# Opposition Brief — Zimmerman v. Para-Professional Law Clinic

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385019_1344%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Opposition Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1988
- **Citation:** 485 U.S. 993

## Text

EDITOR'S NOTE

THE FOLLOWING PAGES WERE POOR HARD COPY
AT THE TIME OF FILMING, IF AND WHEN A
BETTER COPY CAN BE OBTAINED, A NEW FICHE

WILL BE ISSUED,

= Terres

wiec bheieee Buprens Coun, us,
j rFiLep
NO, 87-1347 »/ MAR r tomy
- ROREPH F, BP.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE a.

UNITED STATES

October Term 1987

LeROY S. ZIMMERMAN, ET AL
Petitioners

ve

PARA-PROFESSIONAL LAW CLINIC, ET AL
Respondents

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS

COMES NOW, The Respondents via Ahmad Abdul Jabbar,
a/k/a Roy Williams, Hugh Williams and Zebbie J. Clifton, and
moves this Court to permit them to proceed in forma pauperis
in filing their Reply Brief To Petitioners' Writ of Certiorari,
without prepayment of fees and cost or security therefor.

In Support hereof, Respondents assert they werepermitted
to proceed in forma pauperis in the United States District Court
For The Eastern District of Pennsylvania (i.e. see Order, 49a)
and in the United States Court of Appeals For The Third Circuit
(i.e. see Order, 50a). As the attached Affidavit indicates, Respondents
are unable to pay such fees or costs, or give security therefor, and
ergo request this Court allow them to proceed in forma pauperis

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915

ahnad, n- damad/
%

Ahmad Abdul Jabbar-al Samad
a/k/a Roy Williams
Counsel (Pro Se) for Respondents

Hugh 1 Wat

Co-counsel (Pro Se) for Respondents

Dated: MAR 8 tata

a aaaEaEEOEOEOEOEOEOEeEeEeEeEeEeEeeeeee

eae ORF ORR RE
one

NO, 87-1347

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES

October Term 1987

LeROY S. ZIMMERMAN, ET AL

Petitioners
ve
ae PARA-PROFESSIONAL LAW CLINIC, ET AL
Respondents

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS

I, Ahmad Abdul Jabbar-al Samad, a/k/a Roy Williams,
Hugh Williams, and Zebbie J. Clifton being first duly sworn/affirmed,
depose and say that we represent the Respondents in the above
entitled case. That in support of our motion to proceed in forma
pauperis without being required to prepay fees, costs or give security
therefore, we state that because of our poverty and /or impecuniousness
we are unable to pay the costs of responding in said proceedings
or to give security therefor; that we believe we are entitled to the

redress sought.

We further swear/affirm that the facts set forth below
relating to our ability to pay the costs of filing a response to the
Petitioners' Writ of Certiorari are true.

1. Are you presently employed?

We are presently employed in the Para-Professional

Law Clinic, Inc. being paid prison wages of

approximately fifthy three dollars per month to

each of us individually. However the Para-Professional

Law Clinic, Inc. presently has eight dollars and
twelve cents in the corporate account,

y=

2.

Have you received within the past twelve months any

income from a business, profession or other form of self-employment,

or in the form of rent payments, interest, dividends, ordher source?

The respondent Ahmad Abdul Jabbar-al Samad, a/k/a
Roy Williams, has received a fifty dollar money order
as a Christmas gift from a personal friend in society
which was sent to his children for de minimis support,

The respondent Hugh Williams received a twenty dollar
money order from his mother as a birthday gift, and

a ten dollar money order from a friend as a Christmas
gift, which he sent to his children for deminimis support.
The respondent Zebbie J. Clifton had none.

The Para-Professional Law Clinic, Inc. has received none.

Do you own any cash or checking or savings accounts?

The respondent Ahmad Abdul Jabbar-al Samad, a/k/a
Rey Williams ownes none.

The respondent Hugh Williams, owns none.

The respondent Zebbie J. Clifton, owns none.

