Casey v. Lewis
| Decision Date | 13 November 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV 90-0054 PHX CAM,CIV 91-1808 PHX CAM.,CIV 90-0054 PHX CAM |
| Citation | 834 F. Supp. 1553 |
| Parties | Fletcher CASEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Samuel A. LEWIS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Arizona |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Alice Loeb Bendheim, Phoenix, AZ, and Adjoa A. Aiyetoro, Stuart Henry Adams, Jr., and David Cyrus Fathi, Nat. Prison Project of America, Civ. Liberties Union Foundation, Washington, DC, for plaintiffs.
Kathleen L. Weinecke and Daniel Struck, Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, Phoenix, AZ, for defendants.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ACCESS TO THE COURTS
Having considered the evidence presented by the parties in this matter regarding the access to the courts issues, the Court concludes as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
In a number of facilities, prisoners allowed physical access to the law library are not allowed to browse the shelves. In some facilities, general population prisoners are denied access to the shelves although they are allowed physical access to the law library. Therefore, they must request legal materials from untrained prisoner law clerks or security officers.1
Inmates may browse the shelves in the law library at the Rynning unit law library at Florence;2 the Florence women's unit;3 Tucson;4 the Mohave unit and the Gila unit at Douglas.5 None of the inmates have access to the stacks at any of the law libraries at Perryville6 or the Kaibab unit at Winslow.7
Two lockdown facilities in Florence, SMU and CB-6, have developed "cages" that allow prisoners to sit in the law library area but prevent them from browsing the shelves.8 Prisoners in the "cages" at CB6 and SMU must request legal materials from an untrained law clerk.9
Defendants argue that vandalism problems justify denial of access to the stacks. Defendants establish that vandalism occurred to legal materials in the Perryville complex.10 However, it is not clear that this vandalism occurred because of access to the shelves. In certain facilities where prisoners have been allowed to browse the shelves, legal materials have not been stolen or damaged.11 Further, there is no evidence that allowing prisoners to browse the law library shelves is the cause of missing or damaged legal materials.12 Rather, the evidence suggests that inadequate staffing may be the cause of missing or damaged legal materials.13
Lockdown prisoners are routinely denied physical access to the law library. Prisoners in lockdown status in most facilities have no physical access to the law library.14 In order for lockdown prisoners who are denied physical access to the law library to obtain legal materials or a legal assistant, they must send a written request ("kite") to the law library. The legal materials, if available, are sent to the prisoner in his/her lockdown cell.15 Legal materials are brought to the prisoner in lockdown by ADOC staff, a prisoner legal assistant, or a prisoner law clerk.16
Staffing, logistics, and the reluctance to mix general population prisoners with lockdown prisoners are the reasons lockdown prisoners are generally denied physical access to the law library.17 However, despite these same concerns, prisoners in lockdown in the Rynning unit and the Women's Division in Florence are allowed physical access to the law library and are allowed to browse the shelves.18
Prisoners in lockdown experience severe interference with their access to the courts. Unless a lockdown prisoner has a pending ADOC charge or outside ("street") case pending, the prisoner is denied access to a legal assistant.19 Prisoners who are in lockdown status for less than fifteen days may be denied any access to the law library.20 For example, prisoners who are in lockdown in Perryville are by policy not eligible to request legal materials unless they have been in lockdown for more than fourteen days.21 In many instances, prisoners in lockdown are denied law books unless they can provide an exact citation.22
Prisoners in lockdown routinely experience long delays in receiving legal materials or legal assistance. At Perryville, it can take several days, even weeks, for a request for legal material to get to the law library and be filled.23 At Tucson, lockdown prisoners may wait as long as three to seven days to receive legal materials from the law library.24 At Tucson, lockdown prisoners experience delays in receiving legal assistance from legal assistants.25 Legal assistants are only sent to the lockdown unit on Monday, Wednesday and Friday nights.26 At Winslow, it can take a week for a request for legal assistance to reach a legal assistant.27 Legal assistants at Winslow are allowed to visit lockdown prisoners only four days a week.28 At Douglas, lockdown prisoners are denied access to legal materials and legal assistants on Fridays and Saturdays.29
Prisoners in lockdown are restricted in the numbers of books they can receive and the length of time they can keep the material. It has been the practice at Perryville to allow prisoners to receive only one book at a time, to be kept for only twenty-four hours.30 Lockdown prisoners at Tucson are allowed to keep legal materials for only twenty-four hours. Because of this restriction, they tend to request only one or two books at a time.31 Even lockdown prisoners who are intelligent, literate and legally trained are unable to do legal research under paging system that allows only one or two books at a time every couple of days. In addition, the legal assistants assigned to lockdown prisoners are not sufficiently skilled to assist them.32
