Maine prison bosses violate court orders

Department of Corrections ignores federal rulings going back to the 1970s
By LANCE TAPLEY  |  June 27, 2007
inside_feat_gavel

"Lost" Court Records
Langford v. Murphy: Page 1
Langford v. Murphy: Page 2
Picariello v. Robbins: Page 1
Picariello v. Robbins: Page 2
Picariello v. Robbins: Page 3
Picariello v. Robbins: Page 4
Picariello v. Robbins: Page 5
Heald v. Mullaney: Page 1
Heald v. Mullaney: Page 2
The Maine Department of Corrections is violating at least two of three 35-year-old federal court orders that grant prisoners access to the press, allow them to write to newspapers, and prohibit prison officials from arbitrarily transferring prisoners out of state if they exercise their rights. The state admits two of the orders have never been superseded.

In the activist climate of an earlier era, a Maine legal-aid group brought and won three prisoner-rights lawsuits against state corrections officials. Those cases resulted in the following federal-court rulings:

1) Prison officials are required to allow reporters to interview inmates in all the state’s prisons, with few restrictions;

2) Prison officials must allow inmates at the Maine State Prison to write letters to reporters freely complaining about their treatment; and

3) Maine Corrections should not have moved an inmate from one prison to another without a hearing or other due-process procedures. (In the case at issue, an activist inmate had been abruptly shipped out of state.)

The orders were signed by Judge Edward Gignoux in 1972 and 1973. They are called consent decrees because each was imposed — decreed — after an agreement by the parties — consent — to settle a lawsuit.

To look at its actions — including aggressive resistance to press access to prisoners — the state Department of Corrections has ignored these consent decrees for some time, and corrections officials have been aggressively defended by their lawyers in the attorney general’s department.

After the decrees were discovered by the Portland Phoenix, the department and its attorneys — including Attorney General Steven Rowe — were asked about the decrees’ authority and when they had learned of them. They refused to make any comment on them for several weeks. Finally, just before the Phoenix’s deadline, Rowe’s department issued a statement on the two orders that deal with the press: “Nothing specifically supersedes them, but they are dependent on the past facts of the situation and how the law and the policy have since evolved.”

Even the evolutionary forces over years within the legal environment, though, may not have an effect on the decrees. University of Maine School of Law professor Orlando Delogu says, “I don't see how a consent decree handed down by a federal court involving the State of Maine and a group of plaintiff prisoners within a state institution could be or would be modified” even by a United States Supreme Court decision on a legal principle. Generally, says Delogu, a consent decree is “valid unless modified or repealed” by the court. “A consent decree binds the parties.”

The AG’s office says the third order, dealing with prisoner transfers, is no longer in effect because it deals with an individual who has since died. But an attorney for a Maine State Prison inmate activist who was transferred out of state in a recently controversial case believes it may still apply.

1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |   next >
  Topics: News Features , U.S. Government, U.S. State Government, University of Maine School of Law,  More more >
| More


Most Popular
ARTICLES BY LANCE TAPLEY
Share this entry with Delicious
  •   MICHAEL JAMES SENT BACK TO PRISON  |  April 16, 2014
    The hearing’s topic was whether James’s “antisocial personality disorder” was enough of a mental disease to keep him from being sent to prison.
  •   LOCKING UP THE MENTALLY ILL  |  April 03, 2014
    The merger of the prison and mental-health systems continues
  •   WHERE ARE THE LEADERS ON CLIMATE CHANGE?  |  March 20, 2014
    The conference was held in March despite the risk of a snowstorm because its organizers wanted “to reach the Legislature while it’s in session,” co-coordinator Fred Horch said.
  •   ANATOMY OF A RIP-OFF, PART II  |  March 06, 2014
    Imagine if state government gave out millions of dollars a year to fat-cat financiers, big banks,  and speculative ventures without monitoring how the money is spent — basically, giving it to whoever walks in the door as long as they flash a few credentials.
  •   ANATOMY OF A TAXPAYER RIP-OFF  |  February 19, 2014
    To try to restore several hundred mill jobs to the historic paper-making North Country towns of Millinocket and East Millinocket, Maine’s politicians, in a bipartisan manner, have given away and are planning to give away millions of taxpayer dollars to various corporate interests, including big, out-of-state banks.

 See all articles by: LANCE TAPLEY