The Newsletter of North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services, Inc.

NCPLS

Volume V, Issue 2, June 2005

ACCESS

GENERAL ASSEMBLY CONSIDERS RESTRUCTURING
DELIVERY OF LEGAL SERVICES TO PRISONERS
On May 5th, the North Carolina
Senate passed the appropriations
bill, a provision of which augments
the responsibilities of the Office of
Indigent Defense Services
to encompass “Cases in
which the State is legally
obligated to provide legal
assistance and access to the
courts to inmates in the
custody of the Department
of Correction . . ..” §7A498.3(a)(2a). The bill
further provides: “Effective October 1, 2005, the
State’s responsibility for
providing inmates in the
custody of the Department
of Correction with legal
assistance and access to the courts
shall be administered by the
Office of Indigent Defense Services. The existing contract
between the Department of Correction and Prisoner Legal Services, Inc., shall not be extended or
renewed beyond that date.”
Founded in 1978, NCPLS has been
providing legal assistance to North
Carolina prisoners for almost 27
years. The firm has developed
expertise in the governing law;
efficiency in delivering effective,
efficient, and timely services to
clients; and an excellent relationship with both the Department of
Correction (DOC) and jail administrators across the State.

NCPLS serves all people who are
incarcerated in North Carolina - not
just those in custody of the DOC
- thanks to a modest grant from

The Legislative Building

IOLTA. The appropriations bill
makes no provision for the delivery
of legal services to pre-trial detainees, a population of more than
14,000 people on any given day,
and more than 250,000 people,
annually.
Senate Bill 622:
TRANSFERRING RESPONSIBILITY FOR
PROVIDING LEGAL ASSISTANCE TO
INMATES FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION TO THE OFFICE OF
INDIGENT DEFENSE SERVICES
Requested by: Senators Kinnaird,
Garrou, Dalton, Hagan
SECTION 14.9.(a) G.S. 7A 498.3
reads as rewritten:

Ҥ7A 498.3. Responsibilities of
Office of Indigent Defense Services.
(a) The Office of Indigent
Defense Services shall
be responsible for establishing, supervising, and
maintaining a system for
providing legal representation and related services in
the following cases:
(1) Cases in which an
indigent person is subject to
a deprivation of liberty or
other constitutionally
protected interest and is
entitled by law to legal representation;
(Continued on Page 2)
In this Issue:
General Assembly Considers
Restructuring Delivery of Legal
Services to Prisoners
State Bar Rules on NCPLS Ethics
Inquiry
About North Carolina Prisoner Legal
Services (A Non-Profit, Public
Service Law Firm)
Update on RDM Legal Research
Services
Tour of Mountain View Correctional
Institution
NCPLS Joins Call for Moratorium
on the Death Penalty
NCBA Section Lends Strong Support
to NCPLS

1
6
7
9
10
12
13

NC Center on Actual Innocence &
The Actual Innocence Commission

14

MAR Results in 6 1/2-Year Sentence
Reduction
Master Discipline, Expect Nothing

15
17

NCPLS ACCESS

Page 2
ACCESS is a publication of North
Carolina Prisoner Legal Services,
Inc. Established in 1978, NCPLS is a
non-profit, public service organization.
The program is governed by a Board
of Directors who are designated by
various organizations and institutions,
including the North Carolina Bar
Association, the North Carolina
Association of Black Lawyers, the
North Carolina Association of Women
Attorneys, and law school deans at
UNC, Duke, NCCU, Wake Forest and
Campbell.
NCPLS serves a population of more
than 36,000 prisoners and 14,000 pretrial detainees, providing information
and advice concerning legal rights and
responsibilities, discouraging frivolous
litigation, working toward administrative resolutions of legitimate problems,
and providing representation in all
State and federal courts to ensure
humane conditions of confinement and
to challenge illegal convictions and
sentences.

Board of Directors
President, Fred Williams, Esq.
Jim Blackburn
Michelle S. Cofield, Esq.
James A. Crouch, Esq.
Dean Ronald Steven Douglas
Professor Grady Jessup
Barry Nakell, Esq.
Susan Olive, Esq.
Gary Presnell, Esq.
Professor Ronald F. Wright
Executive Director
Michael S. Hamden, Esq.
Editor
Patricia Sanders, CLA
PLEASE NOTE: ACCESS is published

four (4) times a year.

Articles, ideas and suggestions are
welcome: tsanders@ncpls.org

Volume V, Issue 2, June 2005

GENERAL ASSEMBLY CONSIDERS RESTRUCTURING
(CONTINUED)

(Continued from Page 1)

(2) Cases in which an indigent
person is entitled to legal representation under G.S. 7A 451 and G.S.
7A 451.1; and

resentation and related services in
cases subject to this Article pursuant to rules and procedures established by the Office.

(2a) Cases in which the State is
legally obligated to provide legal
assistance and access to the courts
to inmates in the custody of the
Department of Correction; and

SECTION 14.9.(b) Effective October 1, 2005, the State’s responsibility for providing inmates in
the custody of the Department of
Correction with legal assistance
and access to the courts shall be
administered by the Office of Indigent Defense Services. The existing
contract between the Department of
Correction and Prisoner Legal Services, Inc., shall not be extended or
renewed beyond that date.

(3) Any other cases in which the
Office of Indigent Defense Services
is designated by statute as responsible for providing legal representation.
(b) The Office of Indigent Defense
Services shall develop policies and
procedures for determining indigency in cases subject to this
Article, and those policies shall be
applied uniformly throughout the
State. The Except in cases under
subdivision (2a) of subsection (a)
of this section, the court shall determine in each case whether a person
is indigent and entitled to legal
representation, and counsel shall be
appointed as provided in G.S. 7A
452.
(c) In all cases subject to this
Article, appointment of counsel,
determination of compensation,
appointment of experts, and use of
funds for experts and other services
related to legal representation shall
be in accordance with rules and
procedures adopted by the Office
of Indigent Defense Services.
(d) The Office of Indigent Defense
Services shall allocate and disburse
funds appropriated for legal rep-

The Director of Indigent Defense
Services, in consultation with the
Commission on Indigent Defense
Services and the Department of
Justice, shall determine which
types of legal services can best be
provided directly to inmates by
staff employed by the Office of
Indigent Defense Services, which
services should be provided by
counsel designated by the Office
of Indigent Defense Services, and
which services should be provided
by contract between the Office
of Indigent Defense Services and
nonprofit organizations or other
contract providers.
If the Director of Indigent Defense
Services determines that, in order
to facilitate the transfer of responsibility provided for in this section,
it is necessary for Prisoner Legal
Services, Inc., to continue providing legal services and access to
(Continued on Page 3)

Volume V, Issue 2, June 2005

NCPLS ACCESS

Page 3

GENERAL ASSEMBLY CONSIDERS RESTRUCTURING
(CONTINUED)

(Continued from Page 2)

the courts to inmates beyond the
termination of its contract with
the Department of Correction on
September 30, 2005, the Director
may contract with Prisoner Legal
Services, Inc., for a period of time
to be determined by the Director.
SECTION 14.9.(c) The sum of
one million eight hundred eighty
three thousand eight hundred sixty
five dollars ($1,883,865) for the
2005 2006 fiscal year and the sum
of two million five hundred
eleven thousand eight hundred
twenty dollars ($2,511,820)
for the 2006-2007 fiscal year
shall be transferred from the
Department of Correction to
the Office of Indigent Defense
Services to implement this
section.
SECTION 14.9.(d) Subsections (a) and (b) of this section
become effective October 1,
2005. The remainder of this
section becomes effective July
1, 2005.”

(or legislators) who support the
idea. The introduction of a bill is
the procedure by which the bill is
formally submitted for consideration by the General Assembly.
After a bill has been introduced, it
is normally referred to a legislative
committee for study and a recommendation. The committee may
take no action, in which case the
measure dies. The committee may
amend the bill by adding to it or

HOW A BILL BECOMES LAW

changing it, or it can simply recommend the bill for consideration by
the full membership.

Ordinarily, ideas for changes in
the law are subjected to a rigorous
process that allows for input from
a broad range of citizens and the
careful consideration of legislators. The idea is first written into
a “bill,” which is a proposal for a
change in the law. A bill may be
proposed in either house of the
General Assembly – the Senate, or
the House of Representatives.
Once a bill has been drafted, it is
then “introduced” by the legislator

During consideration by the full
membership, the bill’s sponsor is
called upon to explain the proposal
and its purpose. Afterward, any
member of the house may ask
questions or express an opinion
about the proposal. When everyone who wishes to speak has been
heard, a vote is taken. If the vote is
favorable, the bill moves to a
“third” and final hearing, during
which there may be additional
debate. If the second vote is favor-

able, the bill is sent to the other
house for consideration.
When a bill has passed one house,
it is referred to the other, where it
usually goes through the same process. The bill is first referred to
a committee for study and a recommendation, followed by votes on
the measure by the full body.
Often, the second house will modify the bill. When that happens, the
measure is returned to the house
where the bill originated with
a request that the first house
“concur in” (or agree with)
the changes made. If the first
house agrees with the changes,
the measure is ready to be
signed into law by the Governor. On the other hand, if
the first house does not agree
with the changes, members of
the two houses are appointed
to a “conference committee”
to reconcile differences in the
House and Senate bills. The
conference committee then
reports its recommendations to
both houses, both of which vote on
whether to accept the recommendations. If the measure passes in both
houses, the measure is ready to be
signed into law. If either house
rejects the recommendation, new
members may be appointed to the
conference committee for further
consideration of a compromise.
Otherwise, the measure dies.
This process is illustrated in the
following chart, and can also be
found at: www.ncleg.net/
NCGAInfo/Bill-Law/bill-law.gif.
(Continued on Page 4)

NCPLS ACCESS

Page 4

Volume V, Issue 2, June 2005

HOW

CONCERNED
CITIZEN, GROUP
ORGANIZATION.,
OR lEGISLATOR
SUGGESTS
lEGISLATION

AN IDEA

BECOMES

~
•

Bill FilED WITH
CLERK, NUMBERED

~

~

lAW

REPRESENTATIVE
Authors Bill

:-

I

'V
SPEAKER ASSIGNS TO COMMlnEE

ADMENMENt DEBATE
lOTES ON PASSAGE,

~
FIll CIMMlnEE

THIRD READING
AMENDMENt DEBATE,
lOTE ON PASSAGE

~

a

jP'
~

~

,

-

I'"

BlllREAD FIRST nME

SECOND READING

~"J!~I

-'.-

~

7I

----~

COMMlnEE CHAIR
MAY ASSIGN TO
SUBCOMMlnEE

iZ +

~ SIBCIMMlnEE

DEllVERIO
~ SENAIE DESK

NCPLS ACCESS

Volume V, Issue 2, June 2005

SIGNS ACT
IAnER 10 DAYS
WITHOUT
SIGNATURl
vnORETURNS
BILL TO ORIGIN

(NOTE:ln this example, the bill
began in the House. A bill may
also orginate in the Senate)

TO CONFERENCE
COMMlnEE

Page 5

vno

'" •
~

GOVERNOR
HOUSE AND SENATE
ADOPT CONFERENCE

IF HOUSE DOES

THREE-FlnHS
VOTE
OVERIDES

~N_O_TC_O_N_CU_R~ ~

~ ~

REPORT

OR

TO HOUSE,
IF HOUSE
CONCURS

IF SUBJECT TO

~
~

TO ENROLLMENT
IFPASSED~~

r-----_-------,OR ~
rOR THIRD READING , I
I ~ AMENDMENT
DEBATE

SECOND RUDING

71 L...

AMENDMENT, DEBATE
VOTES ON PASSAGE

Bill RUD FIRSTTIME
CHAIRMAN OF RULES
ASSIGNS TO COMMlnEE

~

71

-C-OM-M-----JlnEE MEnS
REPORTS TO
FLOOR
~@~l

~,_, <. }S{

NCPLS ACCESS

Page 6

Volume V, Issue 2, June 2005

GENERAL ASSEMBLY CONSIDERS RESTRUCTURING
(CONTINUED)

(Continued from Page 3)

SENATE BILL 622 ADOPTED
THROUGH A DIFFERENT PROCESS
The provisions of Senate Bill 622
that propose to transfer the responsibility to provide legal assistance
to prisoners from the Department
of Correction to the Office of

Indigent Defense Services were
not adopted through the careful,
deliberative process described
above. Rather, the measure was
added to the budget bill as one of
dozens of amendments to the 360
page document. The measure was
not the subject of study, debate, or

substantive consideration by the
Senate, but was instead adopted
as part of the overall budget bill.
Consequently, little consideration
has been given to the rationale
underlying the proposal or the
consequences of its enactment into
law.

