Wolff V. Mcdonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) Case Study

Open, View, and/or
Download this Document

Total Length: 938 words ( 3 double-spaced pages)

Total Sources: 3

Page 1 of 3

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974)

Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979)

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976)

Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974)

Facts: In Wolff v. Mcdonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), the inmates at a Nebraska prison filled a complaint against disciplinary measures at the prison contrary to the due process. In it they outlined the short comings of the prisons legal assistance program in meeting constitutional standards. They added that the prison's regulations governing inmates' mail were also unconstitutionally restrictive.

In the Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979), the inmates filed a class action suit in the Court of Appeal against constitutionality of various confinement and practices in the Metropolitan Correctional Center. These included double bunking, publisher only rule, restricting books intended for inmates, prohibition of food and other items from outside as well as unnecessary inmate body cavity searches.

In Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976), the respondent inmate filed a civil rights action against the Texas Department of Corrections medical director and two other officials who he claims subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment that violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment.

In the same line, the Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974), was a class action opposing prisoner mail restriction regulations issued by the Director of the California Department of Corrections.

Stuck Writing Your "Wolff V. Mcdonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974)" Case Study?

View All Our Example Wolff V. Mcdonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) Case Study

Have A Custom Example Essay Written

In addition they also opposed the prohibition of the use of law students and legal paraprofessionals in conducting attorney-client interviews with prisoners.

Issue: Did the District Courts err in failing to rule in favor of the inmates thereby denying their rights because of their status?

Decisions: In Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) the Court of Appeals reversed the first ruling by the District court holding that in prison disciplinary proceedings, the outlined procedural requirements in Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, and Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, must be followed. The Court of Appeal agreed with the Districts Court's decision on attorney correspondence. On the third ruling, the court added prescriptions and ordered further proceedings to examine whether the state was abiding by the law in provision of legal assistance to prisoners under Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483 (1969).

In Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979), the Court of Appeals upheld by affirming the rulings by the District Court that "double-bunking" practice that the MCC failed to show "compelling necessity" enough to justify such practice. Such practices as mentioned in the case do not deprive pretrial detainees of their liberty without due process of law in contravention of the Fifth Amendment.

In Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976), the Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of.....

Show More ⇣

     Open the full completed essay and source list


OR

     Order a one-of-a-kind custom essay on this topic


sample essay writing service

Cite This Resource:

Latest APA Format (6th edition)

Copy Reference
"Wolff V Mcdonnell 418 U S 539 1974 " (2012, November 06) Retrieved July 7, 2025, from
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/wolff-mcdonnell-418-us-539-1974-107556

Latest MLA Format (8th edition)

Copy Reference
"Wolff V Mcdonnell 418 U S 539 1974 " 06 November 2012. Web.7 July. 2025. <
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/wolff-mcdonnell-418-us-539-1974-107556>

Latest Chicago Format (16th edition)

Copy Reference
"Wolff V Mcdonnell 418 U S 539 1974 ", 06 November 2012, Accessed.7 July. 2025,
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/wolff-mcdonnell-418-us-539-1974-107556
   

Open, View, and/or
Download this Document
order custom essay example