Filed Date: Oct. 23, 1973
Clearinghouse coding complete
In 1973, a person incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution, Dallas, Pennsylvania, filed this pro se Section 1983 suit in the Middle District of Pennsylvania against prison officials. Plaintiff alleged that various regulations and practices unconstitutionally restrict inmates' access to the courts. Specifically, plaintiff complained of defendants' refusal to allow inmates to use the Resident Law Clinic for the preparation of writs, damage suits, or civil suits against the prison. To enforce this policy, outgoing mail from the clinic was inspected and subject to approval by one of the coordinators.
After a consolidated hearing, the district court denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary and permanent injunction and entered judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Bryan v. Werner, 516 F.2d 288 (3d Cir. 1975). The court (Judge James Hunter III) held that defendants could not refuse to mail legal papers because it impeded inmate's access to the courts. The court also held that defendants' policy of preventing the clinic from assisting inmates in suits against the prison is valid only if there are reasonable alternatives for the inmate. The case was remanded for reconsideration of reasonable alternatives to the clinic available to inmates.
The docket for this case is not available on PACER, and therefore our information ends with the most recent decision, dated May 7, 1975.
Summary Authors
Eoghan Keenan (6/10/2005)
Hunter, James III (New Jersey)
Kane, Robert P. (Pennsylvania)
Smyser, J. Andrew (Pennsylvania)
Lerner, Benjamin (Pennsylvania)
Hunter, James III (New Jersey)
Last updated April 15, 2024, 3:15 a.m.
Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.State / Territory: Pennsylvania
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Oct. 23, 1973
Case Ongoing: No reason to think so
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiff is an inmate alleging that aspects of the operation of a resident law clinic at institution violated his constitutional rights.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Unknown
Filed Pro Se: Yes
Class Action Sought: Unknown
Class Action Outcome: Unknown
Defendants
State Correctional Institution, State
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Mixed
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Issues
General:
Access to lawyers or judicial system
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Type of Facility: