Opinion ID: 359796
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jailhouse Lawyer Activities

Text: 15 While not so identified by the parties, two separate claims can be drawn from Buise's jailhouse lawyer activities. The first is Buise's claim that his own rights were violated when he was transferred assertedly in retaliation for his jailhouse lawyer activities, and the second is his claim on behalf of other inmates that their right of access to the courts was infringed by his transfer. There is no contention that plaintiff does not have standing to assert his own interests and Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 89 S.Ct. 747, 21 L.Ed.2d 718, establishes that he can raise the claims of the other inmates because in Johnson only the jailhouse lawyer was a party and yet the decision rested on the denial of access to the courts for his fellow inmates. See 393 U.S. at 487, 89 S.Ct. 747; accord Haymes v. Montayne, 547 F.2d 188, 191 (2d Cir. 1976), certiorari denied, 431 U.S. 967, 97 S.Ct. 2925, 53 L.Ed.2d 1063; see generally Sedler, Standing to Assert Constitutional Jus Tertii in the Supreme Court, 71 Yale L.J. 599 (1962). 16 Although the district court found that plaintiff was transferred in part because he was writing writs during working hours, the evidence is overwhelming that to the extent the transfer was based on writ writing, it was based on writ writing at any time and not during working hours. It is uncontradicted that plaintiff was ordered not to assist other prisoners in legal matters at any time, and apparently he was never told that this restriction applied only during working hours (Tr. 33, 72-73, 165, 166, 206, 207). Admittedly there is no documentary evidence of a policy limited to working hours. Moreover, while defendants claimed that the transfer was based on the fact that plaintiff would not adhere to the institutional policy (R. 165), they introduced only one incident showing a violation of the supposed informal policy against writ writing during working hours, 4 compared to the 25 times per day that advice was sought from Buise (Tr. 37). In this context, it was clearly erroneous to find that Buise was transferred for writing writs during working hours. 17 From the perspective of the remaining inmates, Buise's transfer for writing writs violated their constitutional right of access to the courts (Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 89 S.Ct. 747, 21 L.Ed.2d 718) if it left them without an alternate means of access to the courts. The defendants admit that no law library was available and do not deny that Buise was the State Farm's only jailhouse lawyer but insist that the availability of the Public Defender is sufficient to assure access. 18 It is well established, however, that the state bears the burden of demonstrating the adequacy of such an alternate means of access. See, E. g., Sostre v. McGinnis, 442 F.2d 178, 201 (2d Cir. 1971) (En banc ), certiorari denied, 404 U.S. 1049, 92 S.Ct. 719, 30 L.Ed.2d 740; 405 U.S. 978, 92 S.Ct. 1190, 31 L.Ed.2d 254; Novak v. Beto, 453 F.2d 661, 664 (5th Cir. 1971), certiorari denied, 409 U.S. 968, 93 S.Ct. 279, 34 L.Ed.2d 233; Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 825, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 52 L.Ed.2d 72, adds that mere availability is not enough and that the key inquiry is whether a reasonably adequate opportunity to present claimed violations of fundamental constitutional rights is provided. Here the state merely asked the district court to take judicial notice of an Indiana statute assertedly requiring that certain assistance be provided by the state's Public Defender, 5 and the only evidence adduced was Superintendent Hudkins' statement on cross-examination that the Public Defender's availability was entirely at the discretion of the office of the public defender    people would write to them and they would come down on occasion (Tr. 101-102). 6 Neither of these attempts to prove access is sufficient. Judicial notice of a statute requiring certain services, even assuming the requirements fully cover inmates' needs, is insufficient because it does not follow from the existence of the statute that an alternative actually exists. The Public Defender may disregard the statute, or, more likely, the office simply may lack the resources necessary to provide meaningful access at each of the state's institutions. In this context a mere reference to the statute does not carry the state's burden of proof of adequate alternatives. Nor can the state rely on the fact that at inmates' request the Public Defender would come down on occasion. In fact, this type of availability is similar to the situation in Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 489, 89 S.Ct. 747, 21 L.Ed.2d 718, that prompted the Supreme Court to require an inquiry into the use of writ writers. In addition, the fact that 25 inmates per day contacted Buise is itself an indication that he was the only real source of legal advice for the inmates. In the absence of a regular system of assistance by public defenders (Id. at 489, 89 S.Ct. at 750), the state should be able to prove before it eliminates other means of access that absent unusual circumstances the Public Defender responds in a reasonable manner to each inmate request and that inmates have some awareness of this alternative. See generally Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 825, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 52 L.Ed.2d 72. Having failed to do so here, the state cannot rely on the availability of the Public Defender. 