The Para-Professional Law Clinic, Inc., owms a checking
account at the Bank of Pennsylvania in Allentown,
Pennsylvania; account No, 8602-5082. It presently has
eight dollars andj twelve cents therein.

Do you own any real estate, stoeks, bonds, notes,
automobiles, or other valuable property (excluding

ordinary household furnishings and clothing. )?

The respondent Ahmad Abdul Jabbar-al Samad, a/k/a
Roy Williams owns none,

The respondent Hugh Williams owns none.
The respondent Zebbie J. Clifton owns mne.
The Para-Professional Law Clinic, Inc., owms none

except office furnishings and paraphernalia related
to legal work.

5. List the persons who are dependent upon you for support
and state your relationship to those persons.
The respondent Ahmad Abdul Jabbar-al Samad, a/k/a
Roy Williams sends most of his de minimis prison wages

to his son, Roy Williams, Jr.

The respondent Hugh Williams sends his de minimis

prison wages to his two youngest children, Hugh Williams, Jr.

and Dianne Williams.

The respondent Zebbie J. Clifton sends his de minimis
prison wages to his five (5) children.

The Para-Professional Law Clinic, Inc. has none as to
financial support, however (2500) twenty-five hundred
inmates for legal support, relationship thereto servant.

We understand that a false statement or answer to any

questions in this affidavit will subject us to penalities for perjury.

WK¥G_KOd Bw.
Ahmad Abdul Jabbar-al Samad
a/k/a Roy Williams

Wi Siam s

Hugh Williams

Sworn (Affirmed) and Subscribed to

before me, this 7 A aay of March, 1988

ae ae Af =
NOTARY PUBLIC
STANLEY WEBB. Notary Pubes

ratertord. Mongtome’y O--
ny Commnten Expires Way >) 1988

Para-Professioual Lau Clinic, Que,

P.O. BOX 244
Graterford, Pennsylvania 19426

March 8, 1988 ox

Fiat Justitia Deo Volentc

=

Clerk of Court
United States Supreme Court

1 First Street N.E.
iVED
Washington, D.C. 20543 RECE

MAR 1 1 1988
Re: LeRoy S. Zimmerman, et al — OFF.CE OF THE CLERK
v. Para-Professional Law Clinic SUPREME COURT, U.S.

No. 87-1347
Dear Mr. Spaniol,

Enclosed find (1)one copy of Respondent's Brief in Opposition To
Petition For Writ of Certiorari To The Third Circuit Court of Appeals
to be filed with the Court. Thank you.

Respectfully,

he Withans
Hugh “Williams
Sec'y

Service:
Office of Attorney General

, ORIG,

io we mmd

NO. 87-1347

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES

October Term 1987

LeROY S. ZIMMERMAN, ET AL
Petitioners

PARA-PROFESSIONAL LAW CLINIC, ET AL
Respondents

'
RESPONDENTS! BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT
OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Ahmad Abdul Jabbar-al Samad
a/k/a Roy Williams, Pro Se
Counsel for Respondents

Hugh Williams, Pro Se
Co-counsel for Respondents

Zebbie J. Clifton, Pro Se
Co-counsel for Respondents

PARA-PROFESSIONAL LAW CLINIC, INC.
State Correctional Institution

Post Office Box 244

Graterford, Pennsylvania 19426

COUNTER QUESTION PRESENTED
FOR REVIEW

The Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the District
Court's holding; that an adequate prison law library
per se does not provide inmates with meaningful

access to the Courts in the case sub judice.

ska

T AR

PET NERS
LeROY S. ZIMMERMAN, Attorney General of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

DAVID S. OWENS, JR,, Commissioner of Corrections of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

CHARLES H, ZIMMERMAN, Superintendent of Graterford Prison

THOMAS D. STACHELEK, Deputy Superintendent of Graterford Prison

RESPONDENTS
PARA-PROFESSIONAL LAW CLINIC
GEORGE BRADLEY, #¢F-0281

CURTIS EL JARVIS, #F-6690

MONSERRATE ZAPATA, #¢F-0430 .

