LEWIS V. CASEY 518 U.S. 342 (1996) CASE BRIEF

LEWIS V. CASEY

518 U.S. 342 (1996)

NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over whether prison authorities were 'depriving prisoners of their rights of access to the courts and counsel protected by the First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.' Arizona imposed very strict standards with respect to prison law libraries and legal assistance programs.

FACTS: In Bounds v. Smith held that the fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law. Respondents filed a class action alleging Arizona was depriving them of their rights of access to the courts and counsel. The District Court identified shortcomings in matters ranging from the training of library staff, to the updating of legal materials, to the availability of photocopying services. The court found that lockdown prisoners were routinely denied physical access to the law library and experienced severe interference with their access to the courts, and illiterate or non-English-speaking inmates, did not receive adequate legal assistance. The court appointed a special master 'to investigate and report about' the appropriate relief. The special master proposed a permanent injunction that specified in detail the times that libraries were to be kept open, the number of hours of library use to which each inmate was entitled (10 per week), the minimal educational requirements for prison librarians (a library science degree, law degree or paralegal degree), the content of a videotaped legal research course for inmates (to be prepared by persons appointed by the special master but funded by ADOC) and similar matters. The injunction declared Ps were entitled to 'direct assistance' from lawyers, paralegals or 'a sufficient number of at least minimally trained prisoner Legal Assistants'; it requires that steps must be taken to locate and train bilingual prisoners to be Legal Assistants.' The Ninth Circuit affirmed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner