THE RIGH
OF PRISON.
-

. Inmates are entitled, under the Due Process Clause of the
wdflmthfmfmwfldmw@iflfiw
of their persobal property by prison officials.

* The Supreme Court has held that inmates who o the subject
of disciplinary investigations or proceedings are entitied 10 advance
ritten notice of the claimed violation and writien statemeat of
the facts, evidenpe relied upon, and the reason for the action taken.
The inmate is plso entitled to el witnesses and presont documentary
evidence if al]oging him 1o do so would not rsk order, discipline,
‘and security. In that regard, inmates are rarely allowed o confront
‘and cross-examine adverse witnesses in an inernal disciplinary

proceeding.

Note: In most cases, an inmate is not entided to representation by
counsel in 2 disciplinary proceeding.

* Inmates are entitied 1o g hearing if they are 1o be moved 1o
a mental health facility. Howeves, an inmate is pot always entiled
fo hearing if he or she is being moved between two similar
facilities.

+ Ameqallyill inmate is not entitled 1o a full-blown hearing
before the govemment may force him or her (o take anti-psychotic
drugs against his or her will. It issufficient f there is an administrtive:
‘hearing beforg independent medical professionals.

+ In 1996, Congress pasaed the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(PLRAY), which s been scen by many critics as unfairty limiting
inmate acoess t the federal court system. The PRIA contains five
major provisions:

before they file suit in federl eourt.

* Prisonem must puy their awn court filing foes, either in ono
‘payment ot in a peries of monthly installments.

* Courts bave the right to digmiss any prisoney's lawsuit which
they find o be either "frivolous," *malicious* or stating an improper
Claim. Each time a court makes this determination, the case can be
Thrown out of cpurt and the prisaner can have a "sirike* issued
against them. Once the inmate receives three "sirikes,” they can no
Jonger file another lawsait unless they pay the entire courtfling
fee up front.
TESTING 3

Courts have generally deferred to the judgment of prison
medical authoritie that uch testng is not necessary, Eogley v,
Fulcomer, 720 F. Supp 475 (MD PA 1989)

SEGREGATION
Atempta o reqiceall Prisoners who are HIYV pasitive o be
segregated from the generul population have been unsucceseful

CONFIDENTIALITY
Several Courts have found that unnecessary disclosure of a
s HIV status does violate a limited right w privacy.
¥ White 689 F. Supp. 874 (WD Wis 1988), Doe v.
Coughlin 697 F. Supp 1234 (NDNY 1988), Nolley v. County of
Erie, 776 F. Supp 715 (WDNY 1991)

TREATMENT

Failure (o treat an AIDS Prisoner is a violation of the Eighth
Amendment, Maynary v. New Jersey, 719 F. Supp 292 (DNJ
1989) I this happens you argue that the authorities have been
deliberately indifferent to your medical needs. Documeat
everything in writing.

MEDICAL CO-PAY 2

Al yes ane of my personal pet peeves. 25 States curreatly
‘mandate medical co-pay for Prisoners. Usually its only a buck
or two but that's not the point, The point is they have to provide:
you with medical care cause you can't got it yourself. The courts
have said right out

“an inmate must rely on prison authorities (o treat his
medical needs if tho authorities fail to do 50, those

ceds will not be met.” Estelle v. Gamble 426 U.S. 7,
103 (1973), West v. Atkins 487 U.S. 42, 54-55 (1988}

Then they tum around and state that co payment is legal as
long as you are not denied acoess o health care because you are
broke.

The bottom line i that co-payment i legal as of this wriing
butin the future this may chage butoaly if we get real lucky:

The Rights Of Inmates
wvw.findlaw.com (public domain)
Editors note: I'm nol real bappy with the term inmate but
this a pretty good article and since there was space that
*Oh what the helf throw it in.

If you hang oo the leg of a uiform, if you are in a mental
institution you are an inmate, if you aro a purl ass snitch
then you are an inmate. If you are a stand up person doing
their time then you are a Convict or Prisoner.

[Even the most chronic or hardened inmates | hlwelr.licrighl.
that are protected by the U.S. Constitution. If you aré facing
Incarceration, you should know your ights. I you have Taily
‘memberor friend who is in prison or jail, you should know what
their rights are, as well.

¥ Pre-trial detainees (those citizens who are oo poor to afford
bail and who gre therefore held pending tial) bave the right to be
‘housed in bumane facilities. In addition, pre-trial detainees cannot
‘be "punished" or treated as guilty while they await trial.

* Inmates Bave the right to be free, under the Eighth
Amendment, from inhuman copditions because those conditions
‘constitute “cruel and unusual® punishment. The term “cruel and
pmusual” was got defined at the time the Amendment was passed,
butit was noted by the Supreme Court in 1848 that sych punishments
‘would include *drawing and quartering, embowelling alive,
beheading, public disseciing, and burning alive," among other
ihings- Today, mpay of these pynishments may seem aniquaed,
but the basic scope of the protection remains the same. Any
punishment that can be considared inhumane reatment or that
violates the basic concept of a person's dignity may be found to be
cruel and unusual.

Example: In 1996, a federal coprt in Massachusetts found that
inmates' constitutional rights were violated when they were held
ina 150-year-old prison that was infested ‘with vermin, fire hazards,
pnd alack of toilpts.

* Inmates bqve the right o be free from sexual crimes, includi
sexual harassment. "

Example: A fedesal court in the District of Columbja found prison
officials liable for the systematic sexual hasassment, rape, sodomy,
assault, and other abuses of female inmates by ‘members.
In addiion, the court found that the prison facilfies were dilapidated,
hat there s a nck of proper medical care available, and it 1
female inmates were provided with inferior programs as coinpared
to male inmates within the same system.

3

‘This provision appears to conflict with the wel established
o'seak redroosfof consitutontl viclaions,inluding, dr:';&h
crample iniysions upon besty. For cxumple, @ peron depived
of the right to practice his eligidn may suffer no Yphysical tnjury®

In several cases, complaints about threats of violeace or
npummfi.kumam:rmom;:}mhuaum
because no acunl viclence had pocurred, See, for example, Tapia
v. Sheahan, 1998 WL919709 at £5 "

LD.I1., Dec. 30, 1998): Fiannery v. Wagnet, 1998
m%’:.m%.flxq,xmwmmmm
prison officials spread rumors that subjected the plaintiff to o
risk of nssaulf ich did not occur.)

‘Types of glaims barred by the "physical injury® langusge
im&lmhwdmflm":nkmwfiminw
confinement, Warren v.McDasiel, ___F3d__ (yapublished),
1998 WL 823390 (9th Cir., Nov. 19, 1998)(dismissing claim of
being Housed with mentally digturbed prisoner); Williams v.
Scott, 142 F:3d 441, 1998 WL 152969, 1998 U.5.App. LEXIS
6556 (7th Cir. 1998)(unpublished)(prisoncr's claim that
punishment for refusing 1 1aks a TB test on reljgious grounds
violated the Eighth Ameadrment s barred) Valenino v Jacotson,
S”WIF 1 Mu *3 u(l&D.N.Y.,JTl. 1si 1999)(dismissing

aims of paychslogical injury rosulting from segre;
confinementy Wabeer . Hubgore, 1998 Wi 50 (ND.Cal,,
Apr. 22, 1998)(dismissing complaint of being held in high-
security unit in fear of lfe); Evans v. Allen, 981 ESupp. 1102
(N.D.1il. 1997)(dismissing claim pf segregated confinement
during which bodily fluids were thrown on plaiatiff).

FILING FEES

A prisoncr who wants 10 filg a civil sui as a poor person (in
forma puuperi) must submit cetfiod satemente of e prison
account for the preceding six months und willbe reguired to pay
the entire filing fec in monihly installments. The [iing fees will
be sent by the prison from the prisoncr's uccount. (The fees are
not d inbankaupicy. 1 US.C.§ S23(a)(17). There
is 1o such provision for any other class of people who are
impoverished.

Evenif a fee has beén paid in full, cases may be dismissed
Iffllanhubmn{alufllepfimofimigeu:y_illlulcfinnil

goes on to determine that Hudson's Eighth Amendment Rights
were violated because the Officers used the fotoe maliciously
and sadistically. 4
Not every push or shove violates your rights. The question
the Court will pose is Was the use of force by the prison guard
repugnant to the conscious of mankind?

LAW LIBRARIES -ACCESS TO THE COURTS
“The fundamental constitutional right of acoess to the courts

roquires prison authorities 1o assist inmates in the prepartion and
filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with
‘adecuate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons tmined
in the law.”.