STATE BAR RULES ON NCPLS ETHICS INQUIRY
Editor’s Note: As ACCESS readers
will recall, in the September 2004
edition, we reported new DOC regulations governing client/attorney
visits. In light of the new regulations, NCPLS asked the North Carolina State Bar (the organization
that governs the practice of law
in this State) to provide guidance
regarding the ethical obligations
of North Carolina Prisoner Legal
Services, Inc. (NCPLS) advocates,
both for our own benefit to ensure
that we comply with the State Bar’s
requirements, and for the benefit of
the DOC in crafting regulations
that permit attorney meetings with
inmates on an appropriately confidential basis. The State Bar has
proposed the following opinion that
shows our concerns were wellfounded.
July 2004 Inquiry: The North
Carolina Department of Correction
(DOC) recently promulgated new
regulations governing lawyer meetings with inmates. As a prerequisite to a client-lawyer meeting, the
lawyer must disclose to the facility
supervisor that the inmate has
designated the lawyer to “represent
him/her in a matter now pending or

which may be pending before a
court of law. . . .” State of North
Carolina Department of Correction,
Division of Prisons Policy & Procedures, Chapter D, §.0202(a). The
regulation is scheduled for statewide implementation beginning
October 1, 2004.
Prior to the regulation’s effective
date, NCPLS lawyers, paralegals
and interns routinely met with
inmate clients in the correctional
setting. Inmates might express a
desire to meet with an attorney by
writing letters or communicating
with NCPLS through family members. Thereafter, meetings were
arranged by giving correctional
officials twenty-four hour advance
notice (by telephone or facsimile)
that a NCPLS representative
wished to arrange a meeting with a
particular inmate. The nature of
the relationship between the inmate
and the NCPLS representative
would not be disclosed. Based
upon this communication, prison
officials would know that a meeting
would occur but not whether the
inmate was a client, a potential
client, a witness or a potential witness.

NCPLS believes that the new DOC
regulations require that a lawyer or
his agent to disclose not only the
fact of the meeting with an inmate,
but also the nature of the relationship between the inmate and the
lawyer prior to visitation. Disclosure of the fact that legal counsel
has been sought may sometimes
be embarrassing or harmful to the
inmate/client. The DOC regulation also restricts the nature of the
discussions between inmates and
lawyers or paralegals to “pending
legal proceedings only.” §.0202(a).
The regulation specifically prohibits legal solicitation.
A lawyer who does not represent
an inmate (but may want to obtain
information relevant to a client’s
legal claim) or who does not disclose to a facility supervisor that he
represents an inmate in a pending
matter under § .0202(a), may still
arrange a meeting with an inmate,
but must follow “special procedures” to do so. These special
procedures require the lawyer to
communicate with the inmate prior
to the visit. The inmate must then
(Continued on Page 16)

Volume V, Issue 2, June 2005

NCPLS ACCESS

Page 7

ABOUT NORTH CAROLINA PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES
(A NONPROFIT, PUBLIC SERVICE LAW FIRM)
• 26-year history of service
• Staff of 40, (27 women, 13 men)
– 18 lawyers, 15 paralegals,
7 support staff members
– 12 parents (7 of whom are
women (including 3 single
mothers), and a single father
– Average tenure: 7 years (6
years for attorneys; 9 years for
paralegals)
• Efficiently delivers excellent
legal services to a population of
almost 37,000 DOC prisoners;
14,000 pretrial detainees (a changing population of about 250,000
people, annually)
• Services provided in more than
13,000 cases, annually
• NCPLS provides information
and advice concerning legal rights
and responsibilities, discourages
frivolous litigation, works toward
administrative resolutions of
legitimate problems, and provides
representation in court to ensure
humane conditions of confinement
and to challenge illegal convictions
and sentences.
• Governance -- the program is
governed by a Board of Directors
designated by various organizations and institutions, including the
North Carolina Bar Association,
the North Carolina Association of
Black Lawyers, the North Carolina
Association of Women Attorneys,
and law school deans at UNC,
Duke, NCCU, Wake Forest and
Campbell.

• Cost/Benefit -- During the past
five years, the contract with DOC
has generated an average of less
than $2.5 million for NCPLS,
annually. During the same period
of time, NCPLS has saved the
DOC more than $15 million ($3
million per year) by ensuring that
prisoners’ convictions and sentences comport with the law, and
that prisoners are properly credited
with time served. The contract
with DOC more than pays for
itself.
SIGNIFICANT ACTIVITIES
& LITIGATION OF NCPLS
Established in 1978, North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services, Inc.,
(NCPLS), is a non-profit, public
service organization. No other
entity in North Carolina routinely
provides civil and post-conviction
services to the State’s incarcerated
population.
NCPLS ACTIVITIES
NCPLS engages in a broad range
of advocacy on behalf of prisoners.
Although litigation has always
been an important focus of that
advocacy, the program has placed
greater emphasis on collaborative
processes during the past decade.
For example, the program has
worked with the Department of
Correction and county governments in partnership to resolve
legal issues and potential disputes
as an alternative to adversarial
legal proceedings. Other activities
include:

• North Carolina Sentencing
& Policy Advisory Commission
(NCPLS Office Administrator,
Billy Sanders, Commissioner).
• North Carolina Prisoner Litigation Conference - NCPLS
convened a conference to discuss
improving efficiencies in prisoner
litigation involving representatives
of the United States District Court,
the U.S. Marshal, the Department
of Correction, the Inmate Grievance Resolution Board, and the
Office of the Attorney General.
• American Correctional Association – NCPLS’ Executive Director serves as a member on both the
Standards Committee and the
Commission on Accreditation for
Corrections.
• National Academies of Science,
Institute of Medicine – NCPLS’
Executive Director serves as consultant regarding the use of prisoner-subjects in research.
NCPLS LITIGATION
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988)
(obligation to provide medical care
to prisoners is non-delegable duty
of the state).
Medley v. N.C. Dept. of Correction, 412 S.E. 2d 654 (N.C.S.Ct.
1992)(State-law duty to provide
adequate medical care for prisoners
cannot be delegated).
(Continued on Page 6)

Page 8

NCPLS ACCESS

Volume V, Issue 2, June 2005

ABOUT NORTH CAROLINA PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES
(CONTINUED)

(Continued from Page 5)

Small v. Martin, 85-987-CRT
(EDNC 1985)(Class action challenging conditions at 48 of the
State’s prison units resulted in 1998
settlement, legislation that capped
the prison population, and led to
Structured Sentencing).
Hamilton v. Freeman, 554 S.E.2d
856 (NC App. 2001)(DOC required
to honor judgment & commitment
order as entered by court and could
not unilaterally modify sentences
based on its own determination that
sentence violated state statute).
ABOUT LITIGATION PENDING
AGAINST NCPLS
• For the first time in its 26-year
history, NCPLS is presently
defending against two legal proceedings (NLRB and Title VII
action in federal court) brought by
three former employees that allege
unfair labor practices.
• The dispute grew out of an unprecedented demand for paid
maternity leave. In response, the
Board authorized payment in full,
both to the employee who pressed
the demand, and to a similarly
situated employee who had not
requested paid maternity leave. In
addition, the Board acted in accordance with the request of 17
employees who asked the program
to purchase a commercial shortterm disability policy that expressly
covers maternity leave.
• Claims that NCPLS discriminates against women or retaliates
against employees are untrue.

