University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Smith v. Maschner PC-KS-0003
Docket / Court 3:84-cv-03283-DES ( D. Kan. )
State/Territory Kansas
Case Type(s) Prison Conditions
Case Summary
Inmates at "A" cellhouse at the Kansas State Penitentiary filed a civil rights lawsuit in state court against officials at the Kansas State penitentiary, complaining of a denial of adequate access to the prison law library. The parties entered into a consent decree on August 19, 1985, granting the ... read more >
Inmates at "A" cellhouse at the Kansas State Penitentiary filed a civil rights lawsuit in state court against officials at the Kansas State penitentiary, complaining of a denial of adequate access to the prison law library. The parties entered into a consent decree on August 19, 1985, granting the plaintiffs more access to the law library and supplementing the materials of the law library. The trial court's order specifically allowed the plaintiff inmates to use the prison law library on Saturday mornings and gaining access to hardbound volumes of federal cases.

On November 21, 1985, the plaintiff inmates filed a motion to reopen the case, citing various allegations against the State concerning access to legal materials. The parties agreed on all disputed issues except which inmates should be allowed to use the law library on Saturday mornings. The trial court (Judge Maurice P. O'Keefe, Jr.) issued a ruling on March 25, 1986, holding that Saturday morning library privileges were reserved for general population inmates, and since the inmates in cellhouse "A" were part of the general population, they were entitled to use the library on Saturday mornings, but only for one hour (with "working inmates" being granted two hours).

The defendants appealed, and the Kansas Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the consent decree was in effect a contract, and the decree contained no provisions about Saturday morning library privileges. Petition for review by the Kansas Supreme Court was denied on December 19, 1986.

The inmates then sought to have the entire consent decree set aside based on fraud, and Judge O'Keefe denied this motion, holding that there was no evidence of fraud. Judge O'Keefe also found that the consent decree was ambiguous on the question of Saturday morning access to libraries and what volumes of the federal series were to be hardbound. Based on these findings, the trial court ordered on April 23, 1987, that the cellhouse "A" inmates to have Saturday privileges and the federal series was to be kept in hardbound volumes.

On appeal, the Kansas Court of Appeals on August 19, 1988, again reversed, holding that its previous decision made clear that the questions of Saturday morning library privileges and hardbound federal volumes were at the discretion of the prison officials, according to the consent decree. Smith v. Maschner, 760 P.2d 49 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988) (per curiam).

All of the information we have on the state court portion of the case comes from the August 19, 1988 Court of Appeals opinion.

In 1984, the case was removed to the District Court for the District of Kansas. Amended complaints were filed in April 1985 and August 1986. On Sept. 30, 1988, the court (Judge Dale E. Saffels) denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. An appeal was taken. On March 29, 1990, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (Judge Seymour) affirmed in part and reversed in part. Smith v. Maschner, 899 F.2d 940 (10th Cir. 1990). The court held that: (1) the inmate had adequate state postdeprivation remedies for his claims that he was deprived of property without due process; (2) the prison regulation of incoming correspondence did not violate any protected rights; (3) the inmate received adequate notice of charges, opportunity to respond, and written findings; (4) factual issues existed on the inmate's claim that he was deprived of procedural due process by virtue of the denial of a request to call a witness; and (5) factual issues existed on the inmate's claim that officials retaliated against him for exercising his right of access to court. The case was remanded back to the District Court.

In 1991, the case was referred to Magistrate Judge John C. Tillotson. In 1994 the court appointed counsel for the plaintiff. On Jan. 11, 1996, the court (Judge Dale E. Saffels) denied motions by both parties for summary judgment. A stipulation of dismissal was filed on August 23, 1996 and was entered by the court (Judge Saffels) on September 5, dismissing the case wtih prejudice.

David Terry - 10/07/2006


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Male
General
Law library access
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action State law
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Defendant(s) Kansas State Penitentiary
Plaintiff Description Inmate claiming that he was deprived of property without due process, that prison officials interfered with his mail, that he was denied procedural due process in disciplinary hearings, and that officials retaliated against him
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Unknown
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 1985 - n/a
Case Closing Year 1996
Case Ongoing No
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 ]

Docket(s)
84-03283 (D. Kan.) 07/21/2000
PC-KS-0003-9000 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Memorandum Opinion 08/19/1988 (760 P.2d 49)
PC-KS-0003-0003 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Memorandum and Order 09/30/1988 (1988 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 11238) (D. Kan.)
PC-KS-0003-0004 PDF | LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: LexisNexis
Opinion 03/29/1990 (899 F.2d 940)
PC-KS-0003-0001 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Memorandum and Order 01/11/1996 (915 F.Supp. 263) (D. Kan.)
PC-KS-0003-0002 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Judges Baldock, Bobby Ray (D.N.M., FISCR, Tenth Circuit)
PC-KS-0003-0001
Logan, James Kenneth (Tenth Circuit)
PC-KS-0003-0001
Saffels, Dale Emerson (D. Kan.)
PC-KS-0003-0002 | PC-KS-0003-0004 | PC-KS-0003-9000
Seymour, Margaret B. (D.S.C.) [Magistrate]
PC-KS-0003-0001
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Kessler, Stephen W. (Kansas)
PC-KS-0003-0002 | PC-KS-0003-9000
Smith, Jerry Wayne (Minnesota)
PC-KS-0003-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Appel, Linden (Kansas)
PC-KS-0003-0004
Bonebrake, Carol R. (Kansas)
PC-KS-0003-0001
Bork, John K (Kansas)
PC-KS-0003-0004
Cowger, Larry (Kansas)
PC-KS-0003-0004
Dowell, John R. (Kansas)
PC-KS-0003-9000
Fleenor, Jon P. (Kansas)
PC-KS-0003-0002 | PC-KS-0003-9000
Hiebert, Kristy L. (Kansas)
PC-KS-0003-9000
Logback, Lawrence J. (Kansas)
PC-KS-0003-9000
Stephan, Robert T. (Kansas)
PC-KS-0003-0001
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -