In Re Boag

California Court of Appeal Dec 7, 1973 No. Crim. 6924Published

Before: Friedman

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that prison officials may document minor infractions of institutional rules in an inmate's file without prior notice or a formal hearing, and that such regulation of the prison library does not violate an inmate's right of access to the courts.

Issues

Whether an inmate is entitled to procedural due process before a report of an unauthorized meeting is placed in his prison file.
Whether the regulation of the prison library to prohibit group meetings violates an inmate's constitutional right of access to the courts.

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Prior notice and hearing were not prerequisites to the notation in petitioner’s file.”

“It falls far short of those grave decisions which inflict a “grievous loss” and evoke the Fourteenth Amendment’s demand for prior notice and hearing.”

“Exclusion of the prison law library as the locale of inmate meetings was no more than an exercise of the prison officials’ authority to regulate the library’s use without unreasonably impeding inmates’ access to the courts.”

[868]

Opinion

FRIEDMAN, J.

Petitioner, an inmate of Folsom Prison, seeks a writ of habeas corpus to require removal from his prison records of an entry on a form designated CDC 128-A. The entry is dated December 12, 1972, and reads as follows: “On this date the Subject was implicated in an unauthorized meeting in the Folsom Library. He was advised not to participate in any more unauthorized group meetings. Subject was given a copy of this document in person.”

After receiving a copy of the entry, petitioner filed with the warden a request for its removal. The warden responded as follows: “I have reviewed all reports connected with this incident and I am of the opinion that the evidence is irrefutable that an [un] authorized meeting was being held in the library in which you were a participant. The 128A simply documents this fact and does not represent a disciplinary charge, as such.

“I am therefore taking action to deny your request.”

Petitioner contends that the inclusion of the form 128-A in his file was a disciplinary action by the prison authorities which unfavorably affects his custody conditions and damages his chance for parole; that this “discipline” was imposed without providing him advance knowledge of the restriction which he supposedly violated; that he was entitled to procedural due process, i.e., notice and hearing, before the entry was placed in his file; that, in attending the meeting in the prison law library, he was pursuing his constitutional right of access to the courts and of securing inmate assistance; that the imposition of adverse consequences unlawfully trenches upon his exercise of constitutionally protected prerogatives.

According to the uncontroverted allegations, petitioner and 10 other Folsom inmates held a meeting in the prison law library for the purpose of forming a chapter of the National Lawyers Guild and to forward prisoners’ rights litigation; after

Wt,

hours two correctional officers entered and ordered the group to disband. In his return the warden does not point to any rule or regulation prohibiting meetings in the prison library or elsewhere or requiring advance permission for inmate meetings. The Director of Corrections may prescribe rules and regulations for the government of prisons. (Pen. Code, § 5058.) A copy of rules describing duties and obligations of prisoners must be furnished to each inmate. (Pen. Code, § 2080,) Case records of all prisoners must be maintained and are to include data with respect to the classification, treatment, employment, training and discipline of each prisoner. (Pen. Code, § 2081.5.)

In Re Boag

AI Brief

FRIEDMAN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief