Case: Craig v. Hocker

3:72-cv-02662 | U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada

Filed Date: May 1, 1972

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

In 1972, inmates at the Nevada State Prison filed a Section 1983 class action suit in the District of Nevada, pro se, against officials of the Nevada State Prisons. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated the Fourteenth Amendments' due process clause be denying them the right to call witnesses, produce evidence or obtain legal counsel during disciplinary proceedings within the prison. Plaintiffs also complained of denial of adequate medical care, mail privileges, and visiting privileges. …

In 1972, inmates at the Nevada State Prison filed a Section 1983 class action suit in the District of Nevada, pro se, against officials of the Nevada State Prisons. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated the Fourteenth Amendments' due process clause be denying them the right to call witnesses, produce evidence or obtain legal counsel during disciplinary proceedings within the prison. Plaintiffs also complained of denial of adequate medical care, mail privileges, and visiting privileges. Charles Zeh, Washington County Legal Aid Society, was appointed to represent the plaintiffs.

Following trial in April 1974, the District Court (Judge Bruce R. Thompson) held that prisoners who were subject to disciplinary proceedings were entitled to certain due process rights including the right to legal counsel. Judge Thompson also held that plaintiffs were not being denied adequate medical care and treatment. Craig v. Hocker, 405 F. Supp. 656 (D. Nev. 1975).

In July 1980, the parties filed a consent decree that required defendants to improve the living conditions of the prison, reform administrative segregation and classification procedures, reform mail regulations, and improve access to judicial process. As part of the consent decree, defendants also agreed to submit to the court, within 60 days, a plan for implementing the agreed changes.

The docket for this case is not available on PACER, and therefore our information ends with the consent decree, dated July 18, 1980.

Summary Authors

Eoghan Keenan (6/10/2005)

People


Judge(s)

Hall, Cynthia Holcomb (California)

Thompson, Bruce Rutherford (Nevada)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Lamboley, Paul (Nevada)

Lohse, William K. (Nevada)

McKenna, Kenneth James (Nevada)

O'Mara, William (Nevada)

Zeh, Charles R. (Nevada)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Adler, Ernest E. (Nevada)

Bryan, Richard (Nevada)

List, Robert (Nevada)

Judge(s)

Hall, Cynthia Holcomb (California)

Thompson, Bruce Rutherford (Nevada)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Lamboley, Paul (Nevada)

Lohse, William K. (Nevada)

McKenna, Kenneth James (Nevada)

O'Mara, William (Nevada)

Zeh, Charles R. (Nevada)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Adler, Ernest E. (Nevada)

Bryan, Richard (Nevada)

List, Robert (Nevada)

Simmons, John E. (Nevada)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Memorandum Decision

Supreme Court of the United States

393 U.S. 990, 89 S.Ct. 473, 21 L.Ed.2d 453

Dec. 9, 1968 Order/Opinion

Complaint

April 26, 1972 Complaint

Memorandum Opinion

405 F.Supp. 656, 1975 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 13738

Feb. 20, 1975 Order/Opinion

Table Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

618 F.2d 115

March 25, 1980 Order/Opinion

Consent Decree

July 18, 1980 Settlement Agreement

Order

Smith v. Sumner

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

994 F.2d 1401, 1993 U.S.App.LEXIS 13190

June 1, 1993 Order/Opinion

Docket

Last updated May 12, 2022, 8 p.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

State / Territory: Nevada

Case Type(s):

Prison Conditions

Key Dates

Filing Date: May 1, 1972

Case Ongoing: No reason to think so

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

inmates at the Nevada State Prison

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: Yes

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Nevada State Prison (Carson City), State

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Equal Protection

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Availably Documents:

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Mixed

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 1980 - None

Issues

General:

Access to lawyers or judicial system

Administrative segregation

Classification / placement

Disciplinary procedures

Disciplinary segregation

Law library access

Library (non-law) access

Mail

Visiting

Type of Facility:

Government-run