Question 1

In __________, the courtroom doors were opened to prisoners by requiring meaningful access to the courts.

Accepted Answer

Bounds v. Smith established the right of prisoners to have meaningful access to the courts, which effectively "opened the courtroom doors" to them by ensuring they could pursue legal claims.

Question 2

Which of the following must a prisoner demonstrate to prove "actual injury" resulting in a violation of Bounds?

Accepted Answer

To prove "actual injury" under Bounds, a prisoner must show that shortcomings in the prison library or legal assistance program hindered their ability to pursue a non-frivolous legal claim.

Question 3

In __________, the Supreme Court ruled that cutting off the assistance of "jailhouse lawyers" amounted to a denial of access to the courts.

Accepted Answer

In Johnson v. Avery (1969), the Supreme Court ruled that prohibiting inmates from assisting each other in preparing legal documents when no reasonable alternative is provided violates the right of access to the courts. This decision recognized the role of "jailhouse lawyers" in ensuring that prisoners could pursue legal claims.

Question 4

When there is no reasonable alternative, which of the following prisoners are allowed assistance from a jailhouse lawyer?

Accepted Answer

Illiterate prisoners are allowed assistance from a jailhouse lawyer when there is no reasonable alternative, as they may not be able to understand legal documents or proceedings on their own.

Question 5

All of the following are matters that have been disputed in courts over the restrictions of jailhouse lawyers' legal assistance EXCEPT:

Accepted Answer

The answer of All of the following are matters that...

Question 6

The Supreme Court held that Johnson's standing extended to civil rights actions in which of the following cases?

Accepted Answer

In Wolff v. McDonnell, the Supreme Court recognized the standing of prisoners to bring civil rights actions, which extended Johnson's standing in such cases.

Question 7

Which of the following were restrictions due to the Procunier v. Martinez's holding?

Accepted Answer

Procunier v. Martinez addressed the rights of prisoners to access the courts and legal assistance, ruling against overly restrictive mail censorship by prison officials and implicitly supporting the rights of prisoners to access legal assistance, including from law students and paraprofessionals. Thus, restrictions like those listed in A, B, and C would be contrary to the spirit of the decision, making D the correct choice as it encompasses all the restrictions that would be impacted by the ruling.

Question 8

In __________, the Supreme Court held that law libraries were one constitutionally acceptable method to ensure access to the courts, along with other alternatives.

Accepted Answer

In Bounds v. Smith, the Supreme Court ruled that providing prisoners with access to law libraries or alternative means to assist them in the preparation of legal documents was necessary to ensure their constitutional right of access to the courts.

Question 9

Which two constitutional amendments protect the right to counsel, specifically in the case of indigent prisoners?

Accepted Answer

The Fifth Amendment protects the right against self-incrimination, which includes the right to legal counsel during interrogations, while the Sixth Amendment explicitly guarantees the right to counsel for the accused in criminal prosecutions, ensuring that even those who cannot afford an attorney are provided one.

Question 10

Regarding expert witnesses, the Ninth Circuit held that which entity has the discretion to appoint and assess the cost of expert witnesses?

Accepted Answer

The Ninth Circuit has held that a federal district court has the discretion to appoint and assess the cost of expert witnesses. This is based on the principle that federal courts have inherent authority to manage their cases and appoint experts to assist in understanding complex evidence or issues.

Question 11

The in forma pauperis statute is designed to ensure which of the following?

Accepted Answer

The in forma pauperis statute is specifically designed to ensure that indigent (poor) litigants have access to the courts without being inhibited by filing fees and other costs.

Question 12

Which of the following is not one of the reasons that a claim can be considered frivolous?

Accepted Answer

A frivolous claim is typically defined as one that lacks any legal merit or basis, rather than simply being a waste of time. While claims that are of little weight, not worthy of serious attention, or trivial might be considered frivolous due to their lack of substantial legal grounding, labeling a claim as frivolous solely because it is a "waste of time" does not align with the legal definition. The determination of frivolousness is based on the merit and seriousness of the legal claim itself, not on the perception of time management or efficiency.

Question 13

The right of a prisoner to exercise a basic constitutional right regarding legal services was established in the 1940 case of Ex parte Hull.

Accepted Answer

The 1940 Supreme Court case Ex parte Hull (312 U.S. 546) established that prisoners have the right to access the courts and cannot be unreasonably denied access to legal counsel or the ability to file legal actions.

Question 14

Bounds allows prisoners to file any and every type of legal claim.

Accepted Answer

Bounds v. Smith established that prisoners have the right to access the courts for assistance with their legal claims, but it does not mean they can file any and every type of legal claim without restriction. The ruling primarily ensures the right to pursue legitimate legal claims, particularly those related to their convictions and conditions of confinement.

Question 15

In Lewis v. Casey, the Supreme Court held that the inadequacy that caused any actual injury to illiterate prisoners was not sufficiently widespread to justify system-wide relief.

Accepted Answer

In Lewis v. Casey, the Supreme Court found that the inadequacy causing harm to illiterate prisoners was not widespread enough to warrant relief across the entire prison system, emphasizing the need for showing actual injury and direct causation to obtain such broad remedies.

Question 16

Two competing interests displayed in Johnson v. Avery were: the legitimate exercise of control by prison officials, and the constitutionally protected rights retained by prisoners.

Accepted Answer

In Johnson v. Avery, the Supreme Court balanced the state's interest in maintaining prison order and discipline against the inmates' rights to access the courts, highlighting the tension between prison administration and constitutional protections for prisoners.

Question 17

The Court's ruling in Johnson v. Avery only applies when a prison system has no meaningful alternatives to a jailhouse lawyer.

Accepted Answer

Johnson v. Avery (1969) held that a state may not validly prohibit inmates from assisting each other in preparing legal documents unless the state provides a reasonable alternative to assist inmates in exercising their right of access to the courts.

Question 18

Prisoners can receive legal assistance from a jailhouse lawyer confined in a different institution.

Accepted Answer

Jailhouse lawyers are typically inmates who provide legal assistance to fellow prisoners within the same institution, as they do not have the means or authority to assist inmates in different institutions.

Question 19

The Court held in Shaw v. Murphy that prisoners do not possess a special First Amendment right to provide legal assistance to fellow prisoners that enhances the protections otherwise available under the Turner v. Safley standard.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court in Shaw v. Murphy ruled that prisoners do not have a special First Amendment right to provide legal assistance to fellow inmates, and their rights are subject to the standard set in Turner v. Safley, which allows for restrictions if they are reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.

Question 20

Johnson initially applied to prisoners needing to make preparations for appeal petitions.

Accepted Answer

The term "Johnson" in this context likely refers to a legal precedent or decision, not a specific application or procedure for prisoners regarding appeal petitions. Legal decisions or precedents named after specific cases (e.g., "Johnson v. [Entity]") apply broadly to legal principles and rights, not to specific administrative processes like applying for the ability to make appeal petitions.

Quiz 7: Prisoner Legal Services