Amicus Advocacy Project

Parrish v. United States of America
Court: The Supreme Court of the United States
Signatories: Prison Law Office, Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center, and Rights Behind Bars (the Administrative Law, Issues, and Appeals Clinic at George Washington University Law School served as counsel for amici)
Date of submission: March 5, 2025
Summary: Pro se prisoner litigants face great difficulty pursuing their cases because of barriers inherent in the American carceral setting, including limited access to resources, limited control over one’s environment and movement, and complicated prison mail systems that often result in signifcant delays and denials of their ability to send and receive mail. Accordingly, when a pro se prisoner files a late notice of appeal and the district court reopens the appeal filing period, the pro se prisoner should not be required to file a second, duplicative notice of appeal.
Read the brief.
 
 		  

CJLF v. CDCR
Court: California Court of Appeal for the Third District
Signatories: Prison Law Office
Date of submission: January 31, 2025
Summary: The proponents and voters who approved Proposition 57 intended to grant CDCR broad authority over prison credits in order to create a durable remedy to California's prison crowding and spending crisis, while also promoting public safety. CDCR's regulations allowing increased credit-earning for people with indeterminate terms and violent felonies are necessary to carry out Prop. 57's purposes. Conversely, denying CDCR the authority to grant additional credits would thwart Prop. 57's goals.
Read the brief.
 
 		  

The People of the State of California v. Fahim Multani
Court: Supreme Court of California
Signatories: Compassion & Choices, Prison Law Office
Date of submission: January 17, 2025
Summary: Despite a diagnosis of metastatic, solid-tumor cancer, the Court of Appeal upheld the denial of Mr. Multani’s request for compassionate release on the basis that he did not have an illness with an end-of-life trajectory because the disease was being controlled with medication. This overly-narrow interpretation of the Penal Code § 1172.2(b)(1) runs counter to the legislature’s stated objective in passing Section 1172.2 and will negatively impact the ability of terminally-ill incarcerated people to access appropriate end-of-life care and to die in their communities with the support and love of their families. The Prison Law Office and Compassion & Choices submitted an Amicus Curiae Letter of Support encouraging the California Supreme Court to hear Mr. Multani’s Petition for Review; unfortunately, the Supreme Court declined to here Mr. Multani’s petition.
Read the brief.
 
 		  

Human Rights Defense Center v. Baxter County
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Signatories: Prison Law Office, Roderick & Solage MacArthur Justice Center, Center For Appellate Litigation, Florida Justice Institute, Just Detention International, Rights Behind Bars, and Uptown People's Law Center
Date of submission: November 29, 2023
Summary: Baxter County Detention Center's policy of prohibiting incarerated people's access to all materials sent by mail except those that fit on a postcard fails to serve a legitimate penological purpose. The policy undermines the recognized penological interest in rehabilitation. Banning meaningful correspondence and access to literature increases alienation and isolation among incarcerated people.
Read the brief.
 
 		  

Todd Ashker et al. v. Gavin Newsom et al.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Signatories: Prison Law Office on Behalf of California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice, California Families to Abolish Solitary Confinement, Civil Rights Corps, The Council on American-Islamic Relations, Dignity and Power Now, Disability Rights California, Disability Rights Washington, Fair Chance Project, Families United to End LWOP, Harvard Prison Legal Assistance Project, Human Rights Defense Center, Immigrant Defense Advocates, National Religious Campaign Against Torture, NextGen Policy, Rights Behind Bars, Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, Silicon Valley De-Bug, Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition, Social Workers & Allies Against Solitary Confinement, Solitary Watch, The Southern Poverty Law Center, UnCommon Law, Underground Scholars Initiative-UC Berkeley, the Unlock the Box Campaign, and The Uptown People’s Law Center and legal academics Andrea Armstrong, Chesa Boudin, Erwin Chemerinsky, Sharon Dolovich, Avlana Eisenberg, Dr. Brittany Friedman, Emma Kaufman, Aaron Littman, Keramet Reiter, Judith Resnik, and Carter C. White
Date of submission: October 10, 2023
Summary: The California prison system engaged in egregious due process violations involving the mischaracterization of confidential information relied upon in prison disciplinary proceedings. Prison Law Office argued, on behalf of dozens of organizations representing incarcerated people and formerly incarcerated people and legal academics across the country, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit should hold the prison system accountable for these due process violations. Defending fundamental due process protections for incarcerated people is critical as a matter of fundamental Constitutional rights. The erosion of these rights on this setting will lead to the expanded use of solitary confinement, which causes lasting physical and psychological harm.
Read the brief.
 
 		  

Armida Ruelas et al. v. County of Alameda et al.
Court: United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit
Signatories: Prison Law Office, American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Northern California, ACLU of Southern California, Fines and Fees Justice Center, Prison Policy Initiative, Roderick & Solage MacArthur Justice Center, and Worth Rises
Date of submission: May 11, 2023
Summary: The California Supreme Court should reject Aramark's attempt to exclude people detained pre-trial in the Alameda County Jail from the wage protections of the California Labor Code. The Prison Law Office, with others, urged the court to consider the intent of the statute and the practical realities for detainees in the county jail, including inflated prices for basic necessities and exorbitant rates for communications.
Read the brief.
 
 		  

Todd Ashker et al. v. Gavin Newsom et al.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Signatories: Former Correctional Officials
Date of submission: February 2, 2022
Summary: Solitary confinement has grave and lasting effects on human physical and mental health. Disciplinary proceedings that may result in the use of solitary confinement must be accompanied by rigorous procedural protections. The Prison Law Office argued on behalf of former correctional administrators across the country that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit should uphold the lower court's order regarding the systematic misuse of confidential information in disciplinary proceedings that place people in conditions of solitary confinement.
Read the brief.
 
 		  

Shikeb Saddozai v. Ron Davis, Warden of San Quentin Prison et al.
Court: United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit
Signatories: Prison Law Office, American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Northern California, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, Florida Justice Institute, Human Rights Defense Center, Southern Center for Human Rights, and Southern Poverty Law Center
Date of submission: September 3, 2021
Summary: In a challenge to a district court holding regarding exhaustion under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Prison Law Office and others argued that court filing fees impose substantial burdens on incarcerated people. Incarcerated people are required to pay heavy fees and costs at every step of the criminal legal process. Eighty percent of America's incarcerated people are indigent, and the cost of commissary, communications, and court filing fees lead to a cascade of devastating consequences for incarcerated people and their families. The appellate court should reverse the district court judgment and thereby eliminate the need for litigants to incur unnecessary, additional filing fees.
Read the brief.
 
 		  

John Witherow v. Howard Skolnik et al.
Court: United States District Court for the District of Nevada
Signatories: Prison Law Office, American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Nevada, Ethics Bureau at Yale, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and National Juvenile Defender Center
Date of submission: October 25, 2019
Summary: A Nevada Department of Corrections policy that permits prison staff to listen to legal calls for the ostensible purpose of determining whether the call is legal in nature offends core constitutional and ethical principles. The policy burdens attorneys' exercise of their First Amendment rights and impedes their professional obligations. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit must reverse the district court order to protect the attorney-client relationship in the prison setting.
Read the brief.
 
 		  

Paul Hamilton v. Superior Court
Court: Supreme Court of California
Signatories: Prison Law Office
Date of submission: May 24, 2019
Summary: Staff misconduct is rampant and serious in California state prisons, and the prison's system for investigating allegations of abuse is deeply flawed. In light of these pervasive deficiencies, the California Supreme Court should grant a petition for review to consider when and under what circumstances people are entitled to appointment of counsel to prosecute claims of physical abuse by prison guards.
Read the brief.