Hall v. State of Md.

• Decision Date: 08 February 1977
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 71-37-K,72-60-K,72-642-K and K-74-1.,72-417-K,72-295-K
• Parties: Gilbert R. X. HALL v. STATE OF MARYLAND et al. Gilbert R. X. HALL and James Edw. Carter, v. Marvin MANDEL, Governor, et al. James Edw. CARTER v. Harold M. BOSLOW, Director, Patuxent. James Edw. CARTER and Gilbert R. X. Hall v. Harold M. BOSLOW, Director of Patuxent. James E. CARTER, Inmate, Patuxent Institution, et al. v. Robert J. LALLY, Secretary, Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, et al. Vernon LIGHTFOOT v. Warden, Ralph WILLIAMS.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

433 F. Supp. 756

Gilbert R. X. HALL v. STATE OF MARYLAND et al.

Gilbert R. X. HALL and James Edw. Carter, v. Marvin MANDEL, Governor, et al.

James Edw. CARTER v. Harold M. BOSLOW, Director, Patuxent.

James Edw. CARTER and Gilbert R. X. Hall v. Harold M. BOSLOW, Director of Patuxent.

James E. CARTER, Inmate, Patuxent Institution, et al. v. Robert J. LALLY, Secretary, Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, et al.

Vernon LIGHTFOOT v. Warden, Ralph WILLIAMS.

Civ. Nos. 71-37-K, 72-60-K, 72-295-K, 72-417-K, 72-642-K and K-74-1.

United States District Court, D. Maryland.

February 8, 1977.

Charles F. Morgan, Baltimore, Md., for all plaintiffs other than plaintiff Hall.

Gilbert R. X. Hall pro se.

Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen. of Md. and Henry J. Frankel, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Md., Baltimore, Md., for defendants.

FRANK A. KAUFMAN, District Judge:

In these six cases¹ plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief. Defendants are officials of the Maryland State Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services. Plaintiffs allege that defendants have failed to provide adequate law library facilities for, and legal assistance to, indigent inmates in Maryland's confinement institutions including Patuxent, and thus have unconstitutionally infringed upon plaintiffs' rights to access to the courts, discriminated against plaintiffs because of their indigency in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and denied plaintiffs due process of law. Defendants have moved for summary judgment. Plaintiffs have in turn filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

FACTS

The facts in these cases are not in dispute. The following relevant and material facts speak for themselves:

1. As of August 1976, the average daily population of the Maryland Division of Correction was approximately 7100 prisoners. The total number of prisoners who, it was expected, will be confined in the Division of Correction for the period August 1976-August 1977 was in August 1976 estimated at approximately 13,500. (See Stipulation of Counsel dated May 22, 1975, ¶ 1, hereinafter cited as "Stipulation I"; Plaintiffs' Proposed Findings of Fact, ¶ 2, hereinafter cited as "Plaintiffs' Facts"; Defendants' Proposed Findings of Fact, ¶ 3, hereinafter cited as "Defendants' Facts".) Inmates were housed throughout the several confinement institutions within the Division of Correction of the State of Maryland. See chart reproduced infra as Appendix A to this opinion and stipulated to by the parties; Stipulation I, Exh. 1.

2. During the fiscal year, July 1, 1972, through June 30, 1973, of the 4508 prisoners received by the Division of Correction, 3037 (67%) were convicted in Baltimore City. During the previous fiscal year, 2477 of 3867 prisoners received by the Division were convicted in Baltimore City (64%). During the most recent fiscal year (1975), 2502 of 4287 prisoners received were convicted in Baltimore City (58%). (Stipulation I, Exh. 2, ¶ 2; Plaintiffs' Facts, ¶ 3.)

3. At any given time, about one-third (33 1/3 %) of the prisoners in the Maryland prison population have one or more detainers outstanding against them. (Stipulation I, Exh. 2, ¶ 3.)

4. Plaintiffs and many other Maryland prisoners are indigent, and many of them are unable or find it financially difficult to retain private counsel or to purchase law books and other legal research materials necessary to provide themselves and other inmates with legal assistance, counsel and advice. (Stipulation I, Exh. 2, ¶ 4.)

5. The vast majority of Maryland's prison inmates are without any legal training or education and cannot render adequate legal assistance to themselves or other prisoners. There are some inmates who attempt to give legal assistance to other prisoners.² (Stipulation I, Exh. 2, ¶ 5.)

6. The median level of education for inmates confined in the Division of Correction is the sixth grade. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Maryland prisoners are functionally illiterate with a fifth grade reading level or below. Plaintiff Carter reached the eleventh grade, and plaintiff Morgan has completed two years of college. (Stipulation I, Exh. 2, ¶ 6.)

