Prison Seeks to Terminate Pact on Death Row Treatment Rules

San Quentin prison is trying to end a 1980 agreement spelling out standards for treatment and housing of Death Row inmates, contending it can no longer comply because of constantly increasing numbers of condemned prisoners.

In a document filed in federal court here, Deputy Atty. Gen. John Donhoff, acting on behalf of the prison, called for an end to the agreement. His action was in response to a request by lawyers for the inmates that the state be held in contempt for violating terms of the bargain.

“They fired the first shot,” Donhoff said, calling the nine-year-old agreement “outdated” and “at worst a dangerous and extravagant interference with professional prison management.”

The contempt hearing will begin Tuesday in federal court and include testimony from prison officials and inmates. Donhoff said that the cost of complying with all terms of the agreement would be in the tens of millions of dollars.

“There is no intent on the part of anyone at San Quentin to violate anyone’s constitutional rights,” he said.

But he also maintained that San Quentin meets constitutional requirements for housing Death Row inmates and that since 1980, court rulings have made it clear that by complying with the agreement, the prison would be exceeding what is required by the law. The first inmates arrived on Death Row in 1978, after reinstatement of the death penalty in 1977.

Prison’s Position Explained

“Our position is that we cannot be burdened with spending a dime unless it is constitutionally required,” Donhoff said.

The state attorney general entered into the consent decree in 1980 to settle a suit brought the year before by the Prison Law Office, a prisoner rights law firm, on behalf of all Death Row inmates.

At the time, there were 40 condemned inmates, all of whom were housed on Death Row. Now, however, California’s Death Row has grown to become the third largest in the nation, with more than 225 condemned prisoners.

The original 68-cell Death Row was shut down last year because the building that housed it is being renovated. The $40-million rebuilding was undertaken in part because of other suits over conditions at San Quentin.

“The deal is still fully doable and they should be held to their bargain,” said Jeffrey D. Wohl, a private San Francisco attorney who is helping to argue the inmates’ case.

Wohl said the prison and other officials want out of the agreement “for political reasons.” He said they are concerned that they “would get into trouble with the public” if people thought condemned inmates were “being given anything.”

The suit is before U.S. District Judge Stanley A. Weigel, who appointed Robert Riggs, an attorney, to act as special master to monitor Death Row and preside over the hearings.

Riggs is expected to ask the prison to justify why inmates in their new cellblock are given less access to law books, cannot leave their cells to spend time on the tier, and are allowed fewer showers. Noise also is above acceptable standards, according to a report filed by Riggs.

Additionally, Riggs will be asking for explanations about why the prison has not provided a cover for the exercise yard or equipment such as weights, and why it does not allow condemned inmates to buy some items.

‘All They’ve Got’

“To someone not in prison, this may not seem like too big a deal,” Wohl said. “But to someone in prison, it is a very big deal because that’s all they’ve got.”

The state contends that if it provides much of what is written into the consent decree there would be security problems.

Death Row inmates may not have oil paints because the paint is flammable. Prison officials say dental floss and tooth powder in combination can be used as a saw, and weights have been used as weapons. And in the new cellblock, there isn’t enough space for inmates to be allowed to walk on the tiers, so they must spend more time in their cells, officials said.

“It is clear that the consent agreements entered into in one era by one administration can become outdated,” Donhoff said. “These were promises made back when there were fewer than 40 inmates.”

However, Sallyanne Campbell of the Prison Law Office said the agreement provides a relatively quick method for investigating allegations of improper treatment and housing. Without the consent decree in place, inmates would file more lawsuits to enforce minimum standards of treatment, she said.

“The reason people enter into consent decrees is so they don’t have to litigate,” she said.

Death Rows in other states are monitored by courts in a similar manner, but no court in California or elsewhere in recent years has thrown out a consent decree in a Death Row suit.