This quota is taken from Bounds v. Smith (430 U.S. 817), the
l?flhngnm‘fsmpmzcomdea‘lim, which led to the
establishment'of law librasies in most major U.S. prisons.

On June 24, 1996, the United Sates Supreme Court sharply
reduced prisoner's nocess to law libraries, finding that prisoners
‘Tust show "actual injury* t0 oftain relief and namrowing the scope
of the right at issue. (Lewis v. Cosey).

The decision overtumed a Ninth Ciruit case that had granted
Atzona prisoners broad relief — including nt leastten hours a week
‘aciual access, minimal legal assistance, and other services. (Casey
V. Lewis (9th Cir. 1994) 43 F3d 1261)

In an opinion writien by Justice Scalia, the Court found that
‘prisoners must show actual injury before challenging laws library
m‘AlM@mm:lxwmmimmgW
injury in class action suits alleging systemic problems, the court
‘oaly two instances of actual injury were at issue: failure to provide
‘assistance to illiterate prisoners had Tesulted in twp suits being
s

The court algo narrowed the scope of what constitutes access
10 court. It stated that pric 1 officials had no duty 1o help prisoners
‘Setormine if they bad grie ances or 10 belp them litigate law suits.
e o was iitod 1o g challenges to Gonvicions o
conditions of confinement. The court refused to recognize a wide
Tange of civil problems, including divorce and child custody
matters]

come on , how rehabilitative is Hustler!?
SUMMARY

You have the right o recieve correspondence, publicati
books et 1 fong as they do not threaten the substabtive security
interests of the institution. Such things as your favorite book on
fock picking, bomb making etr. are of course prohibited. In
Oregon they have taken this a half a step further and prohibited
‘material which THEY BELIEVE promotes Security Threat Group
Activity (garig) for instance anything to do with Afarchism. A
for challenging such a ridiculous idea that Anarchists
are a criminal as a basis for stealing our mailis being challenged.

Any time Staff takes your mail GRIEVE THE BASTARDS,
It doesn’s magter if the system works or not because there are
wo reasons to raise hell.

L) This is only the begining. If they can stea! your mail, [

guareatee you that they will steal something else like i
Sme o fesd you garbage, 2o ke yourgain

2 The éourts demaad you exhaust all administrative
remiedies befpre you sue the aythorities. Judge Judy will through
You out of court on yer ear if you don’t.

Medical Care

The first major medical treatment case was decided by the
Courtin 1976, It established 3 standard by which your
Constitutional Right to medical care is determined. Keep in mind
that denying you an aspirin does not rise to the level of a
Constitutional violation. It is only when the authorities are
“deliborately ingfferent” to your needs for medical care is when
the violation occurs. The Court used a specific siatement to
define what they meant by deliberate indiffercnce.

We therefore conclude that deliberate indifference to serious
‘medical needs of prisoners constitutes the and
‘wanton infliction of pain, This is true whether the indifference
-mrufiwmminwmmw
needs or by prison guards in inteationally denying or delayi
mwmdmmnwmlyinum.gw;wm "
treatment once prescribed. Estelle v. Gamble 429 U.S. 97, 104,
The footnote from this case illustrates further what the Court’s
lesson is.

Once | @ time in America, the Courts woulda't give the time of day
i Tl L bl d el
that Prisaners daserved what over they gotaod the defesvace Judges 7

Tho el o e 560 roagh it e ' ymogion
dbou cogig peracpicn wak'tcaough nprove oo
e Sotemi B3, 1971 Prares oAb S ok,
In taking back the prison 43- died. It was this singular event that
focused the ‘on prisods and the dehumenizing conditions
‘which Prisoners cxisted invon a day (0 day basis as exemplified by Attica. I
‘would-take until 1979 for the cowts to 0 hands an approach towards
‘prisoas, The Supremo Courtin Bell v. Wollish 441 ULS. 520 (1979) begen
i define what i oad what s ik acceptable conduct by prison admisistraBon.
In 1976 tho first major prison inedical treatment cuse was decided in Estelle
v. Gamble 429 U.S. 97 (1976). Finally in 1987 the Cour clarified what the
proper standard shquld be used whes baluncing Priscners Rights and prison.
autbority "“‘msfimu.’fl(lm.

