In 1984, inmates at the Arizona State Prison at Florence filed a class action suit seeking injunctive relief against the Arizona Department of Corrections under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that its policies concerning the prison law library denied them meaningful access to the courts. The plaintiffs were represented by the Arizona State University Law School Clinic. The United States District Court for the District of Arizona (Judge Charles Andrew Muecke) granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff class and issued an order mandating certain changes in the operation of the library. Gluth v. Kangas, 773 F.Supp. 1309 (D. Ariz. 1988). The Court held the following: (1) inmates denied physical access to prison law library were entitled to assistance from someone trained in law, not simply another inmate without adequate training; (2) the new law library access policy implemented by the prison failed to provide detailed guidelines that would thwart arbitrariness and ensure that inmates would enjoy adequate law library access; (3) the indigency policy that forced inmates to choose between purchasing essential hygienic supplies and essential legal supplies provided prisoners unacceptable "choice" and that it should be adjusted to provide prisoners with enough funds to avoid forcing them to forfeit essential hygiene supplies. The Court drafted the provisions of the injunctive order, at the request of the plaintiffs; it ensured that inmates received adequate law library access through accommodating hours, properly trained legal assistants, and available resources needed for research and writing. The Court then appointed a Special Master, Daniel Pochoda, to ensure that the injunctive measures were abided by.

The defendant Department appealed the grant of summary judgment and the injunction in 1991 and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Judge Pamela Ann Rymer) upheld the District Court decision. Gluth v. Kangas, 940 F.2d 668 (table), 1991 WL 138845 (9th Cir. 1991). Judge Rymer's memorandum disposition from this case was later redesignated as an opinion and thereafter published in F.2d. Gluth v. Kangas, 951 F.2d 1504 (9th Cir. 1991).

Litigation continued with respect to the appointment of subsequent Special Masters, attorneys' fees, and motions to modify the permanent injunction. In March 2000, the District Court (Judge Paul Rosenblatt) entered a stipulated Modified Permanent Injunction and the Special Master was thereafter dismissed. In the Special Master's place a Joint Expert was selected by the parties to monitor the Permanent Injunction with the understanding that if the Court was satisfied after reviewing the Joint Expert's status reports that the prison was being compliant, the injunction would be terminated and the case dismissed. In February 2002, Judge Rosenblatt terminated the Modified Permanent Injunction and dismissed the case without prejudice. Nothing further appears in the docket.

Rebecca Bloch - 02/15/2006


compress summary