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.

Disability Discrimination: Prisoners

     Wheelchair-bound paraplegic prisoner failed to show that he was excluded from participation in the correctional department's "medical services" program because of his disability. The prisoner claimed that he received a "defective assistive device," a pressurized mattress that was five inches wider than his bed frame, causing him to fall and be injured while transferring to his wheelchair. This did not show discriminatory intent, as required for liability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, but, at most, negligence, which was insufficient for an ADA claim. Additionally, the ADA claim could only be brought against the agency, and not against individual officers. Ellis v. Hager, #C07-00665, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 14835 (N.D. Ca.).

     While a prisoner claimed that he had been subjected to exclusion from good-time programs, including work programs, on the basis of disability discrimination, the record showed that the actual reason was that he was the subject of over 30 incident reports involving disciplinary infractions, fights with other prisoners, and harassment of prison staff members. A number of the incidents resulted in his placement in segregation, and he also, at times, was given access to a number of programs, but failed to complete them due to disciplinary problems or unsatisfactory performance. The prisoner also, at times, failed to attend medical appointments, or threatened staff members at them. Kogut v. Ashe, #08-30124, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 20232 (D. Mass.).

Federal Tort Claims Act

     Prisoner claimed that correctional officials were negligent in failing to prevent two other prisoners from stealing his legal papers, fabricating a false crime they claimed he committed, and offering to testify against him in exchange for a reduction in their own sentences. The trial court dismissed the prisoner's claim, brought against the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The prisoner also failed to establish either negligence or intentional infliction of emotional distress by prison officials. Michtavi v. U.S.A., #4:07-CV-0628, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 18926 (M.D. Pa.).

Mail

     Correctional officials showed a rational connection between a new policy regarding legal mail and legitimate safety and security concerns. The new policy requires courts and attorneys to attach control numbers to legal mail, and for such mail to be separated from other mail, and then opened and inspected in a prisoner's presence. There was evidence that the prior policy was subject to abuse, including the falsifying of return addresses on non-legal mail in order to improperly receive treatment as privileged mail. Additionally, there was evidence that suggested that more inspection by off-site mail inspectors and less inspection by on-site mail inspectors would result in enhanced prison safety and security. The new policy did not violate prisoners' First Amendment rights. Fontroy v. Beard, #07-2446, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 5277 (3rd Cir.).

Medical Care

     Prisoner's claim that he was, at one time, left sitting in his own waste, while "offensive," did not, by itself, show deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Additionally, although a sergeant did not observe any visible injury on the prisoner, he still honored the prisoner's request to call the infirmary, which told the sergeant that the prisoner should submit a sick call slip in order to be seen. The prisoner failed to show that he suffered from a serious medical condition at the time. Clark v. Md. Dept. of Public Safety and Correctional Services, #08-7918, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 5224 (Unpub. 4th Cir.).

     Board of county commissioners was not liable for the death of a prisoner from a heart attack after his complaints of left arm numbness and chest pains were regarded as false and his request for medical attention was allegedly ignored. Neither the board nor any of the individual commissioners were personally involved in this treatment of the prisoner, and there was no evidence that they had any responsibility for hiring or supervising jail employees or running the jail. Federal claims against the sheriff could proceed. Estate of Weatherford v. Muskogee County, #CIV-08-088, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 9886 (E.D. Ok.).

     Prisoner, in making a "bare allegation" that a medical services company's custom or policy resulted in progressive detachment of his retina, degeneration, and irreparable damage to his vision, failed to properly establish a federal civil rights claim against the company. There was also no showing that a defendant correctional official had been aware that the prisoner had a serious medical need. The prisoner had a right, however, to file an amended complaint naming other defendants, and could do so without the court's permission so long as the complaint had not yet been answered. Broyles v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc., #08-1638, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 5494 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).

Medical Care: Dental

     Federal court denies certification of a class action defined as all those in the county jail who requested treatment for dental pain and did not see a dentist within seven days. The court stated that, depending on the seriousness of the dental impairment of the individual detainee, the seven-day time period could have been unreasonable for a "very obvious and serious painful dental emergency" that required immediate treatment, while a delay of two weeks might not be unreasonable for minor dental problems. Wrightsell v. Sheriff of Cook County, #08 CV 5451, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 14521 (N.D. Ill.).

