Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Michelle Bazzetta Stacy Barker Toni Bunton Debra King Shante Allen Adrienne Bronaugh Alesia Butler Tamara Prude Susan Fair Valerie Bunton Arturo Zavala, Through His Next Friend Valerie Bunton, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Kenneth McGinnis Director of Michigan Department of Corrections Michigan Department of Corrections
Citations: 133 F.3d 382; 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 9Docket: 96-1559
Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; January 4, 1998; Federal Appellate Court
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in case number 133 F.3d 382, addresses the appeal from Michelle Bazzetta et al. against Kenneth McGinnis and the Michigan Department of Corrections regarding prisoner visitation policies. The Court previously affirmed limitations on contact visitation imposed by the district court but issued this Supplementary Opinion to clarify the Department's interpretation of the ruling. The Department emphasized that the visitation restrictions specifically pertain to contact visits between the public, including minor children, and convicted felons. The Department argued that due to the high volume of annual contact visits—approximately 820,000—there are substantial security and administrative challenges, necessitating restrictions. It acknowledged the importance of familial relationships but maintained that security concerns justify limiting the definition of minor children eligible for contact visitation. Affidavits from prison officials underscored ongoing security issues related to contact visits, particularly concerning the safety of minor children. The Court recognized these concerns as legitimate penological interests deserving of consideration in the visitation policy. The Department's motion for summary judgment focused on contact visitation, asserting that limiting the number of minor children in these visits allows for better monitoring to prevent abuse and smuggling. The plaintiffs contended that visitor restrictions are unconstitutional as they infringe on public rights to visit incarcerated felons; however, the Department argued that alternative communication methods exist, rendering such restrictions constitutional. In its brief, the Department highlighted security concerns associated with contact visits and reiterated that these restrictions do not violate constitutional rights due to the availability of other communication forms. The court clarified that the visits in question are designated as "contact visits," allowing for limited physical contact between prisoners and visitors. The Department later acknowledged a misunderstanding in earlier briefs regarding the applicability of certain rules, arguing that these rules pertain to both contact and non-contact visits, a position not previously asserted in the lower court or this Court. The opinion emphasizes the need to clarify this point and acknowledges the judge's designation in making these determinations.