Click here for further information about all AELE Seminars.

---

 Search the Case Law Digest

     Some of the case digests do not have a link to the full opinion.

• Cases that have a Lexis citation can be retrieved, for a fee, at: http://web.lexis.com/xchange/forms/uas/catalog.asp
• Most Federal District Court opinions can be accessed via PACER. Registration required. Opinions are usually free; other documents are 8¢ per page.
• Access to cases linked to www.findlaw.com may require registration, which is free.

Access to Courts/Legal Info

     When the confiscation of a prisoner's legal materials was alleged to have hindered his ability to timely file a habeas corpus petition, the trial court erroneously dismissed the complaint and denied him leave to amend it, since he adequately stated a claim for deprivation of his Fourteenth Amendment due process right of access to the courts. Denney v. Nelson, No. 08-10391, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 101 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).

Disability Discrimination: Prisoner

     While a county jail inmate may not have a constitutional due process right to earn good-time credits, he could not be barred on the basis of disability, as he alleged, from correctional work programs that could earn such credits and reduce the length of his sentence. The prisoner stated a possibly viable claim for habeas relief under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Kogut v. Ashe, Civil Action No. 08-30124, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 106114 (D. Mass.).

DNA

     A federal prisoner was not relieved, on the basis of his religious freedom rights, of his obligation to comply with a valid and generally applicable neutral law, the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (DNA Act), 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 14135-14135e. He failed to show that the law required or prohibited conduct in violation of his religion or impeded his religious observance. He also failed to show that the government did not have a legitimate interest in collecting a DNA sample from him because he was a first-time offender and had been convicted of a non-violent crime. The court also rejected due process/equal protection, self-incrimination, and Fourth Amendment challenges to the statute. Kaemmerling v. Lappin, No. 07-5065, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 26507 (D.C.Cir.).

First Amendment

     Even if one of the correctional officials were found to have entrapped a prisoner into a disciplinary violation, as he claimed, there was no showing that this was done in retaliation for the prisoner's testimony in a federal class action lawsuit against the correctional facility. Summary judgment for the defendants was therefore appropriate in the prisoner's First Amendment lawsuit. Clark v. Johnston, Case No. 4:07 CV 941, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 101483 (N.D. Ohio).

     There was a lack of evidence that a prison employee who filed a disciplinary report against a prisoner had knowledge of his prior federal civil rights lawsuit, justifying summary judgment on the prisoner's retaliation claims. Bennett v. Goord, No. 06-3818, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 24441 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.).

Freedom of Information

     A news organization submitted a Freedom of Information Act request seeking information concerning alleged detainee abuse at the Guantanamo Navy Base in Cuba by military personnel or fellow detainees. A federal appeals court ruled that a privacy exemption to the Act barred the disclosure of the detainees' names and other identifying information, as well as the disclosure of the names and addresses of their family members. Associated Press v. U.S. Dept. of Defense, Docket No. 06-5352-cv, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 18 (2nd Cir.).

Inmate Funds

****Editor's Case Alert****

     Federal appeals court overturns dismissal of prisoner's lawsuit alleging that prison practices and regulations resulted, after he paid costs for constitutionally protected litigation, in the inmate being without the funds to buy needed hygiene products, and that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference in failing to provide him with such hygiene products for a prolonged period of time. The appeals court rejected that trial court's belief that the issue simply amounted to the prisoner's own decision as how to spend his limited funds. Preliminary injunctive relief, however, was denied. Whitington v. Ortiz, No. 07-1425, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 651 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).

Inmate Property

     A prisoner being transferred to another facility following his participation in an investigation of drug smuggling was told that his property would be secured, but was not allowed to personally pack it. He claimed that his personal effects, containing contact information, was lost and somehow came into the possession of prisoners who were targeted in the investigation, resulting in threats to his spouse. Defendant prison employees were entitled to qualified immunity from liability when there was no showing that they acted with deliberate indifference to the plaintiff prisoner's safety. Indeed, they arranged the transfer itself because of concerns for his safety. Frasier v. Fox, No. 08-50072, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 26015 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).

Mail

****Editor's Case Alert****

     A federal prison warden was not entitled to qualified immunity from liability for allegedly failing to give notice to a prisoner of the rejection of mail from his lawyer--packages which contained trial transcripts. A due process requirement of notifying a prisoner of the rejection of letters also applied to packages, regardless of whether such notice was explicitly required for rejected packages under federal prison regulations. Bonner v. Outlaw, No. 07-3676, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 202 (8th Cir.).

     Prisoner failed to show that he suffered any injury because of the prison's failure to deliver mail on Saturday, or from his inability to go to the law library on the day he was notified of a filing requirement in a pending legal case. The court also noted that it was established by prior caselaw that the prisoner's nonprivileged outgoing mail could be opened and inspected. Caldwell v. Beard, No. 08-2432, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 27027 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).

     Prisoner stated a possible claim for violation of his First Amendment rights based on the alleged failure of jail officials to process his outgoing mail. Further proceedings were also needed on his claim that they prevented him from taking his legal mail to a state hospital while confined there, as an inquiry was needed as to whether that action was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. Brown v. Saline County Jail, No. 08-3145, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 26066 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).

Marriage/Procreation

     When a Pennsylvania prisoner had informed correctional officials that he was already married, he was not entitled to an order allowing him to marry his fiancee. Further, in that state, if he entered into a valid common law marriage before January 1, 2005, he remained married, and would have to get a divorce before he could remarry. He could also seek, if he wished, a declaratory judgment concerning the validity of his alleged prior marriage. Lennitt v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, No. 231 M.D. 2008, 2008 Pa. Commw. Lexis 627.

Medical Care

     No evidence showed that deputies at a county courthouse knew that a detainee had a heart condition or faced a substantial risk of having a heart attack, so they were not liable under the Eighth Amendment for allegedly depriving him of his heart medication. The fact that they took nitroglycerin tablets from him when he was detained did not show that they had knowledge of his condition, since there was no evidence that they read the medicine label at that time. Shenk v. Cattaraugus County, No. 07-4814, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 167 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.).

     Prisoner could pursue a claim for inadequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment as a habeas corpus claim that she was in custody in violation of the U.S. Constitution, and was not limited to filing her claim as a federal civil rights lawsuit. Ilina v. Zickefoose, Civil No. 3:07cv1490, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 105357 (D. Conn.).

     Further proceedings were ordered on a prisoner's claim that a county jail's policy denying the use of crutches in certain areas of the jail violated his rights after he was transferred to the facility with a broken ankle. The trial judge properly found that the plaintiff would not be a proper representative of other injured inmates for purposes of a class action, since he was no longer confined at the jail, and it was speculative to think that he would both be returned to the jail and again be in need of the use of crutches at that time. Arreola v. Godinez, No. 07-1700, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 21502 (7th Cir.).

      A prisoner's appeal of summary judgment against his claims for inadequate medical treatment was rejected when he failed to object to a magistrate's recommendations and findings. This amounted to waiving his right to appeal either factual or legal rulings of the trial court. Duffield v. Jackson, No. 08-6002, 545 F.3d 1234 (10th Cir. 2008).

Medical Care: Mental Health

     An Ohio prisoner claimed that lithium prescribed for his mental condition caused failure of his kidneys, and that he was he being medicated in this manner over his objections. He also claimed that he was improperly held down and forcibly administered anti-psychotic drugs on at least one occasion. The court also found, in the alternative, that the requirements of procedural due process had been met. There was no violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment since the facts alleged did not show that the care provided by prison doctors was grossly inadequate or medically unsound. Kramer v. Wilkinson, No. 07-4104, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 24538 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).

Personal Appearance

     A Texas prisoner claimed that he had pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB), a medical condition on the basis of which he was issued a clipper shave pass (CSP) which constituted permission not to shave and to maintain a 1/4" beard. He further claimed that prison employees improperly threatened him with disciplinary action for failing to shave, imposed discipline on him on that basis, and declined to renew his CSP in retaliation for his complaints. These claims were all rejected, as the record indicated that the discipline was imposed for failing to maintain a 1/4" beard, not for failure to be clean-shaven. He also failed to show that his medical condition was serious and posed a risk of substantial harm, or that he was subjected to retaliation. James v. Ramirez, No. 07-50674, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 83 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).

Prison & Jail Conditions: General

     When none of the individual prison conditions an inmate complained of involved the deprivation of a human need, the court need not consider whether these conditions "in combination" violated his constitutional rights. Lucero v. Mesa County Sheriff's Dept., No. 08-1068, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 24630 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).

Prisoner Discipline

     Even if eleven days a prisoner spent in a special housing unit before his disciplinary hearing were included with the 90 days of such confinement imposed as a penalty, the length of his confinement was not "atypical or significant," so that he could not pursue his due process challenge to the disciplinary proceeding at which he was found guilty of six rule violations, based on the accusation that he made copies of games and software on his computer, providing those copies to another inmate. Borcsok v. Early, No. 07-4042, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 23225 (2nd Cir.).

Private Prisons

     Colorado prisoner's lawsuit claiming that his transfer to a privately run prison in Oklahoma violating his federal constitutional rights was properly dismissed, as no such right was implicated by the transfer. Lyons v. Zavaras, No. 08-1133, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 925 (10th Cir.).

Religion

     Prisoners who are adherents of the Wiccan religion failed to show that a prison, in granting them three hours to celebrate the most important of eight Wiccan holidays, Samhain, and limiting the quantity of food available for the celebration, violated their right to religious freedom. Gladson v. Iowa Department of Corrections; 07-3528, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis (8th Cir.).

Segregation: Administrative

     Prisoner's confinement in segregation did not violate either his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights or his Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment. There is no constitutional liberty interest in confinement in a particular prison or in a particular security classification. Inconvenient or uncomfortable conditions in segregation, standing alone, do not violate "contemporary standards of decency." The plaintiff also failed to show that he suffered any significant or serious injury as a result of the confinement in segregation, or was at risk of such an injury in the future. Barrow v. Ray, Civil Action No. 7:08-CV-00525, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 89596 (W.D. Va.).

Sex Offender Programs and Notification

     The fact that a Washington state law provides the possibility of an early release of convicted sex offenders into community custody did not indicate that such offenders had a constitutionally protected liberty interest in such early release. Carver v. Lehman, No. 06-35176, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 25822 (9th Cir.).

     A federal law, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4246, 18 U.S.C. section 4248, which states that the government may subject current and former federal prisoners certified by the Attorney General as sexually dangerous to civil commitment is unconstitutional, as it exceeds the powers of Congress. The federal government may not constitutionally confine persons whose "dangerousness" does not violate any federal law. U.S. v. Comstock, No. 07-7671, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 185 (4th Cir.).

Sexual Assault

     Prisoner's lawsuit claiming that a correctional officer twice confined her in an isolated locked classroom and imposed physical and verbal abuse on her, including forcible rape, established liability for violation of constitutional rights as well as state law claims, since the officer failed to respond to the accusations. The prisoner failed, however, to establish a claim for emotional distress under New York state law, since she failed to assert that the officer acted with the intent or disregard of a substantial probability to cause severe emotional distress. Further proceedings were required on the amount of damages to be awarded. Ortiz v. Lasker, 08-CV-6001, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 101363 (W.D.N.Y.).

Strip Search: Prisoners

     A complaint alleging that group strip searches of male pre-trial detainees at a county jail were carried out in a way designed to humiliate them and were prolonged longer than necessary stated a possible claim for violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures and of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. The detainees claimed that more than 45 male inmates at a time were ordered to strip and squat three or four times, that they were kept together naked for a long period of time, and that the room was "foul" as a result of body odor. Streeter v. Sheriff of Cook County, No. 08 C 732, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 86516 (N.D. Ill.).

Telephone Access and Use

     The cost of collect telephone calls placed by inmates to outside persons, which included a commission paid by the phone service provider to the New York State Department of Correctional Services, did not violate the First Amendment rights of the call recipients, when the cost was not so "exorbitant" as to interfere with their right to communicate with the inmates. Walton v. N.Y. State Dept. of Correctional Services, #504552, 2008 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 9558 (A.D. 3rd Dept.).

Work/Education/Recreation Programs

     Michigan state prison was not required, under state or federal law, to provide special education services to mentally ill and disabled inmates under the age of 27. Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service, Inc. v. Caruso, Case No. 5:05-CV-128, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 80089 (W.D. Mich.).

     A prisoner who created and produced certain desk-blotter calendars while working for a government-owned company while in federal prison could not pursue copyright infringement claims against the U.S. government relating to the calendars. Walton v. U.S., 2008-5057, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 113 (Fed. Cir.).

    •Return to the Contents menu.

     Female Prisoners: "Gendered Violence and Safety: A Contextual Approach to Improving Security in Women's Facilities," by Barbara Owen, Ph.D., James Wells, Ph.D., Joycelyn Pollock, Ph.D., J.D., Bernadette Muscat, Ph.D., Stephanie Torres, M.S. (December 2008).

     Policies and Regulations: Federal Bureau of Prisons, Program Statement on Health Information Management, No. 6090.02 (October 13, 2008).

     Policies and Regulations: Federal Bureau of Prisons, Program Statement on Inmate Work and Performance Pay, No. 5251.06(October 1, 2008).

     Prisoner Reentry Programs: Reentry Partnerships: A Guide for States & Faith-Based and Community Organizations, by Yoon, Jamie, and Jessica Nickel, New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2008.

     Community Supervision: Implementing the Family Support Approach for Community Supervision, by Tracy G. Mullins, American Probation and Parole Association, and Christine Toner, Family Justice. (2008).

 Reference:

     • Abbreviations of Law Reports, laws and agencies used in our publications.

     • AELE's list of recently-noted jail and prisoner law resources.