*1 No. 20227. Aug. [Crim. 1979.]
In re WILLIAM BRANDT on Habeas Corpus.
Counsel
Michael R. Snedeker and Paul W. for Petitioner. Comiskey General, Winkler, Evelle J. Jack R. Chief Assistant Younger, Attorney General, General, O’Brien, Edward P. Assistant Attorney Attorney General, Clifford K. and John T. Attorneys Thompson Murphy, Deputy for Respondent.
Opinion
NEWMAN, May Department (CDC) prohib- J. of Corrections it between inmates and a Prisoners Union paroled official? “No” is the of Penal Code section which answer because “A reads: sentenced to in a state person imprisonment may, during confinement, such of such any period deprived rights, only as is in order to for the reasonable rights, necessary provide the institution in which he is confined for the reasonable protection of the public.”
At here issue is rule former departmental providing person’s “[a] inmate status will not in itself with an preclude approval correspond
inmate as follows: Prior or warden except approval superintendent is if the was from a correctional within required person discharged facility 12 months. Prior the warden or past superintendent case is if the under person’s supervisor currently required person or Admin. tit. (Cal. parole, probation outpatient supervision.” *3 3133, subd. (o).) Petitioner while at confined Soledad was an active of the member As a Union Union official he to (Union). Prisoners with sought correspond his release in 1977. He after obtained the of inmates his parole approval 15, 1977, and on the Soledad case sought supervisor April superintendent’s the When not did to approval. superintendent reply petitioner appealed of him Director Corrections and received a refusal letter from respondent dated letter 1977. The ruled that July petitioner might “correspond citizen,” with an or individual as a prisoner prisoners private assuming rules, to CDC but would not receive “blanket approval pursuant to as a Union official. approval” correspond Petitioner he at states was Soledad for four He to claims have years. been an his last three in the honor exemplary prisoner, spending years He awas cofounder Inmate Committee for wing. apparently Education, Clubs, an in Gavel officer the and and a Higher Bridge activist, in the Blind He was also a Union one Jaycees’ participant Project. 30of or so inmates involved in the to a establish Union request chapter Soledad.
After release on he was hired the to Union do parole by investigative and relations work on the and to conditions around public prison country Soledad, maintain with communication Union members at aswell with other inmates Soledad who wrote to Union. action Respondent’s him from out some of those prevented carrying responsibilities. CDC to Union members to subscribe inmates become permits already Union to the Union to visit with attorneys individually newspaper, members, with Union and to correspond nonimprisoned nonimprisoned are not In the In re Union who case representatives parolees. companion ante, P.2d we order 86], Reynolds page Cal.Rptr. to of CDC Union buttons inmates. permit wearing At issue here is whether inmate m'embers and who nonmembers are communicate in and thus be informed as to Union interested may writing activities outside the Union is an prison. correspondence clearly impor- Penal Code section Under incident to the inmates’ association tant rights. of can 2600 inmates’ necessity only showing rights abrogated upon and reasonable for reasonable institutional public protec- offers this Union tion.1 The main against argument respondent activities, concerns the Union as distinct from parolee activity, permitted the outside. from of the Union official status corresponding their other unlike with that inmate believes parolees, aas outsiders, to with must be subject prior continua- The first three parolees’ dangers. against types protection alliances, always antagonisms—not tion compromises, prison to the second is extension The gangs beneficial parolees. third is the likelihood The outside—harmful public. parolees their letters. information in or illicit contraband passing parolees’ *4 that those us, to nor does It does not suggest, respondent appear tolerates in several in which arise Union business respondent dangers relate those not even to Indeed does other forms. attempt respondent here. the issue for the rule to reasons correspondence general particular with to this he would the rule’s Instead correspondence application justify Soledad, was one of that, while in Union official on the petitioner ground visible, intense, controver- the most active Union highly organizers. “[A]n Further: referred to. new members at CTF” is sial to gain campaign that each side at CTF ran this believing high, “During campaign feelings effective, humane of an secure less than maintenance nothing and oversensitivi- considerable tension was at stake. There was institution and made it at CTF the situation Mr. Brandt’s activities aggravated ty. to abate the more difficult problem.” sum,
