Filed Date: 1972
Clearinghouse coding complete
Inmates at the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, represented by private counsel, filed a Section 1983 class action suit in the District of Nebraska, against officials of the Nebraska State Prison system. Plaintiffs complained of limitations on their access to the law library, legal services, and visitation with the inmate legal assistant. Plaintiffs also complained that disciplinary proceedings at the Complex were conducted without regard for procedural or substantive due process and that the regulations regarding prisoners' mail violated the attorney-client privilege.
In April 1972, the District Court (Judge Robert V. Denney) held that prison regulations limiting the number of inmates who could access the legal library at any one time and the hours during which inmates could visit with the legal assistant were both reasonable. However, the court held that the prison regulation limiting an inmate's time for independent legal research to seven hours per week was unreasonable. The court also held that defendants were not required to afford procedural due process to inmates in disciplinary hearings, but that they were required to afford substantive due process to inmates and that a regulation requiring that all incoming and outgoing mail be read and inspected was improper. McDonnell v. Wolff, 342 F. Supp. 616 (D. Neb. 1972). Plaintiffs and defendants appealed.
The Eight Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. McDonnell v. Wolff, 483 F.2d 1059 (8th Cir. 1973). The Court of Appeals held that the district court erred by holding that defendants were not required to afford procedural due process and remanded to determine what procedures were necessary to meet minimum procedural due process standards and whether they were being met. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). Writing for the majority, Justice White held that prison officials must observe certain minimal due process requirements. The Court clarified that prisoners facing disciplinary charges are entitled to 24 hours notice before a hearing, a written statement of the reason for the disciplinary hearing, and the right to call witnesses and present evidence. However, the Court also held that prisoners do not have the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses or to have the assistance of counsel. The Court concluded that prisoners are entitled to an impartial tribunal, but held that a committee of prison officials was sufficiently impartial. The docket for this case is not available on PACER, and therefore our information ends with the last reported decision in 1974.
Summary Authors
Eoghan Keenan (6/10/2005)
Denney, Robert Vernon (Nebraska)
Heaney, Gerald William (Minnesota)
Duchek, Douglas F. (Nebraska)
Kammerlohr, Melvin K. (Nebraska)
Bork, Robert Heron (District of Columbia)
Denney, Robert Vernon (Nebraska)
Heaney, Gerald William (Minnesota)
White, Byron Raymond (District of Columbia)
Last updated Jan. 23, 2024, 3:10 a.m.
Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.State / Territory: Nebraska
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: 1972
Case Ongoing: No reason to think so
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
inmates at the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, State
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
U.S. Supreme Court merits opinion
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Mixed
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Order Duration: 1974 - None
Issues
General:
Access to lawyers or judicial system
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Discrimination-area:
Type of Facility: