The Newsletter of North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services, Inc.

NCPLS

Volume VIII, Issue 1, March 2008

ACCESS

NCPLS OPPOSES PAY PHONE SERVICE PROVIDERS’
REQUEST FOR RATE INCREASE
In December 2007, three
pay phone services providers that operate in North
Carolina correctional facilities petitioned the State
Utilities Commission for
an increase in the rates they
are permitted to charge for
prisoner-initiated phone
calls. In the Matter of Pay
Tel Communications, Inc.,
Evercom Systems, Inc.,
and T- Netix Telecommunications Services, Inc.:
Request for Waiver of Rule
13-9(d) of the Rules of the North
Carolina Utilities Commission,
P100, sub 84 (December 27, 2007).
According to the pay phone service
providers (Petitioners), North Carolina Utilities Commission Regulations limit the cost of charges that
may be billed for local calls to rates
that are on average lower than 45
other states. The Petitioners contend that special costs associated
with the provision of telephone
services in a correctional setting
and the cost of doing business
since the existing regulations were
implemented 20 years ago have
vastly increased their expenses and
threaten their capacity to continue
to provide such services.
Among the special considerations
and features Petitioners enumerate
as an inherent cost of providing
telephone services in a correctional

including call completion
(which one may assume
is the basis for billing any
customer), call time-limits,
installation and expansion of the phone system,
[consultation with respect
to] new facility construction, and internal database
screening/number blocking/
fraud digit detection to
prevent secondary dial tone
(3-way call detection), all
automated functions.

setting are: the capacity of the
equipment to continuously record
and preserve conversations (which (Continued on Page 4)
they claim encompasses “[f]ulltime, full-channel recording and
In this Issue:
archiving of conversations;”
NCPLS Opposes Pay Phone Service
“[r]eal-time monitoring of inmate
Providers’ Request for Rate Increase
conversations;” “[f]lag[ing] calls
for alerts to monitor conversations
NCBA “4All Campaign”
in real time;” “[p]layback of inmate
conversations;” and “[m]onitor[ing] NCPLS Sponsors Meeting of Citizens
United for the Rehabilitation of
calls by PIN, phone number, or cell
Errants (CURE)
block.”)
But this component of costs presents six iterations of the requirements prerequisite to the operation
of a pay-phone system in a correctional setting. And though the
equipment must provide these
capabilities, the actual functions
are [or should be] performed by
correctional personnel.
Petitioners also list what should be
considered ordinary business costs,

1
2

5

North Carolina Department of Correction
Seeks ACA Accreditation
6
The Second Chance Act of 2007:
A Congressional Response to the
Re-Entry Crisis

7

NCCU Law School Students Won
Regional Competition

9

“The State of Sentencing” A New
Study Reports the Need for Reform

10

Filing a Lawsuit on Your Own:
Petitions for Uncontested Divorce

11

NCPLS ACCESS

Page 2
ACCESS is a publication of North
Carolina Prisoner Legal Services,
Inc. Established in 1978, NCPLS is a
non-profit, public service organization.
The program is governed by a Board of
Directors who are designated by
various organizations and institutions,
including the North Carolina Bar
Association, the North Carolina
Association of Black Lawyers, the
North Carolina Association of Women
Attorneys, and law school deans at
UNC, Duke, NCCU, Wake Forest and
Campbell.
NCPLS serves a population of more
than 38,600 prisoners and 14,000 pretrial
detainees (with about 250,000 annual
admissions), providing information,
advice, and representation in all State and
federal courts to ensure humane conditions of confinement and to challenge
illegal convictions and sentences.
Board of Directors
President Dean Ronald S. Douglas
Vice-President Prof. Johnny Crisco
Treasurer Paul Meggett, Esq.
Jim Blackburn
Prof. J. Bryan Boyd
James A. Crouch, Esq.
Arnita M. Dula, Esq.
Dean B. Keith Faulkner
Barry Nakell, Esq.
Susan Olive, Esq.
Gary Presnell, Esq.
Fred Williams, Esq.
Prof. Ronald F. Wright
Interim Director
Michael S. Hamden, Esq.
Editor
Patricia Sanders, CLA
Please Note: ACCESS is published
four (4) times a year.
Articles, ideas
and suggestions are welcome.
Contact: tsanders@ncpls.org

Volume VIII, Issue 1, March 2008

NCBA “4ALL CAMPAIGN”
The North Carolina Bar Association (NCBA) is an organization that
has been voluntarily joined by
more than 13,500 lawyers and legal
assistants who are dedicated to
serving the public and the legal
profession by promoting the
administration of justice and
encouraging the highest standards
of integrity, competence, civility
and well-being of all members of
the profession.
Attorney Janet Ward Black, who
was recently installed as the President of the NCBA, has focused the
attention and energy of the entire
organization on that part of the
pledge of allegiance that declares
we are “one nation, living under
God, with liberty and justice for
all.” Thus, she has initiated the
“4All Campaign” in an effort to
bring our society and the citizens of
North Carolina closer to fulfilling
our commitment to providing
equal justice to our people, without
regard to status or financial standing.
The 4All Campaign is comprised
of four components: (1) Educate
lawyers and others about the legal
needs of people of modest means
and those who are living in poverty; (2) Legislate – working in

partnership with officials of the
Executive branch and legislators
to pass laws and take action to
address such problems in a systematic, comprehensive fashion; (3)
Donate – The NCBA is strongly
encouraging each of its members to
make financial contributions to this
effort, and will be undertaking
other activities to raise funds to
ensure that all North Carolinians
have equal access to justice, including those who cannot afford a
lawyer; and (4) Participate – The
NCBA has set a date for a statewide, coordinated effort to provide
the public free consultation and
limited services from volunteer
lawyers.
Spearheaded by NCPLS Staff
Attorneys April Giancola and Ken
Butler, NCPLS will work in partnership with the NCBA’s Professionalism Committee to Participate
in the statewide day of service on
Saturday, April 5, at which volunteer legal professionals will offer
information, advice, and limited
assistance to formerly incarcerated
people and to organizations that
serve the formerly incarcerated
community.
Complete information appears on
page 3.

Volume VIII, Issue 1, March 2008

NCPLS ACCESS

Page 3

FREE LEGAL
INFORMATION
CLINIC
Sponsored by North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services, Inc., the North Carolina Bar Association’s
Justice 4All Campaign and Professionalism Committee

"I' ""~
~
1\-

SE EKII't GLIB ERT '( :l::

~U

~

ST 1C E

\

"""
~ ... 1\ ~~)

•

SATURDAY APRIL 5, 2008
10:00 AM – 2:00 PM
North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services, Inc.
1110 Wake Forest Road
Raleigh, NC
(Route 1 and 3 CAT Bus Lines)
(919) 856-2200
Free legal consultations about civil legal matters governed by N.C. law will be offered at this clinic for people
who have been formerly incarcerated and to organizations that serve the formerly incarcerated community.
Volunteers will provide important information about your legal situation or refer you to an agency or
organization that can provide the information you need. The volunteers will not offer to represent you, but if
you are eligible, you may be referred to one of the legal or social service agencies in the Raleigh area to seek
additional assistance and/or representation. Please understand that while we are anxious to assist you, we
cannot guarantee that you will obtain legal representation or a conclusive answer to your legal questions, but
we’ll do our best to help.
Please bring all of the documents concerning your legal problem to the Clinic
For additional information and assistance, please visit www.lawhelp.org/nc

Page 4

NCPLS ACCESS

Volume VIII, Issue 1, March 2008

RATE INCREASE
(CONTINUED)

(Continued from Page 1)

Costs listed under Client Support
include what amount to technical
support available by phone 24/7,
as well as training. These costs are
generally (and probably should be)
borne by the correctional facility or
agency. In most industries, the cost
of customer support, including
training and equipment operation
are expenses built into or are
options available as provided by
contract.

