Vol. 9, No. 2, Pg. 24. Stemming of Tide: Reduction in Federal Pro Se Prisoner Lawsuits.

• Author: By Sandra J. Senn

South Carolina Lawyer

1997.

Vol. 9, No. 2, Pg. 24.

Stemming of Tide: Reduction in Federal Pro Se Prisoner Lawsuits

24Stemming of Tide: Reduction in Federal Pro Se Prisoner LawsuitsBy Sandra J. SennFor years, courts and commentators have expressed concern over the growing number of pro se prisoner lawsuits. In 1973, a dissenting Second Circuit federal judge foretold:

[t]he majority today opens the proverbial Pandora's Box by inviting civil rights actions from all prisoners feeling that their prison guards have treated them unnecessarily harshly. The inevitable result will be lamentable in two respects: (1) Federal district court dockets will become even more overburdened than is now the case; and (2) federal courts will be drawn unnecessarily into supervising the day-to-day affairs of state institutions. Such a result would, and should, be avoided by limiting federal court intervention in this type to case situations presenting bona fide Section 1983 actions.

Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1035 (2nd Cir. 1973) (Moore, J., dissenting). Judge Moore's fears have inarguably become reality.

This article addresses concerns in state and federal court systems regarding prisoner litigation against governmental agencies. It specifically does not address all possible defenses to these type claims. Statistical data is supported by the South Carolina Insurance Reserve Fund (IRF), the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Specific queries regarding the data should be directed to the author.

IS THE TIDE STEMMING?

While Bar members are often forced to defend claims brought by vindictive former clients, governmental agencies remain the most popular target of malicious inmate cases. The IRF insures and must defend many state agencies against inmate lawsuits which range from the somewhat humorous to the absolutely absurd.

As recently as 1984, the IRF funded the defense of only three pro se prisoner lawsuits. Since 1984, however, suits have nearly quadrupled on an annual basis, requiring the IRF to defend an all-time high pro se caseload in 1995 of 406 federal actions and 81 state actions.

These cases exclude suits not covered by the IRF which are handled by in-house attorneys, habeas petitions or suits brought against agencies opting for private insurance.

The cost to defend prisoner suits is ultimately borne by the taxpayer. In South Carolina, over 1.6 million dollars was budgeted to defend pro se prisoner actions filed in 1996 alone. The final tally of costs and attorneys' fees for 1996 is not yet complete, as many of those cases are still pending. The predicted cost compared with the mere $920 spent to defend such actions in 1984, is staggering. These figures obviously do not include expenses for judges, attorneys and law clerks to prepare paperwork to rid themselves of the ridiculous.

...