Bailleaux v. Holmes
| Decision Date | 02 October 1959 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 9831-9834,9862.,9861,9847 |
| Citation | 177 F. Supp. 361 |
| Parties | Paul R. BAILLEAUX v. Robert D. HOLMES, Governor of the State of Oregon, Mark O. Hatfield, Secretary of State of Oregon, and Sig Unander, State Treasurer of Oregon, constituting the Oregon State Board of Control, Clarence T. Gladden, Warden of the Oregon State Penitentiary, and Lewis R. Barnes, Deputy Warden of the Oregon State Penitentiary. Harry HANDRON v. Robert D. HOLMES, Governor of the State of Oregon, et al. Richard E. WILLIAMS v. Robert D. HOLMES, Governor of the State of Oregon, et al. James Quinten ANDERSON v. Robert D. HOLMES, Governor of the State of Oregon, et al. Earl SHERWOOD v. Robert D. HOLMES, Governor of the State of Oregon, et al. George R. BARBER v. Robert D. HOLMES, Governor of the State of Oregon, et al. Andrew TAYLOR v. Robert D. HOLMES, Governor of the State of Oregon, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
Louise Jayne, William E. Love, Portland, Or., Richard W. Sabin, Cecil H. Johnson, Salem, Or., for plaintiffs.
Robert Y. Thornton, Atty. Gen. of Oregon, Peter S. Herman, Lloyd G. Hammel, Asst. Attys. Gen., for defendants.
John H. Buttler, Portland, Or., amicus curiae on behalf of American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon
Plaintiffs are prisoners in the Oregon State Penitentiary at Salem, Oregon. Defendants are the Governor, Secretary of State, and the State Treasurer, comprising the State Board of Control, and the Warden and Deputy Warden of the penitentiary.
Each of the plaintiffs asserts either that he is illegally confined or that he must defend criminal charges pending against him in state or federal courts, that he is required to do all or part of the legal preparation himself because he cannot afford to engage an attorney, and that these matters require his immediate attention. Plaintiffs further allege that they are being unlawfully denied full access to the courts by the imposition of excessive restrictions on law study and preparation of legal documents. They bring this action under the Civil Rights Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, providing for redress of deprivation of civil rights by persons acting under color of state law.
In their amended and consolidated complaint they allege that the defendants in their official capacities have conspired to prevent plaintiffs from exercising their constitutional right to free and speedy access to the courts. Plaintiffs claim that the following restraints, among others, are unreasonable and unlawful: (1) Prisoners may not study law or prepare legal documents in their cells; they must do this work in a prison law library open only to a limited number of prisoners for limited periods of time; (2) prisoners are severely restricted in their ability to purchase or receive law books or statutes, even though they are not available in the prison library; (3) defendants impose special censorship on legal documents and communications with courts and attorneys; (4) defendants confiscate legal documents found in prisoners' possession outside the library; (5) prisoners in isolation are denied all access to the courts, counsel, and their legal papers; (6) prisoners may not use all of their funds to purchase legal materials or pay legal fees.
The complaint requests relief from these restrictions for themselves and for others similarly situated.
Defendants deny the allegations of conspiracy. They admit most of the specific restrictions, but they assert that such restrictions are not unlawful because they are reasonable and necessary. Defendants further assert that these restrictions do not substantially curtail plaintiffs' opportunities to be heard in the courts.
At the trial all of the plaintiffs and all of the defendants testified in person. At the conclusion of the testimony, the Court found that the plaintiffs had not proved the existence of any conspiracy and that other issues set forth in the pleadings which relate to typing, mailing and notarization privileges, and isolated instances in which prisoners were denied use of materials either were not proved or did not raise any issue cognizable in this Court as a violation of constitutional rights.
The Attorney General suggests that the recently-enacted "Post-Conviction Hearing Act", Oregon Laws 1959, c. 636, which provides for legal assistance to indigent prisoners will cure or make moot the evils of which the plaintiffs complain. This humane and admirable legislation will solve the problems of those plaintiffs who have matters in the Oregon courts. However, the Act neither purports to nor does it relate to proceedings in the federal courts or in the courts of states other than Oregon. Likewise prisoners may if they desire represent themselves. Even though some of these issues are no longer applicable to some plaintiffs, they are applicable to others, and we are therefore answering all of them.
Present regulations require that law study and the preparation of legal papers be confined to the law library. The library is open approximately thirty hours a week, during which time a limited number of prisoners, by appointment, are permitted to work on legal matters. No prisoner in the general population is permitted to study law or keep any legal documents or memoranda in his cell. Prior to the commencement of this action only four prisoners could use the facilities of the law library concurrently. Subsequently the number was increased to eleven. In the past prisoners had often been delayed for several days, and occasional delays still occur. Prisoners employed in special jobs are further restricted when library periods coincide with their work schedules. Absence from work to pursue legal matters may result in an unfavorable report which, in turn, reduces a prisoner's "good time".
Most prisoners spend fourteen hours a day in their cells. Prisoners may keep a limited quantity of study materials, as well as books, magazines, courses including correspondence courses, and personal papers.
Plaintiffs need more time than they are presently afforded to prepare their legal matters adequately. With no legal training, many are forced to represent themselves under conditions which an experienced attorney would find intolerable. Prison officials insist that these restrictions are required to curb the activities of the "cell-house lawyers", and to avoid the storage problem resulting from accumulation of legal materials in the cells.
The Court appreciates the fact that prison authorities must maintain effective discipline, and must prevent unscrupulous prisoners from preying on the weak and ignorant. However, this end may not be achieved by stifling the study of law, where such study is necessary to the effective utilization of a basic right. This does not mean that the prison authorities are powerless to prevent the accumulation of massive legal libraries in the cells. Regulations can be designed to avoid the excessive storage of materials in cells without restricting the actual use of these materials in the cells when needed.
The prison law library has one or two volumes of Corpus Juris Secundum and a copy of the criminal sections of the Oregon Revised Statutes. Prisoners may not purchase or receive from outside sources any treatises or statutes. They may not even acquire copies of individual cases from any source other than the publisher. These are expensive and not always available.
The prisoners contend that these restrictions prevent them...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Palmigiano v. Travisono
...992-94 (1962); People v. Superior Court, 273 P.2d 936 (Cal.Dist.Ct.App.1954); In re Chessman, 44 Cal.2d 1, 279 P.2d 24; Bailleaux v. Holmes, 177 F.Supp. 361 (D.Ore.1959), rev'd sub nom. Hatfield v. Bailleaux, 290 F.2d 632 (9th Cir. 1961); American Correctional Assn. Manual of Correctional S......
-
Ferguson, In re
...or the courts since such delay could amount to an effective denial of a prisoner's right to access to the courts.' Bailleaux v. Holmes, D.C., 177 F.Supp. 361, 364. It has also been recently stated that 'Of course an absolute isolation of theose incarcerated in a penal institution by a ban o......
-
Fulwood v. Clemmer
...regulations which restrict use of law books, severely limit law study, and suppress documents addressed to courts. Bailleaux v. Holmes, D.C.D.Or., 177 F.Supp. 361. A prisoner's allegations of beating and torture have been held to state a claim under the Civil Rights Acts. Gordon v. Garrson,......
-
Pierce v. La Vallee
...district court has granted relief to a state prisoner who claimed unreasonable interference with his access to law books. Bailleaux v. Holmes, D.C.Or., 177 F.Supp. 361. And in a case involving a federal prison, the Fourth Circuit has recently held in a reasoned opinion by Chief Judge Sobelo......
-
Reading Law in Prison
...Va. 1958). 9 Hatfield v. Bailleaux, 290 F. 2d 632 (7th Cir., 1961 ), cert. denied, 368 U. S. 862 (1961) reversing Bailleaux v. Holmes, 177 F. Supp. 361 (1959); In reAllison, 57 Cal. Rptr. 593, 425 P. 2d 193 (1967); In re Schoengarth, 57 Cal.Rptr. 600, 425 P. 2d 200 Matter of Chessman v. Sup......
-
Censorship of Mail: the Prisoner's Right To Communicate By Mail With the Outside World
...are not exempt from being opened and inspected by prison authorities.Cox v. Crouse, 376 F. 2d 824 (10 Cir. 1967); Bailleaux v. Holmes, 177 F. Supp. 361 (D. C. Ore. 1959). While it seems obvious prison authorities cannot use this power to pass on the sufficiency ofthe legal claims being pres......