7. There are no law libraries in any of the institutions in the Division of Correction or at Patuxent Institution. No steps have been taken by either agency to obtain funding for law libraries. In some institutions and at Patuxent, there are some miscellaneous legal research materials. (Stipulation I, Exh. 2, ¶ 8.)

8. There are no lawyers, law students or paralegals employed by the Division of Correction or Patuxent Institution to provide legal advice and assistance to inmates in the preparation and litigation of their cases in the state and federal courts. (Stipulation I, Exh. 2, ¶ 9.)

9. There are no programs in the Division of Correction or Patuxent Institution to train inmates to provide legal assistance to other inmates. (Stipulation I, Exh. 2, ¶ 10.)

10. There are no services provided by the Division of Correction or Patuxent Institution for inmates who wish to do legal work (for example, there is no physical space set aside for them to work or to keep their legal materials; there are no typewriters, pens, pencils, envelopes or stamps provided for legal work; and there is no writing paper or copying service provided for legal work). (Stipulation I, Exh. 2, ¶ 11.)

11. Patuxent Institution does not provide inmates in committed or diagnostic status with legal services of any kind of concerning their rights during evaluation or preparation for defective delinquency commitment or redetermination proceedings. (Stipulation I, Exh. 2, ¶ 12.)

12. In the Division of Correction and at Patuxent Institution, there is a "publisher's only" policy in effect. Under this policy, a prisoner may only receive books and other reading materials, including law books and legal research materials, from a publisher or book store. (Stipulation I, Exh. 2, ¶ 13.)

13. Division of Correction Regulation No. 250-1 (March 29, 1974), which sets forth policy and procedure applicable to all confinement institutions within the Division of Correction of the State of Maryland with regard to incoming and outgoing inmate mail, provided as follows at the time of its promulgation:

a. An inmate may write sealed letters to a court, judge, clerk of court, attorney-at-law, elected or appointed government official, such as members of Congress or the Maryland General Assembly, Governor, Attorney General, Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services or the Inmate Grievance Commission. All other outgoing correspondence must bear the name of the inmate and the return address of the institution on the envelope. This mail will be placed unsealed in the mail drop and will be subject to inspection. Proper postage must be affixed to the envelope, except in the case of an indigent inmate's legal mail b. If the inmate desires to mail money from his account with the letter, it will be necessary for him to forward the envelope and letter, together with the proper withdrawal slips, to the mail inspector in an unsealed envelope. The mail inspector will obtain the necessary check, enclose it with the letter, and mail.

c. All incoming mail will be opened for inspection before delivery to the inmate. Mail from any of those mentioned in para 4a above to whom sealed letters may be sent will be inspected for contraband only and forwarded promptly to the inmate. Mail from all other sources shall be subject to additional review to determine appropriateness. Such mail may be returned to the sender if, in the opinion of the institution, such mail falls into one of the following categories:

(1) Inflammatory or advocates escape, violence, disorder, or assault.

(2) Directly or indirectly threatens the security, safety or order of the institution or its personnel.

(3) Contains coded or otherwise undecipherable language that prevents the adequate review of the material.

d. Packages may be received only when prior written approval has been given; any package received without such approval shall be refused and returned to the sender.

e. An indigent inmate will be provided with sufficient first-class postage for seven (7) letters per week.

f. The inmate shall be given written notice of mail that has been withheld under par 4c above. The inmate may appeal such action by letter to the Commissioner.

g. There shall be no restrictions placed on the inmate's correspondence for disciplinary purposes unless the inmate specifically abuses this privilege.

h. No inmate will be permitted to correspond with an inmate in another institution within the Division of Correction without the express permission of the Managing Officers of the institutions involved. Any such letter approved will be subject to the usual mail inspection outlined in par 4a above.

That regulation has subsequently been changed to include the following provisions:

If, after a reading by the authorized institution official, of any mail, publication, newspaper, periodical, literature or other written material of any kind, the official proposes that such material, or any portion thereof, be taken or kept from an inmate because of its contents, the inmate shall be entitled to the following procedures:

1. The inmate shall be furnished a written statement that certain named or described materials are sought to be taken or withheld from the inmate and setting forth the reason(s) for the proposed action. If the materials sought to be taken or withheld from the inmate were mailed or delivered to the inmate from a person outside the institution, any such person shall also be furnished with the written statement described above. The written statement shall be served on the inmate and any other such person no more than forty-eight (48) hours after the proposed decision to take or withhold the materials from the inmate.

2. When materials are withheld, the determination shall be made by the Warden and the Assistant

...