×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
California Habeas Corpus Proper Remedy to Challenge Work Assignment Restriction, But not to Award Back Pay
California Habeas Corpus Proper Remedy to Challenge Work Assignment
Restriction, But not to Award Back Pay
California's Second District Court of Appeals held a habeas corpus
petition is the proper remedy for a prisoner to challenge restrictions
placed on prison employment, but held that back pay cannot be awarded as
relief on such a petition, A California prisoner, who worked for Prison
Industries Authority (PIA) as a computer programmer, was accused of
violating prison regulations regarding computer use. He was infracted with
disciplinary sanctions, placed in confinement, and denied pay for his
work. Ultimately, prison officials determined the charges were without
merit, he was an exemplary worker- who made all computer usage upon the
knowledge and authority of PIA. However, prison officials continued to
restrict his access to computer or clerical work positions, although they
did remove the disciplinary record from his prison file. The trial court
held no evidence existed to-support the work restriction nor any
indication the Prisoner improperly used his PIA computer, and ordered the
ban lifted that categorically restricted his work assignments and awarded
pay. The appellate court affirmed the order as to the work ban, but
reversed the award of back pay because such relief should not be extended
under the "Great Writ" of habeas corpus. See: In re Willard, 2001 WL. 1600
764 (Cal. App. 2 Dist. 2001).
Restriction, But not to Award Back Pay
California's Second District Court of Appeals held a habeas corpus
petition is the proper remedy for a prisoner to challenge restrictions
placed on prison employment, but held that back pay cannot be awarded as
relief on such a petition, A California prisoner, who worked for Prison
Industries Authority (PIA) as a computer programmer, was accused of
violating prison regulations regarding computer use. He was infracted with
disciplinary sanctions, placed in confinement, and denied pay for his
work. Ultimately, prison officials determined the charges were without
merit, he was an exemplary worker- who made all computer usage upon the
knowledge and authority of PIA. However, prison officials continued to
restrict his access to computer or clerical work positions, although they
did remove the disciplinary record from his prison file. The trial court
held no evidence existed to-support the work restriction nor any
indication the Prisoner improperly used his PIA computer, and ordered the
ban lifted that categorically restricted his work assignments and awarded
pay. The appellate court affirmed the order as to the work ban, but
reversed the award of back pay because such relief should not be extended
under the "Great Writ" of habeas corpus. See: In re Willard, 2001 WL. 1600
764 (Cal. App. 2 Dist. 2001).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
In re Willard
| Year | 2001 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 2001 WL. 1600 764 (Cal. App. 2 Dist. 2001) |
| Level | State Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |