Johnson v. Avery
393 U.S. 483 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Unless a state provides a reasonable alternative to assist inmates in preparing post-conviction petitions, it may not enforce a prison regulation that prohibits inmates from furnishing legal assistance to other prisoners.
Facts:
- William Johnson was an inmate serving a life sentence in the Tennessee State Penitentiary.
- The prison enforced a regulation that prohibited any inmate from advising or assisting another inmate in preparing legal writs or other legal matters.
- Johnson violated this regulation by providing legal assistance to other inmates.
- In February 1965, as a disciplinary measure for violating the regulation, prison officials transferred Johnson to the maximum security building.
- Tennessee did not provide an alternative, such as a public defender system or other organized program, to help inmates prepare their post-conviction relief petitions.
Procedural Posture:
- In July 1965, Johnson filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, which the court treated as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
- The District Court, a federal trial court, held that the prison regulation was void and ordered Johnson released from disciplinary confinement.
- After a second hearing, the District Court reaffirmed its order.
- The State of Tennessee appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, an intermediate federal appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision, holding that the state's interests justified the regulation.
- Johnson, the petitioner, successfully sought review from the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state prison regulation that forbids inmates from assisting other inmates in preparing legal writs unconstitutionally deny prisoners, particularly those who are illiterate or uneducated, their right of access to the courts when the state offers no reasonable alternative for legal assistance?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Fortas
Yes. A state prison regulation barring inmates from assisting others with legal petitions unconstitutionally denies prisoners access to the courts where no reasonable alternative assistance is provided. The right of access to the courts for the purpose of presenting habeas corpus petitions is fundamental and may not be obstructed. Because a high percentage of inmates are illiterate or poorly educated, they are practically unable to prepare the necessary legal petitions on their own. In the absence of any state-provided legal assistance, the help of other inmates, or 'jailhouse lawyers,' is the only way for these prisoners to have their constitutional claims heard. While states have a legitimate interest in maintaining prison discipline, that interest cannot abrogate a prisoner's federally protected right to access the writ of habeas corpus. The state may impose reasonable restrictions on inmate assistance, but it cannot enforce an absolute ban unless and until it provides a reasonable alternative.
Dissenting - Justice White
No. The Court's solution of sanctioning unregulated 'jailhouse lawyers' is more harmful than the problem it aims to solve, and the state's regulation should be seen as a valid disciplinary tool. While prisoners certainly require legal assistance, jailhouse lawyers are often a menace to discipline, exploit weaker inmates, and file unskillful petitions that burden the courts. The majority's holding does not guarantee that the assistance provided will be competent or that the most needy inmates will receive it. The better course would be to affirmatively require the state to provide a system of reasonably adequate assistance, which could be a regulated program of trained inmates or professional help. This would properly protect the client-prisoner's rights, rather than sanctioning a flawed and often predatory system.
Concurring - Justice Douglas
Yes. The need for lay legal assistance is acute in modern society, and especially so for prisoners who face numerous legal issues with virtually no access to professional counsel. The legal profession's traditional 'closed-shop' attitude is out of place when the demand for legal help far outstrips the supply of lawyers. In a prison environment where illiteracy is high and legal aid is scarce, inmates helping each other is a necessary, self-generated solution to ensure the fundamental right of access to the courts is not a mere formality. The preparation of legal petitions by laymen, in or out of prison, should be permitted as long as they do not hold themselves out as licensed attorneys.
Analysis:
This landmark case established the constitutional right of inmates to meaningful access to the courts, which includes the right to receive legal assistance from fellow inmates when the state provides no adequate alternative. The decision effectively requires states to choose between allowing 'jailhouse lawyers' or funding institutional legal assistance programs, such as prison law libraries and clinical programs. It balances the state's interest in prison administration against a prisoner's fundamental rights, creating a conditional rule that spurred significant reforms in correctional systems nationwide. The case underscored that economic or educational status cannot be a barrier to seeking post-conviction relief.
