As the Prison Litigation Reform Act case was making its way through Congress, a frequently cited example was the prisoner who sued because he got the wrong kind of peanut butter. Circuit Judge Jon Newman later wrote a law review article contending that the suit had been misrepresented, 62 Brooklyn L. Rev. 519, but he failed to provide the case information so others could check it out. Even under Newman's version of the facts, the case was over $2.50 and shouldn't have been a federal court matter.
Whatever the facts of the peanut butter case are, prisoners do claim constitutional violations over trivial matters, and SFweekly.com has a fresh example for us. Prisoners at Pelican Bay, California's maximum security institution also known as "Slammer by the Sea," have sued because the prison raised the price of a jar of coffee from $6.40 to $7.50. (That's a penny more than the SF Safeway charges for the same jar, BTW.) The prison is no longer able to fund the Inmate Welfare Fund by keeping the interest on inmate trust accounts (even though the State Bar confiscates interest on lawyer trust accounts to fund its pet project). So they increased the markup on food items to make up the difference.
Is that a policy people may legitimately disagree with? Sure. Is it a violation of the Constitution of the United States? Get real.
One of the great things about the Internet is that, unlike in 1995, the article is accompanied by a link to the actual complaint, so everyone can read it for themselves. Yep, that's really what it says. On top of that, the inmates are represented by counsel, and of course they want attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. §1988.
One thing we really need in civil rights suits is reciprocity of attorney fee awards. It is fundamentally wrong for one party to be entitled to receive fees if he wins but not subject to pay them if he loses. California recognized that over three decades ago when it provided reciprocity in contract cases (Civil Code §1717). It is high time we did the same in civil rights cases. Falsely or frivolously accusing someone of a civil rights violation is just as bad as committing a civil rights violation, and the same liability for fees should follow.
Whatever the facts of the peanut butter case are, prisoners do claim constitutional violations over trivial matters, and SFweekly.com has a fresh example for us. Prisoners at Pelican Bay, California's maximum security institution also known as "Slammer by the Sea," have sued because the prison raised the price of a jar of coffee from $6.40 to $7.50. (That's a penny more than the SF Safeway charges for the same jar, BTW.) The prison is no longer able to fund the Inmate Welfare Fund by keeping the interest on inmate trust accounts (even though the State Bar confiscates interest on lawyer trust accounts to fund its pet project). So they increased the markup on food items to make up the difference.
Is that a policy people may legitimately disagree with? Sure. Is it a violation of the Constitution of the United States? Get real.
One of the great things about the Internet is that, unlike in 1995, the article is accompanied by a link to the actual complaint, so everyone can read it for themselves. Yep, that's really what it says. On top of that, the inmates are represented by counsel, and of course they want attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. §1988.
One thing we really need in civil rights suits is reciprocity of attorney fee awards. It is fundamentally wrong for one party to be entitled to receive fees if he wins but not subject to pay them if he loses. California recognized that over three decades ago when it provided reciprocity in contract cases (Civil Code §1717). It is high time we did the same in civil rights cases. Falsely or frivolously accusing someone of a civil rights violation is just as bad as committing a civil rights violation, and the same liability for fees should follow.
Leave a comment