The vast majority of adult prisoners incarcerated by ADOC have no adequate means to research the law, crystalize their issues, present their papers in a meaningful fashion, and get them filed in court.33
There are prisoners within ADOC custody who are functionally illiterate and who do not have English as their primary language. During a six month period between October 1990 and March 1991, 3,253 prisoners were tested at the reception center. Of these prisoners, 17.2% had a reading level below sixth grade and 14.5% were non-English speaking.34 A system-wide study conducted in 1989 established that 35% of the adult incarcerated population had a reading level of seventh grade or below.35 The trial testimony supported the conclusions of the studies and indicated that there are prisoners who are unable to research the law because of their functional illiteracy or lack of English skills.36
As a result of the inability to receive adequate legal assistance, prisoners who are slow readers have had their cases dismissed with prejudice.37 Other prisoners have been unable to file legal actions.38
Many of the law libraries are staffed by security staff and prisoner law clerks.39 In Tucson, there are seven legal assistants at the Santa Rita unit;40 two clerks and thirteen legal assistants at the Cimarron unit; one clerk and one legal assistant at the Echo law library; and five law clerks and five legal assistants at the Rincon law library.41
In Florence, the law library at CB-6 has four prisoner law clerks and three legal assistants;42 the SMU library has three law clerks, eleven legal assistants, and one correctional security officer;43 the East unit law library is staffed by one correctional security officer and two law clerks and has seven legal assistants;44 the North unit library is staffed by a correctional security officer, two law clerks and one legal assistant;45 and the law library at the South unit is staffed by a correctional security officer, three law clerks and nine legal assistants.46 The law library at Alhambra is staffed only by two law clerks and two legal assistants.47
The law library at Mohave unit at Douglas is staffed by a civilian librarian and three law clerks.48
The law library at the Kaibab unit at Winslow is staffed by a civilian librarian, Sue Ori, and three law clerks.49 There are five legal assistants but only two are approved to deliver legal materials to lockdown units.50 The law library at the Coronado unit at Winslow is staffed by civilian librarians and two law clerks. There are four legal assistants.51
All the library officers at the law libraries at Perryville are assisted by the librarian at the complex law library.52 The head law librarian at ASPC-Perryville, Starla Cathcart, has a master of library science from Brigham Young University.53 The library at the San Juan unit at Perryville is staffed by three law clerks, a correctional security officer and a librarian.54 The law library at the Santa Cruz unit at Perryville is staffed by a correctional security officer, two law clerks and one bilingual aide.55 The law library at the Santa Maria unit at Perryville is staffed by three prisoner law clerks and a correctional security officer. There is one approved legal assistant for general population and one for lockdown prisoners.56 The law library at the San Pedro unit at Perryville is staffed by one correctional security officer and three law clerks. There are two approved legal assistants for disciplinary actions.57
The law library at the Arizona Center for Women at Phoenix is staffed by two law clerks and one Department of Corrections employee. There are two approved legal assistants.58
In Tucson, Bill Streit is the complex librarian.59 The law library at the Santa Rita unit is staffed by a law librarian and three inmate clerks.60 Ann Joyner, the law librarian at the Santa Cruz Unit at Tucson, has a Master's degree in Library Science from the University of Arizona, and a Bachelor's degree from the University of Florida.61 The Echo Unit and the Rincon Unit law libraries have full-time law librarians.62
The prisoner legal assistants, law clerks, and civilian library staff are responsible for providing legal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lewis v. Casey
...finding that "[p]risoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts that is adequate, effective and meaningful," 834 F. Supp. 1553, 1566 (Ariz. 1992), citing Bounds, supra, at 822, and that "[ADOC's] system fails to comply with constitutional standards," 834 F. Supp., at 1569. The......
-
Lewis v. Casey
...finding that "[p]risoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts that is adequate, effective and meaningful," 834 F.Supp. 1553, 1566 (1992), citing Bounds, supra, at 822, 97 S.Ct., at 1495, and that "[ADOC's] system fails to comply with constitutional standards," 834 F.Supp., a......
-
Hook v. State of Ariz.
...care issues,14 and in favor of Defendants on the medical care, dental care, handicap access and due process issues. Casey v. Lewis, 834 F.Supp. 1553 (D.Ariz.1992), aff'd, 43 F.3d 1261 (9th Cir.1994), cert. granted, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1997, 131 L.Ed.2d 999 (1995); Casey v. Lewis, 834 F.......
- Casey v. Lewis
-
The Supreme Court's "prisoner Dilemma:" How Johnson, Rluipa, and Cutter Re-defined Inmate Constitutional Claims
...99. Bounds, 430 U.S. at 828, cited by Lewis, 518 U.S. at 346. 100. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 346. 101. Id. at 346-47 (citing Casey v. Lewis, 834 F. Supp. 1553, 1566, 1569 (D. Ariz. 1992)). 102. Id. at 348 (citing Casey v. Lewis, 43 F.3d 1261 (9th Cir. 1994)). 103. Id. (citing Lewis v. Casey, 514 U......