This case considers at length the rights of prisoners, and examines the issue of denial of benefits from Inmate Welfare Funds to Death Row inmates. The ACLU represented a Death Row inmate at San Quentin prison named John G. Davenport, who represented others similarly situated. This was also a taxpayer lawsuit objecting to the misuse of public money in California prisons. Milton Estes, M.D. stepped forward as a named taxpayer. The suit was brought against the warden of San Quentin, Daniel B. Vasquez, as well as aginst James Rowland, then-Director of the California Department of Corrections. This case, which was lengthy and including assistance from legal scholars such as Eric Neisser - then, a Visiting Assistant Professor of Law at Stanford University. He wrote "After a preliminary investigation of the matter, including meeting with a number of men on the Row, I have concluded that the operation of the Fund with regard to condemned prisoners is a serious problem and a violation of both their statutory and constitutional rights."

The case examines the different treatment of Death Row inmates from other inmates, in particular the fact that, though (like all prisoners) they contribute to the fund, they are denied many of the benefits given to others, such as library privileges and group movie screenings, as well as possible work in the canteen, hobby shop, and banquet jobs (which would earn them money that they would then be denied). Neisser points to an usual exception regarding the sale of inmate art work, which he notes are one of the only ways that a Death Row inmate can make money. He argued that the prison should either allow Death Row inmates access to the Fund, or stop taking money from them.

The prison enacted many obstructionist tactics over the course of the case, undoubtedly in the hope that the prisoners in question would be executed before the case was resolved. However, the case brought a great deal of attention and media-driven scrutiny to the issue of prisoners' rights and of prison expenditures in general. For example, it was found that a Fresno prison had used money from the Inmate Welfare Fund to purchase paints and supplies for the prison - a clear and unequivocal violation of the rights of the prisoners at that institution. As usual here is the issue of prisoner rehabilitation, the supposed purpose of all prisons.

Nevertheless in a "Proposed Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues and Granting Defendants' Cross-Motion For Summary Adjudication," the court writes: "...the Court finds that no material facts are in dispute and that the surcharges imposed upon the condemned inmates at San Quentin are valid, and do not violate Penal Code section 5006 or the equal protection and due process clauses of the United States Constitution."