The Para-Professional Law Clinic at Sci-Graterford H. Williams, Af-2935 Walter Dobson, Af-4135 D. Greene, Af-5712 M. Twiggs, Af-6967 C. Diggs, Ak-7945 R. Williams, Am-1008 C. Boyd, Am-9051 C. Johnson, Ap-2785 W. Finnigan, As-0826 A. Phillips, As-1767 K. Mines, Ay-5941 J. Pace, Ay-6445 R. Walker, Ay-8060 R. Ortiz, Bl-0305 C. Bassett, Bv-2576 J. Anderson, Bw-7671 T. Henderson, Cp-0814 W. Durham, Db-6750 T. Mott, De-1624 J. Figueroa, Dz-5832 Zebbie Clifton, Af-5043 Bebley Wells, Am-0253 v. Jeffrey A. Beard, Secretary of Corrections of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Donald T. Vaughn, Superintendent of the State Correctional Institution at Graterford (Sci-Graterford) Manuel A. Arroyo, Deputy Superintendent for Centralized Services at Sci-Graterford the Para-Professional Law Clinic at Sci-Graterford H. Williams, Af-2935 Walter Dobson, Af-4135 D. Greene, Af-5712 M. Twiggs, Af-6967 C. Diggs, Ak-7945 R. Williams, Am-1008 C. Boyd, Am-9051 C. Johnson, Ap-2785 W. Finnigan, As-0826 A. Phillips, As-1767 K. Mines, Ay-5941

Citations: 334 F.3d 301; 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 13404Docket: 02-2788

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; July 1, 2003; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The legal case involves an appeal concerning a permanent injunction that mandates the continued operation of the Para-Professional Law Clinic at the State Correctional Institution at Graterford, Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs, which include the Clinic and 22 inmates (most of whom are Clinic members), acknowledge that there are no current violations of inmates' constitutional rights to access the courts. However, they argue that if the injunction is lifted, state officials might abolish the Clinic, leading to future violations. The court determined that mere predictions about potential future actions do not constitute a "current and ongoing" violation as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA). Furthermore, even if the Clinic were to be abolished, it would not necessarily violate the inmates' rights to access the courts. Consequently, the court affirmed the District Court's decision to terminate the injunction.

The Para-Professional Law Clinic, established in 1971 and incorporated in 1976, was created to assist illiterate inmates with legal issues, including post-conviction relief and civil rights actions. It operates under a board of directors mainly comprised of elected inmate officers, and the inmate workers receive compensation similar to other Department of Corrections assignments.

In December 1977, state officials announced the closure of the Clinic effective February 15, 1978, prohibiting new cases and phasing out its operations. In response, inmates at Graterford filed a federal lawsuit, resulting in Chief Judge Joseph S. Lord, III issuing a preliminary injunction on February 17, 1978, to reopen the Clinic. On March 25, 1987, after an evidentiary hearing in a related case, Judge Lord permanently enjoined the Clinic's closure, stating it was essential for inmates' access to the courts, particularly for those who were illiterate or in administrative custody.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) was enacted on April 26, 1996, aiming to limit frivolous lawsuits by prisoners and reduce federal oversight of prison conditions. The PLRA restricted courts' authority to award prospective relief and enforce existing consent decrees in prison condition cases. 

On February 14, 2001, defendants sought to terminate Judge Lord's 1987 injunction under the PLRA, which allows termination of prospective relief two years post-enactment for orders issued before that date. Plaintiffs opposed this, citing an exception that prospective relief should not terminate if it addresses ongoing federal rights violations. They conceded there was no current violation but argued that closing the Clinic would lead to inadequate alternatives.

District Court Judge Berle M. Schiller held a hearing and, on May 29, 2002, ruled against the plaintiffs, finding no evidence of a current and ongoing violation of inmates' right of access to the courts, which was necessary to maintain the injunction. An appeal followed this decision.

To succeed in their case, plaintiffs must demonstrate that the phrase "current and ongoing" in Section 3626(b)(3) applies to their situation, where no active violation exists but the defendants plan changes that would violate an injunction. The interpretation of "current and ongoing" does not include future violations, as evidenced by the statute's history. Originally, Section 3626(b)(3) allowed courts to avoid termination of orders based on a current or ongoing violation. Amendments in 1997 clarified that a constitutional violation must be both current and ongoing. The Conference Report indicates that courts should not continue orders based on potential future violations or prior policy issues. If a violation resumes, inmates can seek immediate remedies through new legal actions.

The potential closure of the Clinic does not warrant maintaining the injunction since it does not constitute a current violation of federal rights, aligning with Congress's intent to reduce federal court involvement in prison matters. Other appellate courts have reached similar conclusions, asserting that Section 3626(b)(3) only applies when defendants are actively violating rights.

Moreover, plaintiffs' claims regarding the right of access to the courts are flawed; closure of the Clinic does not inherently violate inmates' rights since prisoners do not have a constitutional right to a specific legal resource like the Clinic. They are entitled to access to the courts, and if the Clinic is replaced by another program, it must ensure that inmates can still demonstrate and pursue nonfrivolous legal claims.

Defendants are strongly urged to reconsider plans to close the Clinic, as it plays a crucial role in providing legal assistance to inmates at Graterford, especially given the inadequacies of the facility's law libraries and the lack of language translation services. The District Court highlighted that Graterford's law libraries are under-staffed and at times closed, limiting access for an increasing inmate population, particularly in the Mental Health and Special Needs Units, who rely on the Clinic for legal help. The current paralegal's ability to assist is hindered by her extensive workload across multiple institutions. The Clinic is deemed essential for inmates' access to legal resources, and its closure could infringe on prisoners' constitutional rights, potentially leading to increased litigation and federal court intervention. The defendants' plans, articulated by Secretary of Corrections Jeffrey A. Beard, indicate a phased approach to service transition from the Clinic to the law library, motivated by security concerns related to inmate supervision and mobility within the Clinic. The District Court's May 29, 2002 order will be affirmed.