• NCPLS employs a staff of 40
people, (27 of whom are women;
including 12 parents, 7 mothers (3
single mothers), and a single father
• Although salaries are rather
modest ($31,500 starting salary for
attorneys), the program provides
generous benefits and a supportive,
family-friendly work environment.
• NCPLS Commitment to Staff
– The program provides generous
benefits and a supportive, familyfriendly work environment.
— Benefits – life insurance, comprehensive health insurance, shortand long-term disability insurance
(which expressly covers maternity
leave), AFLAC supplemental
insurance, an employer-sponsored
pension plan, a retirement program,
and medical and dependent care
reimbursement accounts;
— Paid Leave – 14 paid holidays
and six weeks of paid leave each
year;
— Professional Fees – NCPLS
pays all North Carolina State Bar
license fees, all properly adopted
district bar mandatory dues, fees
for admission to the federal courts
within the NCPLS service area, and
other fees or dues which are legally
required. In addition, when the
financial position of the program
permits, NCPLS pays dues for lawyers and paralegals who wish to be
members of the North Carolina Bar
Association and/or the North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers;

— Professional Development
– NCPLS provides each of our
employees $625 that may be used
during the calendar year for
approved education or training to
develop or enhance job-related
skills;
— Family-Friendly Accommodations and Flexible Schedules
– To the extent consistent with our
mission and the duty we owe our
clients, NCPLS permits employees
to bring children into the workplace
and work at home. The program
also accommodates flexible schedules and reduced work commitments.
• The average tenure of NCPLS
staff is 7 years (6 years for attorneys; 9 years for paralegals)
NCPLS IS THE MOST
COST-EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT
MEANS OF PROVIDING AN ESSENTIAL
PUBLIC SERVICE

• Working with government officials and agencies to ensure the
humane and lawful treatment of
North Carolina prisoners, NCPLS
has a 26-year history of excellence.
• After more than a decade of
litigation in Bounds v. Smith, North
Carolina has arrived at a mechanism to provide legal assistance to
prisoners through NCPLS which
passes constitutional muster. Smith
v. Bounds, 430 U.S. 817 97 S.Ct.
1491, 52 L.Ed.2d 272 (1977); 657
F.Supp. 1322 (E.D.N.C. 1986),
aff’d, 813 F.2d 1299 (4th Cir.
(Continued on Page 9)

Volume V, Issue 2, June 2005

NCPLS ACCESS

Page 9

ABOUT NORTH CAROLINA PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES
(CONTINUED)

(Continued from Page 6)

1987), aff’d on reh’g, 841 F.2d 77
(4th Cir.), aff’d, 430 U.S. 817, 109
S.Ct. 176 (1988).

F (E.D.N.C. 9 March 1995),
affirmed, No. 95-6428 (4th Cir. 28
June 1995)(Unpublished).

• The constitutional sufficiency of
the services provided by NCPLS
has been tested in the courts and
consistently affirmed. Bradley v.
NC Dept. of Correction, No. 5:04CT-44-FL (29 November 2004,
E.D.N.C.)(claim that DOC and
NCPLS failed to provide minimum
standards of adequate access to the
courts dismissed as frivolous);
Wrenn v. Freeman, 894 F.Supp. 244
(E.D.N.C. 1995), aff’d per curiam,
92 F.3d 1184 (4th Cir. 1996)
(Table), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1136
(1997); Ganey v. Johnson, 908 F.2d
966 (4th Cir. 1990); Murray v.
NCPLS, No. 5:94-CT-188-

• Since the federal courts approved
the contract between NCPLS and
the Department of Correction, no
court has found that any North Carolina prisoner has been deprived of
access to the courts.
• Any alternative mechanism to
fulfilling the state’s constitutional
obligation to provide legal assistance to prisoners would be the
subject of protracted federal litigation.
• NCPLS saves the DOC more
than the cost of the service it provides. During the past five years,

the contract with the DOC has
generated an average of less than
$2.5 million for NCPLS annually.
During the same period of time,
NCPLS has saved the DOC more
than $15 million ($3 million per
year) by ensuring that prisoners’
convictions and sentences comport
with the law, and that prisoners are
properly credited with time served.
The contract with DOC more
than pays for itself.
• The responsible advocacy provided by NCPLS has established
credibility and provided the basis
for positive and productive relationships with the courts, government officials, and state agencies,
including the Department of Correction.

UPDATE ON RDM LEGAL RESEARCH SERVICES
by Staff Attorney Ken Butler

NCPLS has reported on various
groups and individuals that solicit
business from inmates by claiming
that they can secure a prisoner’s
release or get a conviction overturned. Several of these entities
have been investigated by the
North Carolina State Bar for the
unauthorized practice of law. One
such individual was Richard D.
Meares, operating as RDM Legal
Research Services, out of Mount
Airy, N.C.

As previously reported in the
December 2004 issue of ACCESS,
Meares was convicted of 10 counts
of mail fraud and two counts of
wire fraud in federal court. These
convictions stemmed from cases
in which Meares told inmates or
their families that for a fee, he
had political connections who
could arrange for commutations
or pardons. Although Mr. Meares
collected more than half a million

dollars in fees, no prisoners were
ever released from custody or had
their sentences reduced as a result
of Mr. Meares’ involvement. At a
sentencing hearing in Greensboro,
Meares was recently sentenced
to 9 1⁄2 years in federal prison and
was ordered to pay restitution in
the amount of $146,500. He still
remains obligated to pay a civil
judgment in state court of more
than $600,000.

NCPLS ACCESS

Page 10

Volume V, Issue 2, June 2005

TOUR OF MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
Editor’s note: NCPLS representatives
toured three DOC facilities in recent
weeks. A report about one of those
facilities follows.

On Thursday, April 7, 2005, nine
NCPLS employees (Michael
Hamden, Billy Sanders, TriciaMills-Hazzard, Eric Dratwa, Kim
Church, Jen Pogue, Ismael Torres,
Bruce Creecy, and Jo Ann Fennell)
visited Mountain View Correctional Institution. The purpose of
this tour was to investigate conditions of confinement as the facility
implements double-bunking. What
follows is a narrative of what the
team observed and what the team
learned from DOC officials.
Original Design
Mountain View Correctional Institution was designed and built in
1998 by Correctional Corporation
of America (CCA) to house 528
inmates. CCA is a private, forprofit corporation that designs,
builds, and operates correctional
facilities. In 2000, the management
and operation of Mountain View
was assumed by the North Carolina
Department of Correction (DOC).
To address crowding problems, the
DOC plans to double-bunk most
cells at Mountain View, providing
beds for more than 900 inmates.
Some cells have already been refitted and the transition is underway.
The Tour Guides
We were met by Steve Bailey, Division of Prisons Western Regional