NCPLS brought to the attention
of the Commission that, for over
25 years, the American Bar Association (ABA) steadfastly has
maintained that any limitations
placed on “prisoners’ communications should be the least restrictive
necessary to serve the legitimate
interests of institutional order and
security and the protection of the
public.” ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Legal Status of Prisoners, Standard 23-6.1(a). ABA
The Petitioners also pointed out
Policy 113B encourages governthat other service providers have
ment at all levels to afford prison
been permitted to charge higher
and jail inmates reasonable opporrates for collect calls, and argued
tunities to maintain telephonic
fairness requires that similarly situ- communication with the free
ated parties be treated the same.
community, and to offer telephone
services in the correctional setting
On February 29, 2008, NCPLS
with an appropriate range of
was permitted to file comments in
options at the lowest possible rates.
opposition to the petition. NCPLS Essentially the same position is
opposed the petition, among other
taken by a number of correctional
reasons, because: (a) concerns of
associations, including the Amerifairness and equal treatment as
can Correctional Association. (The
among service providers are secResolution on Excessive Phone
ondary to those principles as they
Tarriffs (October 1996); Public
apply to the public they serve; (b)
Correctional Policy on Inmate/
inmate-initiated telephone calls are Juvenile Offender Access to Telenot presently available at affordable phone (ACA 2001) and related
rates as required by federal law;
standards (ACA 2002) (incorpo(c) under prevailing circumstances, rated into standards manuals for 11
the proposed rate is neither reason- types of correctional facilities).
able nor fair as required by federal
Independent studies coducted by
law; and (d) limiting inmate-initicriminal justice experts support the
ated calls to collect only, the most
same conclusion. See, for examexpensive means of placing a call,
ple, the report of the Vera Institute
adversely impacts the availability
of Justice-sponsored Commission
of reasonably affordable local
on Safety & Abuse In America’s
exchange service, as required by
Prisons, “Confronting ConfineRules of the North Carolina Utiliment,” pp. 36, 39, passim (June
ties Commission.
2006) (n. 7, p.6).

It is neither the special costs of
operating a phone system within a
correctional facility nor the costs
incurred in the ordinary cost of
doing business that result in excessively high rates. Rather it is the
extraordinarily high “commissions” that are paid to correctional
facilities or entire systems for the
exclusive right to operate such
systems that result in ever-escalating costs. These “commissions”
provide for the payment of up to
65% of revenue to facilities that
grant exclusive rights to telephone
service providers. For example,
Evercom Systems, Inc., a petitioner
in the present proceeding, provides exclusive services to almost
40,000 prisoners in custody of
the North Carolina Department of
Correction (DOC). According to
a response received to our inquiry,
the 2006 contract provided DOC
a commission of 55% of revenue.
These costs are, of course, borne
by the families and friends of the
prisoners. In addition, most of the
people who are incarcerated are
represented by government funded
lawyers who must either devote
limited resources to the payment
of exorbitant telephone charges
or decline to accept such calls. In
either case, these excessive rates
directly impact the quality of legal
services available to prisoners and
their access to the courts.
There is no legitimate reason that
the payment of such commissions
should be permitted. Neither is
there any legitimate purpose in
(Continued on Page 5)

Volume VIII, Issue 1, March 2008

NCPLS ACCESS

Page 5

RATE INCREASE
(CONTINUED)

(Continued from Page 4)

limiting calling options to collect,
only. One can imagine at least
five possible approaches to more
equitable telephone services for
inmates: (1) allowing inmates to
use a commercial calling card,
collect calling platforms (800COLLECT, 800-CALL-ATT), and
pre-paid calling cards; (2) allowing
inmates to direct-dial their calls
(with call-blocking in place); (3)
allowing inmates to place calls to
“personal” 800 numbers that are
billed to the called party; (4) allow-

ing competitive inmate calling
service providers to provide service
at the same facility simultaneously;
and (5) prohibiting the practice of
offering commissions for exclusive
service contracts. These alternatives, alone or in combination,
would provide meaningful and
lasting relief for the Petitioners. It
bears remembering that, after all,
these businesses and the people
who run them provide a service
that well serves correctional officials (who can use telephone privi-

leges as a control mechanism and
as an aid to rehabilitative efforts),
that is a comfort to prisoners, and
one that is a blessing to their families (but for the associated ruinous
costs).
However, increasing rates will
never resolve the legitimate business concerns of pay phone service
providers so long as correctional
facilities and systems continue to
command ridiculously high commissions.

