Prisoner's Rights
Category > Prisoner's Rights
An inmate’s appeal submitted within the 30-day period but received after the deadline was timely.A prison inmate appealed the denial of a grievance within the statutory 30-day period, but the CDCR dismissed the appeal because it received the filing after the 30-day period had expired. However, the CDCR may not deem a prisoner’s appeal untimely when it was submitted on time but not received until after the 30-day time had expired. id: 24985
Inmate’s brief hunger strike did not support the finding that he caused a dangerous situation in the prison.The inmate engaged in a three day hunger strike protesting the state prison’s solitary confinement practices. There was not “some evidence” to support the later finding that he engaged in behavior that might lead to violence or danger in violation of Title 15, section 3005(a) of the California Code of Regulations. The inmate’s actions were not dangerous and did not lead to a breakdown of order at the institution. id: 24669
Trial court’s denial of a request for compassionate release was an appealable order. The trial court’s denial of a request for compassionate release under Penal Code section 1170, subd.(e), was an order made after judgment that affected defendant’s substantial rights. Accordingly, it was authorized by section 1237, subd.(b).id: 24018
Prohibition of prison visits includes only child victims of offenses for which defendant was sentenced to prison.Penal Code section 1202.05, subd.(a) prohibits visitation between criminal defendants and the children they sexually molest. The prohibition on visitations includes only child victims of offenses for which a defendant was sentenced to prison.id: 22059
Inmate’s possession of two photocopied drawings containing parts of the names of gang affiliates as the artists, did not establish a link between the defendant and the gang for validation purposes.The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation determined the inmate/defendant was a member of the Mexican Mafia prison gang based on his possession of photocopies of four drawings, two of which included part of the names of gang affiliates as artists. However, two of the photocopied drawings, containing the names of gang affiliates as the artist, did not support a finding that he had an association with a gang-affiliate artist that constituted a direct link with the gang for purposes of validation.id: 23216
Defendant’s validation as a gang member was not supported by some evidence as there was no direct link to a current gang member. Evidence did not support the prison’s validation of the defendant as a member of the Mexican Mafia prison gang. His possession of another inmate’s legal documents while he was helping that inmate in his appeal, could not be used as a source item to validate defendant. And there were no other items that provided a direct link to a gang member as required, even though the documents linked defendant to the gang itself.id: 22907
Prohibition on visitation between a defendant and his "child victim" does not apply where the victim was over the age of 18 at the time of sentencing.Penal Code section 1202.05 provides that whenever a defendant is sentenced to prison for a qualifying crime against a minor, the sentencing court must prohibit prison visitation between the defendant and the "child victim." However, the provision does not apply to a victim who was a child at the time of the crime, but over the age of 18 at sentencing. id: 22622
Prison officials violated an inmate’s First Amendment rights by confiscating a letter he wrote to a newspaper claiming inmates were political prisoners. Defendant, a Pelican Bay inmate and a validated gang member attempted to send a letter through the prison mail. Prison officials confiscated the letter after concluding it threatened prison security because defendant referred to himself as a “New Afrikan Nationalist Revolutionary Man” and because it could contain hidden messages promoting gang activity. However, there was no evidence to support these claims and the prison officials violated defendant’s right to free speech by confiscating the letter.id: 22746
An inmate’s possession of photocopied artwork signed by a validated gang member did not establish a link to the gang that would support the inmate’s validation.An inmate was validated as a member of the Mexican Mafia prison gang and placed in the secured housing unit (SHU). However, his possession of photocopies of drawings signed by either a gang member or gang associate was insufficient to establish a “direct link” to a validated gang member as required under section 3378 (c)(4) of title 15. id: 22377
No-contact order was invalid where defendant did not commit an offense listed in section 1202.05.Defendant was not convicted of any of the sex offenses enumerated in Penal Code section 1202.05, which authorizes courts to prohibit visitation between a defendant sentenced to prison and the child victim. The order prohibiting defendant from having any contact with the victim or her family was stricken.id: 22219
The prison denied the inmate’s statutory rights by not letting him participate in an existing kosher meals program.Prison officials denied the prisoner’s rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, by denying the prisoner, a Messianic Jew, a kosher diet. Prison officials did not dispute the sincerity of the inmate’s beliefs or the requirement that he maintain a kosher diet. Nor did they demonstrate that the burden imposed on his religious beliefs furthered a compelling governmental interest and was the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. The claim was properly adjudicated in a habeas corpus proceeding.id: 22558
