OF PRISONERSY
-

* Inmates are entitled, under the Due Process Clause of the
Constitution, t be free from unguthorized and intentional deprivation
of their persohal property by prison officals.

« The Supreme Court has held that inmates who are the subject
of disciplinary investigations or proceedings are entitled 1o advance
ritten notice of the claimed violation and a written staiemeat of
the facts, evidenpe relied upon, and the reason for the action taken.
The inmate is ploo entited to call witesses and present documentary
evidence if aljowing him to do so would not risk order, discipline,
and security. In that regard, inmates are rarely allowed to confront
‘and cross-cxamine adverse witnesses in an intemal disciplinary
proceeding.

Note: In most cases, an inmate is not entitled 10 representation by
counsel in a disciplinary proceeding.

* Inmates are entitled 1o a hearing if they are to be moved 1o
2 mental health facility. Howeves, an inmate is pot elways entitled
1o hearing if he or she is being moved between two similar
Tacilities.

+ Amenuallyillinmate is not entitled to a full-blown hearing
before the govemment may force him or her to take anti-psychotic
drugs against bis or her will. It s sufficient f thereis an administrtive:
hearing beforp independent medical professionals.

+ In 199, Congress passed the Prison Lifigation Reform Act
(PLRA), which has been seen by many critics as unfairly fimiting
inmate acoess t the federal court system. The PRLA contains five
‘major provisions:
* isoners must exhaust intemal prison grievance procedures
before they file suit in federal eourt.

* Prisonem must pay their own court filing foes, either in one
payment or in a peries of moathly installments.

* Courts have the right to igmis any prisoner's lawsuit which
they find to be cither frivolous,* “malicious” or sating an improper
claim. Each time a court makes this determinati 1, the case can be
thrown out of court and the prisner can have.
‘against them. Once the inmate receives three "sirikes, they can no
longer file another lawsnit unless they pay the entire court filing,
fee up front.

TESTING 3

Courts have generally deferred to the judgment of prison
medical authorities that such testing is not necessary, Evigley v.
Fulcomer, 720 E. Supp 475 (MD PA 1989)

SEGREGATION
Attempts to require all Prisoners who are HIV positive to be
segregated from the general population have been unsuccessful

CONFIDENTIALITY

Several Courts have found that unnecessary disclosure of a
person's HIV status does violate a persons limited right t privacy.
Woods v. White 689 F. Supp. 874 (WD Wis 1988), Doe v.
Coughlin 697 F. Supp 1234 (NDNY 1988), Nolley v. County of
Eie, 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) If this happens you argue that the authorities have been
deliberately indifferent to your medical needs. Document
everything in writing.

MEDICAL CO-PAY

Al yes ane of my personal pet peeves. 25 States currently
‘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 getit yoursélf. The courts
have said right out

“an inmate must rely on prison authorites (0 treat his
‘medica) needs if the authorities fail to do so, those

needs will not be met. ” Estelle v. Gamble 429 U.S, 97,
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

The bottom line is that co-payment s legal as of this writing
butin the future this may change but oaly if we get real lucky.

The Rights Of Inmates

www.findlaw.com (public domain)
Editors note: I'm not real happy with the term inmate but
this a pretty good article and since there wps space that
*Oh what the hell throw it in,

If you hang ou the leg of a uniform, if you are in a mental
institution you are an inmate, if you are a punk 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 have basic rights
that are protected by the U.S. Constitution. If you are facing
incarceration, you should know your rights. If-you have a family
membecor friend who is in prison or jail, you should know what
their rights are, as well.

* Pre-trial detainees (thosg citizens who are too poor (o afford
bail and who gre.therefore held pending trial) have the right 1o be.
housed in humane facilities. In addition, pre-trial detainecs cannot
be "punished” or treated as guilty while they await tral.

* Inmates have the right to be free, under the Eighth
Amendment, from inhuman copditions because those conditions
‘conslitute *cruel and unusual® punishment. The term "cruel and
wnusual” was pot defined at the time the Amendment was passed,
but it was noted by the Supreme Courtin 1848 that sych punishments
would include *drawing and quartering, embowelling alive,
beheading, public dissecting, and burning alive, among other
things. Today, mpny of these pynishments may seem antiquated,
but the basic scope of the protection remains the same. Any
punishment that can be considered inhumane treatment or that
violates the basic concept of a person's dignity may be found to be
cruel and unusual.

