In Re Roark

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 853·48 Cal. App. 4th 1946·56 Cal. Rptr. 2d 582·96 Daily Journal DAR 11062·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6801
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 10, 1996G017444California4,565 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wallin, J.

Alan Frank Roark and his attorney, Charles L. Lindner, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, contending Roark had been unlawfully deprived of a contact visit with Lindner due to the Department of Corrections’ improper requirement that Lindner remove and possibly disassemble his artificial leg as a condition for the visit. This court denied the petition, and Roark sought review in the Supreme Court. By order of the Supreme Court, we issued an order to show cause, returnable before the Superior Court for Imperial County. That court granted the petition, and ordered the department to afford Lindner contact visits with Roark, subject to a close visual inspection of the leg while it is attached. The department appeals, contending it acted within its discretion by requiring removal and physical inspection of the leg. We affirm.

Roark retained Lindner to handle the appeal of his criminal case, and Lindner notified Centinela State Prison he wished to have a contact visit with Roark. Francisco Jacquez of the prison staff told Lindner that to gain admission to the prison, Lindner would be required to remove his artificial leg and it would be subject to disassembly. Lindner told…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.