*Margo Schlanger, Inmate Litigation, 116 Harv. L. Rev. 1555 (2003) *Technical Appendix *Most recently revised April 19, 2003 *D:\TechnicalAppendix\Footnotes syntax.sps *C. OTHER ITEMS FROM THE ARTICLE *1. notes 3, 4 & 5: Inmate cases’ portion of filings and trials in 1995 *2. notes 58 & 60: Inmate litigation rates per 1000 prisoners, * state by state and over time *3. note 87: State-by-state and year-by-year prison population * See A.3, supra. *4. note 127: Correlation between success rates at trial and pretrial, * 2000 terminations by case category *5. note 135: More on the relation between compensatory * and punitive damages, inmate cases terminated in 1993 *6. notes 155, 157, 169, 207: Counseled rates in inmate cases terminated 2000. * notes 155 & 157: Rates by district, and audit * note 169: Relation of counseled rate to total caseload by district, * inmate case proportion); * note 207 (trial case counseled rate) *7. Text accompanying note 211 & note 302: Outcomes in inmate civil rights * cases, 1993 terminations *8. note 217: Weighted inmate filings in 1995, 2000 *9. notes 279 & 281: Habeas trends by year and by month *10. note 293: Trials by year, 1990-2001 *11. note 296: Trends in disposition time, 1987-2001. *12. note 355: Proportion of prisons and jails under court order *13. note 363: Size of jails and prisons in 1999/2000 *14. note 403: Number and description of city jails *15. note 444: Inmate civil rights trials before judges and juries *16. note 492: Districts not in PACER and their percentage of terminations in 2000 *17. Data Appendix, section B.3: Federal vs. nonfederal inmates *1. notes 3, 4 & 5: Inmate cases' portion of filings and trials in 1995 *** TEXT: In 1995, inmates filed nearly 40,000 new federal civil *** lawsuits[note 3] — nineteen percent of the federal civil docket.[note 4] *** About fifteen percent of the federal civil trials held that year were in *** inmate civil rights cases. [note 5] *** FN 5: More precisely, of trials in federal nonhabeas civil cases “ terminated” *** in 1995, fifteen percent were in inmate civil rights cases. The figure remains *** consistent whether the set of trials includes only cases whose recorded judgments *** are trial verdicts, or any case ended by any procedural means during or after a *** trial. Schlanger, Technical Appendix, supra note 3. SET TVARS = labels. SET TNUMBERS = labels. GET FILE='D:\TechnicalAppendix\1995all.sav' COMPUTE trial1 = 0. COMPUTE trial2 = 0. COMPUTE trial3 = 0. IF proced87 >=6 & proced87 <=9 trial1 = 1. IF disp87 >=7 & disp87 <=9 trial2 = 1. IF trial1=1 & trial2 = 1 trial3 = 1. Variable lables trial1 "trial, according to procedural progress code" trial2 "trial, according to disposition code" trial3 "trial according to both disposition and procedural progress codes" . RECODE source (0=0) (-8=0) (7=1) (1 thru 2=1) (3 thru 6=2) (8 thru 12=2) INTO orig_sum . VARIABLE LABELS orig_sum 'Origin summary'. VALUE LABELS orig_sum 0 "Missing" 1 "New (or mag. appeal)" 2 "Reopened or transferred" / trial1 trial2 trial3 1 "Yes" 0 "No" . COMPUTE nos2 = 0. IF nos > 499 & nos < 601 nos2 = 1. IF nos = 550 | nos = 555 nos2 = 2. VALUE LABELS nos2 0 "non-prisoner case (0)" 1 "habeas etc. (1)" 2 "Inmate civil rights (2)". VARIABLE LABEL nos2 "Nature of suit summary". MISSING VALUE nos2(1) orig_sum(2). CROSSTABS /TABLES=nos2 BY orig_sum trial1 trial2 trial3 /FORMAT= AVALUE TABLES /CELLS= COUNT column. . *2. notes 58 & 60: Inmate litigation rates per 1000 prisoners, * state by state and over time *** TEXT: In 1993, Iowa had the highest state rate: nonfederal inmates *** there filed lawsuits at a rate of over eighty cases per 1000 inmates. *** Massachusetts and North Dakota had the lowest: nonfederal inmates *** there filed only three or four petitions per 1000 inmates. . . . Not *** only do the rates vary by state, but the trends do as well. GET FILE='D:\TechnicalAppendix\population_and_filings.sav'. *** 1993 figures: USE ALL. COMPUTE filter_$=(year = 1993). VARIABLE LABEL filter_$ 'year = 1993 (FILTER)'. VALUE LABELS filter_$ 0 'Not Selected' 1 'Selected'. FORMAT filter_$ (f1.0). FILTER BY filter_$. COMPUTE st_incar = sum(jail, prison). COMPUTE st_rt = 1000*statefi /st_incar. FORMATS st_incar (F8.0). SORT CASES BY st_rt (A). SUMMARIZE /TABLES=state st_incar st_rt /FORMAT=LIST NOCASENUM TOTAL /TITLE='Case Summaries' /MISSING=VARIABLE /CELLS=COUNT . *** TRENDS GET FILE='D:\TechnicalAppendix\population_and_filings.sav'. COMPUTE stpri_rt = 1000*statefi /prison. VARIABLE LABLES stpri_rt "Filing rate, state prisoners" . MATCH FILES FILE = * /KEEP state st_name year stpri_rt. TEMPORARY. Set tnumbers = values. SUMMARIZE /TABLES=state st_name year stpri_rt /FORMAT=LIST NOCASENUM TOTAL /TITLE='Case Summaries' /MISSING=VARIABLE /CELLS=COUNT . SET TVARS = labels. SET TNUMBERS = labels. *** To look at this most easily, export into excel *** Prepare for export: RENAME VARIABLE stpri_rt = rt. SORT CASES BY state year . CASESTOVARS /ID = state /INDEX = year. SAVE OUTFILE='D:\TechnicalAppendix\prison filing rates.sav' /COMPRESSED. *** The excel chart is at D:\TechnicalAppendix\state prisoner filing rates.xls. *3. note 87: State-by-state and year-by-year prison population. * See A.3, supra. *4. note 127: Correlation between success rates at trial and pretrial, * 2000 terminations by case category *** FN 127: Note, however, that Ted Eisenberg argues that case categories *** in the federal docket demonstrate a strong correlation between non-trial *** success rates and success rates at trial. Eisenberg’s results suggest that *** while there is no necessary theoretical connection between results at trial *** and a docket’s underlying merits, the two nonetheless tend to move in tandem. *** See Eisenberg, Plaintiff Success Rates, supra note 15, at 113–14; Theodore *** Eisenberg, Negotiation, Lawyering, and Adjudication: Kritzer on Brokers and *** Deals, 19 L. & SOC. INQUIRY 275, 292–99 (1994). I have essentially replicated *** Eisenberg’s results using federal district court cases terminated in fiscal year *** 2000, finding a highly significant correlation between non-trial and trial *** success rates, though I use a classification protocol somewhat different from *** Eisenberg’s. (For my results, see Schlanger, Technical Appendix, supra note 3). GET FILE='D:\TechnicalAppendix\2000all.sav'. *** CREATE SUMMARY VARIABLE FOR NON-TRIAL SUCCESS AND SUCCESS AT TRIAL RECODE outctot (1=0) (2,6,7=1) into nontrial. RECODE outctot (8, 13, 14=0) (9, 11, 15 = 1) into trial. *** AGGREGATE BY "Nature of suit" AGGREGATE /OUTFILE='D:\temp\AGGR.SAV' /BREAK=nos /nontrial = NU(nontrial) /trial = NU(trial) /nontri_p = SUM(nontrial) /trial_p = SUM(trial). GET FILE='D:\temp\AGGR.SAV'. NUMERIC trial_pr notri_pr (F8.4). COMPUTE trial_pr = trial_p/trial. COMPUTE notri_pr = nontri_p/nontrial. VARIABLE LABLES trial_pr "Plaintiffs' trial win rate" notri_pr "Plaintiffs' success without trial" . CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=trial_pr notri_pr /PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE . *5. note 135: More on the relation between compensatory and punitive damages, * inmate cases terminated in 1993 *** FN 135: If the spread of the data is reduced by using the natural logarithms, *** visual inspection seems to indicate at least some relationship between the *** size of compensatory awards and the size of punitive awards. After the log *** transformations, the Pearson’s correlation coefficient is 0.83, with an *** extremely high degree of significance (p < 0.001). However, if no log *** transformation is performed, the degree of correlation as well as its *** significance is less: the coefficient is reduced to 0.36, and the p-value *** increases to 0.09. If the several cases with punitive awards and one-dollar *** compensatory awards are excluded, the log-transformed results do not change *** importantly — the coefficient, now 0.731, remains highly significant. Leaving *** out the one-dollar cases makes the untransformed results insignificant. GET FILE='D:\TechnicalAppendix\1993auditpost.sav'. FILTER OFF. USE ALL. SELECT IF(amt.cor > 0 & disp.cor ~=5 & disp.cor ~=13 & V25 > 0). EXECUTE . COMPUTE pun.use = punitive. IF punitive < 0 pun.use = 0. COMPUTE comp = amt.cor - pun.use. EXECUTE . VARIABLE LABELS pun.use "Punitive award" amt.cor "Total award" comp "Compensatory award" . MISSING VALUE pun.use(0). compute compln = ln(comp). compute punln = ln(pun.use). VARIABLE LABELS compln "natural log compensatory" punln "natural log punitive" . *** CORRELATIONS WITH ALL VALUES CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=comp pun.use /PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE . CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=compln punln /PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE . *** CORRELATIONS WITHOUT THE $1 or $0 compensatory awards missing values comp (1) pun.use (0). CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=comp pun.use /PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE . CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=compln punln /PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE . *** NOTE: There is a typo in the coefficient in the article: it should be .791, not .731. *6. notes 155, 157, 169, 207: Counseled rates in inmate cases terminated 2000. * Notes 155 & 157 (rates by district, and audit); * note 169 (relation of counseled rate to total caseload by district, * inmate case proportion); * note 207 (trial case counseled rate) GET FILE='D:\TechnicalAppendix\2000all.sav'. *** PRO SE SUMMARY NUMERIC prosesum (F1.0). COMPUTE prosesum = 0. RECODE prose (2=0) (3=1) (ELSE=Copy) INTO Prosesum . VARIABLE LABELS Prosesum 'Pro se status summary'. IF jurisd = 1 prosesum = 0. IF jurisd = 1 & (prose = 2 | prose = 3) prosesum = 1. IF jurisd = 2 & prose = 2 prosesum = 0. VALUE LABELS prosesum -9 "data not collected this tapeyear (1970-97) (-9)" -8 "missing (-8)" 0 "Counseled plaintiff (0)" 1 "Pro se plaintiff (1)" . VARIABLE LABEL outsum "Outcome summary". *** FN 207: In 2000, the first year with reliable data on the presence of counsel, *** see supra note 152, eighty-five percent of inmate cases terminated by a trial *** verdict were litigated pro se. See Schlanger, Technical Appendix, supra note 3. USE ALL. COMPUTE filter_$=(nos = 550 | nos = 555). VARIABLE LABEL filter_$ 'nos = 550 | nos = 555 (FILTER)'. VALUE LABELS filter_$ 0 'Not Selected' 1 'Selected'. FORMAT filter_$ (f1.0). FILTER BY filter_$. CROSSTABS /TABLES=outsum BY prosesum /FORMAT= AVALUE TABLES /CELLS= ROW. *** FNS 155, 157, 169: *** FN 169 needs an aggregate, and the others are more easily done this way as well FILTER OFF. USE ALL. NUMERIC prosem inmate inmate_a inmate_p inmate_m (F1.0). COMPUTE prosem = 0. IF prosesum = -8 prosem = 1. RECODE prosesum (-8 = SYSMIS). COMPUTE inmate = 0. COMPUTE inmate_a = 0. COMPUTE inmate_p = 0. COMPUTE inmate_m = 0. IF nos = 550 | nos = 555 inmate = 1. IF nos >= 500 & nos < 600 inmate_a = 1. IF inmate = 1 & prosesum = 1 inmate_p = 1. IF inmate = 1 & prosem = 1 inmate_m = 1. Variable labels prosem "Pro se code missing" inmate "Inmate civil rights case" inmate_a "Inmate case (includes habeas)" inmate_p "Pro se inmate civil rights case" inmate_m "Inmate civil rights case missing pro se data" . AGGREGATE /OUTFILE='D:/aggr.sav' /BREAK=distnum /prose_y = SUM(prosesum) /prosem = SUM(prosem) /inmate = SUM(inmate) /inmate_a = SUM(inmate_a) /inmate_p = SUM(inmate_p) /inmate_m = SUM(inmate_m) /prose_yn = NU(prosesum) /cases = NU(inmate) . GET FILE='D:\AGGR.SAV'. Variable labels prosem "Pro se code missing" inmate "Inmate civil rights cases" inmate_a "Inmate case (includes habeas)" inmate_p "Pro se inmate civil rights case" inmate_m "Inmate civil rights case missing pro se data" prose_y "Pro se plaintiff" prose_yn "Pro se code non-missing" cases "All cases" . APPLY DICTIONARY FROM 'D:\TechnicalAppendix\2000all.sav' /SOURCE VARIABLES = distnum /TARGET VARIABLES = distnum . COMPUTE p_im_rt = inmate_p/inmate. COMPUTE m_im_rt = inmate_m/inmate. COMPUTE c_im_rt = 1-p_im_rt - m_im_rt. COMPUTE im_rt = inmate/cases. COMPUTE im_a_rt = inmate_a/cases. VARIABLE LABELS p_im_rt "Pro se rate, inmate civil rights cases" m_im_rt "Missing pro se rate, inmate civil rights cases" c_im_rt "Counseled rate, inmate civil rights cases" im_rt "Inmate civil rights proportion of entire docket" im_a_rt "All inmate cases (including habeas) proportion of docket". SORT CASES BY c_im_rt. FILTER OFF. USE ALL. SELECT IF(distnum < 93). EXECUTE . RANK VARIABLES=c_im_rt (A) /RANK /PERCENT /PRINT=NO /TIES=LOW . RENAME VARIABLES (rc_im_rt = c_rank) (pc_im_rt = c_perc). VARIABLE LABELS c_rank "inmate civil rights cases, counseled rate, district rank" c_perc "inmate civil rights cases, counseled rate, district rank by percent" . FORMATS c_rank (F3.0) inmate(F6.0). *** TEXT: As Table II.D sets out, inmate civil rights plaintiffs are coded *** in the Administrative Office dataset as unrepresented by counsel in over *** ninety-five percent of their cases terminated in 2000. [SEE TABLE II.D] *** The counseled rates in the inmate docket varied a good deal by district, *** from zero to twelve percent.155 *** FN 155: Districts varied pretty evenly from a counseled rate of 0–1% *** (in the bottom 15% of districts) to 10–12% (near the top of the range). *** The top seven districts had purported counseled rates that were *** discontinuous with the rest of the distribution, ranging from 17.5% to *** 100%. A partial audit of docket sheets from these districts indicated *** that these outlying rates were at least in large part erroneously reported, *** but because only a few cases are affected, I have left them in the table in *** the text. Schlanger, Technical Appendix, supra note 3. *** FN 157: In their study of civil rights cases terminated in sixteen *** districts in 1992, Hanson and Daley report rates similar to the ones *** I found in 2000 — four percent overall. See HANSON & DALEY, REPORT ON *** SECTION 1983 LITIGATION, supra note 14, at 21. But the districts in *** Hanson and Daley's study currently show a significantly lower rate of *** representation — just three percent. See Schlanger, Technical Appendix, *** supra note 3. Similarly, though far more removed in time, Schwab and *** Eisenberg's data from docket reviews of inmate cases filed in the *** Central District of California, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, *** and the Northern District of