Legal Issues
|
|
Legal Issues |
The Department has faced many legal issues during the past 30 years. Some of the court
cases
with the most impact are discussed below.
Consent Decrees
and Court Orders
Over the past 30 years, the federal courts have become increasingly involved in the
administration of prison life. This involvement has led to four cases resulting in consent
decrees or court orders for the Arizona Department of Corrections. A consent decree is a
judgment entered by consent of the parties in which the defendant agrees to cease
activities which the plaintiffs deem unlawful or improper.
Upon approval of such agreement by the court, the plaintiff agrees to drop the action
against the defendant. It is not a judicial determination, but is the "nature of a
solemn contract" made under the
sanction of the court. It binds only the consenting parties.
The Department is seeking to terminate all of the consent decrees to which it is a party.
*Arising from Taylor v. State of Arizona in 1972, the Department joined a consent decree
which modified the Department's disciplinary rules and regulations. It mandates that the
Department provide an inmate charged with a disciplinary violation, notice of the charge
and a hearing to determine guilt. The hearing is not as formal as a trial, but must
allow the inmate the opportunity to present witnesses and to appeal the decision if he/she
is not satisfied with the result of the hearing.
*The second consent decree was entered into in 1973 as a result of Hook v. State of
Arizona. It involves the departmental mail policies, including what inmates may receive in
the mail, and the procedures for ensuring that the mail they send out and receive is not
read or censored. In
addition, it lays out the standard for determining which magazines and other publications
may be kept out due to violent or obscene content.
*The 1983 Harris v. Cardwell consent decree involves the quality of prison life. It
requires the Department to follow established housing standards, classify incoming
inmates, maintain work,
educational, recreational and substance abuse programs, and to provide adequate
health care services.
*Gluth v. Arizona Department of Corrections, a 1990 court order, involves only the inmates
housed at the Central Unit in ASPC-Florence. It requires that those inmates be provided
with a law library
staffed with at least one full-time, professionally trained law librarian and inmate law
clerks. It also specifies the hours that inmates must be ensured access to the library and
the supplies that must be provided for them.
The Department, with the assistance of the Arizona Attorney General's office, is
attempting to abolish the requirements of this case in order to establish consistency
throughout the Department, since law
libraries have been disbanded in the rest of the Department, with a new legal access
system.
Changes in Legal Access
In 1990, twenty-two inmates of various prisons brought a class action suit against the
Department alleging they were being denied their right to access to the courts. The
district court ruled in favor of the inmates and issued an injunction requiring the
Department to "provide meaningful access to the courts for all present and future
prisoners." This order included specific times the law libraries were to be open;
that each inmate was entitled to use the law library ten hours each week; the educational
requirements of the prison librarians; and other minute details.
The United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in 1995, and published its opinion
in June 1996. In Lewis v. Casey, the Court overturned the decision of the lower courts,
holding that the right to access to the courts did not create a constitutional right to a
law library per se. Instead the court found that prison authorities must only provide
assistance to inmates in the preparation and filing of non-frivolous claims.
Following this decision, the Departmental policies regarding "meaningful" access
to the courts changed immensely. The Department no longer employs inmate legal assistants
or maintains inmate law libraries. The Department hired paralegals to assist the inmates
in filing appeals and other qualified claims. It created the position of Legal Access
Monitor to oversee the work of the paralegals. The team that implemented the Inmate Access
to the Courts System received the Governor's Spirit of Excellence Award in 1998.