From there the logal batle was oo piting e oteretsof e Prisoncrn
aginst that of Stats authority. For yeon: Prisaoce: won significat viciorics
hd—‘fidfl.mbwkm“fifln“u-

‘Act in 1995 this was abou 10 change. Whilc a complete discussion of this
pieceiof world cosume more pages thea are avnilable hers let
{tbe onid that wi

s srke Congress bas ads it xtenycly dilfilfo-
Prisonéss to petition for judicial seview on a Federal level. Oue of the
immedintc consequences “the Actimposcs a controvergial “witomatc stay”
O i g o s s

e s it e cobo o e e, 1t
el Thepame o1 oo s o
B G e o, G o e
o gk = Tov,

T T o
hia was around the law library. N

Beat of lock o all yous eadeavors. 1 joia with you andshout from o
cormer of e word T e wiliyor il

'NO COMPROMISE IN DEFENSE OF PRISONER RIGHTS!

ot

Published By

T

o el

R 7 o
78768 4261

MAIL

“In the First Amendment context a corollary of this princiy

is thata prison inmate retains those First Amendment rights
are not inconsistent with his status as a prisoner or with the
legitimate penological objectives of the comections system. Thus,
challenges to prison restrictions that are asserted to inhibit First
Amendment interests must be analyzed in terms of the legitimate
policies and goals of the corrections system, to whose custody
and care the prisoner has been committed in accordance with
due process of law. “ Pell v. Procupier, 417 U.S. 817, 822 (1974).

The identifiable government interestis of course t keep you
focked up, make sure you don't go down the road looking for
2 cold beer or planing actions to disrupt the operation of the
instittion like of course riols.

Until 1974 prison staff could reject mail that was critical of
the prison administration, complained about conditions, expressed
inflamatory beliefs, orjust plain didu'tfike. The Supreme Courl
invalidated these types of mail regualtions with its decision in
Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974) .

Tt should be noted that the Court’s ruling was based ou the
outsider’s right to communicate with the Prisoner and not the.
opposite. Oh well we really could care less how we got the right
but that we did get it. the court went on urther o define when
‘mail could be censored by stating that a mail regulation must
further an important interest and must be 1o greater then is
necessary or esseatial 0 protect a government interes. unrelated
tothe suppression. For instance. Lets say L. Daffy Duck rejects,
‘your favorite Anerchist magazine. He does 50 based on rule such
‘and such. The rule can’t rationolize the rejection because its
Anarchist, bu it can reject it on the fact that it threatens the
interes of the government to keep you focked up. You always
argue that the publication does not threaten the substantive
security interest of the institution because its information and
rehaybilitative in nature. For ten years Prisoners rolled metrily
along due to this ruling which forced Prison administrators to
prove two things when rejecting mail

1) The government interest they were trying to protect

2) That the regulation protecting that govemment interest
was 5o greater then necessary or it was esseatial to protecting
that interest.

Until 1987 lower courts used a variety of standards to
determine if Prisoners First Amendment rights were violated.

‘Then the Supreme Cour established a single standard 1o determine | 0
if a there exists a violation of a Prisoners Constitutional Rights
‘Tummer v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987).This ruling awarded Prison
authorites more power when it carrie to administrating the prison.

The stgadard now is all they have to provo that te regulition

is reasonably. tolegitimate penological goal. In a stunin
Mwbhmmm&rummflhhdnlm’r‘;hlum ®
d_:h-nqing if the regulation was valiid even if it violates your
rights,

Fisst, there must be "valid, rational connection" between
the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interes!
put forward to justify if.

A seaond factor relevant in determining the reasonableness
of a prison restriction, as Pell shows, is whether there are:
altemative means of exercising the right tha remain open to
‘prison inmates

A fhird consideration ji the impact accommaodation of the
‘asserted constitutional right will have on guads and other inmates,
and on the allocation of prison resources generally

Finally, the absence of ready alternatives is evidence of the
reasonableness of a pripop regulation. By the same token, the
existence of obvious, easy altematives may be evidence that the
regulation is not reasonable, but is an "exaggerated response” o
‘prison concerns. Tumer v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78. 89 (1

Asif this wasn’t bad pnough. Two years later the Caurt
directly limited Martinez, restricting it fo regulation of outgoing
correspondence. In the Court's current view the needs of prison
security justify a more deferential standard for prison regulations
restriciing incoming ImlztilL ‘whether those incoming mqla[rids
are coprespondence from other prisoners, sorrespondence from
‘nonprisoners, or outside publication. Thomburgh v. Abbott, 490
U.S. 401, 411-14 (1989)

So where we stand now is that the least restrictive standard
et forth in Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974) and the
most resirictive Thomburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 411-14
(1989) In short outgoing mail is ubject to less restrictions then
that coming in.