Georgia in fiscal year 1981 demonstrate a *** very steep fall-off in the counseled rate. Schwab and Eisenberg reported *** a counseled rate of 8.2%, 32.4%, and 11.3%, respectively. Schwab & *** Eisenberg, Explaining Constitutional Tort Litigation, supra note 15, *** at 773 tbl.XI. The rates in the same districts in cases terminated in *** 2000 were 1.9%, 1.5%, and 1.7%. Schlanger, Technical Appendix, supra note 3. *** The scarce data that exist, then, support the hypothesis that counseled rates *** have declined over time. TEMPORARY. VARIABLE LABLE distnum "District". SUMMARIZE /TABLES=distnum inmate c_im_rt c_rank c_perc /FORMAT=LIST NOCASENUM TOTAL /TITLE='Case Summaries' /MISSING=VARIABLE /CELLS=COUNT . *** FN 169: More generally, while the Administrative Office pro se variable *** distinguishes only between counseled and uncounseled plaintiffs and does *** not code whether counsel was appointed or not, it is interesting to note *** that the overall rate of representation by district in inmate civil rights *** cases, in 2000 at least, decreased as both the number of total cases *** terminated and the inmate proportion of those cases increased. Schlanger, *** Technical Appendix, supra note 3. *** SEE THE FIRST LINE OF THE OUTPUT THAT FOLLOWS. NOTE THAT THE RESULTS ARE NOT *** ALL HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT. CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=c_im_rt inmate cases im_rt /PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE . *7. Text accompanying note 211: Outcomes in inmate civil rights cases, 1993 terminations *** TEXT: Of course, there are also settlements. Because these are far more numerous *** — in 1993, there were about 1950 judgments coded as settlements and another *** 2350 coded as voluntary dismissals — they certainly add up to far more money. *** FN 302: . . . [I]n 1993[,] some 1950 [inmate cases] settled and another *** 2350 were voluntarily dismissed. GET FILE='D:\TechnicalAppendix\InmateCases1970_2001.sav'. USE ALL. COMPUTE filter_$=(nos2 = 1 & trfiscal = 1993 & seqsum3 = 1). VARIABLE LABEL filter_$ nos2 = 1 & trfiscal = 1993 & seqsum3 = 1 (FILTER)'. VALUE LABELS filter_$ 0 'Not Selected' 1 'Selected'. FORMAT filter_$ (f1.0). FILTER BY filter_$. VARIABLE LABEL outsum "Outcome summary". CROSSTABS /TABLES=outsum BY trfiscal /FORMAT= AVALUE TABLES /CELLS= COUNT . *8. note 217: Weighted inmate filings in 1995, 2000 *** SEE TABLE I.A: Multiply non-federal defendant cases by .28; *** federal defendant cases by .48 *9. notes 279 & 281 and accompanying text: Habeas trends by year and by month *** It’s certainly true that, for both state and federal prisoners, *** federal habeas actions have increased enormously from mid-1996 on. *** The number of habeas petitions filed in federal district *** court by state inmates has grown by fifty percent (from about *** 12,800 in 1995 to 19,100 in 2001), even though the state prison population *** has increased by only twenty percent over the same time period. *** Federal inmates’ habeas filings under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 have more than *** doubled. [FN 279] *** FN 279: Prior to 2001, however, federal inmates’ motions to vacate sentence *** under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 did not increase in number except for a very large *** filings spike in April 1997, discussed infra note 281. *** FN 281: For example, it stands to reason that the “use it or lose it” rule *** in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), under which *** § 2254 habeas petitions by state inmates, and their federal-inmate analogues, *** § 2255 motions to vacate sentence, must be filed within one year of conviction, *** see 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(d)(1), 2255 (Supp. V 2000), would encourage filings that *** under the prior regime would never have been made. Inmates who find themselves *** facing a deadline may simply be unwilling to forgo forever their one chance *** for collateral review. Indeed, this effect seems likely to be some part of *** the cause of a transitional spike observed in habeas filings by state inmates *** and motions to vacate sentence by federal inmates, after courts “grandfathered” *** in the AEDPA deadline by setting it at one year after the statute’s effective *** date for cases concluded prior to passage — that is, in April 1997. See, e.g., *** United States v. Cicero, 214 F. 3d 199, 202 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (citing unanimous *** precedent on this point). That month saw over 3700 habeas filings by state inmates, *** about triple the typical monthly filing rate. The effect was even more marked in *** federal motions to vacate sentence — well over 4000 were filed, about seven times *** the typical monthly filing rate. Schlanger, Technical