NCPLS Sponsors Meeting of Citizens United
FOR THE REHABILITATION OF ERRANTS (CURE)
On January 10, 2008, NCPLS
sponsored an organizational meeting of a newly created chapter of
CURE (Citizens United for the
Rehabilitation of Errants). CURE
is a grassroots, membership organization of families of prisoners,
prisoners, former prisoners and
other concerned citizens. CURE’s
two goals are: (1) to advocate the
use of prisons only for those who
have to be in them, and (2) for
those who have to be in them, to
provide all the rehabilitative opportunities offenders need to turn their
lives around.

NC – CURE
610 Douglas Street, Suite A-201
Durham, NC 27705
(919) 416-88276
milton@miltoncjordansr.com

CURE’s co-founder, who also
serves as the Executive Director of
International CURE, Charlie Sullivan, was on hand to speak with
a group of some 30 people about
the organization of a state chapter
of CURE in North Carolina. NCCURE, as the group will be known,
will be headed by Milton C.
Jordan, Sr., who can be reached at:

Both CURE – National, and CURE
– International can be contacted at:
CURE
PO Box 2310
Washington, DC 20013
(202-789-2126)
cure@curenatinal.org
www.curenational.org

NCPLS ACCESS

Page 6

Volume VIII, Issue 1, March 2008

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION
SEEKS ACA ACCREDITATION
By: Michael G. Avery, Esq.

The American Correctional
Association
(ACA) is
a national,
private,
nonprofit,
multi-disciplinary organization of professionals representing all levels and
facets of corrections and criminal
justice. Among other activities,
ACA develops standards and
administers the only national
accreditation program for all types
of adult and juvenile correctional
and detention facilities. The purpose of accreditation is to encourage voluntary compliance with
professional standards that improve
safety and operational policies,
practices, and procedures that benefit correctional professionals and
offenders, alike.
The ACA Standards Committee
establishes and revises standards
governing corrections practices
and operations. The ACA Commission on Accreditation rules on
applications for ACA accreditation,
enforces operational standards
nationwide and accredits institutions that comply with those
standards. More than 1,500 correctional facilities and programs
throughout the U.S. and Canada are
involved in accreditation, a movement that began in correctional
circles in 1978. Approximately 80
percent of all state departments of
corrections and youth services are
active participants. Also included
are programs and facilities operated

by the Federal Bureau of Prisons,
the U.S. Parole Commission, and
the private sector (such as Corrections Corporation of America and
the Geo Group).
For these agencies, the accreditation program offers the opportunity
to evaluate their operations against
national standards, to remedy
deficiencies, and to upgrade the
quality of correctional programs
and services. The recognized benefits from such a process include
improved management, increased
accountability, enhanced credibility
for administrative and line staff
among the public, a safer and more
humane environment for personnel
and offenders, and the establishment of measurable criteria for
upgrading programs, personnel
practices, and the physical plant on
a continuous basis. It must also be
noted that accreditation can assist
correctional agencies in the defense
of lawsuits alleging unconstitutional policies, practices, or conditions of confinement through
documentation and the demonstration of a “good faith” effort to
comply with national standards.
We are pleased to report that the
North Carolina Department of
Correction (DOC) has embarked
upon the long and difficult process
of gaining accreditation at several
institutions. The process requires
a team approach that involves
administrative personnel, officers,
and prisoners, alike. (On average,
it takes a facility between 12 and
18 months to meet ACA standards,
even with technical assistance from

