Smith v. Bounds, Civ. No. 3052 and 4277 Raleigh Division and 790 Washington Division.

• Decision Date: 14 May 1985
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 3052 and 4277 Raleigh Division and 790 Washington Division.
• Citation: 610 F. Supp. 597
• Parties: Robert (Bobby) SMITH, Ronald D. Carnes, Richard A. Carter, and Bradford Mizell Lilley, Plaintiffs, v. Vernon Lee BOUNDS, Commissioner, State Dept. of Correction, and Stanley Blackledge, Warden, Central State Prison, Raleigh, N.C., Defendants. Donald W. MORGAN, Franklin D. Strader, and John H. Russell, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. R.L. TURNER, Superintendent of Odom Correctional Institution of the N.C. Dept. of Correction, Defendant. John HARRINGTON, Alonzo Watts, Clifton Speight, William Ryder, Ronney McBride and Ray Forbes, Plaintiffs, v. James HOLSHOUSER, Governor, State of N.C.; V. Lee Bounds, Commissioner, N.C. Dept. of Corrections; Dr. Stanley Blackledge, Warden, Central Prison, F.R. Moore, Sergeant, Central Prison, Franklin Mahan, Regional Superintendent, M.S. Lee, Captain, Washington County Unit 3560 Creswell, N.C., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina

610 F. Supp. 597

Robert (Bobby) SMITH, Ronald D. Carnes, Richard A. Carter, and Bradford Mizell Lilley, Plaintiffs, v. Vernon Lee BOUNDS, Commissioner, State Dept. of Correction, and Stanley Blackledge, Warden, Central State Prison, Raleigh, N.C., Defendants.

Donald W. MORGAN, Franklin D. Strader, and John H. Russell, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. R.L. TURNER, Superintendent of Odom Correctional Institution of the N.C. Dept. of Correction, Defendant.

John HARRINGTON, Alonzo Watts, Clifton Speight, William Ryder, Ronney McBride and Ray Forbes, Plaintiffs, v. James HOLSHOUSER, Governor, State of N.C.; V. Lee Bounds, Commissioner, N.C. Dept. of Corrections; Dr. Stanley Blackledge, Warden, Central Prison, F.R. Moore, Sergeant, Central Prison, Franklin Mahan, Regional Superintendent, M.S. Lee, Captain, Washington County Unit 3560 Creswell, N.C., Defendants.

Civ. Nos. 3052 and 4277 Raleigh Division and 790 Washington Division.

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Raleigh/Washington Division.

May 14, 1985.

Barry Nakell, Chapel Hill, N.C., for plaintiffs.

Jacob L. Safron, Asst. Atty. Gen., N.C. Dept. of Justice, Raleigh, N.C., for defendants.

OPINION

DUPREE, Senior District Judge.

In the early 1970's, plaintiffs brought these actions challenging the adequacy of the North Carolina Department of Correction's legal research facilities. The cases were consolidated and in 1974, Judge Larkins granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, ordering the state to submit either a plan to provide inmates with adequate library facilities or some reasonable alternative plan. The state submitted a plan which was separated into three components. First, the state would establish regional law libraries in prisons across the state. Second, the state would develop procedures for their use by inmates. And third, the state would train inmate paralegals to staff each of the libraries. This plan was approved by Judge Larkins, who also ordered the state to file upon implementation of the plan a Certificate of Compliance. Judge Larkins' order was affirmed by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Smith v. Bounds, 538 F.2d 541 (4th Cir.1975), and by the Supreme Court, Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977). The Supreme Court specifically held

that the fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law.

Id. at 828, 97 S.Ct. at 1498.

At the time he entered his 1974 order, Judge Larkins directed the state to implement its plan within 120 days. However, the state made no effort to advise the court of its progress until June of 1978, more than a year after the Supreme Court's decision, when it sent Judge Larkins a letter informing him that all of the law libraries were in place and new regulations had been adopted regarding their use. In reliance on that letter, the court dismissed these actions. After plaintiffs protested this action, the state filed on November 1, 1978 a Certificate of Compliance raising essentially the same contentions as in its letter and asserting that it accordingly was in full compliance with its plan. Pursuant to the court's order, the state subsequently purchased copies of a legal research book for its eleven core libraries and filed another Certificate of Compliance asserting that it was in full compliance with the court's 1974 order, as modified.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals vacated the district court's order, Harrington v. Holshouser, 598 F.2d 614 (4th Cir.1979) (unpublished) (Harrington I), concluding that the burden was on the state to show compliance with all aspects of the plan. Specifically, the Court of Appeals ordered this court to consider plaintiffs' claims that: (1) defendants had failed to comply with the requirements that there be a trained inmate paralegal at each library; (2) they had failed to provide any information regarding free copying services for indigent inmates; (3) defendants had failed to show that there were adequate bed spaces available at the prison units with libraries for inmates seeking short-term transfers to use those libraries; and (4) the policy of limiting access to the libraries for inmates on disciplinary segregation was impermissible.