Director, David Mitchell, Superintendent of Mountain View Correctional Institution, LaVee Hamer,
General Counsel for the DOC, and
Deborah McSwain, Counsel for the
DOC. Mr. Bailey and Superintendent Mitchell briefed us before we
began the tour.
The Facility
Mountain View was chosen as the
site of double-bunking by the
Department of Correction to
accommodate the pressing need for
medium custody bed-space.
(There are four custody levels
maximum, close, medium and minimum. Medium custody prisons
typically house inmates in dorms
of 50 inmates per dorm. Mountain
View was designed and built as a
single-cell facility.)
There are two units at Mountain
View with four wings in each unit.
Each wing consists of three levels
of cells, each level containing 22
cells. The first two levels of the
wing will be double-bunked, with
the top level containing single
cells. The capacity of such a wing
is 110 inmates. An additional 48
beds are used for segregation.
The top level single cells are used
as an incentive to encourage good
behavior among inmates. The
longer an inmate goes infraction-free, the better his chance of
obtaining a single cell.
The cells are 87 square feet, with a
contiguous shared day room area.
Each level has two shower areas.
In the day room, which runs the
length of the wing, there are two

televisions, one at either end of the
dayroom. Each inmate has a chair
in his room that he can bring to the
dayroom area to watch television.
The televisions are “silent” – sound
is transmitted electronically and
can be heard through headphones
that are provided. Except in
“emergency” circumstances (as for
example, a disturbance), inmates
are allowed out of their rooms 18
hours a day.
There is an indoor gymnasium
which contains a full-length basketball court. Two recreation yards
also provide basketball courts and
softball fields. Ping-pong, weights,
horseshoes and shuffleboard were
also present in the recreation areas.
At Mountain View, there is a
library and a chapel, though each is
relatively small given the projected
population, which is expected to
rise above 900 inmates.
Clothing is laundered on-site.
Clothing items are deposited in
mesh bags and labeled, so that after
laundering, an inmate receives the
same items that he delivered.
Mountain View has been phasingin jumpsuits (which are the same
iron-brown color typically seen in
medium custody prisons).
Initiatives, Programs, etc.
Each inmate is given a card
(approximately the size of a business card) with his cell number and
bunk level printed in large bold letters (Ex., 221L). In order to have
his cell door opened, the inmate
(Continued on Page 11)

NCPLS ACCESS

Volume V, Issue 2, June 2005

Page 11

TOUR OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
(CONTINUED)

(Continued from Page 10)

must show his cell card to the
officer in the control booth. This
measure will make it more difficult
to obtain unauthorized access to
the cells by someone other than the
inmates assigned to the cell.
Prisoners will be permitted to
express a preference for a roommate. To the extent possible,
prison officials will try to match
people who want to share
a cell. Their will be cases
in which inmates’ choices
will be overridden by
custody and security considerations.
Video camera installation
– which will allow continuous videotaping of
various areas of the
prison – is being planned.
Video cameras are already operational in some areas.
The Superintendent takes pride in
the availability of vocational and
educational programs. Superintendent Mitchell reports a participation rate of about 91% of the
population, on average. Currently,
brick masonry, horticulture, computer repair, and computer desktop
program courses are offered. Plans
are underway to expand the programs to second shift to provide
greater opportunity for participation by the projected increase in
population. (Typically in medium
custody facilities, programs run on
first shift, only.)
Mountain View also has a Prison
Industry Enhancement (P.I.E.)

program in place. U.S. Textiles
employs approximately 70 inmates
in a plant within the prison that
makes pantyhose. Inmate-workers
earn at least $7.02 per hour and can
make up to $12 or $14 dollars per
hour. From their earnings, these
inmates pay taxes, a room-andboard fee, child support, court fees,
and they contribute to the Crime
Victims’ Compensation Fund. An

institutional record of good behavior is required for employment in
the P.I.E. facility, which provides a
strong incentive to comply with the
rules of conduct at the Institution.
Visits may be contact or non-contact. An inmate who tests positive
for drugs will not receive contact
visits. Other types of infractions
can result in the loss of contact
visits.
Medical and dental care is provided for routine matters through a
clinic. Emergency cases are treated
at an urgent care facility in Spruce
Pine. Specialty care not available
at the Institution is provided at the
Catawba Valley Hospital, one wing
of which is permanently staffed by
DOC officers.

There are two segregation facilities: an Intensive Control (ICON)
unit, and a Segregation Unit.
Exercise areas (cages) are provided
for those inmates, both inside and
outdoors, in areas adjacent to those
units.
CLAIMS OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL
CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT
The Eighth Amendment
to the United States
Constitution expressly
prohibits the infliction
of “cruel and unusual
punishments.” U.S.
Const. amend. VIII. The
prohibition against such
punishments “protects
inmates from inhumane
treatment and conditions
while imprisoned.” Williams v. Benjamin, 77 F.3d
756, 761 (4th Cir.1996). However,
the Supreme Court has also made it
clear that “[t]he Constitution does
not mandate comfortable prisons.”
Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337,
349 (1981). Similarly, the ban on
cruel and unusual punishment
“does not require the most intelligent, progressive, humane, or
efficacious prison management.”
Anderson v. Romero, 72 F.3d 518,
524 (7th Cir. 1995). To the extent
that prison conditions are harsh or
restrictive, they are viewed by the
courts as part of the price that
offenders must pay for their
offenses against society. Rhodes,
452 U.S. at 347.
(Continued on Page 15)

NCPLS ACCESS

Page 12

Volume V, Issue 2, June 2005

NCPLS JOINS CALL FOR MORATORIUM
ON THE DEATH PENALTY
In 1997, following years of study,
the American Bar Association
urged jurisdictions that use capital
punishment to observe a moratorium on executions until policies
and procedures were reviewed and
appropriate measures were instituted to ensure fair and impartial
administration of the death penalty,
and to minimize the risk of executing innocent people.
In North Carolina, a spate of
cases drew the attention of the
public when death penalty convictions were reversed after years of
appeals. The cases of Alan Gell,
Darryl Hunt, and Charles Munsey,
for example, were widely publicized. In some cases, people
who were sentenced to death were
shown to be innocent of the charge
after spending years in prison on
death row.

In 1999, People of Faith Against
the Death Penalty launched its
“Moratorium Now!” campaign.
The purpose of the campaign is to
educate the citizens and leaders
of the State about the need for an
in-depth study of the death penalty
system. Since the campaign began,
literally tens of thousands of North
Carolinians have endorsed the
study, including more than 40 local
governments.
In February 2005, the NCPLS
Board of Directors approved the
request of the NCPLS staff to
endorse a two-year suspension of
executions to allow time for study
of the death penalty system to
ensure its fairness and reliability
so that no innocent North Carolinian will be put to death. Letters communicating that position

were directed to the leadership of
the General Assembly, urging the
adoption of the Moratorium and a
study of the death penalty system.
Further information concerning the
Moratorium is available from the
following organizations:
N.C. Coalition for a Moratorium
P.O. Box 358
Durham, NC 27702
1-888-283-4193
www.ncmoratorium.org
People of Faith Against
the Death Penalty
110 W. Main St., Ste 2-G
Carrboro, NC 27510
(919) 933-7567
Fax: (919) 933-5611
www.pfadp.org

