University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Clutchette v. Procunier PC-CA-0031
Docket / Court 70-2497 ( N.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Prison Conditions
Case Summary
California prisoners filed a civil rights suit on November 20, 1970 under 42 USC Sec. 1983 for declaratory and injunctive relief (and in the case of one inmate, for damages as well) challenging the sufficiency of disciplinary procedures at San Quentin Correctional Facility. Among other things, ... read more >
California prisoners filed a civil rights suit on November 20, 1970 under 42 USC Sec. 1983 for declaratory and injunctive relief (and in the case of one inmate, for damages as well) challenging the sufficiency of disciplinary procedures at San Quentin Correctional Facility. Among other things, inmates charged with offenses that could be referred to the District Attorney for prosecution as a felony, were informed that their request for counsel would be granted only when the inmate was questioned by the District Attorney. They also alleged infirmities in notice of the charges, counsel, opportunity to call witnesses, and notice of appeal. A few weeks after filling, the complaint was amended to be a class action on behalf of all other inmates at San Quentin who were affected by the disciplinary procedures there.

The U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, granted relief to the prisoners, 328 F.Supp. 767 (N.D. Cal. 1971) (Judge Alfonso J. Zirpoli), finding that the procedures violated their rights to due process and equal protection by failing to provide adequate notice of the charges, the ability to call and cross-examine witnesses, counsel, a decision by an uninvolved fact-finder, a written finding of facts, or uniform notice of a right to appeal when the discipline could result in a loss of liberty to the prisoner.

Judge Zirpoli also ruled that a three-judge panel need not be impaneled when the practice challenged is not of state-wide application.

Prison officials appealed. The Court of Appeals (Judge Shirley Hufstedler) affirmed, 497 F.2d 809 (9th Cir. 1974). The court found that a three-judge panel was not required, that prisoners were entitled to bring the action as a civil rights claim, not as a habeas corpus action, and (in an exhaustive review of specific types of due process procedures required) that prisoners are entitled to due process guarantees with respect to disciplinary proceedings that could result in an increase in the amount of time spent in prison or the deprivation of other liberties enjoyed by inmates. On rehearing, the Court of Appeals, 510 F. 2d 613 (9th Cir. 1974) (Judge Hufstedler), modified, holding that a prisoner subject to removal of one or more privileges must be given notice of intent to remove those privileges, statement of grounds, opportunity to challenge, and opportunity for a counsel-substitute whenever a prisoner subjected to disciplinary proceedings is unable to handle his case without help.

The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari consolidating the case with Palmigiano v. Baxter (a case from the 1st Circuit challenging due process violations in prison disciplinary procedures). The Supreme Court's decision reversed the decisions of the 1st and 9th Circuits. Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976) Writing for the majority, Justice White held that inmates do not have the right to retained or appointed counsel in disciplinary hearings; that permitting adverse inference to be drawn from an inmate's silence during a disciplinary hearing, is not, of itself, an invalid practice; that mandating that inmates be able to confront or cross-examine witnesses unduly preempts prison officials' discretion; and that requiring that inmates have notice and an opportunity to respond is premature where there is no evidence that the prison inmates were subject to a lesser penalty of loss of privileges, but rather were charged with serious misconduct. Justice Brennan concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Justice Marshall.

Several months later, on remand, the 9th Circuit vacated its two earlier opinions to the extent they were inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decision, and remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling. Clutchette v. Enomoto, 536 F.2d 305 (9th Cir.1976). Judge Zirpoli in the District Court undertook this review and found that some degree of assistance could still be required, specifically holding that: (1) prison inmates who are illiterate or facing complex disciplinary proceedings are entitled to adequate assistance in lieu of counsel, and that this person cannot be a prison staff person whose duties require him to report information to the inmate's adversary; (2) that the person provided to assist should be an advocate for the prisoner when the inmate is unable to advocate on his own behalf; (3) that the prison must provide notice to inmates charged with disciplinary violations that they have a right to such assistance if the inmate believed he was or was found to be incompetent to proceed on his own; and (4) that the prison was not required to provide people other than prison staff to serve as counsel-substitutes. Clutchette v. Ennomoto, 471 F.Supp. 1113 (1979).

