A MEMO DATED FEBRUARY 27, 1978, AND SIGNED BY THE ASSOCIATE WARDEN FOR SECURITY AT ANGOLA, STATED THAT 'ALL INMATES MUST BE HANDCUFFED WITH RESTRAINING BELT AND LEG IRONS UNLESS PERMISSION GRANTED OTHERWISE BY THE WARDEN.' PRIOR TO THAT MEMO, THE USE OF RESTRAINTS DEPENDED ON THE PRISONER BEING TRANSPORTED, THE TRANSPORTING OFFICER, AND THE OFFICIALS AUTHORIZING THE TRIP. THE SHACKLES HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO ALL PRISONERS, INCLUDING THOSE WITH TRUSTEE STATUS, COUNSEL-SUBSTITUTES, AND THOSE WITH SERIOUS MEDICAL PROBLEMS. THE FEDERAL PRISON SYSTEM HAS WRITTEN POLICIES REGULATING THE USE OF RESTRAINTS. THESE REQUIRE HANDCUFFS AND RESTRAINT CHAINS WHEN TRANSPORTING FROM ONE INSTITUTION TO ANOTHER, WITH THE USE OF LEG IRONS LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE TRANSPORTING OFFICER. WHEN TRANSPORTING PRISONERS OUT OF THE PRISON COMMUNITY, TRANSPORTERS SHOULD USE THE CUSTODY STATUS TO DECIDE ON USE OF RESTRAINTS. THE INDISCRIMINATE USE OF SHACKLES AT ANGOLA IS DEHUMANIZING, DEGRADING, MOST OFTEN UNNECESSARY. IT IS ALSO POTENTIALLY HARMFUL, ESPECIALLY WHEN SHACKLED PRISONERS ARE PUT IN HOLDING CELLS WITH UNSHACKLED INMATES FROM OTHER PRISONS. THE SPAIN V. PROCEINIER DECISION IN CALIFORNIA WAS THE FIRST TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OF EXCESSIVE AND UNNECESSARY USE OF MECHANICAL RESTRAINTS. THE DECISION HELD THAT THE PARTICULAR USE OF THOSE RESTRAINTS UNDER CONSIDERATION MAY CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT. THE DECISION SERVE AS AN EXAMPLE FROM WHICH TO REVISE THE PRESENT SYSTEM IN FORCE AT ANGOLA AND ELSEWHERE. (TAG)