Standards & Accreditation Staff.)
The achievement of accreditation
often results in the development of
a strong sense of community and
shared pride in the operation of a
correctional facility.
We extend our congratulations to
the DOC’s Division of Prison’s
Central Office, which was awarded
accreditation in January 2008.
Currently, the DOC is in the process of seeking ACA accreditation
for additional facilities, including
those at Central Prison, Foothills,
Marion, Pasquotank, Scotland,
Lanesboro, Alexander, Bertie,
Maury, and the North Carolina
Correctional Institution for Women.
These facilities will likely be
audited in late spring/early summer
of this year.
Accreditation is an open process in
which the ACA actively seeks comments from prisoners, officers, and
the surrounding community.
Comments and concerns may be
directed to:
Standards & Accreditation Section
American Correctional Association
206 N. Washington St., Ste. 200
Alexandria, VA 22314
[Editor’s Note: NCPLS Interim
Director Michael Hamden served as
the American Bar Association’s liaison
to the ACA from 1998 to 2006. With
ACA, he served two, 4-year terms on
ACA’s Commission on Accreditation
for Corrections (elected as a member
of the Commission’s Executive Committee during a four-year period); and
for three, 2-year terms on the ACA’s
Standards Committee.]

Volume VIII, Issue 1, March 2008

NCPLS ACCESS

Page 7

THE SECOND CHANCE ACT OF 2007:
A CONGRESSIONAL RESPONSE TO EUHE RE-ENTRY CRISIS
By NCPLS Staff Attorney Ken Butler

On March 11, 2008, Congress passed H.R.1593,
“An Act to reauthorize
the grant program for
reentry of offenders into
the community in the
Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act of
1968, to improve reentry
planning and implementation, and for other purposes.” The short title of
the bill is “The Second
Chance Act of 2007.” At the time
of this writing, the act has gone to
President Bush for his signature,
and all indications are that he will
sign the act into law.
The Second Chance Act provides
funding for a number of measures
that are designed to address the
problems faced by ex-offenders
seeking to transition back into the
community. Congress made a
number of specific findings in the
Second Chance Act that point to
the severity of the re-entry problem
in this country. Among those findings are:
-- 650,000 people are released from
state and federal incarceration each
year.
-- Recent studies show that over
two-thirds of these individuals
are expected to be re-arrested for
a felony or serious misdemeanor
within three years from release.
-- According to Bureau of Justice
Statistics, expenditures on corrections alone rose from $ 9 billion

society. The Act specifically seeks to build
upon the state re-entry
programs that were initially developed under
the “Serious and Violent
Offender Re-entry Initiative (SVORI),” which
appropriated $139
million in funding to
develop and implement
re-entry and rehabilitation programs for seridollars in 1982 to $59.6 billion in
ous and violent offenders. While
2002. This does not include the
SVORI funding ended after fiscal
costs of arrest and prosecution, or
the financial costs to crime victims. year 2005, the Second Chance Act
will expand both the amount and
types of funding available for such
-- The number of children with a
programs. It authorizes $185 milparent in a federal or state correclion for fiscal year 2008, and again
tional facility more than doubled
in 2009 in grant funds for such
between 1991 and 1999.
programs. These are “matching”
grants, meaning that the organi-- 57% of federal and 70% of state
inmates used drugs regularly before zations that receive funds must
ordinarily come up with an amount
going to prison. BOJ Statistics
of money equal to the funding proestimates that as many as 84% of
offenders were using drugs or alco- vided by the federal government.
However, the Act does provide
hol around the time of the offense
that “in kind” contributions, such
that led to incarceration.
as existing physical assets, can
be used to calculate the value of
-- Less than 32% of state prison
inmates have a high school diploma “matching” funds raised by the
or higher education, compared with grantee organization.
82% of the general civilian populaAmong the types of programs elition.
gible for funding are:
-- 15-27% of released inmates end
1. Programs to Improve Existing
up going to homeless shelters.
Adult and Juvenile Re-entry Demonstration Projects.
A major function of the Second
Chance Act is to provide funding
for states and local governments, as
well as non-profit entities, to assist
(Continued on Page 8)
former prisoners in re-entering

Page 8

NCPLS ACCESS

Volume VIII, Issue 1, March 2008

THE SECOND CHANCE ACT OF 2007
(CONTINUED)