On remand, the action was referred to Magistrate Logan Howell for further proceedings. When Magistrate Howell became ill, the case was withdrawn from his docket and eventually transferred to the undersigned. During this period, plaintiffs sought to monitor the state's progress and insure implementation of its plan by propounding interrogatories and requests for production. They filed their first set of interrogatories on July 26, 1979. Having heard nothing after three months, plaintiffs filed a motion to compel. Defendants then filed a motion for extension of time until November 1, 1979 to answer, which motion was granted by the court. However, that date passed with no answers or objections being filed. Plaintiffs then sought a hearing on the motion, and one was set for June 3, 1980. On May 29, 1980, five days before the hearing was to be held, defendants filed their answers to plaintiff's interrogatories. No explanation was given for the state's failure to respond earlier. Furthermore, the answers were contained in an affidavit submitted by W.L. Kautzky, then deputy director of the Division of Prisons. The affidavit was dated November 6, 1979, almost six months before the answers were filed and served on the plaintiffs. Again, no reason was given for this delay.

A similar delay occurred with respect to plaintiffs' fourth set of interrogatories, served September 9, 1982. The state did not offer any response whatsoever until the court granted plaintiffs' unopposed motion to compel on December 1, 1982. On December 9, they filed a motion to extend time to answer until January 15, 1983, which motion was granted. Defendants subsequently filed their answers on January 11.

The case proceeded in this manner throughout. For example, on February 17, 1981, defendants were directed to submit within ninety days a statement of the means by which they would promptly comply with their obligation to train inmate paralegals. They were further ordered to file within thirty days a profile of the actual operation of Department of Correction Regulation 5 N.C.A.C. 2G.0203 regarding the limited use of law library facilities by inmates on disciplinary segregation. On May 8, 1981, defendants asked for and received an extension of time to respond until August 7, 1981. Their response was filed on that date, and consisted of affidavits of two Department of Correction employees regarding the implementation of the inmate paralegal training program and the use of law library facilities by inmates serving on disciplinary segregation.

The parties continued to conduct discovery, and on January 28, 1982 plaintiffs filed a "Motion for an Order that Defendants Comply with Their Plan." The state did not respond to the motion until May 3, 1982, two weeks after the court had issued an order directing defendants to show cause within ten days why plaintiffs' motion should not be granted. In that response, defendants basically summarized their previous filings. With respect to the inmate paralegal training program, no mention was made as to whether that program had actually been instituted. Consequently, the court entered an order on May 7, 1982 directing the parties to submit within thirty days satisfactory alternatives to (1) the program schedules for the training of paralegals, (2) the bed space requirement to library access by inmates from non-library units and (3) library access for inmates on disciplinary segregation who did not have legal deadlines. Plaintiffs filed their response on May 28, 1982. Defendants did not respond to the order until September 3, 1982, when a hearing was held before this court. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court ordered the state to file a statement detailing its efforts to comply with each provision of its plan. Defendants did so, and based on that statement, the court dismissed the action.

Plaintiffs again appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed this court's decision in part, vacated it in part, and remanded the action for further proceedings. Harrington v. Holshouser, 741 F.2d 66 (4th Cir. 1984) (Harrington II). The court found that the defendants had adequately provided bed space for inmates who needed to be transported from prisons without library facilities, and affirmed this court's decision on that issue. Id. at 69.

With respect to the question of library use by segregated inmates, the state's regulations provide that requests for law library use are divided into two categories, the first being those made by inmates with legal deadlines to meet and the second being those without deadlines. Inmates serving on disciplinary segregation were, until recently, only permitted to use the law library if they made a Category I request. However, at the time this action was appealed, 5 N.C.A.C. 2B.0205 provided that inmates could serve only fifteen days in a row on disciplinary segregation and were entitled to a forty-eight hour release from segregation at the end of each fifteen-day period. Therefore, those inmates with Category II requests would have to wait a maximum of fifteen days before being permitted to use the law library. The Court of Appeals concluded that this length of time was constitutionally acceptable, and affirmed this court's ruling on that issue. Id. at 68-69.

However, the Court of Appeals reversed as to the issues of free copying for indigents and the use of inmate paralegals. With respect to the former issue, the court found that the state had not provided any information about the availability or the use of...