Volume V, Issue 2, June 2005

NCPLS ACCESS

Page 13

NCBA SECTION LENDS STRONG SUPPORT TO NCPLS
On Saturday, May 21, 2005, the North
Carolina Bar Association’s Constitutional Rights & Responsibilities Sectoin adopted the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION OPPOSING
DEFUNDING OF THE
CONTRACT BETWEEN
THE DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS
AND
NORTH CAROLINA
PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES
WHEREAS, North Carolina Prisoner
Legal Services, Inc. was formed on
January 13, 1978, for the purpose
of providing legal services for the
inmates of North Carolina prisons; and
WHEREAS, since its inception, North
Carolina Prisoner Legal Services, Inc.
has been blessed with strong leadership from the bar, as exemplified by
its initial Board of Directors which
included Professor Robert Byrd, past
Dean of the University of North Carolina School of Law; Duke Law School
Professor and former Solicitor General
Walter E. Dellinger, III; Professor
Harry Groves, past Dean of the North
Carolina Central University School of
Law; and many other dedicated attorneys and educators; and the program
has continued to maintain close ties
with the North Carolina Bar Association and the law schools of this State
through the years; and
WHEREAS, the federal courts have
held in Bounds v Smith that North
Carolina inmates are constitutionally
entitled to legal assistance in filing
habeas and civil rights petitions; and
WHEREAS, in response to that decision, the North Carolina Department
of Corrections contracted and contin-

ues to contract with North Carolina
Prisoner Legal Services to provide
legal services to inmates; and
WHEREAS, the federal courts have
held that the contract between the
Department of Corrections and
NCPLS, and the services provided by
NCPLS, meet the constitutional
requirements set forth in Bounds v
Smith; and
WHEREAS, it is a goal of NCPLS to
ensure that no inmates have their
rights abridged, and that any deficiencies in DOC policies and procedures
are identified and resolved in the most
cost-effective way possible; and
WHEREAS, the services of NCPLS
benefit not only the in-mates themselves but also the State of North
Carolina, and the Department of
Corrections has publicly advised the
courts, most recently in a pleading
filed April 26, 2005, that appointment
of NCPLS as counsel would be helpful
to the State in achieving an appropriate resolution of inmate litigation; and
WHEREAS, North Carolina Prisoner
Legal Services now has a 26-year
history of excellence working with
government officials and agencies and
in the courts to ensure the humane and
lawful treatment of North Carolina
prisoners; and
WHEREAS, since the federal courts
approved the contract between NCPLS
and the Department of Correction, no
court has found that any North Carolina prisoner has been deprived of
access to the courts; and
WHEREAS, the Senate Budget Bill,
SB622, provides:

Effective October 1, 2005, the State’s
responsibility for providing
inmates in the custody of the Department of Correction with legal assistance and access to the courts shall be
administered by the Office of Indigent
Defense Services. The existing contract between the Department of Correction and Prisoner Legal Services,
Inc., shall not be extended or renewed
beyond that date.
The Director of Indigent Defense
Services, in consultation with the
Commission on Indigent Defense Services and the Department of Justice,
shall determine which types of legal
services can best be provided directly
to inmates by staff employed by the
Office of Indigent Defense Services,
which services should be provided by
counsel designated by the Office of
Indigent Defense Services, and which
services should be provided by contract between the Office of Indigent
Defense Services and nonprofit organizations or other contract providers.
and
WHEREAS, the result of SB622
would be to fragment legal services
to inmates, and is likely to reduce the
quality of services to inmates and to
increase the cost of those services;

NOW THEREFORE, the
North Carolina Bar Association
commends North Carolina
Prisoner Legal Services for its
steadfast and excellent work in
the representation of inmates of
North Carolina and opposes defunding the program as proposed
in SB622. [Emphasis in the
original.]

Page 14

NCPLS ACCESS

Volume V, Issue 2, June 2005

NC CENTER ON ACTUAL INNOCENCE &
THE ACTUAL INNOCENCE COMMISSION
by Staff Attorney Ken Butler

Christine Mumma is the Executive
Director of both the North Carolina Center on Actual Innocence
(NCCAI) (often referred to as
the “Innocence Project” or the
“Center”) and the N.C. Actual
Innocence Commission. On April
5, 2005, Ms. Mumma addressed the
staff of NCPLS, describing both
of these entities, as well as developments in the actual innocence
movement in North Carolina.

e) Generally, the inmate must be
without current legal representation.

NCCAI is an independent nonprofit group which coordinates
the effort by North Carolina law
schools to review credible claims
of innocence. In particular, NCCAI
addresses cases in which DNA
evidence may exonerate a defendant. Student volunteers, working
under the supervision of law school
faculty advisers to investigate and
evaluate such cases. The Center
receives over 500 requests for
assistance each year. To qualify for
review, a defendant must meet the
following criteria:

The North Carolina Actual Innocence Commission (NCAIC) is an
entirley separate organization. The
Commission was established by
Chief Justice I. Beverly Lake, Jr.,
and serves as a forum in which representatives from all facets of the
criminal justice process convene to
address issues relating to wrongful
convictions. The Commission is
composed of prosecutors, judges,
defense attorneys, members of law
enforcement, victim advocates, and
legal scholars. Among NCAIC’s
objectives are to identify factors
that make convictions less reliable,
to evaluate possible corrective
measures, and to make recommendations to the appropriate bodies.
One of the first tasks of the Commission was to review procedures
relating to eyewitness identifications. The Commission’s recommendations have since been
adopted by the N.C. Training and
Standards Commission for incorporation into Basic Law Enforcement Training (BLET) in North
Carolina.

a) Must have been convicted of a
felony in North Carolina;
b) Must claim actual innocence of
the crime (the Center will not
review cases challenging only court
procedures);
c) Must have at least 36 months
remaining on the defendant’s sentence;
d) If the inmate pursued a direct
appeal, the appeal must have been
decided (however, this would not
apply to most guilty plea cases);
and

Persons wishing to apply for assistance from the Center may contact
them at the following address:
NCCAI
P.O. Box 52446
Shannon Plaza Station
Durham, NC 27717-2446

In 2004, the NCAIC began a study
of the post-conviction review process for claims of actual innocence.