BEBLEY C, WELLS, JR., # M -0253
CARL MILES, #F-7808

ZEBBIE CLIFTON, #@F-5043

HAROLD X SMITH, #F-6433

ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER INMATES OF THE GRATERFORD
INSTITUTION SIMILARLY SITUATED.

-ia -

r

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
COUNTER QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEWeesesesceceeees i

LIST OF PARTIES. cccccccccccsssccsccsscessccsscessssesessess 18
TABLE OF CONTENTS «
prison officials in matters concerning the security and
administration of prisons. However, prison officials may not
restrict the scope of inmates’ constitutional rights by making
automatic and conclusory assertions of discipline and security
in the support of restrictive policies. Cleavinger v. Saxner,
106 S.ct. 496, 504 (1985).

The link between problems caused by overcrowding and
PPLC's use of prison space is tenuous at best. Graterford's
Population exceeds ca>dacity by some 409 irmates. I do not
underestimate the serious problems this causes prison

administrators. However, the main office and office/library

22a

are not suitable for housing inmates. The office on E block
provides the only space to hold confidential legal discussions
for those in administrative or disciplinary custody. Closing
the clinic offices on blocks A, B, C and D would provide
housing for between 4 and 8 prisoners. However, the
constitutional rights of inmates are not to be impaired
because the State fails in its duty to provide adequate
housing. Thus, the lack of adequate prison housing does not
present a justification for clssing PPLC.

Defendants presented evidence that the increase in
traffic along the main corridor presents security concerns and
that Clinic members travel to Clinic offices via the main
corridor. With a prison population in excess of 2,500, I
reject the notion that the sixteen to twenty Clinic members
add significantly to the amount of traffic in the main
corridor. Graterford's superintendent testified that even if
the preliminary injunction is lifted, he would not close
PPLC's office/library. If the cell block offices are closed,
then the only remaining places inmates could hold confidential
legal discussions with a Clinic member would be in the
library, general library, or PPLC's main office. Inmates
necessarily use the main corridor to reach any of these
places. Thus, closing the block offices, while keeping the
main office open, would result in increased innate movement in

the main corridor.

23a

Finally, the prison lacks adequate space to store and
safeguard inmate property. Defendants would like to use
PPLC's main office as a storage area. Although inadequate
storage space is not an insignificant problem, it cannot
justify restriction of the fundamental constitutional right of
access to the courts. Por these reasons, security and space
concerns do not justify the closing of any of PPLC's offices.

D. Relief

The final issue to be addressed is whether closing any of
PPLC's offices will violate inmates’ fundamental
constitutional right of access to the courts. Defendants
have represented that, even if the injunction is lifted, they
have no plans to shut:down the cell block E office or the
office/library. However, defendants would eiiminate the
offices on cell blocks A, B, C and D and the main office.
Evidence at the initial hearing established that closing the
block offices would overburden the main office. There is no
evidence that PPLC could provide adequate services without the
use of its main office or that “reasonable alternatives for
obtaining assistance” would be available. Bryan, 516 F.2d at
237. :

Defendants have not questioned whether plaintiffs have
suffered an actual injury, or an “instance in which an inmate
was actually denied access to the courts.” Hudson v.

Robinson, 678 F.2d 462, 466 (3d Cir. 1982) (quoting Kershner

24a

v. Mazurkiewicz, 670 F.2d 440, 444 (3d Cir. 1982)). After the
Wade hearing, I found that closing the Clinic “has caused the
plaintiffs and those who benefit from the services of Clinic
members to suffer irreparable harm." Wade, 448 F. Supp. .at
683. There has ‘been no showing that inmates have been denied
access to the courts since entry of the preliminary
injunction. Assuming that the prelimirary injunction served
its purpose —— to prevent irreparable injury to picintiffs
pendente lite —- such a showing is impossible.

I refuse to lift the injunction and wait for another
inmate to be denied access to the courts. To wait for an
inmate with a valid habeas corpus or civil rights claim to be
denied access to the courts is intolerable; based on my
findings in Wade and above, such an injury is inevitable.

For the foregoing reasons, to allow defendants to close
PPLC would violate the prison's “affirmative obligation[] to
assure all prisoners me ringful access to the courts."

Bounds, 430 U.S. at 824 (emphasis added).

98a
-23-

a Conclusions of Law

1. This court has jurisdiction over the subject matter
and parties in this case.

2. Because the Clinic gives legal advice and provides
legal representation to functionally illiterate inmates, and
inmates in administrative and disciplinary custody, it has
standing to assert the constitutional right of access to the
courts of these inmates. ;

3. Closing the Clinic would violate cne constituticnal
rights of certain Clinic clients, including functionally
illiterate clients and those housed in administrative or
_@isciplinary custody, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

4. Defendants have failed to provide any justificatior.
sufficient to warrant the violations of constitutione! rights
that would result from closing PPLC.

5. Plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunctive
relief.

2G46

-~74-

APPENDIX 47a

~T

4
RECFIVED
MAR 80 1987

PPLG INC,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
«ais FOR THE -EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. CIVIL ACTION

:
PARA-PROFESSIONAL LAW CLINIC, et al. :
it Pa .. :
ae: -v- Set :

:

:

a FILEO MAR 25 1987
NO. 78-538 F | L E D

ROBERT P. KANE, et al.
ORDER

Sine ‘ ‘2
"AND NOW, this 24° day of March, 1987, it is ORDERED
that judgment is entered in favor of the plainciffs and —

against the defendants. Defendants are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED?-P-LC. INC.

“p ADM. OFFICE
from closing any PPLC office or facility.

BY THE COURT:

/
re a7 eae 58 at

Joseph 3. Lord, 111 —.

ENTERED: 3/26/27

CLERK GF CGURT . awdedivenaae’

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

FILEO MAR 26 1987

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. CIVIL ACTION
PARA-PROFESSIONAL LAW CLINIC,
et al.

:
:
:
“ :
:

ROBERT P. KANE, et al. NO. 78-538

So 2 ) 2.2

f PPL
AND NOW, this 7% “ day of March, 1987, it is ORDERED Ovi

the order entered March 25, 1987 is MODIFIED to read as
follows:

AND NOW, this 26th day of March, 1987, it is ORDERED that
judgment is entered in favor of plaintiffs and against
Gefendants. Defendants, their successors and their agents,
servants or employees are permanently enjoined from closing

any PPLC office or facility.

BY THE COURT:

ENTERED:_3 /27/27 —

CLERK OF COURT C*®

APPENDIX 49a 4

ba |

os 8
“agen

i". 2 + “st

3 Pt ;
ee rte
tL HA o.6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMEPICA
EX REL.

!

PARA-PROFESSIONAL LAW CLINIC
P.O. BOX 244
GRATERFORD, PENNSYLVANIA 19426

AND

GEORGE BRADLEY, #F-0281
AND

CURTIS JARVIS EL, #F-6990
AND

MONSERATE ZAPATA, #F-0430
AND

BEBLEY C. WELLS, JR., #M-0253
AND

CARL MILES, #F-7808
AND.

ZEBBIE CLIFTON, #F-5043

AND
HAROLD X. SMITH, #F-6433

AND
ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
(INMATES) OF THE GRATERFORD
INSTITUTION, SIMILARLY SITUATED
ET AL.,

(PLAINTIFFS)

VS.

ROBERT P. KANE, ET AL.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
AND
WILLIAM B. ROBINSON, ET AL.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS
OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA
AND
JULIUS T. CUYLER, ET AL.
SUPERINTENDENT OF
- GRATERFORD PRISON
AND
DANIEL T. SIMS, ET AL.
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT
OF GRATERFORD PRISON,
(DEFENDANTS)

00 06 60 00 00 68 02 06 00 08 00 06 00 08 06 08 66 08 80 06 80 86 06 88 68 06 08 08 80 06 60 06 00 06 06 06 80 60 80 80 08 88 88 08 09 8 o8 S88 Of oe

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 78-538

C44 o.)

Vv

BECHTLE, J. ,

AND NOW, to wit, this it, ddy of Cie uf , 1978,

after consideration of the pleadings herein and after review of the Report and
Recommendation of Tullio Gene Leomporra, United States Magistrate, it is
- ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED.

2. The Petition for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is
GRANTED. 28 U.S.C. §1915(a).

It is so ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

_ Aiea. C Bustle

LOUIS c. BECHTLE

ATERED, Y/ 2 1/98
-_ ae whe 7 ss

~~

er re Sige DOR.

ral

hee i] F

soc

| a

me See

: . ot cae
' . ee

tah Me,
uP 4

ie i
“2
BaP, | | a

ath,
2 -

7 .

4) ee
’ .

: | Zz
F \ a
wa ee

; a ih b+
¢ MA
: | ¥
- a. oe
1”

f
-— : :
:
7 ‘
| ~ oat
fy
Ysa
7
» a
*

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 87-1193

United States of America Ex Rel.
Para-Professional Law Clinic, et al.

vs.
Kane, Robert P., etc., et al., Appellants

(E.D.Pa. Civi} 78-0538)
To: CLERK

1) MoTienw BY APPELLEES

—_—_ _———

il.

OFFICE OF THE CLERK ) PM

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS m

21400 U. 8. COURTHOUSE ey se

€0! MARKET STREET feat
PHILADELPHIA. Pa 18106 --

Orricia, Ove mass
PERALTY FOR PRrvetE wee R00

Mr. Ahmad Abdul Jabbar-al Samad, M-1008
Mr. Hugh Williams, F-2932

Ms. Zebbie Clifton, F-5043

Mr. Bebley Wells, M-0253

State Correctional Institution

P.O. Box 244

Graterford, PA 19426

The foregoing Motion ‘4S BewieD AS Vane esstvy Exters
IV SefAaR AS Fitiwe TYPE RITTEW RIC S. TL
APPLELEES JABCAR-AL samaDd, Chere 4x0
Wikesrams ARL 6RAX TED Li4ve To ff4e
Tyfi.rmitte~ EG8RIEFS. wwsotaAn AS WE
(APPL LCE, Wwhers , DID WOT Stew THe Merion

AWD THE Oren aMracLLEesS MOT aor RlLevcstT Celie:

Rtriél CRATES sw PRs
ow MS BekacF, THE . For the Court, e

_AwTwn Dees wet Aftep 7 hilly Sn, 3

— ~ Clerk
(50x)
: » 1987 dt/cc: Maria Parisi Vickers, Esq.
— (Mr. Ahmad Abdul Jabbar-al Samad, etc.)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

HUGH WILLIAMS, co-counsel and secretary of Respondent
Para-Professional Law Clinic, Inc., hereby certifies and says
that a true and correct copy of the Respondents’ Brief In Oppostion
To Petition For Writ of Certiorari To The United States Court of
Appeals For The Third Circuit, was served on the persons below
and in the manner and date indicated

LeRoy Zimmerman

Attorney General

John G. Knorr, II
Chief Deputy Attorney General

Gregory R. Neuhauser
Senicr Deputy Attorney General

Maria Parisi Vickers

Chief Deputy Attorney General
Chief, Eastern District
Counsel of Record

Attorney for Petitioners

206 State Office Building
Philadelphia, PA. 19130

Via First Class U.S. Mail e Us
SUaams
Hugh

illiams, Sec'y
Para-Professional Law Clinic
g
Dated: MARS 1988 Post Office Box 244
Graterford, Pennsylvania 19426

Under of penalty of law pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1001

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385019_1344%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.