Example: In 1996, a federal cort in Massachusetts found that
inmates' constitutional rights were violated when they werc held
in a 150-year-old prison that was infested with vermin, fire hazards,
And alack of toilgts.

* Inmates hve the right to be free from sexual cjimes, including
sovuel b Al

‘Example: A fedosal court in the District of Columbia found prison
officials liable for the systematic sexual harassmeat, rape, sodomy,
assault,and other abuses of female inmates by prison staff members.
In addition, the cpurt found that the prison faciliies were dilapidated,
that there was a lack of proper medical care available, and that the
female inmates were provided with inferior programs as compared
to male inmates within the same system.

s

‘This provisi sppears to conflict with the well cablished
lomkmd;-:'- qmmmrymw,wu.:;nm
‘example, intrysions upon liberty. For example, a person deprived
of the right to| 'uphohnl;gymmylfiermhhwiulhjuxy'
in the sense of bodily harm.

In several cases, complaints about threats of violence or
exposure Lo risk of violence from others haveibeen dismissed
because no acjunl violenoe had pecured. See, for example, Tupia.
v. Sheahan, 1998 WL 19709 at *5

(N.D.ILL, Dec. 30, 1998); Flannery v. Wagnet, 198 WL
709762 at *1 (D.Kan., Aug. 10, 1998) (dismissing claim that
prison officials spread rumors that subjected the plaintiff 0 2
sk of ussaul{, which did not accur)

Types of qlaims barred by fhe *physical injury* language
mmwmmmmp;mmfiwmnm
confinemeat, Warren v.McDaniel, __F3d __ (yapublistied),
1998 WL 823390 (9th Ci. 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 to 1aks a 5 test on reljgious grounds
violated the Eighth Amendment s barred); Valeatin v. Jaco
1995 WL 14685 at 3 (SDN.Y. Jan. 15, 1999)dismising
claims of psychological injury résulting from segregated
confinemendy; Wairer v Hobbare, Tom WL208] (VD.Cal,
Apr. 22, 1998)(dismissing complaint of being
security unit in fear of lifc); Evans v. Allen, 981 F-Supp. 1
(N.D.II. 1997)(dismissing claiim pf segrogated confinement
during which bodily fluids were thrown on plaintiff).

FILING FEES

A prisoncr who wants (o il civil suit as a poor person (in
forma puuperis) must submil cerificd statements qf his prison
‘account for the preceding six mpnths und will be reguired to pay
the entire filing fee in monthly ingallments. The filing fees will
be seat by the prison from the prisoncr’s uccount. (The fees are
not dischargeublg: in bankruptcy. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(17)). There
i 1o such proviion for any other class of people who are
impoverished.

Evenif a fee has beén paid in full, cases may be dismissed
if there has been a false allegation of indigency, if the action is
‘goes on to determine that Hudson’s Eighth Amendment Rights
were violated because the Officers used the fofce maliciously
and sadistically. g

Not every push or shove violates your ighis. The question
the Court will pose s Was the use of force by the prison guard
repugnant to the conseious of mankind?

LAW LIBRARIES -ACCESS TO THE COURTS

“The fundgmental constitutional right of aceess to the courts
equires prison authorites o aasist inmales i the preparalion and
filing of meaningful legal popers by providing prisoners with,
adoquate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained
in the law.”.

This quote is taken from Bounds v. Smith (430 U.S. 817), the
1977 landmark Supreme Court decision, which led to the.
establishment of law libraries in most major U.S. prisons.

On June 24, 1996, the United States Supreme Court sharply
rediuced prisonce’s access to law libraries, finding that prisoners
must show *actual injury* to obtain relief and narrowing the scope
of the right atissue. (Lewis v. Cascy).

The decision overturned a Ninth Circuit case that had granted
Actzona prisoners broad relief - including atleast ten hours @ week
‘actual access, minimal legal assistance, and other services. (Casey
v. Lewis (9th Ci. 1994) 43 F3d 1261)

Inan opinion writien by Justice Scalia, the Court found that
prisoners must show actual injury before challenging laws library
Sccess, Although some courts had rejected requirements for actual
injury in clasy action suits alleging systemic problems, the court
rejected this distinction. It revérsed the Arizona decision because
‘only two instances of actual injury were al issue: failure 1o provide
‘assistance to iliterate prisoners fiad resulted in twp suits being
dismissed.

