Opinion ID: 2607900
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mutual Legal Assistance

Text: Petitioners Harrell and McKinney complain of present limitations placed by prison regulations and authorities upon their efforts to provide legal assistance to other inmates. They claim that such present limitations are contrary to the principles enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Johnson v. Avery (1969) 393 U.S. 483 [21 L.Ed.2d 718, 89 S.Ct. 747]. Moreover, they contend that since discipline has been imposed upon them for the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Johnson decision, their records should be expunged of evidence of those disciplinary actions and the authorities should be ordered to ignore the same for future purposes of institutional classification and parole consideration. We first consider the contentions made concerning certain present limitations upon mutual prisoner assistance. Our starting point for this purpose is the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Johnson v. Avery, supra, 393 U.S. 483. In Johnson a Tennessee prisoner who had been disciplined for violation of a prison regulation prohibiting the rendering of legal assistance to other inmates sought relief by way of habeas corpus. The high court held that under the circumstances the effect of the regulation was to forbid illiterate or poorly educated prisoners to file habeas corpus petitions. It was pointed out that Tennessee did not provide any alternative means whereby such prisoners could gain access to the courts [2] and that therefore the expedient of mutual prisoner assistance was constitutionally necessary and could not be forbidden. It was emphasized, however, that although mutual prisoner assistance must be allowed in the absence of suitable alternatives, there could be reasonable regulation of the practice in light of institutional circumstances. Even in the absence of such [alternative means of allowing illiterate and uneducated prisoners access to the courts], the State may impose reasonable restrictions and restraints upon the acknowledged propensity of prisoners to abuse both the giving and the seeking of assistance in the preparation of applications for relief: for example, by limitations on the time and location of such activities and the imposition of punishment for the giving or receipt of consideration in connection with such activities. Cf. Hatfield v. Bailleaux, 290 F.2d 632 (C.A. 9th Cir.1961) (sustaining as reasonable regulations on the time and location of prisoner work on their own petitions.) But unless and until the State provides some reasonable alternative to assist inmates in the preparation of petitions for post-conviction relief, it may not validly enforce a regulation such as that here in issue, barring inmates from furnishing such assistance to other prisoners. (Fn. omitted.) (393 U.S. at p. 490 [21 L.Ed.2d at p. 724].) At the date of the Johnson decision (February 24, 1969) the Rules of the Director of Corrections (hereafter Director's Rules) specifically forbade mutual legal assistance among prisoners. Director's Rule D 2602 then provided in relevant part: No inmate shall assist or receive assistance from another in the preparation of legal documents. Any brief or petition not pertaining to his own case found in the possession of an inmate shall be confiscated. The imposition of discipline for violation of this rule was also provided for in the Director's Rules. However, on March 19, 1969, less than a month after the Johnson decision was rendered, the Director's Rules were altered in an effort to conform to the constitutional requirements there enunciated. Inserted at the beginning of that portion of the rules which deal with legal documents was a statement of policy providing as follows: It is the policy of the Department to allow inmates every legal access to the courts. The Department, however, is neither equipped nor authorized to assist inmates in their legal efforts except to provide staff assistance to inmates, who are illiterate or otherwise physically incapable, in the preparation of forms adopted under rules of the United States Courts and by the Judicial Council of California for petitions for Habeas Corpus or Modification of Custody. There will be a suitable place in each institution where inmates, with the permission of the designated employee, may have access to study such institution law books as are available to them. Law books are defined to include constitutions, codes, court reports, texts, and dictionaries. At the same time Director's Rule D 2602 was wholly revised. It now provides: One inmate may assist another inmate in the preparation of legal documents, but may not receive remuneration therefor. Remuneration is not limited to present benefits, but includes future as well as past benefits. A room or rooms may be designated by the Warden or Superintendent for this purpose. All briefs, petitions and other legal papers must be and remain in the possession of the inmate to whom they pertain. (Italics added.) (2a) A