White v. Blackwell

• Decision Date: 20 November 1967
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 10184.
• Parties: Robert Joyner WHITE, Leroy Freeman Duncan, Frederick Freeman Leister and Leon Jackson, Plaintiffs, v. Olin G. BLACKWELL, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia

277 F. Supp. 211

Robert Joyner WHITE, Leroy Freeman Duncan, Frederick Freeman Leister and Leon Jackson, Plaintiffs, v. Olin G. BLACKWELL, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 10184.

United States District Court N. D. Georgia, Atlanta Division.

November 20, 1967.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Robert Joyner White, pro se.

Bruce R. Jacob, Atlanta, Ga., for Leroy Freeman Duncan, Frederick Freeman Leister and Leon Jackson.

Charles L. Goodson, U. S. Atty., and F. D. Hand, Jr. and Theodore E. Smith, Asst. U. S. Attys., Atlanta, Ga., for respondent.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

HOOPER, District Judge.

This action originated by a Complaint filed June 1, 1966 by plaintiffs White, Duncan and Jackson. An additional plaintiff withdrew and a new plaintiff added by intervention, viz., plaintiff Leister.

Substantially this action is brought by Duncan, Jackson and Leister, inmates of the Penitentiary in Atlanta, who contend that their convictions were illegal, and they seek the right to invoke the assistance of inmate White who, during his incarceration, has made a comprehensive study of the law involving post-conviction procedures. Plaintiff White is also claiming the right to represent and assist the other three plaintiffs. If his rights are based on the right of a person to practice law, he is without redress as he is not a licensed attorney. If, however, the other three plaintiffs are held to have the right to use his assistance, then he would have obtained all that he seeks in this case.

A brief summary of the Complaint is the following:

Defendant Blackwell, the Warden, is empowered by the United States Bureau of Prisons to administer the affairs of the Penitentiary and to issue general orders and rules. That allegation is shown by the evidence in the case, provided however, that the rules promulgated by the Warden must follow guidelines adopted by the Bureau of Prisons, as hereinafter set forth.

That the Warden issued general orders

"* * * resulting in the effectuation and promulgation, through subordinates and agents, of the following rules, customs and usages:"

These rules are contained in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint, in substance, and consist of the following:

"(a) All inmates must prepare their own legal documents and otherwise do their own legal work;

(b) No inmate is to assist another in the preparation of any legal documents;

(c) No inmate is to receive assistance from another in the preparation of any legal document;

(d) Legal documents of any type or description found in the possession of an inmate, and which do not pertain to him or to his own case, will be confiscated and destroyed;

(e) Failure to adhere to the foregoing may result in disciplinary action, namely, solitary confinement and/or withholding or forfeiture of statutory or extra earned good time."

As hereinafter more fully set forth, there seems to be no dispute that the foregoing constitutes a proper summary of the rules, nor is it disputed that disciplinary action has frequently been taken as to Paragraph (d), set forth above. There is also much evidence, however, that on many occasions the prison officials have not only permitted, but have suggested that inmates obtain and use legal services of plaintiff White, and one or more other inmates having made independent studies of law while in the institution.

Disciplinary action taken by prison authorities for violation of the above rules is enumerated in Paragraph 5, but apparently in practically all such instances, the violation involved only item (d), where an inmate had in his cell legal documents belonging to another inmate. These sanctions consisted of solitary confinement, forfeiture of extra earned good time, either or both. It is important to note, however, that in addition thereto rules were enforced

"* * * by confiscating and destroying legal documents found in the possession of inmates which did not pertain to them or to their own cases."

These documents were destroyed, and there is no evidence that prior to their destruction the inmate having possession of the same, or the inmate whose rights were involved in the papers, were given any notice or opportunity to be heard in connection therewith, or to show that the papers in question were not in fact prepared in a manner not violative of the rule which provides,

"No inmate is to assist another in the preparation of any legal document."

The Complaint alleges that defendant will continue to fully enforce said rules, and that allegation is not denied. This Court must assume, however, that the enforcement of the rules in the future will follow the pattern of enforcement as in the past, to which reference will hereinafter be made; such pattern allows to prisoners much greater latitude in assisting each other than the strict letter of the rules would indicate.

