Habeas Corpus

In April 1968, Ronald Novak filed a pro se federal civil rights class-action under Title 42 U.S.C. §1983, seeking, among other things, “declaratory and injunctive relief against a TDC practice of prohibiting legal assistance by one inmate to another.” Novak v. Beto, 320 F. Supp. 1206 (S.D. Tex. 1970),[2] rev’d, Novak v. Beto, 453 F.2d 661 (5th Cir. 1971)(holding that the TDC could not enforce the prohibition until it provided an adequate legal assistance program for prisoners);[3] aff’d Corpus v. Estelle, 551 F.2d 68 (5th Cir. 1977).[4] 

----------------------------------------- 

[2] A year before, in Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 485-90 (1969), the United States Supreme Court held that, “in the absence of some provision by the State of Tennessee for a reasonable alternative to assist illiterate or poorly educated inmates in preparing petitions for post-conviction relief, the State may not validly enforce a regulation which absolutely bars inmates from furnishing such assistance to other prisoners.”). 

[3] Years later, in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), the United States Supreme Court held unconstitutional a Nebraska prison rule prohibiting inmates giving to or receiving from other inmates legal assistance on civil rights matters unless the prison or its officials provide a "reasonable alternative".

[4] Notably, in a related case on award of attorney fees, the Fifth Circuit observed that, “in spite of our decision [in Novak v. Beto], the TDC continued to enforce the prohibition [and] vigorously resisted. It adopted a formal rule permitting prisoners to assist each other, but only in § 1983 cases; it made assistance in any other matter a violation of discipline [rule].” Corpus v. Estelle, 605 F.2d 175, 176 (5th Cir. 1979).