THE POSITION THAT PRISONERS WERE WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WAS OVERTURNED BY A 1963 DECISION BY A U.S. DISTRICT COURT WHICH HELD THAT INMATES DID NOT LOSE ALL THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS, AND THAT THEY COULD BRING SUIT UNDER 42 U.S.C. SEC. 1983 IF DEPRIVED OF THEIR RIGHTS (REDDING V. PATE, 220 F. SUPP. 124). IN ADDITION, INMATES CAN BRING SUIT AGAINST CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS UNDER MANY INDIVIDUAL STATE CONSTITUTIONS AND STATE STATUTES. HOWEVER, MOST INMATES BRING FEDERAL SUITS BECAUSE INMATES ASSUME THAT FEDERAL COURTS ARE MORE SOLICITOUS OF PRISONER WELFARE. CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS ARE LIABLE UNDER SECTION 1983 IF THE OFFICER DEPRIVES A PRISONER OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, PRIVILEGE, OR IMMUNITY, AND IF THE OFFICER ACTED UNDER 'COLOR OF LAW' (MISUSE OF POWER), POSSESSED BY VIRTUE OF STATE LAW AND MADE POSSIBLE ONLY BECAUSE THE ACTOR IS CLOTHED WITH THE AUTHORITY OF STATE LAW. SPECIFIC RIGHTS OF INMATES INCLUDE PROTECTION AGAINST CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT (DENIAL OF MEDICAL CARE) AND SUCH FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AS THE RIGHT TO WORSHIP AND HAVE ACCESS TO COURTS. ALSO, STATE AND FEDERAL COURT DECISIONS HAVE HELD THAT INMATES ARE ENTITLED TO PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS IN DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS. SUGGESTIONS ARE MADE AS TO HOW CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS CAN ENSURE PROTECTION OF SUCH RIGHTS, SINCE, WITH PRISONERS' RIGHTS ATTORNEYS WILL BE FORCED TO FOCUS LAWSUITS ON NONIMMUNE CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS BECAUSE HIGHER RANKING OFFICIALS ARE BEING GRANTED IMMUNITY. A BIBLIOGRAPHY IS INCLUDED.