Publications

‘You have the right to recieve books, magazines, publications
but they must be from the publisher Bell v. Wolfish 441 U.S.
520 1979. Some joints have gone to banning Playboy, eic. The
fule has remained because ‘wants o challenge it because
2 court would probably side with the Warden anyway. | mean
InBounds y. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977), we held that “the
fundamental constitutional right of access t the courts requires
prison authorities t assist inmates in the proparaion and filing of
‘meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequats law
librarics or adegpate asisance fom perons tined i e law”
1d. ot 828, Peiitioners, who are offiials of the Arizona Departmeat
of Corrections (ADOC), conteid that the United States District
Court for the District of Arizon erred in finding them in violation
of Bounds, and that the court's remedial order exceeded lawful
‘authority.” LEWIS, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIQNS, etal. v. CASEY etal,, __US. __(1996)

Where we stand now s that you must be provided with some
type of legal gssistance. It could be contract lawyers. legal clinics,
nd yes even p law library. Since this ruling several states have
been eliminating their libraries. In response t this situation folks
on this side have been aliempting to set up some type of legal
assistance ioh:flvmnnflummflhmlorh{and yourse)f
legally from gbusive staff. This publication is but one such effort
and by working together we can find others.

THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT:
A NEW CHAPTER IN PRISON LAW

The Prison Litigation Reforra Act (PLRA), PybL. No.
104-134, Stat. 1321 §§ 801-810 (April 24, 1996),
amended, Pub. L. No. 105-119, 111 Stat. 240
(November 26, 1997), ap dramatically changed the
legal landscape of prisoner litigation.

Two major provisions of this act affect the plajntiff-petiiones
burden in a cles) action challenge to prison conditigns (18 US.C.
§3626] and the ability of prisuers to make individual claims
arising out of the conditions of their confinement.

REMEDIES

The first of fhese new provisions limits the ability of federal
courts 10 order remedies 10 proven constitutional violations.
PLRA states that remedies designed to rectify uncoostitutional
condition (called dve relief) “shall extend go further thaa
nccessry o correct the violation of the Federal right of a
partcular pliniforpainfs”In addion,such orders shal
not be granted or approved ... unless the court finds that

N
relief is naryowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to
‘comect the violation of the Federal right, and s the least intrusive
‘means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal ight.*
18 U.S.C. §3626(a)(1)(A). Even when prospective relief has
been granted, there are new provisions that limit the duration of
the order o a period of two years. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)XD)A)).
O, such e may be terminaed by moion o any prty one

year ufter the denial of a prior termination motion. 18 U.S.C. §
JG26OAYGD). Fnally, prospective relief can be terminated
immediately if it was entered without findings fhat it "is narrowly
drawn, extends no further than necessary to carrect the violation
of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means
10 correct the violation of the Federal right * 18 US.C. §
3626052 See Tyl v. Musphy, 135 F34 54,57 (B i
1998).

‘The termination provision has been applied in a major case
affecting inmates in North Carolina. In 1986, The North Carolina
Department of Correction was ordered to contract with NCPLS
0 provide legal assistance o inmates within the North Carolina
prison system. Smith v. Bounds, 657 F. Supp. 1327 (1986); alTd,
Smith v. Bounds, 813 F.2d 1299 (4th Cir. 1987); cert. denied,
488 U.S.869 (1988). After PLRA was enacted, the Department
of Correctipn moved that the order be termigaled under the
provisions of the Act. The United States District Court for North
Carolina, Bastern Division, ruled terminated its carlir order
because the court could was pnable to conciude that "prospective
relief remajns necessary 1o correct a current and ongoing
yilation of the Fedecal right* Smith v Freemar, (S72-CV-
3052-F) slip opinion at p.6 (U.6.D.Ct., EDN.C.,19 June 1998),
citing 18 US.C. §3626(6)(3).

