Patrick Joyce, Esquire
Section on Special Litigation
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
320 First Street NW
Room 954
Washington, D.C. 20530
Dear Mr. Joyce:
This letter is in follow up on our discussion of the Maryland Inmate Grievance Procedure during our meeting of April 11, 1985, requested by the Families of Prisoners Coalition.
I brought to your attention the Supreme Court case of Hudson v. Palmer, 35 CrL 3230 and I have since located another citation at 104 S.Ct. 3194. The case was decided on July 3, 1984. As I discussed, this is a Fourth Circuit cases on intentional deprivation of property by state employees in a state prison. I note below what I believe to be pertinent quotes from this case:
. . . An intentional deprivation of property does not give rise to a violation of the Due Process Clause if the State provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy that was foreshadowed by our decision of Ingrahan v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 97 S.Ct. 1401 (1977).
For intentional, as for negligent deprivations of property by State employees, the State's action is not complete until and unless it provides or refuses to provide a suitable post deprivation remedy. Id, at 3204.
Another quote which caught my attention was:
. . . Intentional harassment of even the most hardened criminals cannot be tolerated by a civilized society." Id.
I need not quote Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981) as you were familiar with this case which discusses unintentional deprivations of property.
You may not have seen the photocopy I showed to Mr. Peabody of a letter which I mailed to the Commissioner of Corrections and I reiterate below a portion of a paragraph relating to the Maryland Grievance Procedure:
. . . the inmate grievance procedure is woefully inadequate at the present time; decisions for even the most minor disputes take months to come back and most inmates consider the IGP useless and a farce. If the inmate grievance procedure alone were geared toward a genuine interest in inmate affairs, the Division could instill at least some respect for the System (and might quell at least some disorder) and would have a source for higher management to gain information on problems on the inside, resulting in quicker and more effective problem-solving and prevention as well as improved planning. In addition, a realistic grievance procedure might also result in less intervention by the Federal courts in Division matters.
I do want you to be aware that the Department of Justice's involvement in improving the Grievance Procedure in Maryland at this time is moot. It came to my attention after our meeting that our Legal Aid Bureau's Prison Project has a case pending before the Maryland Court of Appeals (certiorari granted), Herman Taloy Day v. Lawrence Carpenter et al, No. 661, September Term, 1984, regarding whether the grievance mechanism we now have satisfies the Due Process Clause. Perhaps, however, the Department of Justice could file an amicus brief should this case arrive in the Federal District Court here in Maryland. (I would surely let you know in that event.)
On another note, Mr. Lawrence mentioned "writ writers", perhaps alluding to Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 89 S.Ct. 747 (1969), in regard to a medical claim. I attach herewith a writing sample from one of Maryland's most active "writ writers". I am not sure this person is aware of the "deliberate indifference" standard of Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285 (1976) or of what constitutes "serious medical needs".
I also attach an example of one way how I learn of these problems; a typewritten note by a more sophisticated "writ writer"; a note by a major in the "administrative remedy" chain; and the decision by Assistant (now) Warden Kane (N.B. The signature is mimeoed in the original as well). Keep in mind that all pain killers ceased on May 18th -- the "final" decision was issued on the 29th.
As a matter of fact, to my knowledge, the man hasn't been treated since. The last document enclosed is my work while I had access to the luxury of a word processor. On information and belief, my work has been "made better" and submitted to the Federal Court under 42 USC 1983. I've alkso been told it has been "held up" because the judge had a heart attack!
Is it that this inmate is fortunate to know me (admittedly a good "writ writer" in my own right) and that I bother to wait maybe an hour for a visit to get the facts straight OR is the Federal judge unfortunate to be the only impartial recourse for such incidents? (Remember that all of us shll wait maybe another two years for resolution.)
I hope you, Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Peobody would take the perspective of the inmate whenever these matters reach you for action and decision in the future.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I'll keep you informed on the Day v. Carpenter case.
Sincerely,
Nancy Moran
nm
enclosures
Paul Lawrence, Esquire (w/o enc)