Medical Care: Mental Health

     Jail employees were not entitled to qualified immunity in a lawsuit contending that they were deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of a prisoner with mental problems, resulting in his death. The complaint alleged that the prisoner's mother brought his anti-depression medicine to the jail, that he received it until it ran out, and that his new prescription was not available until two days later. When the prisoner's cellmate informed an employee of the sheriff's department that the prisoner had been engaging in odd behavior and swallowing shampoo, a reasonable jury could conclude that the defendants knew that he needed medical attention, but acted with deliberate indifference to that need. Vaughn v. Gray, #07-2921, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 4800 (8th Cir.).

     A prisoner failed to show that there was a genuine issue concerning whether he was provided inadequate treatment for mental health problems. He was provided with psychiatric medications within 30 days of his arrival at a county jail. His lawsuit demonstrated merely a disagreement with the course of treatment provided, rather than deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The court also rejected a claim concerning treatment provided for an erupted wisdom tooth, when a dentist who examined the prisoner found no cause for concern. Jaquez v. Newell, #07-CV-498, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 15964 (N.D. Ok.).

     A prisoner failed to show that the decision to forcibly medicate him with anti-psychotic drugs constituted deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The trial court had authorized the expenditure of funds for the prisoner to hire an expert for the purpose of making an assessment of the medical evidence, but the prisoner declined to do so. His failure to present expert witness evidence could not be overcome solely by the prisoner's presentation of his own sworn statement concerning his treatment. Aruanno v. Glazman, #07-2543, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 4154 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).

Prisoner Assault: By Inmates

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

     When correctional officers were not aware of any risk that a prisoner might be attacked in his sleep by his cellmate, they could not be held liable for failing to prevent the attack. Once they learned that the attack was taking place, they immediately responded, running to the cell, calling for backup, commanding the cellmate to stop, and breaking up the fight within minutes. Their three to five minute delay in opening the cell door complied with a policy designed to protect officer safety in the maximum-security facility. Eddmonds v. Walker, #08-1906, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 5962 March 18, 2009 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).

     Federal appeals court upholds jury verdict finding that a correctional officer violated a prisoner's civil rights by disregarding his warning that another prisoner had threatened him, after which he was attacked with a razor, but awarding him no damages. Compensatory damages may only be awarded for actual injuries stemming from the violation of inmate rights. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in failing to allow additional evidence concerning whether the inmate's loss of a kitchen job resulted from the attack after the deliberating jury asked a question concerning this. The jury evidently did not believe that the prisoner met his burden of establishing actual damages, and the prisoner did not request an award of nominal damages. Scott v. Mahlmeister, #07-4197, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 5711 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).

     Based on the fact that a sergeant was subjected to discipline for handling the aftermath of an assault on a prisoner improperly, there was a genuine issue of material fact requiring the overturning of a dismissal of the prisoner's lawsuit. The plaintiff prisoner stated that he was held against his will by other prisoners who entered his cell and robbed him, and that, following this incident, the sergeant and an officer had him make an in-person identification of his assailants, which resulted in a further violent assault on him later. While the favorable resolution of the inmate's grievance, resulting in the discipline of the sergeant, did not, by itself, prove that there was deliberate indifference to a serious risk of physical harm to the prisoner, it was sufficient to defeat the motion for dismissal of the lawsuit against the sergeant. Additionally, summary judgment should not have been granted to the officer, since there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury or judge could have found that the officer ignored an "obvious" risk of physical harm to the prisoner. Weatherholt v. Bradley, #08-7157, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 5211 (Unpub. 4th Cir.).

     Prisoner failed to show that the defendant prison officials had the required knowledge that he faced a substantial risk of serious harm from another prisoner, making them liable for failing to provide him protection against the assault that occurred. Moorman v. Jowers, #08-10262, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 4928 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).

