THE U.S. SUPREME COURT'S FAILURE TO CLARIFY ITS DECISION IN JOHNSON V. AVERY (1969) CONCERNING PRISONERS' COMMUNICATION WITH THE COURTS, AFFORDED THE LOWER COURTS WIDE DISCRETION IN HANDLING PRISONERS' LAWSUITS. A STUDY OF THE COURTS' USE OF THEIR DISCRETION INDICATES THAT MANY OF THE LOWER COURTS ARE LESS DEPENDENT ON THE U.S. SUPREME COURT THAN IS REALIZED. BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF COHESIVENESS WHICH CHARACTERIZED THE POST-JOHNSON LOWER FEDERAL AND STATE COURT DECISIONS IN PRISONERS' RIGHTS, THESE CASES DID NOT FOLLOW THE TRADITIONAL MODEL OF HIERARCHICAL CONTROL OF THE LOWER COURTS. JUDGES TENDED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF DIFFERENCES IN THE STRUCTURE AND PROCEDURES OF THE LOWER COURTS TO MODIFY OR EVADE THE INTENT OF SUPREME COURT DECISIONS IN THIS AREA. A MEASURE COMPOSED OF 18 LEGAL QUESTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED BY STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS SINCE THE JOHNSON DECISION WAS USED TO FACILITATE INTERCOURT COMPARISON, AND INDICATE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE DECISIONS. THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE DECISIONS OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS ARE ATTRIBUTED TO THE GREATER POLITICAL PRESSURES BROUGHT TO BEAR ON STATE COURT JUDGES. ALTHOUGH STATE COURT JUDGES ARE MORE SENSITIVE TO LOCAL INFLUENCES, THEY HAVE A GREATER CAPACITY TO BEND THE RULINGS OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT TO FIT LOCAL CUSTOMS AND ASPIRATIONS. THE MOST COMPELLING EXPLANATION FOR THE STATE-FEDERAL DIFFERENCES LIES IN THE SUPREME COURT'S INABILITY TO STATE ITS POSITIONS ON PRISONERS' RIGHTS IN AN UNEQUIVOCAL WAY. AN ANALYSIS OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL CASES, AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ARE PRESENTED. FOOTNOTES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY ARE PROVIDED. APPENDED MATERIAL INCLUDES THE QUESTIONS USED IN THE MEASUREMENT PROCESS. (TWK)