In to this correspondence opposition parolee-inmate respondent’s Union, he to the based on his seems almost though entirely opposition of an aims as the same (“maintenance sees his and the Union’s essentially of He authorization effective, institution”). secure and humane regards for the the “tacit carrying giving correspondence not to he wish While that may business personally by organization.” that the ban here is has he shown no means Union by activity, permit or reasonable for reasonable institutional public necessary Code, not inmate- He therefore (Pen. 2600.) may prohibit § protection. (as clear not be 2600 to a may section parolee of Penal Code Though applicability the test of must meet on his correspondence in a the ban he is not confined prison), with difficult not deal here “We do are at stake. inmates’ rights section 2600 because a but with particular standing hear’ and third-party so-called ‘right questions are meshed.” inextricably the interests of both parties in which of communication .means 224, 238, 396, 1800].) 94 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d (Procunier 416 U.S. v. Martinez on the
parolee that it correspondence solely constitutes Union ground business. court, has informed this in our case, campanion Reynolds
that with Union officials nonimprisoned members occurs, without already whenever apparently the outsider prior approval, not a He has failed to make parolee. that any showing prior approval, ban, much less a should be when the official union necessary correspon dence does involve a Like other parolee. letters to correspondence, and from a Union official would be paroled surveillance and subject Code, 15, (Cal. Admin. tit. subds. inspection. could (a)-(c).) They if violations rules occur. stopped (Cal. Admin. tit. 3132; 3133, 3139; subds. §§ (k), (m); 3140.) Custodial (j), supervision Union parolee be facilitated correspondence might reasonably that the sender use Union requirement or otherwise stationery, say, his letters. As for in specially identify his personal does not capacity, petitioner challenge prior-approval requirement; and we no on the rule’s in express opinion context. application has intimated that he would take a more (Respondent attitude permissive toward “a mere personal correspondence” request.) is directed to cease the ban on official Union *5 enforcing between inmates and to the extent the ban is parolees inconsistent with views herein. Since has expressed petitioner already been however, from the order to discharged show cause is custody, and the for writ of habeas discharged; is denied. petition corpus Bird, J., Tobriner, J., Mosk, C. J., Richardson, J., Manuel, J., and concurred.
CLARK, J., In Jonesv. North Carolina Prisoners’ Union Dissenting. U.S. 119 L.Ed.2d 97 S.Ct. the United 2532], States [53 Court rules from Supreme upheld prison prohibiting prisoners soliciting other inmates to the Prisoners’ Union and union join barring meetings and bulk the union from outside sources. mailings concerning Explaining decision, its court observed: “The interest in order high preserving and in the is life, self-evident. Prison and relations authority prisons between the inmates and themselves between the inmates and staff, officials or contain the for violent confronta everpresent potential tion and McDonnell, U.S., v. at 561-562. conflagration. Wolff officials must be to take reasonable Responsible prison permitted steps threat, forestall must be to act before the time they permitted when can a dossier on the eve of a riot. The case of a they compile union, where to, the focus is on the prisoners’ presentation grievances with, relations institution officials encouragement adversary surely would rank list of trouble If the high anyone’s potential spots. [prison views to detrimental effects of the possible officials’] organizational activities of the reasonable, Union are are, as we conclude then the they are drafted no more than need be to regulations meet the broadly they threat—which stems from perceived directly group meetings group activities of the 132-133, Union.” organizational (433 U.S. fn. pp. omitted L.Ed.2d 643].) at p. court,
For the reasons stated I conclude that the ban on high official Prisoners Union between inmates and parolees in order for the reasonable of the “necessary provide institution . . . and for the reasonable (Pen. protection public.” 2600.)