PLC Legal Help Guide: 
Isolation in Texas
Updated May 2013

This Legal Help Guide was compiled by members of the Prisoners' Legal Clinic (PLC) and MIM(Prisons). Please contribute to its accuracy and timely updates. Just write in and tell us what needs to be added, what needs to be updated, etc.

PLC Purpose Statement
The Prisoners' Legal Clinic is an organization of prisoners in the United $tates who are fighting injustice in the anti-imperialist movement. The PLC is led and supported by MIM(Prisons). Fighting the injustice system is just one part of the anti-imperialist struggle, and it is important that we not lose sight of the connections to this larger battle. Many prisoners have written to MIM(Prisons) expressing interest in legal issues, or requesting legal assistance. At the same time, many comrades are facing political repression and censorship from receiving materials from MIM(Prisons). In response, we initiated the PLC in hopes of pushing our legal work forward. The PLC is a space where prisoners can contribute to the legal strategy that will push forward our anti-imperialist agenda. 

The Prisoners' Legal Clinic is part of the international anti-imperialist movement that works from the vantage point of the international proletariat. We carry out our work as part of a larger anti-imperialist strategy. The projects taken on must be directly related to our movement's strategy of building public opinion for national liberation struggles generally, and our work of fighting against censorship and political repression specifically. Therefore, the PLC will not provide one-on-one help for persynal issues or criminal cases. Instead, we encourage comrades to write articles for Under Lock & Key about the political implications of their own cases.

Isolation in Texas
Ruiz v Estelle 503 FSupp 1265; 679 F2d 1115

From wikipedia Jan 2012: Ruiz v. Estelle, 503 F. Supp. 1265 (S.D. Tex. 1980), filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, eventually became the most far-reaching lawsuit on the conditions of prison incarceration in American history.[1] It began as a civil action, a handwritten petition filed against the Texas Department of Corrections (TDC) in 1972 by inmate David Resendez Ruíz alleging that the conditions of his incarceration, such as overcrowding, lack of access to health care, and abusive security practices, were a violation of his constitutional rights.[1] In 1974, the petition was joined by seven other inmates and became a class action suit known as Ruiz v. Estelle, 550 F.2d 238. The trial ended in 1979 with the ruling that the conditions of imprisonment within the TDC prison system constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the United States Constitution,[2] with the original report issued in 1980, a 118 page decision by Judge William Justice (Ruiz v. Estelle, 503 F.Supp. 1295).[3]

There followed decades of further litigation in the form of consent decrees, appeals and other legal actions, until a final judgment was rendered in 1992.[1] But problems in enforcement continued, and in 1996 U.S. Congress enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) to address these issues as well as abuse of the prison litigation process.[4][5]

However, in October 1997, the district court, still not satisfied with the compliance of the TDC, gave permission for continuing site visits by attorneys and experts for the inmate class, and this continued into 1999. In response to this, the TDC issued more than 450,000 pages of evidence and accepted 50 additional site visits.[4][6] In 2001, the court found that the TDC was in compliance on the issue of use of force against inmates and had adequate policies and procedures in place. However, the court continued to have issues with the "current and ongoing constitutional violations regarding administrative segregation [in] the conditions of confinement and the practice of using administrative segregation to house mentally ill inmates" that it found.[4]

In 2007, in the consolidated case of Jones v. Bock the U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, set forth limitations on the extent of prison litigation.[7][8]

Notes:
1. Reynolds, Carl. "The final chapters of Ruiz v. Estelle, page 1". www.allbusiness.com. Retrieved 2009-11-04.
2.  Lucko, Paul. "Handbook of Texas Online - Pope, Lawrence Chalmous". www.tshaonline.org. Retrieved 2009-11-04.
3. "Ruiz v. Estelle, 503 F.Supp. 1295 (1980)". PDF. 1980. Retrieved 2009-11-04.
4. Reynolds, Carl. "The final chapters of Ruiz v. Estelle, page 2". www.allbusiness.com. Retrieved 2009-11-04.
5. "Prison Litigation Reform Act". PDF. Retrieved 2009-11-04.
6. Reynolds, Carl. "The final chapters of Ruiz v. Estelle, page 4". www.allbusiness.com. Retrieved 2009-11-05.
7. "Jones v. Bock". www.law.cornell.edu. Retrieved 2009-11-07.
8. Wallace, Jr., Paul Starett (March 7, 2007). "Supreme Court Decision in Jones v. Bock:Exhaustion Requirements under the Prison Litigation Reform Act". PDF. CRS Report for Congress. Retrieved 2009-11-07.

See also Ruiz v. Johnson 37 FSupp 2d 855