Prison sanction (loss of conduct credits) based on heroin possession was improper because the heroin was found on a postcard which was intercepted in the mail room and never delivered to petitioner.Petitioner was a state prisoner who received sanctions from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation including the loss of 151 days of good conduct credits based on a finding that he possessed heroin. However, the evidence did not support the sanction where the substance at issue was concealed on a postcard addressed to the petitioner but was never in his possession as it was intercepted by a guard in the mail room.id: 20523
The receiver and the warden were ordered to respond to the habeas petition alleging inadequate postsurgical care by a state prisoner.A federal court judge appointed a receiver to oversee the management of the medical care delivery services in the state prisons. Alleged violations of the Eighth Amendment arising from inadequate medical care may be raised in a habeas corpus petition. Both the receiver and warden of the prison at which the person is incarcerated are necessary and proper parities to respond to the habeas petition. In the present case, the warden and receiver were ordered to investigate the petitioner’s claim of inadequate postsurgical care and treatment.id: 20487
New prison regulation preventing reinstatement of forfeited credits violated ex post facto principles when applied to prisoners whose misconduct occurred before the promulgation of the regulation.A new regulation of the Department of Corrections, which prevents prisoners from obtaining reinstatement of conduct/work credits that had been forfeited for misconduct, violates the ex post facto prohibition when applied to prisoners whose misconduct was committed before the regulation was promulgated. This is so because the objective effect of the amendment is to lengthen the prisoner's term by barring him from earning credit restoration through good behavior. This constitutes punishment for ex post facto purposes.id: 15285
Juvenile court unlawfully delegated decisions regarding family visits to a private therapeutic program.A juvenile placed out of home under the delinquency laws has a fundamental constitutional right to visitation by family members. The trial court unlawfully delegated its judicial power over visitation by effectively delegating all decisions
regarding the family visits to the private program placement.id: 19753
Inmate was entitled to work credits/points for periods where his work status classification was interrupted for reasons that were not his fault. Petitioner, a prison inmate, challenged the refusal of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to grant him work time behavioral points which affect his classification score and custody level. He was entitled to the credits/points for the periods for which his work status classification was interrupted without his fault as he was exonerated of wrongdoing. The DOCR's interpretation of the regulation of it used to deny credits was unreasonable.id: 19413
Prisoner exhausted his administrative remedies allowing habeas corpus relief by the courts where he appealed the parole condition in question as far as he was allowed.The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation appealed the order granting defendant's habeas corpus petition in superior court. The Department argued the petition should not have been heard because defendant failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. However, defendant exhausted his administrative remedies because he took his appeal of the parole condition in question as far as the regulations allowed.id: 19279
Prisoner should have been accorded confidential mail privileges with his Canadian attorney who represented him in an unrelated child custody matter.An attorney licensed to practice law in Canada and representing a California inmate in a child custody matter in Canada poses no greater threat to the security of the prison or the general public. Therefore, Penal Code section 2600 requires that the mail between the attorney and client in this situation be accorded the same confidentiality as any other attorney-client mail.id: 12780
Restrictions on publications received by prisoners must be reasonably related to penological interest.Justice Blackmun, writing for a 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court, held that prison regulations which restrict the sending of publications to prisoners are valid if they are reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. The court rejected the argument that prison officials were subject to a strict least restrictive means test, opting instead for the more deferential reasonableness test. The case was remanded to determine whether the regulations here were valid as applied to the 46 publications introduced at trial. Justices Stevens, Brennan and Marshall concurred with the majority's ruling that prison officials are not entitled to <i>carte blanche</i> deference, but dissented from the deferential reasonableness standard.id: 14797
Application of state statute of limitations to prisoner's complaint also requires application of tolling statute.In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Stevens, the Supreme Court held that a federal court applying a state statute of limitations to an inmate's federal civil rights suit should give effect to the State's provision tolling the limitations period for prisoners.id: 14787
Right of prisoner to wear civilian clothing is protected under substantive due process.San Quentin Prison enforced restrictions on the rights of prisoners to possess and wear certain items of civilian clothing. The right to wear clothing of one's choice is a protected liberty interest under the substantive due process guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. The restrictions, however, were not an unconstitutional infringement on the right of prisoners to self-expression through clothing choice nor did they violate the prisoners statutory rights under Penal Code sections 2600 and 2601.id: 14798
Involuntary use of anti-psychotic drugs on prisoners without judicial approval.In the Washington State Correctional system, prisoners who suffer from a mental disorder and are gravely disabled or pose a likelihood of serious harm may be treated with anti-psychotic drugs without consent. A prisoner who objects is entitled to a hearing before the supervisor of the mental health unit and two mental health professionals who are not involved in the inmate's treatment or diagnosis. The prisoner may present evidence, cross-examine witnesses and be assisted by a lay advisor. In a 6-3 opinion written by Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court upheld these procedures against a due process challenge. The majority held that due process does not require the right to counsel and a judicial hearing before such involuntary treatment. Justice Blackmun concurred, and Justices Stevens, Brennan and Marshall dissented.id: 14790
Prison official who reviews a rules violation report is barred from conducting the disciplinary hearing on that report.A prison official who reviews a rules violation report to classify the charge as either administrative or serious and to correct the report, if necessary, is barred from conducting the disciplinary hearing on that report.id: 14795
Once the sentence and parole are complete, a prisoner may not be assigned to a security housing unit upon reentering prison for completion of the prior unexpired term.Petitioner was paroled from a prison commitment in 1988. At the time of his parole, he was serving a fixed disciplinary term in a security housing unit (SHU) imposed when he was found guilty of assaulting a staff member. He successfully completed his parole and was discharged. He was then recommitted to the Department of Corrections and shortly thereafter was assigned, pursuant to title 15 California Code of Regulations, section 3341.5, subdivision (c)(5), to a SHU solely because of the previously unexpired SHU disciplinary fixed term. However, section 3341.5 (c)(5) may not be applied to him as he was previously discharged from parole.id: 14792
Excessive force against prisoner may constitute cruel and unusual punishment despite lack of serious injury.Defendant was beaten by prison guards while he was handcuffed and shackled. A supervisor watched the beating but merely told the officers not to have too much fun. The inmate suffered minor bruises, facial swelling, loosened teeth, and a cracked dental plate. In a 7-2 opinion written by Justice O'Connor, the Supreme Court held that the use of excessive physical force against a prisoner may constitute cruel and unusual punishment even though the inmate does not suffer serious injury. The court said that although de minimis uses of physical force are not protected by the Eighth Amendment, constitutional standards always are violated when prison officials maliciously and sadistically use force to cause harm, whether or not that force results in significant injury. Justices Thomas and Scalia dissented, arguing that a use of force that causes only insignificant harm to a prisoner is not cruel and unusual punishment.id: 14789
A competent inmate may refuse medical treatment irrespective of the personal consequences.Under California law a competent, informed adult has a fundamental right of self-determination to refuse or demand the withdrawal of medical treatment of any form irrespective of the personal consequences. Moreover, in the absence of evidence demonstrating a threat to institutional security or public safety, prison officials, including medical personnel have no affirmative duty to administer such treatment and may not deny a person incarcerated in state prison this freedom of choice.id: 14785
Supreme Court permits prisoner to sue for exposure to tobacco smoke from other inmates.A prisoner sued Nevada State Prison officials complaining of health problems caused by exposure to cigarette smoke when he was assigned to a cell with another inmate who smoked five packs a day. In a 7-2 opinion written by Justice White, the Supreme Court held that the 8th Amendment protects against prison conditions that threaten health problems in the future. Thus the prisoner stated a cause of action under the 8th Amendment by alleging that prison officials, with deliberate indifference, exposed him to levels of environmental tobacco smoke that posed an unreasonable risk of serious damage to his future health. The court said that on remand, the subjective factor of deliberate indifference should be determined in light of the prison authorities' current attitude and conduct, which my have changed considerably since the judgment of the [9th Circuit] Court of appeals.id: 14800
Preventing prisoners convicted of sex crimes from receiving family visits is unconstitutional.A provision of the state Budget Act which excludes persons convicted of certain sex crimes from receiving family visits in prison violates the California Constitution's single subject rule and the provision may not be enforced.id: 14794
Vexatious litigant may file habeas corpus petition without obtaining permission from the presiding judge.An inmate who has been declared a vexatious litigant retains the right to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus unencumbered by vexatious litigant proceedings which apply to the filing of a civil action or proceeding.id: 14801
Defendant found NGI and committed to a state hospital was entitled to a hearing to determine his competency to refuse antipsychotic medication.Defendant was charged with a crime, found not guilty by reason of insanity, and committed to Atascadero State Hospital. He was entitled to a hearing to determine whether he is competent to refuse to take antipsychotic medication.id: 16349
Enhanced discipline of an inmate for repeated violations contemplates multiple violations of the same offense.Petitioner, a state prisoner, was disciplined for an act of disrespect to prison staff. Ordinarily, the offense would be subject to "administrative" discipline, but can be treated as a more serious offense under a rule applying to repeat offenders. Petitioner suffered previous discipline but not for this offense. Under these circumstances, the enhanced punishment (30 days loss of conduct credits) was inappropriate.id: 17616
Defendant may challenge the award of custody credits on appeal when raised in conjunction with other issues.Penal Code section 1237.1, which became effective January 1, 1996, provides that before a defendant can challenge an award of presentence custody credits, he or she must first raise the issue at the time of sentencing, if discovered after sentencing, the issue must be raised in the trial court via a motion to correct the record. The provision is retroactive and applied to defendant who filed his notice of appeal in 1995. However, section 1237.1 only applies when the sole issue raised on appeal involves a criminal defendant's contention that there was a miscalculation of credits. Since the defendant raised other issues in the direct appeal, the Court of Appeal could decide the issue of custody credits when that issue had not been raised earlier.id: 13517
If a person still owes a portion of a qualifying fine, and is an inmate in a California prison, the CDCR can deduct a portion of his wages under section 2085.5.Penal Code section 2085.5, subd.(a) allows the CDCR to withdraw funds from the defendant’s trust account to pay a restitution fine even though he is no longer serving the prison sentence for the crime on which the restitution fine was based. The CDCR can continue to deduct a portion of his wages until the restitution is paid.id: 26058
Inmate properly submitted his appeal by using the institutional mail system, even though the prison claimed it never received the appeal.A prison inmate properly prepared and timely submitted via institutional mail an administrative appeal involving an incident in the prison. That the prison appeals office didn’t receive the appeal did not matter given the evidence that the inmate submitted it through institutional mail, which was an accepted method of filingid: 24560
The trial court did not violate defendant’s right to counsel or his civil rights by denying him telephone access from the jail after he used the jail phone to arrange a murder. The trial court did not err by ordering a complete restriction of the capital defendant’s telephone privileges after learning that he had used the jail telephone to arrange the murder of a prosecution witness.id: 24794
There was no venue or vicinage problem where defendant was tried in Orange County where the murder was planned evan though it took place in LA. Defendant argued his venue and vicinage rights were violated where he was tried in Orange County even though the murder occurred in Los Angeles. However, under Penal Code section 781 venue is also proper, where as here, defendant made preparations for the killing in Orange County. And, while it is true there are more potential black jurors in Los Angeles than in Orange County, there is no authority for the proposition that the trial should take place in the county that has a higher percentage of people of the defendant’s race. id: 24795
Inmates seeking to compel the CDCR to process grievances should file a petition for writ of mandate.The proper way to compel the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to process inmate grievances is by writ of mandate, not a writ of habeas corpus.id: 24651
Supreme Court holds PLRA exhaustion requirements applies to all inmate lawsuits about prison life.The Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. id: 20134
Supreme Court upholds restrictions on prison visitation.In a decision written by Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court upheld Michigan prison regulations that barred inmates from receiving non-contact visits from (1) any minor nieces and nephews; (2) minor children as to whom the inmate's parental rights had been terminated (3) children unaccompanied by a family member or legal guardian; and (4) former inmates who are not family members of the inmate. The Court also sustained a prison regulation that barred any inmate with two substance-abuse violations from receiving any visits, except from lawyers or clergy, for two years.id: 20156
Restrictions placed on disruptive defendant while in jail did not result in inhumane conditions and did not unreasonably interfere with her access to counsel.While in jail awaiting trial, defendant used the phone to dissuade a witness from testifying. The trial court then terminated her phone privileges and ordered the sheriff to monitor her visits although she could have face-to-face visits with her attorneys. The court also later allowed defendant to use the phone as she was seeking a new attorney. She later complained that the conditions of her confinement were inhumane but the court, after hearings, did not always defer to the jail authorities and took active steps to protect defendant’s ability to defend herself. The restrictions did not interfere with her communications with counsel and the court always made sure defendant had reasonable access to counsel.id: 23514
Defendant was properly validated as a prison gang associate and housed in a secured housing unit (SHU) where two of the three source items used to validate him showed his gang activity within the last six years. The regulatory structure provides for validation of a prison inmate as a prison gang member or associate based on three independent source items except for photographs. A validated member or associate is only subject to housing in the SHU for an indeterminate term if the affiliate is currently active, and the current activity is demonstrated if only one of the source items shows documented gang activity within the last six years. Here, two of the three source items used to validate defendant as a current associate showed his gang activity within the last six years.id: 23456
The trial court did not err by allowing Pelican Bay to separate inmates by race if security required it and for a short time.Pelican Bay racially segregates inmates and during extended periods of perceived threatened violence, denies family visits, work assignments, yard exercises, religious services and other privileges to prisoners of one race while granting the same privileges to prisoners of other races. In Johnson v. California (2005) 543 U.S. 499, the court found prisons may not use race as a basis for discipline without good cause. Here, there were better means of controlling violence but the trial court did not err in allowing prison officials to separate inmates based on race if security required it and it was on a short term emergency basis.id: 23046
CDCR properly validated defendant as a gang member using three reliable source items linking him to a gang.The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s validation of defendant as a gang member was proper where it was premised on three sources of information linking defendant to the Norteno Structure including a debriefing report, a gang roster, and a “disciplinary log” in the possession of another gang member.id: 23038
The courts must give deference to the CDCR in interpreting its own regulations governing the identification of inmates as prison gang affiliates.The CDCR validated an inmate as a gang member. Cal. Code of Regulations, Title 15, section 3378 provides that validation requires at least three independent source items indicative of association with persons who have been classified as gang members or associates . At least one source item must be a “direct link.” The court should have deferred to the CDCR’s interpretation of its own regulation.id: 22948
A court commissioner has the authority to summarily deny a writ petition seeking to enforce a prisoner’s rights while in confinement.Code of Civil Procedure section 259, subd. (a) authorizes a court commissioner to summarily deny a writ petition seeking to enforce a prisoner’s rights while in confinement, but not a petition that seeks to collaterally attack the criminal conviction that provides the basis for the confinement.id: 22750
Because defendant had not exhausted his administrative remedies, the superior court lacked the authority to grant custody credits against his parole term for extra time spent in prison.The trial court erred by granting the defendant’s habeas petition awarding custody credit against his parole term for time spent in prison between the date he would have been released after the Board of Parole Hearings granted him parole in 2008 and the date of his eventual release after the reversal of the board’s grant by the Governor was found to be invalid. The superior court lacked the authority to grant relief because defendant’s petition was premature and he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. He should have applied for additional credit to the CDCR, and if denied, then to the Board of Parole Hearings.id: 22565
Regulations denying classification benefits for inmates willing to work but not assigned to a work program are not arbitrary or capricious. A prison inmate’s participation in a prison work program may favorably affect the inmate’s custody level. Regulations say that an inmate who is willing to work, but without his or her fault, is not assigned to a work program may not receive the benefit of work participation for classification purposes. The regulations are rational and not arbitrary and do not violate due process or equal protection. id: 21846
Evidence supported the validation of defendant as a prison gang member where he possessed the address of a validated member, a book on the formation of a gang and a newspaper article discussing a gang event.Defendant, serving a life term in state prison was validated as a member of a prison gang and transferred to a secured housing unit (SHU). He argued there was insufficient reliable evidence to validate him. However, he possessed an address of a validated gang member which established a link with the gang. He also had an audio CD (with photos of the gang's founder), a book on the formation of a guerilla group, and a flyer and newspaper article referring to a gang event. Evidence supported the gang validation. id: 21615
A commissioner had the authority to summarily deny the inmates’ request for relief in the superior court.Prison inmates often file writ petitions challenging conditions of confinement or lodging other grievances. Contrary to defendants’ claim, a superior court commissioner has the authority to rule on writs filed in that court. id: 21266
Courts will not review prison disciplinary decisions not resulting in the loss of custody credits.Petitioner, an inmate serving 15 years-to-life for murder, was issued two CDC 115's, a level of discipline issued for prison misconduct that does not result in the loss of custody credits. However, the issuance of a 115 does not invoke the right to due process and review by the courts.id: 21262
The inmate was not entitled to work/school performance points for classification purposes for unassigned time resulting from transfers.Defendant was transferred from one prison to another, and then to a different facility within the prison. During the period of these transfers he was unassigned to work, school or a vocational program. At his next
classification review, he received only two of the four favorable classification points available for average or above-average performance in such a program. The superior court later erred in finding defendant was entitled to the additional two work/school performance points for the time
he did not actually participate in a program.id: 21054
The trial court erred in ruling the prison failed to fulfill the mandate of supplying two hot meals daily to SHU inmates.Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court concluded the prison was failing to fulfill its regulatory mandate to serve two hot meals daily to prisoners in the secured housing facility in the state prison. However, because the trial court imposed its own interpretation of the regulation rather than affording proper deference to the prison’s interpretation and because there is no substantial evidence to support the trial court’s judgment that the prison regularly violates the regulation, the court’s ruling was erroneous, even applying mandamus review. id: 20706
Prison visitation regulations did not create liberty interest.In a 6-3 opinion written by Justice Blackmun, the Supreme Court held that Kentucky prison regulations governing visitation did not give inmates a Due Process liberty interest in receiving visitors. The regulations were not mandatory, and the court ruled that no inmate could reasonably form an expectation that a visit would necessarily be allowed absent the occurrence of one of the listed conditions. That is, the regulations are not worded in such a way that an inmate could reasonably expect to enforce them against the prison officials. Justices Marshall, Brennan and Stevens dissented.id: 14796
Supreme Court finds no due process right to present witnesses at prison disciplinary hearing.Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Rehnquist held that a Hawaii prisoner had no due process right to present witnesses at a disciplinary hearing resulting in 30 days disciplinary segregation. The discipline did not present the type of atypical, significant deprivation in which a state might conceivably create a protected liberty interest. Disciplinary segregation generally mirrored conditions imposed upon inmates in administrative segregation and protective custody. A high misconduct charge was later expunged as a result of the prisoner's successful administrative appeal. The prisoner's confinement did not exceed similar, but totally discretionary confinement in either duration or the degree of segregation. Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Stevens, and Justice Bryer, joined by Justice Souter, filed separate dissenting opinions.id: 14799
Supreme Court says prisoner has no First Amendment right to provide legal assistance to fellow inmates.While the respondent was incarcerated in state prison, he learned that a fellow inmate had been charged with assaulting a correctional officer. He decided to assist the inmate with his defense and sent him a letter, which was intercepted in accordance with prison policy. Based on the letter's content, the prison sanctioned respondent for violating prison rules prohibiting insolence and interfering with due process hearings. In this 42 U.S.C. � 1983 appeal, the Ninth Circuit held the sanction was improper because inmates have a First Amendment right to give legal assistance to other inmates. <i>Murphy v. Shaw</i>, 195 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 1999). In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Thomas, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that inmates possess no special First Amendment right to provide legal assistance to fellow inmates. Some First Amendment rights are simply inconsistent with the corrections system's "legitimate penological objectives." The Court relied on prior decisions sustaining restrictions on inmate-to-inmate written correspondence under <i>Turner v. Safley</i>, 482 U.S. 78, 93 (1987). The case was remanded to determine whether respondent was properly disciplined for violating prison regulations.id: 15129
Supreme Court says California law deferring parole hearings did not violate ex post facto clause.A 1981 amendment allowed the California Board of Prison Terms to defer suitability hearings for up to three years for prisoners convicted of more than one offense involving the taking of a life, if the Board finds it is not reasonable to expect that parole would be granted during the following years. California Penal Code section 3041.5(b)(2). Because the law applied only to prisoners whose chance of parole was remote and because it carefully tailored the Board's authority by requiring written findings justifying deferral, Justice Thomas' majority opinion held that the law did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause, even when applied to a prisoner convicted of two murders before the date of the amendment. Justices Stevens and Souter dissented.id: 9559
Supreme Court holds that pro se prisoner's complaint adequately pleaded Eighth Amendment violation. Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed suit against prison officials alleging that he had a liver condition that required treatment and that prison officials had begun treatment but wrongfully terminated it. Plaintiff alleged that the prison officials' withdrawal of treatment threatened his life and violated the Eight Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments. The Tenth Circuit found plaintiff's allegations "conclusory" because he failed to allege that he had suffered "substantial harm." On that basis, the court of appeals upheld the dismissal of this lawsuit. In a per curiam reversal, the Supreme Court found that plaintiff's allegation that the officials' actions were endangering his life were sufficient to allege the requisite harm and that the court of appeals' decision departed in a "stark manner from the pleading standard mandated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." The Court also noted that the court of appeals had failed to follow prior Supreme Court decisions requiring pro se complaints to be liberally construed. id: 20196
Supreme Court finds that State may deny most dangerous inmates access to periodicals.Pennsylvania houses its most dangerous and recalcitrant inmates in a special unit. In that unit, the most dangerous inmates are not allowed access to newspapers, magazines, and photographs. The Supreme Court upheld the policy, although no opinion commanded a majority of justices.id: 20179
"Some evidence" supported the prison officials' finding that petitioner possessed a weapon in his cell.Prison officials found petitioner possessed a weapon in his cell. The trial court reversed the disciplinary action finding the evidence was insufficient to support the violation since the razor blade was located on a shelf accessible to petitioner and his cellmate. However, the trial court's ruling was erroneous because there was "some evidence" to support the finding. The trial court erred in reversing the disciplinary action.id: 19199
Prison regulation prohibiting inmates from possessing sexually explicit materials does not violate the First Amendment.The regulation prohibiting prison inmates from possessing sexually explicit materials does not violate the First Amendment or Penal Code section 2601, subd.(c).id: 18472
The urinalysis results sufficed to sustain the finding that the inmate possessed a controlled substance in violation of prison regulations.The prisoner was found to have possessed a controlled substance in violation of prison regulations based on a positive urinalysis test. He argued the THC-positive urinalysis result was insufficient, standing alone, to support the finding that he possessed the substance. However, the drug test satisfied the "some evidence" standard of proof required for prison disciplinary actions.id: 18049
Inmate who was arrested for, but not convicted of, a sex offense was subject to the "R" suffix based upon the arrest reports and prosecutor's comments.The California Department of Corrections identifies sex offenders in the prison population by affixing an "R" suffix to the inmate's custody designation. California Code of Regulations, Title 15, section 3371.1, subd. (b)(2) provides that an "R" suffix may be designated to an inmate with a history of sex offenses as shown by arrest reports and prosecutor's comments. In the present case, defendant was convicted of an offense other than the sex charge for which he was arrested. However, the CDC properly reviewed the arrest reports and the prosecutor's comments and determined an "R" suffix was appropriate.id: 17423
Court's order to modify administrative segregation area interfered with the warden's authority to impose reasonable security precautions.Defendant was housed in administrative segregation while he awaited trial for the murder of his cellmate. The trial court ordered the warden to modify the specially constructed visiting area to increase counsel's ability to confer with defendant. However, the court's order to replace the glass partition with wire mesh and to install a slot for the direct exchange of documents in the visiting area constructed for defendant was an abuse of discretion. While a defendant has a right to confer with counsel in absolute privacy, prison officials may implement reasonable restrictions if necessary for security.id: 16348
Harsh confinement conditions did not substantially interfere with defendant's access to counsel or impair his ability to prepare for trial.Defendant argued numerous adverse conditions of his confinement impaired his ability to assist in the defense and to defend himself. He complained of limited access to the library, disruptive searches of his cell, food deprivation, solitary confinement, and transportation schedules which limited access to counsel. However, the record showed defendant was exceptionally well prepared for trial and that confinement conditions did not prevent meaningful communication with counsel.id: 16350
Petition charging prison rules violation provided adequate information to allow defendant to present a defense and there was no due process right to confront the confidential informants.Defendant was found guilty of a prison rules violation for conspiracy to commit battery on an inmate, based solely on information supplied by confidential informants. There is no due process right to confront or cross-examine confidential informants or to be informed of their identities. Moreover, defendant was adequately apprised of the details of the offense to enable him to prepare a defense where the charging petition informed him of the victim's identity, the date of the attack, the nature of the injuries, and the fact that prison officials had confidential information from separate sources that defendant was part of the conspiracy to commit battery.id: 14793
Where appellant was entirely unable to take care of himself, the court did not err in ordering involuntary medication without considering less-restrictive measures.Appellant, a state prisoner, argued that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the question of whether the administration of psychotropic medication was the least restrictive or least drastic course of treatment available to him. However, given the fact that appellant was entirely unable to take care of himself, absent psychotropic medication, there was no real alternative to involuntary medication.id: 14802
Appellant was gravely disabled at the time he was involuntarily forced to take psychotropic medication.There was evidence that appellant a state prisoner, became catatonic absent medication and consequently did not eat, drink or clothe himself. Moreover, the People's expert stated his opinion that appellant's behavior resulted from catatonic type schizophrenia. Therefore, substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding that appellant was gravely disabled as a result of a mental disorder and that he was incompetent to refuse medication.id: 14786
Authorities may consider prisoner's behavior in jail awaiting trial in computing his classification score.Appellant challenged his rating as a maximum security prisoner due to his high classification score pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 15 section 3375. Under that scheme the higher classification score indicates greater security control needs. Under section 3375.3, points are to be added to a new prisoner's classification score for unfavorable behavior during prior periods of incarceration. Appellant argued that prior incarceration necessarily excludes a present period of incarceration that simply began in another location, i.e. county jail. However, the phrase prior incarceration behavior as used in section 3375.3 includes incarceration behavior while in county jail awaiting trial on the charges that led to the current term of incarceration.id: 14788
Notice period of drug possession does not begin to run until Correction's Department receives lab report confirming the substance is contraband.The trial court erroneously found that under Penal Code section 2932, subdivision (c)(1), when the Department of Corrections suspects a prisoner of possessing a controlled substance and a field test has been performed indicating that the substance is controlled, written notice of possession of a controlled substance must be given to the prisoner within 15 days of the field test. However, the 15 day notice period does not commence to run until the Department of Corrections has received the laboratory report confirming that the substance is contraband.id: 14791
Supreme Court adopts subjective test for deliberate indifference by prison officials.Petitioner, a preoperative transsexual who projects feminine characteristics was raped by another inmate in prison. In an opinion written by Justice Souter, the Supreme Court rejected the petitioner's invitation to adopt an objective test for deliberate indifference. The court held instead that a prison official cannot be held liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference." The case was remanded for further proceedings. Justices Stevens and Blackmun concurred but argued that an Eighth Amendment violation would be possible even without an improper subjective motivation. Justice Thomas concurred, but expressed doubts as to whether the Eighth Amendment covers challenges to conditions of confinement at all.id: 13698
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Exclusion of 18-25 year-olds from the youthful offender provisions of section 3051 did not violate equal protection. Penal Code section 3051 establishes a parole eligibility hearing for juveniles convicted of special circumstance murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Excluding persons 18-25 from the youthful offender parole hearing provision did not violate equal protection principles.id: 27245