19 Apparently recognizing the inadequacy of the proof regarding the Public Defender, the state argues that accepting Buise's claim that he could not be transferred would mean that a prison could never transfer its last writ writer, no matter what his misconduct and no matter what the prison's administrative needs. In practice, it is not clear that such a dilemma would ever arise, since the state could transfer the inmate and simply arrange to substitute a suitable alternative means of access to the courts. Whatever the theoretical merit of the state's argument, it is not properly presented here because, in light of our finding above, the state did not transfer Buise for misconduct or for a proper administrative purpose, but transferred him for writ writing and other protected activities. Thus even assuming the inmates' need for a writ writer could be balanced against the need to punish or move a writ writer by transfer (cf. Laaman v. Perrin, 435 F.Supp. 319, 328-329 (D.N.H.1977)), no proper administrative or punitive reason for transfer appears on this record. 20 For these reasons, Buise would have been entitled to declaratory relief that the transfer was improper and to a retransfer if he so desired. However, since this theory is based on Buise's assertion of the rights of other inmates, in the absence of proper class certification, plaintiff offers no reason why he should be able to recover damages for a violation of the rights of other inmates, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's emphasis in Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 98 S.Ct. 1042, 55 L.Ed.2d 252, on the compensatory nature of Section 1983 damages and the fact that the district court would be unable practically to require Bruise to return the damages to the other inmates. 7 21 In order for Buise to recover damages for being transferred as a result of performing jailhouse legal services, he must prove that he had an independent right to serve as a jailhouse lawyer for other inmates. The state's argument that even if he did so prove it could still transfer him because it can make a transfer for whatever reason or for no reason at all (Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 228, 96 S.Ct. 2532, 2540, 49 L.Ed.2d 451) is unpersuasive. 8 While Meachum held that a prisoner has no inherent due process interest in not being transferred sufficient to justify a hearing, it and its companion case, Montayne v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236, 96 S.Ct. 2543, 49 L.Ed.2d 466, did not hold that a transfer could be made in retribution for the exercise of protected rights. See Montayne v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236, 244, 96 S.Ct. 2543, 49 L.Ed.2d 466 (Stevens, J., dissenting). Instead, it is well established that an act in retaliation for the exercise of a constitutionally protected right is actionable under Section 1983 even if the act, when taken for a different reason, would have been proper. As the Supreme Court stated in Mount Healthy City Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 283, 97 S.Ct. 568, 574, 50 L.Ed.2d 471, a school teacher discharge case, Even though he could have been discharged for no reason whatever, and had no constitutional right to a hearing prior to the decision not to require him   , he may nonetheless establish a claim to reinstatement if the decision not to rehire him was made by reason of his exercise of constitutionally protected First Amendment freedoms. Perry v. Sindermann,408 U.S. 593, (92 S.Ct. 2694, 33 L.Ed.2d 570) (1971). Put another way, while plaintiff may not have a due process interest or expectation in remaining at the same institution, he does have a First Amendment interest or expectation in not being punished for the exercise of activity protected under that provision. 22 The question whether a transfer based on writ writing is actionable therefore becomes the question whether jailhouse lawyering is a protected activity. While much attention has been focused on an inmate's right to be his own jailhouse lawyer (Sigafus v. Brown, 416 F.2d 105 (7th Cir. 1969); Wren v. Carlson, 165 U.S.App.D.C. 70, 72, 506 F.2d 131, 133 (1974)) and to obtain assistance from other inmates (Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 89 S.Ct. 747, 21 L.Ed.2d 718), less attention has been given to whether serving as a jailhouse lawyer merits any constitutional protection. But cf. Ayers v. Ciccone, 303 F.Supp. 637 (W.D.Mo.1969), appeal dismissed, 431 F.2d 724 (8th Cir. 1970). Outside prison walls, the Supreme Court has recognized that  the right to cooperate in helping and advising one another in asserting their rights (United Transportation Union v. State Bar of Michigan, 401 U.S. 576, 579, 91 S.Ct. 1076, 28 L.Ed.2d 339) is protected by the First Amendment in a variety of contexts. See, E. g., NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 83 S.Ct. 328, 9 L.Ed.2d 405; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia State Bar,377 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 1113, 12 L.Ed.2d 89; United Transportation Union v. State Bar of Michigan, 401 U.S. 576, 91 S.Ct. 1076, 28 L.Ed.2d 339; In re Primus, 436 U.S. 412, 98 S.Ct. 1893, 56 L.Ed.2d 417. Whether the same type of activity is protected inside the prison is determined by applying the principle of Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822, 94 S.Ct. 2800, 2804, 41 L.Ed.2d 495, that an inmate does not retain those First Amendment rights that are inconsistent with his status as a prisoner or with the legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system. In particular, it has been emphasized that perhaps the most obvious of the First Amendment rights that are necessarily curtailed by confinement are    associational rights. Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Union, 433 U.S. 119, 125, 97 S.Ct. 2532, 2538, 53 L.Ed.2d 629. 23 In Aikens v. Jenkins, 534 F.2d 751, 755 (7th Cir. 1976), a case involving restrictions on prisoners' literature, we held that the burden of showing    special characteristics justifying restrictions on First Amendment rights is on those who seek to impose the restrictions. Whether that same burden is applicable here is arguable given the association rather than speech interests implicated and given the Supreme Court's statement in Jones that the burden was not on (prison official) appellants to show affirmatively that the prisoners' First Amendment activity a prisoners' union would be 'detrimental to proper penological objectives' or would constitute a 'present danger to security and order.'  433 U.S. at 128, 97 S.Ct. at 2539. At the least, however, when a regulation restrictive of First Amendment rights is questioned, the state correctional officials must explain the purpose of the policy and present some indication of its necessity, as was done in Jones. See 433 U.S. at 126-127, 97 S.Ct. 2532. Otherwise the necessary deference to the decisions of prison administrators (Id. at 125, 97 S.Ct. 2532) can only be a blind allegiance inconsistent with the notion that a policy of judicial restraint cannot encompass any failure to take cognizance of valid constitutional claims. Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 405, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 1807, 40 L.Ed.2d 224. 24 Apparently because the trial focused on the denial of court access from the perspective of the inmates, the prison officials here did not seek to provide any necessity of a restriction on jailhouse lawyering. Of course, as other cases have established, it is possible to develop justifications for restricting at least certain types of inmate lawyering under certain circumstances. Thus writ writing for a profit has been prohibited (E. g., McKinney v. DeBord, 324 F.Supp. 928 (E.D.Cal.1970)), and an inmate has no right to be a writ writer during times when he is assigned to perform other work. See generally Beathan v. Manson, 369 F.Supp. 783 (D.Conn.1973). But here the policy as we have determined covered any jailhouse lawyering during all hours, making less applicable the justifications for less restrictive limitations on the activity. 25 Although Buise may have First Amendment associational rights in writ writing (see In re Primus, 436 U.S. 412, 98 S.Ct. 1893, 56 L.Ed.2d 417), defendants may be able to show on remand that the writing curb was validly imposed as an objective of prison administration. 9 See Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Union, 433 U.S. 119, 129, 97 S.Ct. 2532, 53 L.Ed.2d 629. If writ writing was the predominant factor in Buise's transfer and its prohibition was justified, he is not entitled to damages (Mount Healthy City Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471) even though the three other reasons for his transfer were constitutionally protected activities. Therefore on remand the district court should first redefine the bounds of the prison's writ writing curb in light of this opinion; then the parties should present evidence on the need for such a restriction. 10