It is alleged (Paragraph 7) that the intended purpose of such rules is to hinder the other plaintiffs from exercising their constitutional rights to have the assistance of White

"* * * to thereby enable them to have free access to the courts,"

and pursue their judicial remedies, and the enforcement of the rules is depriving plaintiffs of such rights. The defendant on the other hand, contends that no such illegal purpose exists, but on the other hand, the purpose of the rule is to maintain prison discipline; that to permit inmates having some knowledge of the law to assist other inmates causes the former to

"build up a power structure,"

and furthermore, causes, or intends to cause, many disputes, quarrels and fights, growing out of differences between the inmate and his lay lawyer. There is no direct evidence as to the alleged

"power structure"

but reference thereto will be hereinafter made. There is no evidence whatsoever of any instance wherein disputes between an inmate and his lay lawyer have caused quarrels or violence; many causes of such violence, however, are given in the evidence, and there are many others wherein real cause can not be determined. It might be said therefore, in a general way, that all transactions between human beings lay the background for possible differences and disputes, and that includes transactions between an inmate who has retained without compensation, or employed for compensation (express or implied) another inmate who is not a lawyer to perform legal services. Plaintiffs Duncan and Jackson set forth the offenses for which they are serving, and in a general way their attacks thereon, and plaintiff Leister by intervention does the same. They allege they desired to attack their sentences, but (see Paragraph 11) they are unable to do so because:

"(a) They do not have a sufficient knowledge of the law, do not know how to prepare their own pleadings, nor how to proceed through the courts;

(b) They do not have sufficient money to obtain the services of any lawyer to initiate such proceedings; and

(c) Federal law does not provide for the appointment of counsel to research, prepare pleadings and otherwise initiate a direct or collateral attack upon a conviction or sentence on behalf of an indigent prisoner."

There seems to be no dispute as to any of the above stated reasons why said plaintiffs, and many other inmates of all prisons, are unable to seek legal redress by post-conviction procedures. Often a fellow-inmate, though a layman, has superior knowledge of the law involved, and in many cases shown by the evidence, has been instrumental in assisting an inmate to prepare and file a paper or motion which has ultimately resulted in the complete exoneration or the shortening of the sentence of the inmate benefitted.¹

The prayers of the Complaint seek a declaration by the Court

"* * * that the aforesaid rules, customs and usages are violative of plaintiffs' vested, constitutional rights,"

that three of the inmates are rightfully entitled as a matter of law,

"to receive assistance from plaintiff White to the extent of having him prepare appropriate legal documents for submission to the courts on their behalfs, and otherwise receive his assistance in initiating"

an attack on their convictions; that plaintiff White is entitled to perform such services; that he is entitled to have such papers in his possession.

Findings of Fact from the evidence are more fully hereinafter set forth.

FINDINGS OF FACT.

By way of elaboration of the ultimate findings of fact contained above, this Court finds:

(1) As to the policy of the Bureau of Prisons and the Atlanta Penitentiary:

(a) Rules of the Penitentiary provided:

"No inmate is permitted to assist another in the preparation of any legal document." See PX-19, Article 13(3).

Despite this rule, it appears that plaintiff White, an assistant librarian, having particular charge of the law books in the library and being familiar with their contents, would frequently confer and advise with other prisoners. This was done in an open manner and under the eyes of the prison librarian. At these conferences White and the other prisoner would have on the table before them the papers pertaining to the case of the latter, and also the law books from the library pertaining thereto.

Furthermore, there are numerous instances in which officials of the Penitentiary, including caseworkers (also referred to as parole officers) would refer to plaintiff White and to another inmate by the name of Rayborn (a teacher in constitutional law at the institution, but not a licensed attorney) for legal assistance and advice.

It also appears that both White and Rayborn assisted other prisoners in preparing and filing in court petitions for relief, resulting in release of the prisoner in question, or shortening of his sentence. Details as to these cases may be added hereto by amendment if written out and presented by plaintiffs' counsel. Some of these cases appear in the printed reports.

Counsel for respondent on the trial of this case do not contend that the penitentiary authorities desire or seek...