Appendix, supra note 3. *** Confidence in the existence of a “use-it-or-lose-it” effect is undercut, however, *** by the fact that an increase in AEDPA-regulated filings has materialized only *** on the state side — although habeas petitions by state inmates skyrocketed, *** motions by federal inmates to vacate sentence did not. Id. *** HABEAS TRENDS GET FILE='D:\TechnicalAppendix\InmateCases1970_2001.sav'. COMPUTE omo = XDATE.MONTH(origfi). COMPUTE oyear = XDATE.YEAR(origfi). COMPUTE origmo = DATE.MOYR(omo,oyear). FORMATS origmo(MOYR8). USE ALL. COMPUTE filter_$=(seqsum = 0 & origfy > 1994 & origfy < 1999). VARIABLE LABEL filter_$ 'seqsum = 0 & origfy > 1994 & origfy < 1999 (FILTER)'. VALUE LABELS filter_$ 0 'Not Selected' 1 'Selected'. FORMAT filter_$ (f1.0). FILTER BY filter_$. CROSSTABS /TABLES=origmo BY nos BY ussum /FORMAT= AVALUE TABLES /CELLS= COUNT . *10. Text accompanying note 293: Trials by year, 1990-2001 *** TEXT: Filings are down about forty percent — but trials are down *** fifty per-cent, from about 1000 per year in 1994, 1995, and 1996 to *** fewer than 500 in 2001. GET FILE='D:\TechnicalAppendix\InmateCases1970_2001.sav'. USE ALL. COMPUTE filter_$=(trfiscal > 1986). VARIABLE LABEL filter_$ trfiscal > 1986 (FILTER)'. VALUE LABELS filter_$ 0 'Not Selected' 1 'Selected'. FORMAT filter_$ (f1.0). FILTER BY filter_$. COMPUTE trial1 = 0. COMPUTE trial2 = 0. COMPUTE trial3 = 0. IF proced87 >=6 & proced87 <=9 trial1 = 1. IF disp87 >=7 & disp87 <=9 trial2 = 1. IF trial1=1 & trial2 = 1 trial3 = 1. VARIABLE LABELS trial1 "trial, according to procedural progress code" trial2 "trial, according to disposition code" trial3 "trial according to both disposition and procedural progress codes" . VALUE LABLES trial1 trial2 trial3 1 "Yes" 0 "No". FORMATS trial1 trial2 trial3 (F1.0). SUMMARIZE /TABLES=trial1 trial2 trial3 BY trfiscal /FORMAT=NOLIST TOTAL /TITLE='Case Summaries' /MISSING=VARIABLE /CELLS=SUM . *11. Note 296: Trends in disposition time, 1987-2001. *** TEXT: Indeed, whether or not as a result of the PLRA, courts are now *** processing the reduced caseload somewhat more quickly than before. *** For example, whereas it took 153 days for federal district courts to *** dispose of fifty percent of the inmate civil rights cases filed in 1995, *** they reached the same disposition level of 1999 cases in thirty-four *** fewer days. [FN 296] *** FN 296: Schlanger, Technical Appendix, supra note 3. It is not clear that *** the speed-up in the more complex half of the docket stems from the PLRA, *** for two reasons. First, the trend seems to have started in the early 1990s, *** though it clearly has continued in recent years. Second, since 1997, the *** noninmate docket, too, has shown some limited acceleration in resolution *** of the more complex half of the docket. It is easier to be certain that *** the slow-down in resolution of the less complex half of the docket is indeed *** PLRA-related because it peaked in 1997, the first year in which all filed *** inmate cases were affected, and because no analogous trend is apparent in *** either the habeas or the noninmate docket. GET FILE='D:\TechnicalAppendix\InmateCases1970_2001.sav'. *** Filter out all but only/final appearance of cases, Also leave out *** cases from 2000 on, because pending cases complicate analyis. The pending *** cases in 1999 make the upper percentiles displayed in that year untrustworthy. USE ALL. COMPUTE filter_$=(seq_revn = 1 & origfy > 1990 & origfy < 2000). VARIABLE LABEL filter_$ 'seq_revn = 1 & origfy > 1990 & origfy < 2000 (FILTER)'. VALUE LABELS filter_$ 0 'Not Selected' 1 'Selected'. FORMAT filter_$ (f1.0). FILTER BY filter_$. EXAMINE VARIABLES= mindisp BY nos2 BY origfy /PERCENTILES(10,15,20,25, 30,35,40, 45, 50) HAVERAGE /STATISTICS = None /PLOT = None /MISSING LISTWISE /NOTOTAL. EXAMINE VARIABLES= mindisp BY nos2 BY origfy /PERCENTILES(60,70,75, 80,90, 95) HAVERAGE /STATISTICS = None /PLOT = None /MISSING LISTWISE /NOTOTAL. *** THE TOTAL DOCKET INFORMATION IS DONE IN STATA, NOT SPSS. THE STATA LOG FOLLOWS. *** The dataset used, which includes all cases terminated by federal district courts *** since 1970, was compiled by Ted Eisenberg from the same AO data that make up *** the inmate dataset used in this article. It is mammoth, and not posted here. [INSERT LOG] *12. note 355: Proportion of prisons and jails under court order * TEXT: For a large number of prison and jail systems, the basic deterrent * impact of litigation has been the specific deterrence of a court order, * reached by litigation or negotiation, and enforceable by contempt or * other judicial action if need be. [FN 355] *** FN 355: At last count, the Bureau of Justice Statistics censuses report *** that such orders govern 23% of the nation’s state prisons (housing 39% *** of state inmates) and 