‘The court algo nasrowed the scope of what constitutes access
1o court. It stated that pric. 1 officials had no duty to help prisoners
determine if they bad grie ances or t help them litigate law suits.
‘Acoess to court was limited to filing challenges to convictions or
‘conditions of confinement. The court refused to recogaize a wide
Tange of civil problems, including divorce and child custody
matters1
come on , how rehabilitative is Hustler!?
SUMMARY

You have the right o recieve correspondence, publications,
bookset. a5 fong as they do not treaten th subetantive security
interests of the insitution. Such things as your favorite book on
Tock picking, bomb making et are of course prohibited. In
‘Oregon they have taken this a half a step further and prohibited
materil which THEY BELIEVE promotes Security Threat Group
Activity (gan) for instance anything to do with Afarchism. A
method for challenging such a ridiculous idea that Auarchists
area criminal os a basis for stealing our mal i being challenged.

Any time Staff takes your mail GRIEVE THE BASTARDS,

It doesn't majter if the system works or not because there are
WO reasons to raise hell.

1) This is only the beginipg. If they can steal your mail, [

guarentee you that they will steal something else like your gain
time or feed you

2) The courts demand yop exhaust all administrative.
remiedis befpre you sue the aythorities. Judge Judy will through
You out of court on yer ear f you don’t.

Medical Care

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

‘We therefore conclude that deliberate indifference to serious
‘medical needs of prisoners constitutes the *unnecessary and
‘wanton infliction of pain,. This is true whether the indiference
s manifested by prison doctorsin their response to the prisoners
needs or by prison guards in inteationally denying or delaying
access to medical care or intentionally intefering with the
treatment once prescribed. Estelle v. Gamble 425 U.S. 97, 104,
The footnote from this case illustrates further what the Court’s
lesson .
‘Once upon a e in America, the Courts woulda't give e tioue of day
0 casos filed by Prisoncre, Thia wao known 0 the hands off e s was
influeacod by several fciors. Primary of which was the public percepiion
that Prisopers descrved whai over they got aod the deference Julges 5
demoosirated owords decision by prison sdministtoms.

- hl...&'_'.'." eyt pegion
oot Eros Sptentes 3.5, 1971 rsans ot At St e,
i taking bock the prison 43-people died. It was thi singula cveat hat
Tocuse tho apoight squacly o pisos e debananzing condiions
‘which Prisoners cxisted in-on a day 0 day basis as exemplified by Attica. It
would take until 1979 for the court (o take » hands an approach wowards
prisond. The Supremo Court in Bell v. Wolfish 441 US. 520 (1979) begen
{odefie what s 2ud whot i ok acceptablsconduct by prison admigistation.
In 1976 thefirs najor prisom edical reatment case was decided n Estelle
v. Gamblc 429 U.S. 97 (1976} Finallyin 1987 the Count clasified what the
roperstandardshld b whes rlcig sonr Righs s priscn

Gty Turner v, Safely 482 UsS. 78 (1987).
From there the legal baitle was o piting the jterets of the Prisoncan
aguina tht o Staic athority. For year Prisonces wos sgnificas vicorics
- Wath the passing of the Prison | itigation Reform
Actin 1995 thia was shout © changs. Whilc a complet discumsion of this
wold consume more pages thed are svailable herslet
e ke Conpress b made ey il o
Pridoners o il v on e vl One of e
i e Act imposcs « onroverinl “aulomaiic stay*
2 50-day demilae foru aders jodge o comside » st oficials eqocn
16 cad cour monitoring asd supervision of prison condition. ™
Wikle it i o i conionsof confiancs cue et
impessible. The purpose of tis boakle ia 0 share wid you wit Y0 i
T e T
yout rights o it p (o 1o proceed jo defending thowerights
Koo i mind ot the author 5 ot ey st who ks
hia was around the Jaw librry. .
‘Beat of uck in all your eadeavors. joia with you aed shout o every
comerof the wold
NO COMPROMISE IN DEFENSE OF PRISONER RIGHTS!

Published By

50,Ciicago ABCZine Disiro
‘Pulbleher and Distrbutor
P.0. Box 721
Homewood, I 60439

IL

“In the First Amendment context a corollary of this principle
is that a prison inmate retains those First Amendment rights that
are not inconsistent with his status as a prisoner or with the
legitimate penological objectives of the corrections 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. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817; 822 (1974).

The identiiable goverment interest.is of course o keep you
locked up, make sure you don't go down the road looking for
a cold beer or planing actions to disrupt the operation of the
institution like of course riots.