Although no longer compelled to do o, the Department of
Correction cqtinues to contract with NCPLS in order to fulfill
its ongoing constitutional obligation to provide access to the
courts for inmates.

PHYSICAL INJURY

Major chpnges caused by the PLRA affect fhe ability of an
individual prisoner to litigate specific issues. For example,
according o the Act, *no Federul civil action may be brought
by a prisoner confined in a jai, prison, or other correctional
facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody
‘without a prior showing of physical injury.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e).
¢

L6EST X08 0UJO 1504

990§ UOBME(] YINOS YZZ

ouy ‘m!msw#

J9u08T BUjoID TUON

DL THHPED HHON 1

(1

Inmates have the right 1o complain about prison conditions
‘and voice their concerns about the treatment they receive,
2lso have a right of access to the courts to air these complaints,

Example: A fedoraj courtin lows recently awarded a prisoner over
$7.000in damages afte it was found that he was placed in sofitary
segregation (or one year and then transferred to a differeat facility
‘where hiu life was in dangor just because he complained about

son conditions and filed a lawsuit challenging the conditions of

* . Disabled prisoners are enitled to assert their rights under
the Americans with Disabilities Act 10 ensure that they are allowed
Fcess 1o prison programs or facilities that they are qualified and
able to participate in.

* Inmates are entitled © medical care and attention as needed
o reat both shart-ferm conditions and long-tern ilinesses. The
‘medical care provided must be *adequate,*

* Inmates who need mental health care are entitled to receive.
that trestmeat in a manmer thatis appropriate uader the circumstances.
The treatment njust also be "adequate.”

* Inmates retain only those First Améadment rights, such as
frpedom of speech, which are not inconsistent with thei status as
inmates and which are in keeping with the legitimate objectives of
the penal corrections system, suchas ion of order, discipline,
and securiy. I this regard, prison olicaly ae encig t opea mai
directed o inmales to ensure that it does not contain any Hlegal
items or weapons, but may not censor portions of correspo.dence
Which they find merely inflammatory or rude.

song, mates bave the right t be free from racial segregation in
Eaons, excopt whereneccasaryfor preserving discplins and pison
security.

Theie o ematea do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in
heir prison cells and are not protected from “shakedowns," of
searches of their cells to look for weapons, drugs, or other contraband.
“Williams . Vincent, 508 F:2d 541 (CA2 1974) (doctor's
choosing the "easier and fess efficacious treatment® of throwing
away the prisoners car and stitching the stmp may be atributable
10 “deliberate indifference . . . rather than an exercise of
professional judgment*); Thomas v. Pate, 493 F2d 151, 158
(CA7), cen. denied sub nom. Thomas v. Cannon, 419 U.S. 879
(1974) (injecticn of penicillin with knowledge that prisoner was
allergic, and refusal of doctor o freat sllergic reaction); Jones
v. Lockhart, 484 F:2d 1192 (CA8 1973) (refusal of paramedic.
o provide tretment); Martinez v. Mancusi, 443 F2d 921 (CA2
1970), mndglni‘d,wl b:.im (1971) (prison physician refuses
0 administer the prescribed pain killer and renders leg surgery
unsucecsafl by equiring prsoner t sand despiie

instructions of surgeon)™ Estelle: v. Gamblo 429 U.S. 97, 104
foomote 10

PSYCHIATRIC CARE

Denial of adequate psychiatric care may violate the Eighth
Amendment Ramos v. Lamm 639 F. 24 158; 162 (rd Cir. 1978)
but some courts have stated that it may be “limited o that which
may be provided upon a reasonable cost and time basis. Browing
v. Godwin, 551 F: 2d 44 (4th Cir. 1977. So in other words though
you may need it, the Warden sill can detormine time and place.
Thus what they can do is lock you in the hole and do the minimal
‘watcher stufl- Apply the standards set in Estelle to determine if
You are getting adequate treatmept.

FORCED DRUGGING
You can be forced 10 accept treatment with anti psychotic
drugs. there must be a hearing before they do this to you but it
doesn’t bave to be before a judge it can be a special committes
that reviews the facts. Washinglon v. Harper 494 U.S. 210 (1990)

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990

‘Well score one for our side. In Penasylvania Department of
Corrections et al. v. Yeskey 524 U.S. 206 (1998) the coust ruled
that State prisons are a public entity as defined by statute and
thereby subject t the provisions of the act.