As part of this study, the Commission conferred with members of the
United Kingdom’s Criminal Case
Review Commission (CCRC). The
CCRC is an independent body that
reviews cases which are suspected
of being “miscarriages of justice.”
If the CCRC finds that a particular
case presents a valid claim of
actual innocence, the case is
referred back to the courts.
After completing its study, the
NCAIC recommended that North
Carolina adopt a new review
process for credible claims of
factual innocence, similar to that
performed by the CCRC. “Credible claims” of innocence are
those where the defendants asserts
complete innocence of any criminal
responsibility, supported by credible, verifiable evidence of innocence that has not previously been
considered at a trial or post-conviction hearing. Such claims would be
subject to a complete, non-adversarial, truth-seeking investigation
and review.
The Commission’s recommendations formed the basis for Senate
Bill 1045, which was introduced
during the present term of the
General Assembly. SB 1045 would
establish a North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission, the
first such body in the United States.
The Innocence Inquiry Commission would have the authority to
establish procedures for the review
of cases, review claims of actual
innocence, and prepare reports
and recommendations to the trial
(Continued on Page 15)

Volume V, Issue 2, June 2005

NCPLS ACCESS

TOUR OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

Page 15

(CONTINUED)

(Continued from Page 11)

In order to establish that a condition of confinement violates the
Eighth Amendment, an inmate
must satisfy a two-pronged test.
The first prong is an objective one,
in which the inmate must show that
he has suffered a “sufficiently serious” deprivation. Wilson v. Seiter,
501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991). A
deprivation is “sufficiently serious”
if it amounts to the denial of “the
minimal civilized measure of life’s
necessities.” Rhodes v. Chapman,
452 U.S. at 347. Life’s necessities,
include things such as food,
warmth, sanitation, shelter from the
elements, medical care, and so
forth. To measure the severity of a
deprivation, the Fourth Circuit
Court of Appeals requires an
inmate to show that he has suffered
“a serious or significant physical
. . . injury resulting from the challenged conditions.” Strickler v.
Waters, 989 F.2d 1375, 1381 (4th
Cir. 1993).

The second prong of an Eighth
Amendment conditions claim is a
subjective one, in which the inmate
must show that prison officials
acted with a sufficiently culpable or
blameworthy state of mind. Wilson
v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991).
The “state of mind” element in
Eighth Amendment cases requires
proof of at least deliberate indifference to the deprivation of life’s
necessities. Id. at 303. In defining
deliberate indifference, the
Supreme Court has held that a
prison official “may be held liable
under the Eighth Amendment for
denying humane conditions of
confinement only if he knows that
inmates face a substantial risk of
serious harm and disregards that
risk by failing to take reasonable
measures to abate it.” Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994).
While the courts have developed
the two-pronged Eighth Amendment test for prison conditions
cases, Congress has acted to
impose additional restrictions on

inmate claims concerning prison
conditions. Under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), an
inmate who is seeking to use the
federal civil rights laws to challenge prison conditions must first
exhaust his available administrative
remedies to seek a solution to the
complained of condition. 42
U.S.C. §1997e(a). Porter v.
Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002). In
addition, the PLRA also prohibits
an inmate from recovering damages for mental or emotional injury
unless he can show a prior physical
injury. 42 U.S.C. §1997e(e).
If you believe you are being subjected to a deprivation of life’s
necessities and you have unsuccessfully exhausted the grievance
procedure, you can seek legal
assistance from NCPLS. Please
provide a description of the deprivation and the injury it is causing
you, and provide copies of your
grievance and all of the responses
you received through Level III of
the grievance process.

NC CENTER ON ACTUAL INNOCENCE &
THE ACTUAL INNOCENCE COMMISSION
(CONTINUED)

courts. One significant aspect of
this bill is that, in order to obtain
review by the Innocence Inquiry
Commission, a defendant would
have to waive procedural safe-

guards and privileges that would
otherwise apply and agree to cooperate fully with the investigation.
As of the date of this article, SB
1045 was still being reviewed by
committee. It is uncertain whether

the bill will become law. NCPLS
will continue to monitor the status
of this legislation and keep our
clients informed of developments
in future editions of ACCESS.

NCPLS ACCESS

Page 16

Volume V, Issue 2, June 2005

STATE BAR RULES ON NCPLS ETHICS INQUIRY
(CONTINUED)

(Continued from Page 6)

make a written request to allow the
special visit. § .0202(c). NCPLS
believes these special procedures
may delay the time of a meeting
or penalize those inmates who are
illiterate.
Where a client is in custody of correctional officials and disclosure of
the fact that legal counsel has been
sought will sometimes be embarrassing or harmful to the client,
does Rule 1.6 and the duty of confidentiality prohibit NCPLS lawyers from disclosing the nature of
the relationship in order to obtain
access to the clients for purposes of
meeting with them?
April 2005 Opinion: Rule 1.6 of
the Rules of Professional Conduct
prohibits a lawyer from revealing

any information acquired during
the course of the professional
relationship unless the client gives
informed consent, the disclosure is
impliedly authorized to carry out
the representation, or one of the
exceptions to the rule applies. The
confidentiality rule applies, not
merely to harmful or embarrassing
information, but to all information
acquired during the representation.
See Rule 1.6 cmt. [3]. The identity
of a client or the fact that a client
has retained legal counsel is considered confidential information
under Rule 1.6.
A lawyer is impliedly authorized
to make disclosures about a client
when appropriate in carrying out
the representation. If a lawyer
determines that disclosure of the

lawyer-client relationship would
likely be detrimental to the client,
a lawyer must not disclose that
information unless authorized to do
so by the client or until otherwise
permitted to do so by Rule 1.6. See
RPC 21. The client’s authorization to disclose must flow from
informed consent. Under circumstances in which the client is in
custody and the client’s custodians
condition a lawyer-client consultation upon such disclosure, it may
not be possible to obtain such
authorization.
The Ethics Committee cannot
interpret the DOC regulations nor
should it opine as to the effect of
such regulations on the lawyerclient relationship.

MAR RESULTS IN 6 1⁄2-YEAR SENTENCE REDUCTION
by Staff Attorney Janine Zanin

In State v. Cox, NCPSL brought an
MAR challenging our client’s conviction on the grounds that it was
obtained in violation of his right
to a speedy trial. The client was
accused of committing several
forgery and uttering charges in
1988. While incarcerated in
another state, our client attempted
on several occasions to settle the
North Carolina charges pending
against him. However, the State
repeatedly refused to issue a

detainer and extradite him for
trial. More than four years later,
while our client was out on parole
in a different jurisdiction, the State
elected to proceed against him. In
addition to the forgery and uttering
charges, he was indicted as an
habitual felon. He was sentenced
to 113-145 months in prison. After
the MAR was filed, a hearing was
held in Buncombe County Superior
Court. After the hearing, a settlement was negotiated (1) striking

the client’s status as an habitual
felon, (2) dismissing the habitual
felon indictments, and (3) re-sentencing the defendant on the forgery and uttering convictions to an
active prison term of 36-44 months,
followed by 36 months probation.
Our client’s family is thrilled that
they will be reunited six and a half
years earlier than they had anticipated.

