|
|
| State Prevails in Prison Transfer Lawsuit |
| By Associated Press |
| Published: 10/03/2005 |
|
A Montana district judge sided with the state last Wednesday in a lawsuit over the Department of Corrections' authority to send state prison inmates to regional or private prisons. A group of state prison inmates filed the lawsuit in 2002. They claimed language in their sentences required the state to keep them at the state prison in Deer Lodge, and that sending them elsewhere constituted "cruel and unusual" punishment. They said the transfers to facilities in Shelby, Great Falls and Glendive restricted their access to rehabilitation programs. The lawsuit also accused DOC officials of using transfers as punishment for filing litigation or grievances or publicly criticizing the corrections system. District Judge Thomas Honzel of Helena rejected the inmates' arguments and granted summary judgment in favor of the state. Edmund Sheehy Jr., the Helena attorney for the inmates, was unavailable for comment Wednesday on the possibility of an appeal. The only named plaintiff is Gary Quigg, a Lewistown man serving a life sentence for a 1968 murder. He and other inmates in the lawsuit were likely sentenced to the State Prison prior to 1997, Honzel said. That year, the Legislature changed state law and allowed the Department of Corrections to contract with private and regional corrections facilities due to overcrowding. Currently, the state houses inmates at the state prison, the private Crossroads Correctional Center in Shelby and regional jails in Great Falls and Glendive. Quigg and other plaintiffs have been transferred among the facilities over the years. They had asked the court to order all state inmates returned to the state prison, and to require that all inmates sentenced to the state prison be confined there. They said the other facilities don't offer the same treatment, training and rehabilitation opportunities. In his ruling, Honzel cited a 2003 state Supreme Court decision rejecting the idea that sentencing laws give inmates the right to serve their sentences at certain facilities. Specific sentencing language only ensured that a prisoner would spend time "in prison, but not a particular prison," Honzel said. He also ruled the transfers were not "sufficiently serious" to constitute cruel and unusual punishment, and that DOC officials try to ensure adequate access to all rehabilitation programs through waiting lists, transfers and other means. He declined to rule on the claim that transfers are used as retaliation. Honzel said that can only be done on a case-by-case basis. |
MARKETPLACE search vendors | advanced search
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT
|
Comments:
No comments have been posted for this article.
Login to let us know what you think