(Continued from Page 7)

• Providing educational, literacy,
vocational and job placement services, as well as substance abuse
treatment.
• Providing coordinated supervision and comprehensive services
upon release, including housing
and mental/physical health care.
2. Initiatives to Improve Existing
Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Programs for State Offenders.
• Residential substance abuse
treatment program is a course of
individual and group treatment services lasting for at least six months
in residential facilities set apart
from general population of a prison
or jail.
3. Re-entry Courts.
• Grants to state or local governments that have either established
such courts or are willing to establish such courts.
• Grant funds can be used to:
— Monitor offenders re-entering the community;
— Provide coordinated and
comprehensive re-entry services,
including drug and alcohol testing,
assessment, and treatment; and
— Provide and coordinate
delivery of community services to
offenders including: housing, education, job training, conflict resolution training, batterer intervention,
and other appropriate services.

4. Programs that Offer Prosecutors and Judges Drug Treatment
Alternatives to Prison Sentences.
• Grants to prosecutors to
develop drug treatment programs
as an alternative to imprisonment.

6. Programs that Evaluate and
Improve Educational Methods at
Prisons, Jails, and Juvenile Facilities.
• Includes grants to both public
and private entities.

• Offenders eligible for this
program must not have been convicted of or charged with crimes of
violence, crimes involving use or
possession of deadly weapons, or
the use of force.

• Evaluation of academic and
vocational training required.

5. Family-Based Substance Abuse
Treatment Programs.

7. Technology Career Training
Programs.

• Grants to develop family-based
treatment programs either as alternatives to prison for non-violent
parent drug offenders, or as prisonbased programs for incarcerated
parents of minor children.

• Establish technology career
training programs for offenders
during the 3-year period prior to
release.

• Prison alternative programs
include clinically appropriate,
comprehensive, and long-term
family treatment, including treatment of the non-violent parent drug
offender and any other appropriate
family member.
• Prison based programs will
integrate techniques to assess
strengths and needs of immediate
or extended family of the incarcerated parent to support a treatment
plan for the parent. Each participant is to have access to consistent
and uninterrupted care if transferred to different prisons. Programs must be located in an area
separate from the general prison
population.

• Identify and make recommendations to the Attorney General
regarding best practices.

8. Offender Re-entry Substance
Abuse and Criminal Justice Collaboration Programs.
• To improve provision of drug
treatment to offenders in prisons,
jails, and juvenile facilities, and
reduce the use of alcohol / drugs
by long-term substance abusers
during periods of confinement and
after completion of parole or court
supervision.
• Grants can be used for:
— Continuing and improving
existing programs.
— Develop and implement new
programs that include substance
abuse assessments, as well as coor(Continued on Page 9)

NCPLS ACCESS

Volume VIII Issue 1, March 2008

Page 9

THE SECOND CHANCE ACT OF 2007
(CONTINUED)

(Continued from Page 8)

dinated and continuous delivery of
drug treatment and case management services.
— Provide addiction support
services.
9. Mentoring Grants to Nonprofit
Organizations.
• Funds to be used for mentoring
offenders during incarceration,
through transition back to community, and after incarceration.
• Providing transitional services
to assist in reintegration of offenders into the community.
10. Initiatives to Ensure the
Responsible Reintegration of
Offenders.
• Grants may be made by the
Secretary of Labor to nonprofit
organizations to provide mentoring, job training and placement
services, and other, comprehensive
transitional services.