13% of the nation’s local jails (housing 31% of *** jail inmates). These figures are derived from BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, *** U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, CENSUS OF STATE AND FEDERAL ADULT CORRECTIONAL *** FACILITIES, 2000 (forthcoming; data kindly provided by the Bureau of Justice *** Statistics) [hereinafter BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, 2000 PRISON CENSUS]; *** BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, 1999 JAIL CENSUS, supra note 82. For the code *** yielding the figures presented, see Schlanger, Technical Appendix, supra note 3. *** PRISONS GET FILE='D:\TechnicalAppendix\CorrectionalCensuses\Prison2000.sav'. *** NOTE: This data file is not publically available. TEMPORARY. VARIABLE LABLE count_0 "Inmate count, midyear 2000" ordsm_0 "Any court order" . SUMMARIZE /TABLES=count_0 BY ordsm_0 /FORMAT=NOLIST TOTAL /TITLE='Case Summaries' /MISSING=VARIABLE /CELLS=COUNT SUM NPCT SPCT . *** JAILS GET FILE='D:\TechnicalAppendix\CorrectionalCensuses\Jail1983-1999.sav'. TEMPORARY. VARIABLE LABLE count_99 "Inmate count, midyear 1999" ordsm_99 "Any court order" . SUMMARIZE /TABLES=count_99 BY ordsm_99 /FORMAT=NOLIST TOTAL /TITLE='Case Summaries' /MISSING=VARIABLE /CELLS=COUNT SUM NPCT SPCT . *13. note 363: Size of jails and prisons in 1999/2000 *** FN 363: Of the approximately 3000 jail jurisdictions in 1999 (which, *** combined, housed over 600,000 inmates on an average day), more than *** two-thirds had an average daily population of fewer than 100 inmates. GET FILE='D:\TechnicalAppendix\CorrectionalCensuses\Jail1983-1999.sav'. EXAMINE VARIABLES= adp_99 /PERCENTILES(20,40,50,60, 68, 69, 70, 80, 90) HAVERAGE /STATISTICS = None /PLOT = None /MISSING LISTWISE /NOTOTAL. *** FN 363, continued: If it takes about 1000 inmates to justify employment *** of one lawyer in a correctional system, see supra p. 1625, it is telling *** that more than half of jail inmates in 1999 were housed in a jail system *** that typically held fewer. *** NUMBER OF FACILITIES AND INMATES, TOTAL SUMMARIZE /TABLES=adp_99 /FORMAT=NOLIST NOCASENUM TOTAL /TITLE='Case Summaries' /MISSING=VARIABLE /CELLS=COUNT SUM . *** GENERATE VARIABLES FOR: *** TOTAL NUMBER OF INMATES IN FACILITIES UP TO EACH SIZE (adpsum99) *** TOTAL NUMBER OF INMATES IN ALL FACILITIES (total_99) *** PERCENTAGE OF ALL INMATES IN FACILITIES UP TO EACH SIZE (per_99) NUMERIC adpsum99 (F10.0). SORT CASES BY adp_99. IF (MISSING(adp_99) = 0 & missing(lag(adp_99))) adpsum99 = adp_99. IF MISSING(adpsum99) adpsum99 = adp_99 + lag(adpsum99). SORT CASES BY adpsum99 (D). IF $casenum = 1 total_99 = adpsum99. IF MISSING(total_99) total_99 = lag(total_99). SORT CASES BY adp_99. IF (MISSING(adp_99) = 0 & missing(lag(adp_99))) per_99 = adp_99/total_99. IF MISSING(per_99) per_99 = adp_99/total_99 + lag(per_99). SORT CASES BY adp_99 (D). FORMAT adp_99 (F6.0). *** PERCENTAGE OF INMATES IN FACILITIES OF EACH SIZE OR SMALLER TEMPORARY. VARIABLE LABLES adp_99 "Average daily population, 1999" per_99 "Percentage of all jail inmates in facilities of this size or smaller" . FORMATS count_99 adp_99 (F8.0). SUMMARIZE /TABLES=adp_99 per_99 /FORMAT=VALIDLIST NOCASENUM TOTAL /TITLE='Case Summaries' /MISSING=VARIABLE /CELLS=COUNT SUM . *** FN 363, continued: About half as many state prisons held about twice as many *** people, and their population distribution was much more even. So fewer *** than one-third of prison inmates in 2000 were housed in prisons holding fewer *** than 1000 inmates. GET FILE='D:\TechnicalAppendix\CorrectionalCensuses\Prison2000.sav'. *** NOTE: Again, this data file is not publically available. *** NUMBER OF FACILITIES AND INMATES, TOTAL formats adp_0 (f7.0). SUMMARIZE /TABLES=adp_0 /FORMAT=NOLIST NOCASENUM TOTAL /TITLE='Case Summaries' /MISSING=VARIABLE /CELLS=COUNT SUM . EXAMINE VARIABLES= adp_0 /PERCENTILES(10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90) HAVERAGE /STATISTICS = None /PLOT = None /MISSING LISTWISE /NOTOTAL. *14. note 403: Number and description of city jails *** FN 403: City jails, which accounted for eleven [8] percent of the nation’s *** jails and housed eight percent of the nation’s jail inmates in 1999, answer *** to city mayors, sometimes via a city chief of police. GET FILE='D:\TechnicalAppendix\CorrectionalCensuses\Jail1983-1999.sav'. *** NOTE: THE TEXT ABOVE IS CORRECT, but it is corrected from the *** printed version, which instead used the bracketed figure. *** FIRST CREATE A VARIABLE FOR "City jail" (muni_99) *** Then adjust from the coding in v1b_99; *** Some self-evidently county facilities are coded as *** city facilities. RECODE v1b_99 (2 = 1) (else = 0) into muni_99. If id99 = 5203800100600 muni_99 = 0. /* SAN FRANCISCO CITY & COUNTY . If id99 = 11202900100601 muni_99 = 0. /* CLARKE