Volume V, Issue 2, June 2005

NCPLS ACCESS

Page 17

MASTER DISCIPLINE, EXPECT NOTHING
By Michael G. Santos

Editor’s Note: The following
article, “Master Discipline, Expect
Nothing,” follows a series of
articles republished in ACCESS by
permission of the author, inmate
Michael G. Santos. Mr. Santos was
convicted of drug distribution and
sentenced to 45 years in
Federal prison. He is
scheduled for release in
2013. While in prison he
has earned Bachelors and
Masters Degrees. He has
also written three books
available for review and
purchase on his web site:
www.MichaelSantos.net.
Although Mr. Santos does
not have direct access
to the internet, he can
be reached by email at:
info@michaelsantos.net.
Mr. Santos can also be
reached at the following
address:
Michael G. Santos
Reg. No. 16377-004
FCI–Florence, Teller 6-212
P.O. Box 5000
Florence, CO 81266-5000
_________________
When I was 23, in 1987, I began
serving this 45-year sentence. I
was convicted by a jury for having
led a group of people who distributed cocaine. There were no
weapons or acts of violence in the
case or in my history. Nevertheless, Judge Jack Tanner thought a
tough sentence appropriate, despite
my not having served a single day
in confinement before my arrest on

these charges related to my leading
a Continuing Criminal Enterprise.
Now I am 16 years into this sentence. At 39, I’m a lot more
experienced at setting goals and
overcoming obstacles than I was
when I hobbled through the sally-

During these times of impending
war, we prisoners can learn much
about discipline from soldiers.
George Washington wrote that
discipline is the soul of an army.
In his letter of instructions to the
captains of the Virginia regiments,
Washington wrote that discipline makes small numbers formidable, procures
success to the weak, and
esteem to all.
As prisoners, our lives
are in some way like the
lives of soldiers who live
under the control of others,
and separated from loved
ones. And like soldiers
who use discipline to make
themselves stronger and
enhance their sense of
self, we as prisoners can
use discipline to help us
achieve personal goals, the
obstacles wrought by confinement notwithstanding.

port of USP Atlanta. Back then I
didn’t know anything about imprisonment. With a significant amount
of time ahead of me, and knowing
the potential for stabbings and
murder was only a holler away, I
recognized that life inside the 40foot walls could have been the last
stop for me. Now, of course, I realize that much life remains, and that
one key to growth through imprisonment is discipline. It’s a virtue
I continually strive to master, and
such a strategy is one I recommend
to my fellow 2,000,000 prisoners.

Upon my arrest, my life
descended from oceanfront
penthouses to cellblocks
permeated with a constant
head-splitting clamor. I assessed
my predicament and knew that the
years ahead would not pass without
struggle. I had been alive for only
23 years, so it wasn’t easy to contemplate the decades my sentence
would require me to serve. All I
knew was that I wanted to make the
most of my time, and that I could
not allow prison administrators or
other prisoners to limit the progress
I needed to make.
(Continued on Page 18)

NCPLS ACCESS

Page 18

Volume V, Issue 2, June 2005

MASTER DISCIPLINE, EXPECT NOTHING
(CONTINUED)

(Continued from Page 17)

At that time I didn’t know whether
I would ever leave prison, but I
know that if I wanted release to
come, I would need to discipline
myself and become independent
in order to conquer the challenges
ahead.

infractions to make time more difficult, there is no accomplishment
a prisoner can make to enhance his
status formally; the custody and
classification manual does not distinguish the graduate student from
the Jerry Springer fan.

Both the U.S. Congress and prison
administrators have made it difficult for prisoners to
educate themselves
beyond the GED.
Through discipline
and persistence,
however, I was able
to generate support
outside of prison
walls, and that support opened opportunities to begin
and complete both
undergraduate and
graduate academic
degrees at accredited
universities. I learned
that even in prison,
the pen is mightier
than the sword (or a
shank). Other prisoners can educate themselves, too,
if they’re willing to confront the
hindrances along the way.

My experience admonishes me to
expect interference and impedi-

Persistence

The Department of Justice proclaims that the Bureau of Prisons
encourages inmates “to develop the
skills necessary to become productive members of society upon
release from prison.” I have not
found this to be the case during
the 16 years that I have served. At
least not formally. Although a prisoner can be convicted of infinite

expect much else. They should not
expect to eat the food they would
like; they should not expect comfortable clothing; and they should
not expect cozy living quarters.
Sometimes the food will be better
than other times, but as prisoners,
they should not expect the delight
of a well-prepared meal. Accept it.
Move on. Prisoners will not know
the satisfaction of
wearing a good
suit, but they will
be issued clothing.
Prisoners should
not feel entitled to
a particular bed, or
even a particular
prison, because
administrators can
and will move us as
if we were chattel.
When prisoners
learn to live without
expectations, they
remove the power
of others to disappoint or frustrate
them. As prisoners,
there will always be more disappointment and frustration to come.
That is one fact every prisoner can
count upon.

ments every day of my life. It’s a
struggle. As a disciplined prisoner,
like a soldier, I have learned that it
is imperative to detach myself from
what is not in my power to control.
Only through that detachment can
It is the responsibility of all prisI grow and prosper in spite of the
oners
to determine how they will
rigidity of this system. And through
respond to the inevitable frustrathat detachment a prisoner can
tions of confinement. During my
attain an inward freedom, which
term, I have been jammed by petty
brings with it an inner peace.
bureaucrats and prisoners alike.
Some guards have held my mail
Prisoners should expect administrators to provide food, cloth(Continued on Page 19)
ing, and shelter. They should not

Volume V, Issue 2, June 2005

NCPLS ACCESS

Page 19

MASTER DISCIPLINE, EXPECT NOTHING
(CONTINUED)

(Continued from Page 18)

to impede my progress, and some
prisoners have challenged my sangfroid. As a disciplined prisoner, it’s
been my responsibility to consider
all options available
in my response, and
to understand the
ramifications that
would follow my
actions. A tenacious
focus on goals served
as my compass to
help me navigate
my way through the
labyrinth of confinement.
When prisoners
control their minds
and their perceptions,
they give themselves
the power to control
their progress. Discipline helps them
move forward toward
their own goals, not
for the meaningless accolades and
certificates issued
by bureaucrats, but
for reasons that have
personal meaning
for the individual engaged in the
struggle of imprisonment. Focus,
discipline, and commitment to

one’s own goals diminish the
power of others to frustrate and
disappoint.

The prison system is punitive
rather than encouraging. Expect it.
Despite the progress of enlightened
management, this system governs

through the use of punishments and
eschews incentive. This war on
terror will make matters more onerous for prisoners, so I urge them
to emulate soldiers and
master discipline. As
we incorporate discipline into our nature,
and banish hope and
expectations that anything inside these communities of coercion
and deprivation exist
to help us, we enable
ourselves to achieve.
When we acknowledge
that we are who we
are today because of
the choices we made
yesterday, and that
we will become what
we want tomorrow
because of the choices
we made today, when
we accept that we alone
are responsible for our
success or our failures,
we transcend these
American gulags, these
wastelands of human
spirit. Like Washington’s soldiers, successful prisoners
make discipline the soul of their
adjustment.

THE NEWSLETTER OF NORTH CAROLINA
PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES, INC.
224 South Dawson Street
P.O. Box 25397
Raleigh, NC 27611
Phone: (919) 856-2200
Fax: (919) 856-2223
Email: tsanders@ncpls.org

Visit our website at:
http://www.ncpls.org