Zab v. Rhode Island Dep’t of Corrections

RI CONST. Art. I, § 5 (“Every person within this state ought to find a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries or wrongs which may be received in one’s person, property, or character. Every person ought to obtain right and justice freely, and without purchase, completely and without denial; promptly and without delay; conformably to the laws.”)

Two plaintiffs serving life in prison sought to recover damages for severe injuries incurred in Rhode Island state prison. The superior court held that plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the states “civil death statute,” which provides that “[e]very person imprisoned in the adult correctional institutions for life shall, with respect to all rights of property, to the bond of matrimony and to all civil rights and relations of any nature whatsoever, be deemed to be dead in all respects[.]” On appeal, the state supreme court considered the constitutionality of this statute in light of state constitutional rights to access courts and legal remedies.

The entirety of Rhode Island’s civil death statute is unconstitutional and in clear contravention of the provisions of article 1, section 5 of the Rhode Island Constitution, because “the right of access to the courts is a fundamental right guaranteed by the state constitution.”

Previously, Rhode Island courts construed the civil death statute to declare “‘that a person … who is serving a life sentence, is deemed civilly dead and thus does not possess most commonly recognized civil rights[,]’ including the ability to assert civil actions,” but had not considered its constitutionality. Article I, Section 5 of the Rhode Island Constitution provides a right to access the courts and legal remedies, providing, in part, that “every person within this state ought to find a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries or wrongs which may be received in one’s person, property, or character.” This right’s purpose, the state supreme court had said, is to “forbid[] the total denial of access to the courts for the adjudication of a recognized claim.”

Given this state constitutional right, the court found first that the civil death state, “in completely eliminating access to the courts,” infringes on “an expressly enumerated constitutional right.” It therefore reviewed the statute under “strict scrutiny,” demanding that it be “narrowly drawn” to serve “a compelling government interest.” The state’s only purported purpose was to impose “an additional sanction … upon some of the state’s worst criminals,” thus furthering “the goals of punishment and deterrence.” The court rejected that as a “compelling” state interest and found that, in any case, the civil death statute is not narrowly drawn to serve that purpose, given that it “implicates the rights of every person imprisoned … for life, without distinguishing between those prisoners sentenced to life with the possibility of parole as contrasted with those prisoners sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.”

The court concluded: “The civil death statute deprives those persons imprisoned at the ACI for life of their right to bring civil actions in our state courts. It is clear to us that the right infringed upon by the civil death statute is the right to seek redress for any type of injury or complaint, thereby unconstitutionally denying the plaintiffs the very right to gain access to the courts.”