Uniil 1974 prison staff could reject mail that was critical of
the prison administration, complained about conditions, expressed
inflamatory beliefs, or just plain didcfike. The Supreme Court
invalidated these types of mail regualtions with its decision in
Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974) .

It should be noted that the Court’s ruling was based on 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 weat on further o define when
‘mail could be censored by stating that a mail regulation must
further an important interest and must be no greater then is
necessary or essential to protect a government interest. unrelated
tothe suppression. For instance. Lets say Lt. Daffy Duck rejects,
your favorite Anarchist magazine. He does 5o based on rule such
and such. The rule can't raationolize the rejection because ity
Anarchist, but it can reject it on the fact that it threatens the
interes of the government to keep you locked up. You always
argue that the publication does not threaten the substantive
security interest of the institution because its information and
rehavbilitative in nature. For ten years Prisoners rolled metily
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 0o greater then necessary or it was essential to protecting
that interest.

Until 1987 lower courts used a variety of standards to
determine if 2 Prisoners First Amendment rights were violated.
Then the Supreme Court established a single standurd to determine | 0
if a there exists a violation of a Prisoners Constitutional Rights
‘Turner . Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987).This ruling awarded Prison
authorites more power when it carme to administrating the prison.
‘The standard now is all they have 10 prove that the regulation
s reasonably related to g legitimate penological goal. In a stunning
blow to Prisoners the Courts established 2 four point test to
dr;m-,me if the regulation was valiid even if it violates your
rights,

First, there must be a *valid, rational connection" between
the prison regulation and the legitimate govemnmental interest
put forward to justify it.

A second factor relgvant in determining the reasonableness
of a prison restriction, as Pell shows, is whether there are
altemative means of exercising the right that remain open (o
‘prison inmates

A third consideration js the impact accommodation of the
asserted constitutional right will have on guards and other inmates,
and o the allocation of prison resources generally

Finally, the absence of ready alternaives is evidence of the
reasonableness of a prigop 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 concems. Tumer v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78. 89 (1987) .

As i this wasn’t bad eough. 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
restricting incoming material, whether those incoming materials
are cofrespondence from other prisoners, correspondence 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
set 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 subject (o less restrictions then
that coming in.

Publications

You have the right o recieve books, magazines, publications
but they must be from the publisher Bell y. Wolfish 441 U.S.
520 1979. Some joints have gone to banning Playboy, etc. The.
rule has remained because nobody wants to challenge it because.
a court would probably side with the Warden anyway. | mean
In Bounds y. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977), we held that *the
fundamental canstitutional right of access to the courts requires
prison authorities o assis! inmates i the preparation and filing of
eaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law
librarics or adequate assistanc from persons trained in the law."
1d., a1 828, Peitioners, who are officials of the Arizona

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 cxceeded lowful
authority.” LEWIS, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIQNS, etal. v. CASEY etal., __US. __(1996)

Where we stand now is that you must be provided with some.
type of legal gasistance. 1t could be contract lawyeys. legal clinics,
and yes even g law libary. Since this ruling several states have
‘been eliminating their libraries. In response t this situation folks
on this side have been altempting to set up some type of legal

assistance 10 help you understand how 1o defend yoursel
legally from ‘ousive staf. This publication is but one such effort
and by worki ther we cya find others.

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

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

Two major provisions of this act affect the plajnti-petitioner’s
‘burden in & clasy action challenge to prison conditions [18 US.C.
§3626] and the ability of prisoners to make individual claims
arising out of the conditions of their confinement.

REMEDIES

The fisst of fhese new provisions limils the ability of federal
courls to order remedies to proven constitutional violations.
PLRA states that remedies desigped o rectify unconstitutional
condition (called ive reief) *shall extiend 1o further than
hecessary to correct the violation of the Federal night of a
particular plaintiff or plaintffs.* In addition, such orders "shall
ot be granted or approved ... .unless the court finds that such
[E8
relief s narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to
‘comect the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive
means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right."
18 US.C. §3626(a)(1)(A). Even when prospective relief has
‘been granted, there are new provisions that limit the duration of
the order to a.period of two years. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(bX1(A)G).
O, such an orgler may be terminated by motiop of any perty one
‘year after the denial of a prior termination motion. 18 U.S.C. §
3626(b)1)(A)(i). Finally, prospective relicf can be terminated
immediately if it was entered without findings fhat it "is namrowly
drawn, extends no further than necessary to carrect the violation
of the Federal right, aid is the least intrusive means necessary
o correct the violation of the Federal right 18 U.S.C. §
3626(b)(2). See Tyler v. Musphy, 135 F:3d 594, 597 (8¢h Cir.
1998).

‘The termination provision has been applied in a major case

affecting inmates in North Carofina. In 1986, The North Carolina
tof Correction was ordered to contract with NCPLS

0 provide legal assistance ( inmates within the North Carolina
prison system. Smith v. Bounds, 657 F. Supp. 1327 (1986); affd,
Smith v. Bounds, 813 F2d 1299 (4th Cir.1987); cert. denied,
488 U.S.869 (1988). After PLRA was enacted, the Department
of Correctipn moved that the order be terminated under the
provisions of the Act. The United States District Court for North
Carolina, Eastern Division, ruled terminated its ealier order
because the court could was pnable to conclude that "prospective
relief remains necessary to correct a current and ongoing,
‘iolation of the Federal right.” Smith v. Freeman, (5:72-CV-
3052-F) 1llir opinion at p.6 (U.S.D.CL, ED.N.C,,19 June 1998),
citing 18 US.C. §3626(b)(3).

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

PHYSICAL INJURY

Maior chiages caused by the PLRA alfec he abilicy of an
individual prisoner to litigate specific issues. For example,
according t the Act, *no Federal 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 9UJO 1504
19905 UGSMEQ YINOS YZT

o] ‘so0jA108

* Inmaes have the right o complain about prison conditions
and voice their concerns about the treatment they receive. They
also have a right of access 1o the courts to air these complaints.

Example: A federal courtin lows recently awarded a prisoner over
$7,000in damages after it was found that he was placed in solitary
segregation for one year and then ransferred to a ditfereat facility
‘where his life was in danger just because he complained about
prison conditions and filed a lawsuit challenging the conditions of
his confinement.

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

* Inmatesare entitled © medical care and attention as needed
o treat both shart-term conditions and long-ternr ilinesses. The
‘medical care provided must be “adequate,”

* Inmates who need mental health care are entitled to receive
that treatment in & manner that is appropriate under the circumstances,
The treatment rjust also be *adequate.

* Inmates retain only those First Améndment sights, such as
fieedom of speech, which are not inconsistent with their siatus as
inmates and which are in keeping with the legitimate objectives of
the penal corrections sysiem, such as ion of order, discipline,
and secuity. In his regard, prison offcials ae entided 1 open mal
directed 1o inmaes 1o ensure that it does not contain any llegal
items or weapons, but may not censor portions of correspo.dence
which they find merely inflammatory or rude.

Note: [nmates do pot have a right to have face-to-fuce interviews
With news reporters or media representatives. The rationale for this
limitation is that the media arc not entitied o have access to inmates
that members of the general public would not be able to have.

* . Inmates have the right 1 be free from racial segregation in
prisons, except where neccssary for preserving discipline and prison
security.

* Inmates do not havea reasonable expectation of privacy in
M(pfimwhmmnfllmw from “shakedowns," or
mmdfi!d&hmfummy,awmmmfimfl
*Williams v. Vincent, 508 F.2d 541 (CA2 1974) (doctor's
choosing the "easier and Iess efficacious treatment” of throwing
away the prisoners car and stitching the stmp may be atributable.
to “deliberate indifference . . . rather than an exerciso of
professional judgment*); Thomas v. Patc, 493 F2d 151, 158
(CA7), cert. denied sub nom. Thomas v. Cannon, 419 U.S. 879
(1974) Ginjection of peaicillin with knowledge that prisoner was
allergic, and refusal of doctor to freat allergic reaction); Jones
v- Lockhart, 484 F:2d 1192 (CA8 1973) (refusal of paramedic
o provide treatment); Martinez v. Mancusi, 443 F2d 921 (CA2
1970), cent. denied, 401 U.S. 983 (1971) (prison physician refuses
1© administer the prescribed pain killer and renders leg surgery
unsuccessful by requiring prisoner to stand despite contrary
instructions of surgeon)™ Estelle v. Gamble 420 U.S. 97, 104
footnote 10

PSYCHIATRIC CARE

Denial of adequate psychiatric care may violate the Eighth
Amendmeat Ramos v. Lamm 639 F. 24 158, 162 (3rd Cir. 1078)
but some courts have stated that it may be “limited t that which
may be provided upon reasonsble cost and time basi. Browing
- Godwin, 51 F. 2d 44 (dth Cir. 1977. So in other words though
Yyou may need it, the Warden sill Gan determine time and place.
Thus what they can do s lock you in the hole and do the minimal
watcher stuff. Apply the standards set in Estelle to determine if
Yyou are getling adequate treatmept.

FORCED DRUGGING

You can be forced to accept treatment with anti psychotic
drugs. there must be a hearing before they do this to you but it
doesn’t have to be before a judge it can be a special committee
that reviews the facts. Washington 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 court ruled
that State prisons are a public entity as defined by statute and
thereby subject 10 the provisions of the act.

- AIDS
One of the most challenging things about managing a prison
is how 10 deal with the pandemic of H.LV. - AIDS. There have
been several experiments trying to devise a solution butin
numerous instances they have been challenged by litigation.

HL

1y
23

Note: If the inmate is in risk of immediate and serious physical
injury, the three strike rule may be waived.

+ Prisongrs cannot file a claim for mental or emotionsl injury
unless they cap show that they also suffered a physical injary.

+ Prisoners risk losing credif for good time if 2 judge decides
that a lawsit was filed for the purpose of harassment, that the:
inmate lied, or that the inmate presented false information.

ExcessIve FORCE

DEADLY FORCE

‘Despite what Saff thinks they can’t just go running around
Kicking your ass. Now before you get 1 excited and run off to
Sue the Warden lets take a moment aud examine thia issue a licle:
‘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 or restore discipline,
‘or whether if tho force obdurate apd wanton. This means if you
initiate physical contact with saff they can use what ever
Teasonable force is necessary 1o cpntrol you. Keep in mind that
in this particular cose Albers was fleeing officers during a riot
‘and they shot him. You would think that this ‘would be a slam
dunk case but instead Albers lost because the Court stated it
‘was reasonable to shoot him in order 10 restore order to the
institution. The court’s judgment is based on firstof al the overall
circumstances the alleged violation occurred and then if the staff
response was ppropriste.

NON -DEADLY FORCE

‘Aslightly different standard then the one above (obduracy
and wantonness) applies i this situation. What is interesting
and insightful is the following base for their reasoning:
“Many of the copcems underlying our holding in Whitey orise
whenever guards use force to keep order. Whether the prison
disturbance s a Fiot or o lesser disruption, correctipns officers
‘must balance the need "o maintain or restore discipline® through
Torce against the risk of injury 1o jnmates. Both situations may
require prison officials to act quickly and decisively. Likewise,
‘both implicate the principle that *prison administrators should
be accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution
of policies and practices that, in their judgment, aye needed to
preserve intemal order and discipline and 10 maintain institutional
Security, "Hudson v. McMillian, 508 U.S. 1, 6 (1992) . The Court

deemed malicious or frivolous, if the complaint fails to state n
claim for which relief can be granted, orif it seeks monetary
relief againsta defendant who is entitled to claim immunity from
Suit 28 US.C. § 1915a)-(c). See Leonard v. Lacy, 88 E3¢ 18]
186 (2d Cir. 1996) holding that lability for fees on appeal
includes both $5 filing fee and $100 dockeing foe.

The iniial fee is 20% of the greater of the average monthly
deposits or the average monthly balance for the preceding six
months, which the court s 10 *assess and, when funds cxst,
collect” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). After the initial filing fee,
monthly payments will be deducted from the prisoners trust
account at a ate of 20% of the preceding month' income, 1o be
forwarded by the prison "each time the amount in the account
exceeds $10unilthe fling fees are paid.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
However,"in no event shall prisoner be prohibited from bringing
a civil action or appealing a civil or criminal judgment for the
reason that the prisona has no assets and no means by which to
pay the initial partial filing fee.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(bX2).

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 fonma pauperis in civil actions
or appeals if, while they were incarcerajed or detained, 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
10 this rule is when the inmate is "under imminent danger of
serioys physical injury." In such a case, the action may be filed.
The three strikes” rule has withstood constitutional attack.
Rodriguez v.Cook, 163 F3d 584, 587-91 (10th Cir. 199B)(rejecting
due process, equal protection, access to courts, Ex Post Facto
Clause, and separation of powers arguments)

DAMAGE AWARDS

Another provision concerns what happens (0 any award of
damages that a prisoner receives if he successfully litigates a
claim. Under PLRA, damage awards against prisons or their
personnel shall be paid directly to satisfy

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