Because we don't have the docket in this case, our information ends with the 1979 District Court opinion.

Denise Lieberman - 10/09/2005


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
General
Disciplinary procedures
Disciplinary segregation
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Defendant(s) California Department of Corrections
Plaintiff Description State prisoners challenging constitutionality of prison disciplinary procedures
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Unknown
Prevailing Party Mixed
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Litigation
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration 1971 - 1985
Case Closing Year 1985
Case Ongoing No
Case Listing PC-RI-0007 : Palmigiano v. Baxter (D.R.I.)
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Civil Rights Injunctions Over Time: A Case Study of Jail and Prison Court Orders
N.Y.U. Law Review
By: Margo Schlanger (Washington University)
Citation: 81 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 550 (2006)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Judicial Policy Making and the Modern State: How the Courts Reformed America's Prisons
By: Malcolm M. Feeley & Edward Rubin (UC Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law & Vanderbilt School of Law Faculty)
Citation: (1998)
[ Detail ]

Links The Oyez Project, Baxter v Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976)
www.oyez.org
Posted: Apr. 20, 1976
By: Oyez Project (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
C-70-2497 (N.D. Cal.) 10/19/1985
PC-CA-0031-9000.pdf | Detail
District Court
General Documents
Memorandum Opinion and Order 06/21/1971 (328 F.Supp. 767) (N.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0031-0003.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Reported Opinion 07/29/1974 (497 F.2d 809)
PC-CA-0031-0002.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Opinion on Rehearing 02/27/1975 (510 F.2d 613)
PC-CA-0031-0001.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Opinion 06/09/1975 (421 U.S. 1010)
PC-CA-0031-0008.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Opinion of the Court 04/20/1976 (425 U.S. 308)
PC-CA-0031-0007.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Memorandum Decision 06/22/1976 (536 F.2d 305)
PC-CA-0031-0005.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs' Motion fr Partial Summary Judgment 03/02/1979 (471 F.Supp. 1113) (N.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0031-0004.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Judges Hufstedler, Shirley Ann Mount (Ninth Circuit)
PC-CA-0031-0001 | PC-CA-0031-0002 | PC-CA-0031-0005
Kilkenny, John Francis (Ninth Circuit, D. Or.)
PC-CA-0031-0005
Tuttle, Elbert Parr (Eleventh Circuit, Fifth Circuit)
PC-CA-0031-0005
White, Byron Raymond (SCOTUS)
PC-CA-0031-0007
Zirpoli, Alfonso Joseph (N.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0031-0003 | PC-CA-0031-0004
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Daniel, Alice (California)
PC-CA-0031-0003
Dwight, Ronald A. (Rhode Island)
PC-CA-0031-0007
Fries, Robert T. (California)
PC-CA-0031-0004 | PC-CA-0031-9000
Silliman, Floyd (California)
PC-CA-0031-0002 | PC-CA-0031-0003 | PC-CA-0031-9000
Stender, Fay A. (California)
PC-CA-0031-0002 | PC-CA-0031-0003 | PC-CA-0031-9000
Thorne, John E. (California)
PC-CA-0031-0002 | PC-CA-0031-0003 | PC-CA-0031-9000
Turner, William Bennett (California)
PC-CA-0031-0001 | PC-CA-0031-0002 | PC-CA-0031-0003 | PC-CA-0031-0005 | PC-CA-0031-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Deukmejian, George (California)
PC-CA-0031-0004
Fortunato, Stephen J. Jr. (Rhode Island)
PC-CA-0031-0007
Stein, William D. (California)
PC-CA-0031-0001 | PC-CA-0031-0002 | PC-CA-0031-0003 | PC-CA-0031-0004 | PC-CA-0031-0005
Younger, Evelle J. (California)
PC-CA-0031-0002 | PC-CA-0031-0003 | PC-CA-0031-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -