In Re Harrell
Opinion
Opinion
Sullivan, J.
Hulen T. Harrell, Melvin Carlos McKinney and Howard Neu Ingram, Jr., are prison inmates in the lawful custody of the Department of Corrections—Harrell .and Ingram at San Quentin Prison and McKinney at Folsom Prison. By separate petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, prepared in propria persona, they complain of limitations placed by prison regulations and authorities upon their rights to give and receive mutual legal assistance, to have personal access to the courts, and to receive and have books and other printed materials. “The writ of habeas corpus may be sought by one lawfully in custody for the purpose of vindicating rights to which he is entitled even in confinement. (In re Riddle (1962) 57 Cal.2d 848, 851 [ 22 Cal.Rptr. 472 , 372 P.2d 304 ], and cases cited.)” (In re Allison (1967) 66 Cal.2d 282, 285 [ 57 Cal.Rptr. 593 , 425 P.2d 193 ].) We issued individual orders to show cause and appointed separate counsel for each petitioner. Petitioner McKinney has discharged his appointed counsel and appears in propria persona. Since all three cases present common'issues, we consider them together.