The major federal cases successfully litigated by the Prison Law Office include:

• Disability Rights
• Excessive force
• General Conditions
• Lifer Parole Considerations
• Medical and Mental Health Care
• Parolee Rights

In addition to federal impact cases, the office has won numerous state court actions concerning prisoners' rights. These cases include petitions that have vindicated the right to marry, protected prison visits, and established rights to free expression and to refuse medical care.

Disability Rights

Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey:

The U.S. Supreme Court held in a unanimous opinion, published at (1998) 524 U.S. 206, that the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to state prisoners.

Thompson/Bogovich:

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a parole board may not exclude a class of disabled people (in this case, people with substance abuse histories) from consideration for parole based on the disability. You can view a PDF file of the Ninth Circuit Opinion (2002) 295 F.3d 890.

Armstrong v. Davis (BPT):

A federal District Court judge issued an injunction, ordering the Board of Prison Terms to remedy its shocking and appalling failure to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act during parole hearings. The order came after a trial during which one prisoner told of having to leave his wheelchair behind to crawl upstairs to a hearing, a deaf prisoner told the judge he was shackled during his hearing and could not communicate with the sign language interpreter, and a blind inmate said he was offered no help with complicated written materials. The injunction was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (2001) 275 F.3d 849.

Armstrong v. Wilson:

After finding that the CDC was violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, the Court issued an injunction to improve access to prison programs for prisoners with physical disabilities at all of California's prisons and parole facilities. The case is reported at 942 F.Supp. 1252 (N.D. Cal. 1996) aff'd 124 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 1997). See also, Clark v. California, 123 F.3d 1267 (9th Cir. 1997) (ADA and Rehabilitation Act abrogated State's 11th Amendment immunity).

Clark v. California:

After extensive discovery in a class action lawsuit, prison officials agreed to develop and implement a plan to screen inmates for developmental disabilities, and to provide developmentally disabled prisoners with safe housing and supportive services.

Excessive Force

Madrid v. Gomez:

Conditions at California's "super-maximum" Pelican Bay State Prison have been subject to injunctions aimed at eliminating excessive force, improving health care and removing prisoners with mental illness from the Security Housing Unit. As a result of this case, Pelican Bay is currently being monitored by a court-appointed special master. The case is reported at 889 F.Supp. 1146 (N.D. Cal. 1995)

General Conditions

Thompson v. Enomoto:

A consent decree was obtained to improve conditions and establish rights for condemned prisoners at San Quentin.

Toussaint v. McCarthy:

Conditions in the segregated lock-up units at San Quentin, Folsom, Soledad, and Deuel Vocational Institute were declared unconstitutional by a federal court. The case is reported at 597 F.Supp. 1388 (N.D. Cal. 1984) aff'd 801 F.2d 1080 (9th Cir. 1986).

Wilson v. Deukmejian:

The state court found that the conditions in the general population units at San Quentin were cruel and unusual punishment and issued an injunction to ensure that conditions improved.

Medical and Mental Health Care

Plata v. Davis:

In the largest ever prison class action lawsuit, prisoners alleged that California officials inflicted cruel and unusual punishment by being deliberately indifferent to serious medical needs. A settlement agreement filed in 2002 requires the California Department of Corrections to completely overhaul its medical care policies and procedures, and to pump significant resources into the prisons to ensure timely access to adequate care. The settlement allows the state to phase in the new policies and procedures over several years and gives an independent medical panel the responsibility to audit the state's progress. You can read the Complaint and Settlement Agreement filed in this case, as well as the January 30, 2002 SF Chronicle article about the settlement.

Budd v. Cambra (San Francisco Superior Court Case No. 319578):

In May 2002 the San Francisco Superior Court ruled that the California Department of Corrections (CDC) has been and violated the law by failing to license health care facilities that provide inpatient treatment to the almost 160,000 prisoners throughout the state. The Court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and issued a permanent injunction ordering the CDC to comply with the law.

Coleman v. Wilson:

The court found that the entire mental health system operated by the California Department of Corrections was unconstitutional and that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to the needs of mentally ill inmates. All thirty-three institutions in the CDC are presently being monitored by a court-appointed special master to evaluate the CDC's compliance with the Court's order. The case is reported at 912 F.Supp. 1282 (E.D. Cal. 1995).

Madrid v. Gomez:

Gates v. Deukmejian:

Prison officials agreed to a consent decree to improve medical care, psychiatric care, the treatment of HIV+ prisoners and to reduce crowding at the California Medical Facility. The consent decree in Gates resulted in monitoring of CMF for many years by a special master. Many of the issues in Gates are now monitored as part of Coleman. The case is reported at 987 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir. 1993), Gates v. Rowland, 39 F.3d 1439 (9th Cir. 1994), and Gates v. Rowland, 60 F.3d 525 (9th Cir. 1995)

Marin v. Rushen:

A settlement agreement was in effect for many years that is designed to improve medical and psychiatric care at San Quentin.

Lifer Parole Considerations

In re Rosenkrantz (BPT):

In an on-going battle against the Board of Prison Terms' and Governor Davis's lifer parole policies, a California Court of Appeals condemned the BPT for failing to fairly consider evidence of a life prisoner's suitability for parole, and ordered the BPT to re-hear the prisoner's case. (In re Rosenkrantz (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 409) The BPT subsequently found Mr. Rosenkrantz suitable for parole, but the Governor blocked parole. The prisoner filed an amended habeas petition naming the Governor as a defendant, and on June 21, 2001, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge issued an order for Mr. Rosenkrantz's release, finding that he had been denied an individualized determination of suitability and that the Governor's "no parole" policy violated due process. The state appealed the order and the California Supreme Court granted a stay of the Los Angeles Court's order pending appeal. In January 2002, the Court of Appeal affirmed the order for Mr. Rosenkrantz's release. The state sought review in the California Supreme Court; in an opinion isssued December 16, 2002, the Court denied the challenge to the Governor's "No-Parole" policy, setting back many model life prisoners' hopes for parole. The case is published at (2002) 29 Cal.4th 616. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case on April 21, 2003.

Thompson/Bogovich v. Davis:

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a parole board may not exclude a class of disabled people (in this case, people with substance abuse histories) from consideration for parole based on a disability. You can view a PDF file of the Ninth Circuit Opinion (2002) 295 F.3d 890.

Parolee Rights

Armstrong v. Davis (BPT):