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. In addition they also opposed the prohibition of the...
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 the case by the District Court on the ground that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
In Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974) The Court also ruled…
