Even though the federal legal services program was intended to assist
poor people in civil, non-criminal matters, legal services lawyers spend
significant resources on behalf of criminals in prison. In addition to
suing prisons for disciplining criminals guilty of planning riots, escapes
and other offenses, legal services lawyers have also engaged in extensive
litigation demanding special and unreasonable privileges for convicts.
Defends Inmate Plotting Escape
In 1991, Florida Rural Legal Services sued a south Florida county jail because they placed an inmate planning an escape in solitary confinement. Not only was John Eric Chandler planning to escape individually, he was the ringleader of a large group of inmates who were plotting a mass jailbreak. Authorities were informed of Chandler’s plan and after an officer was attacked by an inmate in an aborted break, the jail administrator placed Chandler in solitary confinement for 16 days. The administrator took the action based on the confidential statements of inmates concerning Chandler’s role and the fact that Chandler had drawn down his commissary account from $50 to ten cents. However, Florida Rural Legal Services sued the jail claiming that they deprived Chandler of his right to due process because he was not informed of the charges when he was placed in confinement. The court rejected the argument and held that jails have every right to place inmates in solitary confinement without notice when such inmates pose a clear danger.
See Chandler v. Baird, 926 F.2d 1057 (US App. Ct.) 1991
Sues Prison for Punishing Inmate Planning Riot
In 1994, Keystone Legal Services of Pennsylvania sued state prison officials
because they sentenced an inmate to solitary confinement for planning a
riot. The inmate in question, Cecil Cook, already had been punished for
involvement in several fights when confidential informants informed prison
authorities that Cook was planning a Thanksgiving Day riot. A hearing found
Cook guilty of the charge and placed him in solitary confinement for 90
days. Keystone filed suit against the officials claiming that they violated
his right to due process because the charges were too weak to substantiate
punishment. However, the court rejected Keystone’s arguments. The court
observed that the hearing examiner had information from a reliable informant
who gave very specific accounts of Cook’s solicitation of inmates for the
riot and the date, time and place of the event. Since the same informant
had provided reliable information in the past, the hearing examiner had
every reason to believe in the veracity of his claims. The court also took
note of the statements of fellow inmates who said that it was a good move
to lock up Cook.
See Cook v. Lehman, 863 F. Supp. 207 (US Dist. Ct.) 1994
Evergreen Claims Delaying Parole for Inmate Unconstitutional
In 1989, Evergreen Legal Services sued state prison authorities because they extended an inmate’s prison sentence after attempting to escape. Under Washington state law, a prisoner convicted of first-degree murder must serve 20 consecutive years before becoming eligible for parole. Because the prisoner, Gary Mayner, attempted an escape, they restarted his 20 years at the time of the escape attempt. Evergreen said that this violated Mayner’s 5th amendment rights against double jeopardy because restarting his jail-time in determining parole eligibility punishes him twice for the same offense. The federal appeals court rejected the claim citing the fact that Washington state extends parole as a conditional privilege and has full power to determine the conditions of release. Evergreen also tried to argue that Mayner was deprived of equal protection of the laws. Because Mayner escaped relatively late in his mandatory minimum term, Evergreen reasoned that restarting his minimum is constitutionally unfair because he is punished more severely than prisoners who escape earlier in their term. The court rejected the argument.
See Mayner v. Callahan, 873 F.2d 1300 (US App. Ct.) 1989
Legal Services Assert Prisoners Constitutional Right to Daily Visits
In 1992, the Legal Aid Society of Orange County California sued the county jail system claiming that the reduction of inmate’s visitation rights from 4 to 2 days a week was “cruel and unusual punishment.” Legal Aid argued that inmates have a constitutional right to daily visits. The court held that jails only have an obligation to set up “reasonable” visitation schedules and there was nothing unreasonable about the Orange County jail restricting visits to 2 days a week. The judge also noted that it is not the business of the courts to dictate how local authorities run their jail systems and the “court will not attempt to make policy choices that are the County’s to make.”
See Benson v. County of Orange, 788 F. Supp. 1123 (US Dist.
Ct.) 1992
Legal Aid Claims Prisoners Have Constitutional Right to Hot Pots
In 1990, the Legal Aid Bureau of Maryland sued the state correctional
system because they restricted the amount of books and cooking utensils
inmates could keep in their cells. The state adopted the property restrictions
to limit clutter in cells, improve fire safety and reduce theft within
the prison population. However, Legal Aid argued that limiting prisoners'
books and papers to 1.5 cubic feet was unconstitutional because it interfered
with their ability to work on post-conviction appeals and habeas
corpus petitions. The court held that while the property rule may “somewhat
hamper the convenience with which inmates may prepare legal challenges...
the regulation does not infringe upon any constitutional rights.” Legal
Aid also argued that the prohibition of electric hot pots in prisoners’
cells violated the 8th amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual
punishment. However, the court rejected the claim because the inmates only
reason to have hot pots was convenience which the court observed is “not
the standard by which Eighth Amendment violations are to be judged.”
See Savko v. Rollins, 749 F. Supp. 1403 (US Dist. Ct.) 1990