Hooks v. Wainwright

• Decision Date: 06 December 1972
• Docket Number: 71-144-Civ-J-S.,No. 71-1011-Civ-J-S,71-1011-Civ-J-S
• Citation: 352 F. Supp. 163
• Parties: Harold Raymond HOOKS et al., Petitioners, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Respondent. Harold Raymond HOOKS, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, et al., Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

352 F. Supp. 163

Harold Raymond HOOKS et al., Petitioners, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Respondent.

Harold Raymond HOOKS, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, et al., Respondents.

Nos. 71-1011-Civ-J-S, 71-144-Civ-J-S.

United States District Court, M. D. Florida, Jacksonville Division.

December 6, 1972.

Charles H. Livingston, Sarasota, Fla., for petitioners.

Daniel S. Dearing, Chief Trial Counsel Dept. of Legal Affairs, Office of the Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Fla., for respondents.

John L. Briggs, U. S. Atty., Jacksonville, Fla., and Asst. Atty. Gen., Civil Rights Div., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., and Richard G. Kleindienst, Atty. Gen. of the U. S., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., amicus curiae.

ORDER AND OPINION OF COURT

CHARLES R. SCOTT, District Judge.

In these consolidated cases¹ plaintiffs,² now or heretofore inmates committed to the custody of the Florida Division of Corrections, have brought a civil class action in which they allege that they have been denied under color of state law certain rights secured to them by the United States Constitution. The issue posited, and here decided, is this:

Does the state have an affirmative federal constitutional duty to furnish prison inmates with expensive law libraries or to provide inmates with professional or quasi-professional legal assistance?

This Court hereby concludes that the state does have such a duty and orders the parties, as well as the United States of America as amicus curiae, to submit proposals for implementation.

This Court is satisfied that it has jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3), 2201; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Hooks v. Wainwright, 457 F.2d 502 (5th Cir.1972) (instant case); Gilmore v. Lynch, 319 F. Supp. 105 (N.D.Cal.1970), aff'd sub nom. Younger v. Gilmore, 404 U.S. 15, 92 S.Ct. 250, 30 L.Ed.2d 142 (1971).

In Case No. 71-144-Civ-J-S, Harold Hooks, then an inmate of the Florida Division of Corrections, confined at the Avon Park Correctional Institution, filed this lawsuit which frontally attacked the sufficiency of legal services provided inmates. Specifically, the suit sought to have the prison law library facilities upgraded or, in the alternative, to have the state provide counsel to assist prisoners in their legal endeavors.³ This Court dismissed the case but without prejudice to the right of petitioner to refile should any subsequent ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States essentially support the relief sought. This Court noted the decision in Gilmore v. Lynch, 319 F.Supp. 105 (N.D.Cal.1970), and the then pending appeal therefrom. The plaintiff then appealed this case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Subsequently, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed sub nom. the opinion of the three-judge district court in Gilmore v. Lynch, supra. See Younger v. Gilmore, 404 U.S. 15, 92 S.Ct. 250, 30 L.Ed.2d 142 (1971). Noting this affirmance, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 457 F.2d 502, then vacated this Court's dismissal and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Younger v. Gilmore, supra.

Prior to the Fifth Circuit's ruling, plaintiff Hooks and two others caused to be filed a substantially identical action which is Case No. 71-1011-Civ-J-S. The only significant difference is that the subsequent suit was brought as a class action.

This Court then appointed counsel to represent plaintiffs and consolidated the cases. Counsel for plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint, and the case was tried on October 4, 1972. In the amended complaint petitioners allege that, in the absence of state provided counsel to assist inmates in pursuing existing post-conviction remedies, the defendants' failure to provide access to adequate law books and other law library materials denies petitioners and those of their class the constitutionally guaranteed and protected rights of due process of law, equal protection of the law and access to the courts.

With regard to the class action aspect of this case, this Court hereby finds that the four prerequisites of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been satisfied. First, this Court hereby specifically finds that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Second, this Court hereby specifically finds that there are questions of both law and fact common to the class. Third, this Court hereby specifically finds that the claims of the representative parties are typical of the claims of the class. Fourth, this Court hereby specifically finds that the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

This Court concludes that this case may be and hereby is maintainable under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and hereby declares the class to be unitary and composed of all indigents who presently are or will hereafter be in the custody of the defendant Wainwright or the Florida Division of Corrections. See Fed.R. Civ.P. 23(c) (1).

In this case the members of the class are adequately and fairly represented by the representative parties who have now been afforded the assistance of counsel pursuant to this Court's appointment. This Court hereby concludes that it would serve no useful purpose to notice the members of the class and that justice will be fully and well served in the absence of such notice. See 3B Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 23.55.

In these cases plaintiffs seek a judicial declaration that the legal services presently afforded inmates are not sufficient to enable them to pursue fully the available avenues of post-conviction relief. This Court hereby specifically finds that the Florida Division of Corrections and its Director, defendant Wainwright, do not furnish or provide counsel to indigent inmates. Further, this Court hereby specifically finds that those legal materials presently maintained in the various institutions of the Florida Division of Corrections are those listed in Respondent's Composite Exhibit No. F. Accordingly, this Court declares that the legal services presently afforded inmates are not sufficient and not adequate to enable inmates to pursue fully their available avenues of post-conviction relief and available avenues of relief for deprivations of civil rights.

In Gilmore v. Lynch, supra, there existed a prison regulation which limited the legal volumes provided inmates. Such a de jure restriction is not imposed in Florida but the distinction is one without a legal difference. In Florida the restriction is of a de facto nature, but it is as equally inhibiting to the indigent inmate as was the California regulation. In short, the mere failure of the defendants to supply indigent inmates with sufficient legal services has been a direct cause of the inability of such inmates to pursue fully the available avenues of post-conviction relief and available avenues of relief for deprivations of civil rights.⁴

Undoubtedly the plaintiffs in this case must not only allege that they are denied access to the courts, equal protection of the law and the due process of law, but they must also further show that these rights are affected by the de facto limitation imposed and that such infringements of their rights are of such a degree as to render the justifications offered by the state inadequate and unreasonable as a matter of law. This Court hereby finds that plaintiffs have met their burden of proof and are entitled to relief.

Reasonable access to the courts is a constitutional imperative. With regard to federal habeas corpus it has been nicely put that

since the basic purpose of the writ is to enable those unlawfully incarcerated to obtain their freedom, it is fundamental that access of prisoners to the courts for the purpose of presenting their complaints may not be denied or obstructed.

Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 485, 89 S.Ct. 747, 21 L.Ed.2d 718 (1969). However, the constitutional protection of access to the courts is much broader, for it includes access to all courts, both state and federal, without regard to the type of petition or relief sought. U.S.Const. Amends. I & XIV, § 1.

Although it may not be essential that petitions seeking judicial relief include legal citations, the argument is simply not reasonable that legal authority is dispensable. Of course, a court may entertain a legal proceeding in which the position of one of the parties is devoid of legal authority or a legal proceeding in which one of the parties is without the aid of counsel. However, once before the court such a litigant is not ipso facto assured that he will be benefitted by a favorable decision, even though he may have a perfect case. Although the court has a duty to insure that justice is had for the pro se applicant as well as for the person who is represented by counsel, it is clear that the pro se applicant is yet not guaranteed that his petitions and complaints will be fully considered by the courts, because of his disability to present meaningfully his case.

The argument may be advanced that in this regard the pro se inmate is on an equal footing with other pro se litigants, but this analysis is deceptive and inaccurate. The prisoner, a person committed to the custody of a designated state agency, is effectively severed from society. He has and receives what the custodian grants, and nothing more. If the indigent inmate has, or thinks he has, a claim which would entitle him to relief, he must himself advance it. And if he is without a source of legal authority when his critical contention rests upon an obscure but authoritative point, the very best prison writ-writer may be unable to provide meaningful assistance.⁵ Simply put, in...