H.LV.-AIDS

One of the most challenging things about managing a prison
is how o deal wih the pandermie of HL.V. - ALDS. Thore ive
been several experiments 10 devise a solution but in
numerous instances they have been challenged by litigation.

"M
s
Note: If the inmale i in risk of imamediate and serious physical
injury, the three strike rule may be waived.

+ Prisongrs cannot file a claim for mental or emotional injury
unless'they caps show that they also suffered a physical injary.

+ Priconers isk losing credi{ for good time if a judge decides
that a lawsuit as filed for the purpose of barassment, that the
inmate lied, or that the inmate presented false information.

Excessive FORCE

DEADLY FORCE

‘Despite what Staff thinks they can't just go running around.
Kicking your ass. Now before you get to excited and ran off to
sue the lets take a morent and examine this issue s ittle
more carefully. The court defined in Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S.
312,320 321 that it first must dejermine whether force was -
‘applied in a good faith effort to maintain o restore discipline,
‘or whether if the force obdurate and wanton. This means if you
initiate physical contact with staff they can use what ever
reasonable force is necessary 10 control you. Keep in mind that
in this particular case Albers wos fleeing officers during a riot
‘and they shot him. You would think that this would be a stam
dunk case but instead Albers loss because the Court stated it
‘was reasonable to shoot him in order to resiore order to the
institution. Thé court's judgment s based on fisst of all the overall
circumstances the alleged violation occurred and then if the staff
response was appropriate.

NON -DEADLY FORCE

‘Aslightly different siandard then the one above, (obduracy
and wantonness) appliea in this sitvation. What is nteresting
and insightful is the following base for their reasoning:
“Many of the copcems undedlying our holding in Whitley arise
‘whenever guards use force to keep order. Whether the prison
disturbance is a Fiot or a lesser disruption, correctipns officers
must balance the need "to maintain or restore discipline" through
force against the risk of injury to inmates. Both situations may
require prison officials to act quickly and decisively. Likewise,
both implicate the principle that ° admi tors should
be acoorded wide ranging deference in the adoption and execution
of policies and hat, in their judgment, aye needed to
preserve intemal order and discipline and 1 maintain institutional
security. "Hudson v. McMllian, 508 U.S. 1, 6 (1992) . The Court

deemed malicious or frivolous,if the complaint fails to statc o
elaim for which relief can be grnted, or if it seeks monetary
relief against a defendant who is entifled (o claim immunity from
SUL 28 US.C. § 1915(a)-(e). See Leonard v. Lacy, 88 F:3d 181,
186 (24 Ci. 1996) holding that liabilty for fces on appeal
includes both $5 fifing fec and $100 docketing fec.

The initial fee is 20% of the greater of the average monthly
deposits or the average monthly balance for the preceding six
months, which the court is lo "assess and, when funds cxist,
collect.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). After the inital filing fee,
monthly payments will be deducted from the prisoner’s trust
account at a sute of 20% of the preceding month's income, 10 be
forwarded by the prison "each time the amount in the account
exceeds $10 unil the fling fees are paid.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
However, "in no event shall a prisoner be prohibited from bringins
a civil action or appealing a civil or criminal judgment for the
reason that the prisonr has no assets and no means by which to
pay the initial partial filing fee." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

THREE STRIKES PROVISION

In addition 1o the filing fee, another important restriction
concems prisoners who have filed multiple lawsuits. risoners,
under PLRA, may not proceed in forma pauperis in civil actions
or appeals if, while they were incarcerafed or detzined, they have
brought three of more prior actions or appeals in a court of the
United States that were "dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or
for failing to state a claim.” 28 U.S.C. §1915. The only exception
10 this rule is when the inmate is "under imminent danger of
serious physical injury.” In such a case, the action may be filed.

The "three strikes” rule has withstood constitutional attack.
Rodriguez v.Cook, 163 F:3d 584, 587-1 (10th Cir. 1998)(rejecting
due process, cqual protection, access to courts, Ex Post Facto
Clause, and separation of powers arguments)

DAMAGE AWARDS

Another provision concerns what happens to any award of
damages that a prisoner receives if he successfully Jitigates a
claim. Under PLRA, damage awards against prisons or their
personnel shall be paid directly to satisfy

any outstanding restitution orders, with the remainder
forwarded to the prisoner. Stat. 1321 § 807.