NCJ Number
116714
Journal
American Criminal Law Review Volume: 26 Issue: 2 Dated: (Fall 1988) Pages: 491-511
Date Published
1988
Length
21 pages
Annotation
This article discusses basic policy and constitutional arguments for limiting the powers of special masters in prison reform litigation.
Abstract
Prison inmates in almost every State in the country have brought suit in Federal court against prison administrators, challenging the conditions of their confinement. In many recent prison reform cases, courts have issued remedial decrees ordering reforms and appointed special masters to oversee the process of implementation. The roles of special masters in prison cases vary depending upon the needs of the case and the discretion of the judge. Two of the cases, Ruiz v. Estelle, 503 F.Supp. 1265 (S.D. Texas 1980), and Toussaint v. McCarthy, 597 F.Supp. 1388 (N.D. Cal. 1984), are discussed to illustrate the characteristics of complex prison reform cases in which special masters are employed to implement court orders. In litigation concerning the constitutional rights of inmates, courts must maintain a delicate balance between protecting the individual rights of imprisoned citizens and leaving the administration of State prisons to the State agencies created to operate them. Masters tend to expand judicial power by being able to spend unlimited time on a particular case, and by not being subject to the constraints of the formal execution of judicial action. A special master is in a position to mediate and dominate negotiations concerning many of the details of prison administration. The Master also has the discretion to extend the duration of the mastership until the defendants agree to a plan that is approved. 98 footnotes.