COUNTY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION . If id99 = 11202900100620 muni_99 = 0. /* CLARKE COUNTY JAIL . If id99 = 11210600200602 muni_99 = 0. /* MUSCOGEE COUNTY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION . If id99 = 11210600200610 muni_99 = 0. /* MUSCOGEE COUNTY JAIL . If id99 = 11212100100600 muni_99 = 0. /* AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY . If id99 = 11212100100602 muni_99 = 0. /* RICHMOND COUNTY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION . If id99 = 15204900800601 muni_99 = 0. /* MARION COUNTY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS CENTER . If id99 = 15204900800610 muni_99 = 0. /* MARION COUNTY JAIL . If id99 = 16209701100620 muni_99 = 0. /* WOODBURY COUNTY JAIL . If id99 = 17210500300610 muni_99 = 0. /* WYANDOTTE COUNTY JAIL . If id99 = 18203400100601 muni_99 = 0. /* LEXINGTON-FAYETTE COUNTY JAIL DETENTION DIV . If id99 = 19202800400610 muni_99 = 0. /* LAFAYETTE PARISH JAIL . If id99 = 19203600100610 muni_99 = 0. /* NEW ORLEANS PARISH PRISON SYSTEM . If id99 = 21200400100600 muni_99 = 0. /* BALTIMORE CITY . If id99 = 22201300100600 muni_99 = 0. /* SUFFOLK COUNTY . If id99 = 27201200100610 muni_99 = 0. /* ANACONDA-DEER LODGE COUNTY JAIL . If id99 = 27204700100610 muni_99 = 0. /* BUTTE-SILVER BOW COUNTY JAIL . If id99 = 42201500500610 muni_99 = 0. /* CODINGTON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER . If id99 = 43206400100610 muni_99 = 0. /* MOORE COUNTY JAIL . If id99 = 51202200200610 muni_99 = 0. /* WASHAKIE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER . *** "N" indicates number of facilities; "Sum" indicates total population SUMMARIZE /TABLES=count_99 BY muni_99 /FORMAT=NOLIST TOTAL /TITLE='Jails by Type: Number of Facilities and Number of Inmate' /MISSING=VARIABLE /CELLS=COUNT SUM NPCT SPCT . *** FN 403 continued: These are nearly all quite small facilities — *** eighty-five percent of them have an average daily population under 100. USE ALL. COMPUTE filter_$=(muni_99 = 1). VARIABLE LABEL filter_$ 'muni_99 = 1 (FILTER)'. VALUE LABELS filter_$ 0 'Not Selected' 1 'Selected'. FORMAT filter_$ (f1.0). FILTER BY filter_$. EXAMINE VARIABLES=count_99 /PLOT NONE /PERCENTILES(25,50,75,80,85,86) HAVERAGE /STATISTICS NONE /MISSING LISTWISE /NOTOTAL. *** On any given day, forty percent [nearly half] the population housed *** in city jails nationally is in the enormous systems in New York City *** and Philadelphia. BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, 1999 JAIL CENSUS, *** supra note 82 (analysis included in Schlanger, Technical Appendix, *** supra note 3). *** AGAIN, the text above corrects for a (now-bracketed) mistake in the printed version. *** GENERATE VARIABLES FOR: *** TOTAL NUMBER OF CITY JAIL INMATES IN FACILITIES OF EACH SIZE OR LESS (ctsum99) *** TOTAL NUMBER OF INMATES IN ALL CITY FACILITIES (cityc_99) *** PERCENTAGE OF ALL CITY JAIL INMATES IN FACILITIES OF EACH SIZE OR LESS (cper_99) NUMERIC ctsum99 (F10.0). SORT CASES BY muni_99 (D) count_99 (D). IF $casenum = 1 ctsum99 = count_99. IF $casenum > 1 ctsum99 = count_99 + lag(ctsum99). SORT CASES BY muni_99 (D) count_99 (A). IF $casenum = 1 cityc_99 = ctsum99. IF $casenum > 1 cityc_99 = lag(cityc_99). COMPUTE cper_99 = ctsum99/cityc_99. DO IF (muni_99 = 0) . RECODE ctsum99 cityc_99 cper_99 (ELSE=SYSMIS) . END IF . SORT CASES BY muni_99 (D) count_99 (D). *** PERCENTAGE OF INMATES IN FACILITIES OF EACH SIZE OR SMALLER TEMPORARY. VARIABLE LABLES count_99 "Inmate daily count, midyear 1999" cper_99 "Percentage of all city jail inmates in facilities of this size or larger" . FORMATS count_99 adp_99 (F8.0). SUMMARIZE /TABLES=facility count_99 cper_99 /FORMAT=VALIDLIST NOCASENUM TOTAL /TITLE='Jails by Type: Number of Facilities and Number of Inmate' /MISSING=VARIABLE /CELLS=COUNT . *15. note 444: Inmate civil rights trials before judges and juries *** FN 444: Note, however, that a significant percentage of inmate litigation *** trials occur before judges. See Schlanger, Technical Appendix, supra note 3. GET FILE='D:\TechnicalAppendix\InmateCases1970_2001.sav'. MISSING VALUE trialsum (0). MISSING VALUE nos2 (0). CROSSTABS /TABLES=trfiscal BY trialsum BY nos2 /FORMAT= AVALUE TABLES /CELLS= COUNT ROW. *16. note 492: Districts not in PACER and their percentage of terminations in 2000 *** FN 492: The PACER website lists all districts as participants except: Southern *** District of New York, District of Alaska, District of Idaho, District of Montana, *** District of New Mexico, Eastern District of Oklahoma, District of the Northern *** Mariana Islands, District for the Virgin Islands. See id. These districts see *** only six percent of the federal district court docket. See Schlanger, Technical *** Appendix, supra note 3. *** % of all cases WITHOUT HABEAS GET FILE='D:\TechnicalAppendix\2000all.sav'. *** Southern District of New York (8), *** District of Alaska (7.8), *** District of Idaho (76), *** District of Montana (77), *** District of New Mexico (84), *** Eastern District of Oklahoma (86), *** District of the Northern Mariana Islands (94), *** District for the Virgin Islands (91). COMPUTE PACER = 1. RECODE distnum (8, 7.8, 76, 77, 84, 86, 94, 91= 0) into PACER. *** FILTER OUT HABEAS ETC. BY CODING THOSE Nature of Suits as missing RECODE nos (510 thru 540 = SYSMIS) into PACER. FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=pacer /ORDER= ANALYSIS . *17. Data Appendix, section B.3: Federal vs. nonfederal inmates *** Each year there are thousands upon thousands of cases *** in the inmate civil rights docket classified as federal question *** cases (that is, as nonfederal defendant cases) that are, quite to the *** contrary, filed against federal defendants. To try to get a more accurate *** count, I wrote code to do the following: First, I listed all the entries in *** the “ defendant” field for all cases actually coded as “ federal defendant” *** cases. Then I went through them, one by one, and categorized them *** as “ certainly federal” and “ ambiguous.” For example, I classified the *** defendant field “ U.S. Attorney General” as the former, but the defen-dant *** “ Attorney General” as the latter. I was very conservative in this *** classification, not wanting to inflate my federal defendant count with *** nonfederal cases. Next, I wrote code to flag cases coded as “ federal *** question” if their defendant field was identical to one of the several *** hundred I had labeled “ certainly federal.” This operation flagged quite *** a few habeas cases, adding less than 1% to the federal inmate habeas *** docket each year in the early 1970s; 1– 3% each year from 1976 to *** 1985; and 3– 9% (6% on average) each year from 1986 to present. The *** effect was far greater for civil rights cases. The recoding increased the *** federal defendant inmate civil rights docket tally by 1– 4% each year in *** the early seventies, by 4– 8% from 1976 to 1985, and by 16– 34% (25% *** on average) from 1986 to the present. *** THE CODE TO CREATE THE VARIABLE USnew is included in the section of this *** technical appendix creating the overall file. *** The code below produces the analysis of how much this new variable contributes GET FILE='D:\TechnicalAppendix\InmateCases1970_2001.sav'. USE ALL. COMPUTE filter_$=(seqsum = 0). VARIABLE LABEL filter_$ 'seqsum = 0 (FILTER)'. VALUE LABELS filter_$ 0 'Not Selected' 1 'Selected'. FORMAT filter_$ (f1.0). FILTER BY filter_$. RECODE jurisum (0 = 2) (1 = 0) into usnew2. RECODE USNEW (1, 2 = 1) into usnew2. VALUE LABELS USNEW2 2 "non-US defendant" 0 "AO coded federal defendant" 1 "Newly coded federal defendant". MISSING VALUE usnew2 (2). AGGREGATE /OUTFILE='D:\TechnicalAppendix\New_and_old_fed.sav' /BREAK=origfy nos2 /allfed = NU(usnew2) /Newfed = SUM(usnew2). GET FILE='D:\TechnicalAppendix\New_and_old_fed.sav'. FILTER OFF. USE ALL. SELECT IF(origfy > 1969). RECODE newfed (SYSMIS = 0) . COMPUTE oldfed = allfed-newfed. COMPUTE nper = newfed/oldfed*100. FORMATS oldfed newfed (F6.0) nper (pct7.1). EXECUTE. SORT CASES BY origfy. CASESTOVARS /ID = origfy /GROUPBY = INDEX . RENAME VARIABLES (allfed.1 = allfed_h) (oldfed.1 = oldfed_h) (newfed.1 = newfed_h) (nper.1 = nper_h) (allfed.2 = allfed_c) (oldfed.2 = oldfed_c) (newfed.2 = newfed_c) (nper.2 = nper_c). VARIABLE LABLES allfed_h "AO + new federal, habeas" oldfed_h "AO federal, habeas" newfed_h "Newly coded as federal, habeas" nper_h "% added to AO federal cases, habeas" allfed_c "AO + new federal, civil rights" oldfed_c "AO federal, civil rights" newfed_c "Newly coded as federal, civil rights" nper_c "% added to AO federal cases, civil rights" . MATCH FILES FILE = * /DROP nos2.1 nos2.2. SAVE OUTFILE='D:\TechnicalAppendix\New_and_old_fed.sav' /COMPRESSED. SUMMARIZE /TABLES=origfy newfed_h oldfed_h nper_h newfed_c oldfed_c nper_c /FORMAT=LIST NOCASENUM TOTAL /TITLE='Case Summaries' /MISSING=VARIABLE /CELLS=COUNT . *** TO GET THE AVERAGES, NEED EITHER TO AGGREGATE FURTHER, OR FLIP THE FILE. FLIP. COMPUTE average = mean(var017 to var032). USE ALL. COMPUTE filter_$=(case_lbl = "NPER_H" | case_lbl = "NPER_C"). VARIABLE LABEL filter_$ 'case_lbl = "NPER_H" | case_lbl = "NPER_C" (FILTER)'. VALUE LABELS filter_$ 0 'Not Selected' 1 'Selected'. FORMAT filter_$ (f1.0). FILTER BY filter_$. VARIABLE LABELS case_lbl "Type of action" . TEMPORARY. VARIABLE LABELS average "Average percentage added by recode, 1986-2001". VALUE LABLES case_lbl "NPER_H" "collateral criminal review" "NPER_C" "inmate civil rights" . FORMATS average (pct7.1). SUMMARIZE /TABLES=case_lbl average /FORMAT=LIST NOCASENUM TOTAL /TITLE='Case Summaries' /MISSING=VARIABLE /CELLS=COUNT .