treatment they deserved because they violated the penal code; (2) the courtesy and respect given by judges to decisions made by prison administrators; (3) the concept of the separation of powers between the executive (to which prison administrators belong) and the judicial department; and (4) the lack of visibility of prisons. It was not accidental that during the early years prisons were built in places far from metropolitan centers. The idea was to virtually warehouse prisoners and isolate them from the rest of society.

Starting in the late 1960s and the early 1970s, the “hands off” era gradually gave way to the “hands on” era. A number of factors help explain this 180-degree turn in the attitude of the courts. Some of those factors are: (1) the “equal protection” and “due process” revolution in the courts; (2) the media spotlight being focused on prisons; (3) the change in the attitude of the general public toward prisons; and (4) the realization by the courts that if they did not protect prisoners’ rights, no one else would.

The equal protection and due process revolution was initiated by decisions of the United States Supreme Court under then-Chief Justice Earl Warren. “Equal protection” means that everyone should be treated alike, unless there is a justification for treating them differently. For prisoners this meant that they deserved to be treated like the rest of the people in the free world, unless there was justification for treating them differently. “Due process” means “fundamental fairness.” The equal protection and due process revolution changed American society, notably in the areas of race, economics, gender, and prisons.

In prisons this meant that prisoners had to be treated fairly, unless a different treatment was justified. Being in prison does not justify unfair treatment. In the early 1970s, the attitude of the public toward prisons started to change, influenced by the mass media coverage of such notable events as the so-called “Attica Rebellion” in the state of New York, where more than 30 prisoners died in the retaking of the prison after a long siege. That event focused media attention for weeks on the plight of prisoners and their keepers. Since then, prisons have become much more than invisible places that nobody cared to write about. Through the years since then, conditions in prisons have been fodder for the mass media and the public has taken notice.

The “Old Philosophy” versus the “New Philosophy” of Prisoners’ Rights

The “hands on” era has brought about a change of philosophy in courts regarding prisoners’ rights. The “old philosophy” of prisoners’ rights was that “lawful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal of many privileges and rights, a restriction justified by considerations underlying our prison system.” Under this philosophy, prisoners did not have many rights except the basic rights to life and food. Prisoners left their rights in the free world upon entering prison. Under this philosophy, the prisoner, according to an old Virginia Supreme Court decision, was virtually a “slave of the state.” That meant the state could do just about anything it wanted to do with the prisoner.

All that has changed, giving way to the “new philosophy” of prisoners’ rights. Under this philosophy, “prisoners retain all the rights of free citizens except those on which restriction is necessary to assure their orderly confinement or to provide reasonable protection for the rights and physical safety of all members of the prison community.” Three governmental interests, however, justify the curtailment of inmates’ rights: (1) maintenance of internal order and discipline; (2) securing the institution against unauthorized access or escape; and (3) rehabilitation of prisoners. Under the new philosophy, prisoners have the same rights as people in the free world, except those that can be denied them based on the above three justifications. Moreover, the burden of establishing those justifications rests with the government.

Under the old philosophy, any regulation issued by the prison system was deemed valid. If challenged by the prisoners, they had the burden of establishing that the regulation was an unjustified violation of their rights. By contrast, under the new philosophy, the presumption is that prisoners have the same rights as people in the free world. Therefore, any regulation issued by the prison system must be justified based on the three considerations mentioned above. The burden of proving that these regulations were justified rests with the prison system. This makes life a bit more difficult for prison officials, but it also minimizes arbitrariness in prison regulations because prison officials have to justify them if challenged. Prison regulations must therefore be justifiable and reasonable, taking into consideration the prison environment.

Habeas Corpus Distinguished from § 1983 Cases

Prisoners file many types of cases, but the most common are habeas corpus and § 1983 cases. A habeas corpus case seeks release from prison, the allegation being that the prisoner is in prison illegally or unconstitutionally. It is filed after the criminal appeal has been exhausted and has no time limit as long as the prisoner is in confinement. Example: Assume that X’s appeal of his conviction has expired and therefore X must start serving his sentence. After serving six years of a 10-year sentence, X has proof that there was something terribly wrong with his trial (such as the main witness lied or the jurors were bribed) and therefore he is in prison unconstitutionally. The time for an appeal has expired, but X can file a writ of habeas corpus, asking that he be released and given a new trial. This remedy does not expire and is available to the inmate as long as he or she is in prison.

By contrast, a § 1983 case seeks improvement of conditions of confinement and/or damages from prison officials. It is based on federal law (42 U.S.C. § 1983) and requires the plaintiff to establish two elements in order to succeed: (1) the officer sued must have been acting under color of law; and (2) there must have been a violation of a constitutional right or of a right given by federal law.

These two types of cases may be distinguished as follows:

HABEAS CORPUS CASE

A. Purpose is to seek release from prison or jail

B. Need to exhaust state judicial remedies before going to federal court

C. Starts in state court before it goes to federal court

D. Affects only one prisoner if it succeeds and

E. Filed by one prisoner seeking release

SECTION 1983 CASE

A. Purpose is to improve prison or jail conditions and/or obtain monetary damages from prison or jail officials

B. No need to exhaust state judicial remedies; the case may be filed directly in federal court

C. Starts in federal court

D. Affects all prisoners if it succeeds

E. May be filed as a class action suit, meaning by a group of prisoners

Habeas corpus cases seldom succeed. This is because in most states a habeas corpus case must be filed in the same court that convicted the defendant, after which it goes to the state’s highest court, then goes to the federal district court and follows the federal appellate procedure all the way up to the United States Supreme Court, if it ever gets there. Most of the cases briefed in this text are § 1983 cases, meaning that they seek improvement of conditions of confinement. Prisoners across the country file thousands of § 1983 cases each year; only a few get to the United States Supreme Court. Of those that get to the Court, only a few are decided in favor of prisoners. Nonetheless, over the years these cases have gradually carved out the contours of prisoners’ rights. The major cases are briefed in this book. Prison law, therefore, is mostly case law. Every state has a penal code and a criminal procedure code; no state has a prison law code.

Effects of Prison Litigation

What have prison litigation and judicial intervention accomplished? In a law journal article (University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1993), Susan P. Sturm identifies the following impact on the organization and management of correctional institutions:

A. It has contributed to a greater understanding and acceptance of constitutional standards governing prisons;

B. It has contributed to the professionalization of corrections leadership and programmatic staff;

C. It has contributed to the bureaucratizati...