• Eligible Offenders include those
who:
— Are 18 or older;
— Were convicted as adult;
— Have no conviction for violent or sex-related offense;
— Have been released no more
than 180 days before beginning to
participate in such a program.
Of course, there is no guarantee
that any of these programs may
be available in a particular state or
locality. Not every type of program may be deemed suitable for a
particular state or locality, or there
may be no organizations or community members who are willing
and able to establish and operate
eligible initiatives.
In order to receive funding, a government entity or non-profit must
submit a grant application that
contains a detailed plan for setting
and meeting objectives, as well as a
plan for how the program might be
continued if federal money is not
renewed. The legislation provides

discretion for the U.S. Attorney
General to set priorities for awarding these grants.
The Second Chance Act is an
encouraging step toward addressing
what will be one of the most pressing social issues of the next decade
– the need to assist over six million
people transitioning out of prison
(at a rate of about 650,000 people
per year). Although it provides
additional funding for programs
to assist reentry efforts, far more
money and other resources will be
needed to adequately address this
challenge. However, given the
abject failure of the “lock-‘em up”
philosophy of recent decades and
the enormous societal and financial
costs of a recidivism rate of about
60%, it is to be hoped that the success of reentry programs will lead
to greater support and funding from
federal, state and local governments, investing in people rather
than building ever more prisons
and imposing increasingly harsh,
lengthy, and debilitating sentences.

NCCU LAW SCHOOL STUDENTS
WON REGIONAL COMPETITION
NCPLS has long enjoyed a close,
productive relationship with North
Carolina Central University
(NCCU) Law School. For
instance, our former Executive
Director, Marvin Sparrow, was
an honors graduate of that institution, and Law Professors Grady
Jessup, Adrienne Fox, Fred Williams, and Ronald Steven Douglas

have all served as members of our
Board of Directors. In fact, Professors Fox and Williams are former
Presidents of the Board, while the
Law School’s Assistant Dean for
the Day Program, Ronald Steven
Douglas presently serves as President of the Board.
Thus, we are pleased to report

that a team of NCCU law students, coached by NCPLS Board
Member and immediate past Board
President Fred Williams, won the
Region IV Client Counseling Competition. Students Brian Elston and
Corye Dunn (who placed third in
the nation last year) are to compete
in the nationals at White Plains,
New York this spring.

NCPLS ACCESS

Page 10

Volume VIII, Issue 1, March 2008

“THE STATE OF SENTENCING” A NEW STUDY
REPORTS THE NEED FOR REFORM
Decades of “tough on crime”
policies have had a dubious
impact on the incidence of
criminal activity, but the cost
of such policies portends
societal harms to people
and governmental services.
The escalating expense of
housing an ever-burgeoning prison population means
that essential governmental
expenditures (such as health
care and public education)
have been and must be
sharply curtailed or governmental revenue (taxes) must
increase dramatically.
A new report by Ryan S.
King, “The State of Sentencing
in 2007: Developments in Policy
and Practice” (2008), highlights
a number of important criminal justice policy developments
that occurred at the state level
during 2007. These developments
include:
• The creation of oversight committees or task forces to address
sentencing laws, prison overcrowding, indigent defense, and /or the
provision of reentry services;
• Limitations upon mandatory
sentencing enhancement provi-

800

The United States
incarcerates
more people
per 100,000
residents than
any other
country in the
World

sions, including substantial reform
proposals to mandatory sentencing
provisions for drug crimes;
• Repeal of the death penalty
(replaced with life in prison without the possibility of parole);
• Αmended parole policies and
enhanced reentry preparation;
• Reformed criminal justice policies pertaining to juveniles (including changing the age of majority
for the purposes of criminal sentencing and addressing clemency
practices for persons sentenced as

adults for crimes committed
as juveniles); and
• Modification of “Romeo
and Juliet” provisions of
sexual offense laws.

Ryan S. King, author of the
report, is a Policy Analyst
of The Sentencing Project.
Research assistance for the
report was provided by Abbey
Marshak. The Sentencing
Project is a national nonprofit organization engaged
in research and advocacy on
criminal justice policy issues.
The Sentencing Project works
for a fair and effective criminal justice system by promoting reforms in sentencing law and
practice and alternatives to incarceration. To these ends, it seeks to
recast the public debate on crime
and punishment.
For further information, or to
obtain a copy of the report, contact
the Sentencing Project:
The Sentencing Project
514 10th St. NW
Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20004
(202) 628-0871
www.sentencingproject.org

Volume VIII, Issue 1, March 2008

NCPLS ACCESS

Page 11

FILING A LAWSUIT ON YOUR OWN:
PETITIONS FOR UNCONTESTED DIVORCE
As many of you know, North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services, Inc.,
has limited resources so we are
unable to offer direct representation
in prisoner divorce cases, most of
which are uncontested and often
involve little or no marital property.
We do provide information and the
forms needed to file divorce actions
on your own (pro se). Providing
the necessary forms and detailed
instructions, we try to provide our
clients the ability to navigate the
district court system successfully,
and without unduly burdening the
courts.
Once in a while, we receive notice
that a clerk of court in some North
Carolina county has a policy that
prohibits prisoners from filing legal
actions on their own. Such policies are inconsistent with state and
federal constitutional guarantees,
statutes, and court decisions.
Under the law, every person has a
right to prosecute an action without
the assistance of counsel. Indeed,
the right is guaranteed by the Open
Courts Clause of the North Carolina Constitution (Article 1, Section 18), statutory law (Gen. Stat.
§1-11), and decisional law. See,
e.g., State v. Pritchard, 227 N.C.
168, 41 S.E. 2d 287 (1947). Moreover, the right to represent oneself
is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States (made applicable to
the states through the 14th Amendment). The right is also codified at
28 U.S.C. §1654, and reaffirmed
by decisions of the United States

Supreme Court. See, e.g., Faretta
v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975).
In short, the court ordinarily may
not prohibit or prevent a person
from filing a lawsuit of any kind,
even though the person is a prisoner or prefers to prosecute the
matter without benefit of counsel.
Indeed, North Carolina law
expressly allows for uncontested
divorces granted by the clerk of
court upon request of the petitioner.
Gen. Stat. § 50-10(e) states that
upon request of the plaintiff, the
clerk of superior court may enter
judgment for absolute divorce
when the defendant has defaulted
or “has answered admitting the
allegations of the complaint . . ..”
Although the word, “may,” appears
in the statute, it simply conditions
entry of judgment upon the clerk’s
determination that all statutory
prerequisites have been satisfied.
Once the clerk has made that
determination, the clerk is required
to enter judgment for absolute
divorce – a mandatory, ministerial
act. The clerk does not have the
discretion to choose not to enter
judgment.
In essence, G.S. §50-10(e) relieves
judges, court personnel, and all
participants in the process of superfluous paper work, the needless
expenditure of time, and unnecessary expense. It eliminates the
need for the issuance of writs of
habeas corpus ad testificandum,
the transportation and attendance of
the prisoner-plaintiff in such cases,
as well as the escort provided by

Department of Correction officers,
since disposition can be determined
as a matter of law in a judgment on
the pleadings by the Clerk. Indeed,
so well established is this procedure that the Administrative Office
of the Courts (AOC) has developed
a form to facilitate the process:
“Judgment for Absolute Divorce
Before the Clerk,” AOC-CV-710,
New [Form] 11/04, 2004 AOC. (A
copy of that form is contained in
our pro se divorce booklet.)
We also sometimes learn that a
court may require that actions be
filed on specific forms that the
court provides. But according to
the law, no particular form may be
required to initiate a lawsuit. See
Gen. Stat. §1A-1 Rule 8 General
Rules of Pleadings (“All that is
required is a short and plain statement of the claim sufficiently
particular to give the court and the
parties notice . . ..”).
Should you encounter any such difficulties, we suggest that you write
to the court expressing the view
that you have the right to file suit in
a form that satisfies the governing
law. It will be helpful if you do so
in respectful terms, and if you cite
the legal authorities referenced in
this article. If your letter does not
resolve the problem, please write
to NCPLS with a description of the
difficulty and copies of all related
documents. We believe such
matters can be promptly resolved
without the need for collateral litigation, but we will take such legal
action as may be required to protect
your rights.

THE NEWSLETTER OF NORTH CAROLINA
PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES, INC.
1110 Wake Forest Road
P.O. Box 25397
Raleigh, NC 27611
Phone: (919) 856-2200
Fax: (919) 856-2223
Email: tsanders@ncpls.org

Visit our website at:
http://www.ncpls.org