major question before us in this case is whether these amendments to the Director's Rules, and particularly the revised version of Rule D 2602, contain limitations upon the right of mutual assistance which are inconsistent with the principles enunciated in Johnson v. Avery . [3] It is clear at the outset that the March 19, 1969, amendments to the Director's Rules reflect a sincere effort to provide for the legal assistance of less literate inmates in a way which both complies with the Johnson decision and is consistent with the realities of prison life. Thus, the statement of policy which now precedes the body of rules dealing with inmate legal work indicates that staff assistance will be provided to illiterate inmates and others who are physically incapable of preparing their own petitions. [4] More significantly from the standpoint of Johnson, the amended version of Rule D 2602 expressly provides for the assistance of such inmates by other inmates and contemplates that space will be made available to facilitate consultation. The rule's prohibition against remuneration, of course, is expressly sanctioned by Johnson. (393 U.S. at p. 490 [21 L.Ed.2d 724].) (3a) A difficult problem is presented, however, by the fact that Rule D 2602 continues to prohibit the possession of legal papers belonging to another inmate. Petitioners, on the one hand, argue that this prohibition violates the principles of Johnson because it has the effect of preventing any meaningful legal assistance of one prisoner by another. Such assistance can be provided, it is urged, only if the advising inmate can have more or less extended access to the papers pertaining to the case in order to permit the legal research and drafting necessary to the preparation of a petition. The Director, on the other hand, points out that the possession of one inmate's papers by another inmate can lead to undesirable consequences in the atmosphere of a custodial institution. Apparently experience has shown that a prisoner possessing the legal papers of another may through inadvertence or design allow such papers to become damaged or lost  and that such a situation can lead to ill feelings which may result in violence. Moreover, it appears that some inmates engage in the practice of withholding the legal papers of another inmate in order to enforce some kind of remuneration for legal services. In any event, it is clear that the possession of one inmate's legal papers by another gives the latter a leverage to achieve that kind of dominance over the former which some writ-writers have been known to enjoy. (See Hatfield v. Bailleaux (9th Cir.1961) 290 F.2d 632.) In view of these considerations the Director maintains that the proscription against possessing legal papers of other inmates is a reasonable restriction upon the acknowledged propensity of prisoners to abuse both the giving and seeking of assistance in the preparation of applications for relief.... (393 U.S. at p. 490 [21 L.Ed.2d at p. 724]) and is therefore among those restrictions permitted by Johnson. The problem highlighted by these competing considerations is inherent in every prison rule which, for legitimate institutional reasons, has the effect of limiting mutual prisoner assistance. Although the Johnson decision does not offer a precise solution for the problem, it does define the area in which such a solution is to be found. (4) Thus, on the one hand Johnson establishes that, absent any suitable alternative means for providing legal assistance to illiterate and uneducated prisoners, there may be no prison rule which has the effect of preventing mutual prisoner assistance. On the other hand, however, Johnson concludes that prison rules which do not prevent, but merely restrict in a reasonable manner, prisoner assistance do not offend the Constitution. The question remains whether a given restriction is proper. We have concluded that the proper determination of this question in a particular case requires that we measure the extent of restriction against the need for restriction. The following inquiries are relevant to this determination: (1) To what extent does the application of the particular rule have the actual effect of impeding or discouraging mutual prisoner assistance? (2) From the standpoint of legitimate custodial objectives, how undesirable is the conduct sought to be avoided by the particular rule? (3) Are there reasonable alternative means of dealing with the undesirable conduct which do not entail so significant a restriction upon mutual prisoner assistance? (5) When these factual questions have been answered we then must proceed to determine whether the extent of limitation is justified in light of the gravity of the undesirable conduct sought to be avoided and the availability of other measures for dealing with this conduct. If the application of the rule impedes or discourages mutual prisoner assistance to a significant degree, the burden of justification will be great. If, on the other hand, the application of the rule results in mere inconvenience to prisoners seeking legal assistance and there is a clear institutional reason for the restriction, the rule must be sustained. [5] (3b) We think it manifest that the particular rule here in question, which prohibits one inmate from possessing the legal papers of another, has a severe effect upon the ability of an illiterate or uneducated prisoner to gain assistance from a more gifted one. Even assuming the existence of extensive opportunity for prisoners to consult one another on legal matters, [6] the fact remains that in most cases the kind of assistance which is sought by the less gifted inmate is the actual drafting of an application for relief by the other. Clearly one cannot very well draft an application for relief without possessing at least one legal paper pertaining to another, namely, the very application itself. Moreover, reference to other papers  such as transcripts and prior applications for relief  is a practical necessity. The rule, as we read it, would require that all such drafting take place in the physical presence of the inmate seeking to be aided so that he can retain possession of legal papers pertaining to him. This, we think, is wholly impractical and adverse to the purpose to be served by permitting mutual assistance. Our conclusion that the rule in question impedes or discourages mutual prisoner assistance to a significant degree does not, as we have explained, require that the rule be invalidated. It does, however, place the burden of justification upon the Director. We have reviewed above the abuses which the rule was designed to avoid, that is, the withholding of legal papers to enforce remuneration or achieve other illicit objectives, and the avoidance of situations conducive to violence. Clearly these are substantial concerns and custodial officials must not be prevented from taking effective action against such conduct. It does not appear, however, that the only means of attaining this objective must entail the severe restriction upon mutual prisoner assistance which the questioned rule involves. Johnson itself contemplates that punishment may be imposed for the giving or taking of remuneration in connection with writ-writing activities, and there is no doubt that the withholding of legal papers for purposes of extortion may also be severely punished. Similarly, an inmate who destroys or damages the legal papers of another may be dealt with directly. Just as in Johnson it was concluded that the prohibition of mutual prisoner assistance could not be justified on the basis of deleterious consequences such as remuneration which were capable of direct control, so in the instant case we conclude that the prohibition against possession of another's legal papers, which results in a severe restriction upon such assistance, is not justified by the possibility of abuses which can be dealt with by other effective means. We therefore hold that that portion of Rule D 2602 which provides All briefs, petitions and other legal papers must be and remain in the possession of the inmate to whom they pertain constitutes an unreasonable restriction upon the right of access to the courts and is invalid. Petitioner McKinney also challenges several other restrictions which, he asserts, have a similarly extreme effect upon the right of access to the courts. In essence his contention is that the restrictions cited have prevented him from operating effectively as legal counsel for the many inmates in several penal institutions whom he assists and purports to represent. Thus, he complains that he has been prevented from filing legal documents on behalf of such client inmates; that he has been prevented from corresponding with inmates confined at institutions other than that in which he himself is confined; that he has not been allowed to interview an inmate confined in isolation; and that he has been denied access to the disciplinary records of prisoners whom he is assisting. Moreover, McKinney inveighs against the actions of prison officials which, in accordance with regulations applicable at Folsom Prison, have prevented him from possessing a library of personally owned law books in his cell. We first place these complaints in the context required by the principles enunciated in Johnson v. Avery . [7] (6a) As we have suggested above (see fn. 5, ante), it is the rights of illiterate and uneducated prisoners which are protected by Johnson  not the assumed prerogatives of those inmates who have, for one reason or another, set themselves up as legal consultants. Only when, as in Johnson itself, a prison regulation or restriction affecting those who offer legal assistance has the additional effect of preventing or tending to prevent disadvantaged inmates from receiving aid in the preparation of applications for relief can it be said that that regulation or restriction effectively impedes or discourages mutual prisoner assistance within the meaning of Johnson. Moreover, it must be emphasized that Johnson contemplates the giving of assistance by one inmate to another  not the legal representation of one inmate by another. Thus, any prison restriction which forbids representation rather than assistance involves no conflict with Johnson. (7a) With these principles in mind we turn to the first of petitioner McKinney's specific complaints  i.e., that prison authorities have prevented him from filing an application for relief on behalf of another prisoner. (8) In general an application for relief, although it may be prepared by another, should be signed, verified, and filed by the inmate or inmates seeking relief. (6b) As we have indicated, the principle of Johnson seeks to insure that a disadvantaged prisoner will receive aid in his personal efforts to apply to the courts for relief  not that such a prisoner will be represented by another inmate before the courts  and the courts will, generally speaking, refuse to entertain an application made by a prisoner other than him for whom relief is sought. (7b, 9) Only in very exceptional circumstances will a next friend application (see Pen. Code, § 1474) be entertained. [8] [T]he complaint must set forth some reason or explanation satisfactory to the court showing why the detained person does not sign and verify the complaint and who `the next friend' is. It was not intended that the writ of habeas corpus should be availed of, as a matter of course, by intruders or uninvited meddlers, styling themselves next friends. Gusman v. Marrero, 180 U.S. 81, 21 Sup. Ct. 293, 45 L.Ed. 436. ( United States ex rel. Bryant v. Houston (2d Cir.1921) 273 F. 915, 916; see Wilson v. Dixon (9th Cir.1958) 256 F.2d 536, 537-538.) [9] (10) It should be emphasized, however, that these limitations do not imply a right on the part of prison authorities to determine when an application for relief is or is not properly filed. As the United States Supreme Court has stated with regard to such applications within the federal court system, Whether a petition for writ of habeas corpus addressed to a federal court is properly drawn and what allegations it must contain are questions for that court alone to determine. ( Ex Parte Hull (1941) 312 U.S. 546, 549 [85 L.Ed. 1034, 1036, 61 S.Ct. 640].) Similarly, we think that a state court to which an application for relief is directed has the exclusive power to determine whether that application is properly filed or states legal grounds for relief. Prison authorities may not refuse to forward a document addressed to a court on the ground that it is improperly filed. (11) As for petitioner McKinney's complaint concerning the refusal of prison authorities to allow him to correspond with inmates at other institutions, it is clear that the restriction in question has no significant effect upon the rights guaranteed in Johnson. Again, it is the rights of the prisoner needing, rather than those of the prisoner giving, legal assistance which concerns us. [10] Johnson certainly offers no support for the proposition that illiterate and uneducated inmates have a constitutional right to the assistance of a particular inmate in the preparation of applications for relief; rather the right there enunciated is the right to be assisted. No infringement upon that right necessarily results from restrictions upon the activities of a particular inmate lawyer. Thus, those inmates at institutions other than Folsom who are prevented from corresponding with petitioner McKinney by valid regulations limiting the number and identity of correspondents may seek legal assistance from inmates at their own institutions. (12) Similarly, restrictions upon the number of books which an inmate may have in his cell [11] impinge upon the rights enunciated in Johnson only to the extent it is shown that the ability of other inmates seeking legal assistance to gain such assistance is affected. Unless and until it is demonstrated that other sources of legal assistance  e.g., other inmates who use the prison library  cannot provide assistance to disadvantaged inmates, the state of any inmate's personal library is of no significance. (13) Petitioner McKinney's contention that he must be allowed to interview inmates in isolation is without merit. Granting that the status of isolation  which by its very nature forbids contact with other inmates  results in a significant curtailment of the extent to which the affected prisoner may avail himself of assistance by other prisoners, [12] we believe that such curtailment is justified by valid institutional considerations. Isolation is the extreme institutional sanction that is available to prison authorities for disciplinary purposes, and its importance in this regard warrants the limitations on prisoner legal assistance which are necessarily imposed thereby. [13] (14) Finally, we reject petitioner McKinney's contention that the principles of Johnson require that he be provided with prison disciplinary records concerning inmates to whom he is rendering legal assistance. Such records are not relevant to applications for relief from an invalid judgment of conviction. As for applications sought to vindicate rights in confinement (see In re Riddle (1962) 57 Cal.2d 848, 851 [22 Cal. Rptr. 472, 372 P.2d 304]), relevant disciplinary reports will be brought before the court if the facts stated in the application are deemed sufficient to justify the issuance of an order to show cause. The institutional interest in having confidential disciplinary files is significant and warrants the restriction in question. (3c) For the reasons stated we have concluded that the March 19, 1969, revision of Director's Rule D 2602, while in the main consistent with the principles enunciated in Johnson v. Avery, supra, 393 U.S. 488 [21 L.Ed.2d 723], is violative of those principles and therefore invalid insofar as it requires that All briefs, petitions and other legal papers must be and remain in the possession of the inmate to whom they pertain. We have also examined several other present restrictions and limitations urged to be violative of Johnson. We now proceed to consider the contention concerning past disciplinary action taken by prison authorities on account of conduct which, in light of Johnson and the instant case, was consistent with the right of mutual prisoner assistance. (15a) It is urged that an inmate's disciplinary record should be purged of any reference to past infractions of rules  notably of the rule forbidding the possession of legal papers belonging to another inmate  which have been held invalid under the principles enunciated in Johnson. It is also urged that custodial and parole authorities should be instructed to disregard infractions in their future actions and deliberations. We do not agree. Assuming that disciplinary sentences for violations of rules contrary to Johnson have been served, the sole effects of entries in prison records reflecting such violations would be (1) their possible use in determining appropriate custodial classification and institutional placement, and (2) their possible use in deliberations of the Adult Authority. We do not believe that any beneficial purpose would be served by ordering that the public authorities concerned in each of these areas remove from their consideration all past rule infractions of the type here in question. Even upon the extravagantly optimistic assumption that it would be possible to determine whether any given past infraction actually involved conduct protected by Johnson, and putting to one side the vast administrative effort which even an attempt at that determination would entail, [14] it is apparent that little practical benefit would result in view of the considerable discretionary powers of the subject authorities. (See In re Schoengarth (1967) 66 Cal.2d 295, 300 [57 Cal. Rptr. 600, 425 P.2d 200].) Moreover, although we believe that future consideration by custodial and parole authorities of past infractions should proceed in light of the Johnson decision, we are also of the view that authorities concerned with the assessment of conduct in the context of rehabilitation should not be required to wholly disregard conduct which manifests a disinclination to be governed by legal authority. The fact that such conduct might be later declared to be a valid exercise of constitutional rights, while not to be excluded from consideration, does not operate to render the infraction an irrelevancy. Although the constitutional rights of persons committed to prison must be accorded the same zealous protection that all constitutional rights enjoy, that axiom cannot be allowed to obscure the fundamental distinction between free citizens and those who have been subjected to imprisonment as a result of legal processes. (2b) Whereas the dynamics of a free society may accommodate challenge to invalid rules by violation thereof and subsequent judicial vindication, (see In re Berry (1968) 68 Cal.2d 137, 148-149 [65 Cal. Rptr. 273, 436 P.2d 273], and cases there cited), the purposes and functions of penal institutions  fundamental among which is the rehabilitation of prisoners through rendering them amenable to governance by rules  cannot permit the existence of such procedures. (15b) If we were to hold, as urged, that past infractions of prison rules found to be unconstitutional under present standards must be disregarded by prison and parole authorities, we would thereby encourage the flouting of rules thought to be constitutionally defective by individual inmates and severely impair the rehabilitative capabilities of penal institutions. This we decline to do. We do not suggest that future disregard of the principles set forth in Johnson v. Avery and the cases filed here today will be insulated from judicial redress in all cases except those in which invalid disciplinary sentences are outstanding at the time of the application for relief. Indeed, if it should be made to appear that such disregard is occurring this court has ample power to prevent its continuance. We hold only that discipline imposed for past violations of rules subsequently held to be in violation of the principles announced in Johnson v. Avery will not be withheld from the future consideration of custodial and parole authorities.