Prisoner Assault: By Officers

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

     Pretrial detainee failed to show that an officer acted in a malicious and sadistic manner in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause in allegedly kicking him. At the time, the detainee was "combative" and engaged in a struggle with other officers, and the force used amounted to a good faith attempt to restore or maintain discipline. Fennell v. Gilstrap, #08-12553, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 5047 (11th Cir.).

     A prisoner stated a viable claim against an officer for excessive use of force when he alleged that the officer slammed his hands in a cell trap door in response to another prisoner's false warning, disregarded pleas to release the prisoner's hands, and pulled his arm through the cell's trap door, placing all his weight on the arm, resulting in a broken arm. The prisoner failed to establish, however, that a warden he named as a defendant in his lawsuit was personally involved in the incident in any way. Luke v. Lenz, #09-cv-91, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 15145 (W.D. Wis.).

Prisoner Death/Injury

     Prisoner injured when two bolts holding an exercise machine in place broke, flinging him backwards, failed to show that his injuries were a violation of his Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment. The prisoner himself was not prevented from examining the equipment to discover what he now claimed was an apparent defect. Gradual deterioration of such equipment in a voluntary prison exercise facility was insufficient to amount to cruel and unusual punishment. Fitzgerald v. Corrections Corporation of America, #08-cv-01189, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 20259 (D. Colo.).

Prisoner Discipline

     Evidence adequately supported decision against inmate in a disciplinary hearing over a fight he had with his cellmate. His "bare" claim that he was innocent did not excuse the fact that he procedurally defaulted on most of his claims concerning the hearing. The examination of the prisoner after the fight by a health services staff member, although not a physician, could be relied on to determine whether marks on the prisoner were a laceration from a fight or a cold sore. Even if all the evidence the inmate challenged were set aside, there was sufficient evidence, including a form concerning injuries to the cellmate and photos of the two prisoners after the fight, to support the hearing officer's decision. Pinet v. Holt, #08-3571, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 5260 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).

Prisoner Restraints

     A detainee suffering from organ failure was taken to a hospital and restrained there by a handcuff attached to his bed. He died there from causes unrelated to the handcuffing. A federal appeals court rejected civil rights claims, holding that the use of handcuffs in these circumstances was neither punitive nor excessive. There were legitimate and important security interests involved in keeping detainees or prisoners adequately restrained while they receive off-site medical treatment. A negligence claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act was also rejected, in the absence of any evidence of actual injury flowing from the alleged negligence. At most, the plaintiff showed that there may have been some "friction marks" on the detainee's wrists from the handcuffs. Hoyte v. Wagner, #07-4138, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 2197 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).

Religion

     A prisoner's right to religious freedom was not violated by a Texas correctional policy prohibiting prisoners from "decorating" their outgoing mail envelopes. In this case, the prisoner was prevented from putting religious messages on the outside of his envelopes. The court held that communicating such messages to people handling his mail, as opposed to those to whom the mail was addressed, was a "benefit" not generally available, and that restricting such communication did not substantially burden the prisoner's exercise of his religion. There was no restriction on the prisoner's ability to state religious messages inside the envelope. Smithback v. Crain, #07-10274, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 4493 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).

     A prisoner who belonged to the Assembly of Yahweh religion claimed that his right to practice his religion was burdened by actions allowing an insufficient amount of time for Sabbath services, restricting travel time for religious call-outs, and failing to provide seasonal fruits and vegetables. The court found that he failed to show that the amount of time allowed for services substantially burdened his ability to practice his religion or that the restrictions on travel time for religious call-outs was not related to legitimate security and safety concerns. The prisoner also failed to show that he requested the desired fruit and vegetables because of sincere religious beliefs. Strope v. Cummings, #06-3021, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 15720 (D. Kan.).

Segregation: Administrative

     Placing an inmate in administrative segregation for an extended period of time did not violate his due process rights when he was placed there because of a successful escape from another facility that involved an elaborate plan involving four other people. Over a twenty-year period, there were fourteen specific allegations of misbehavior attributed to the prisoner, and he was an extreme risk to the safety and security of any correctional facility. Proctor v. Kelly, #9:05-CV-0692, 2008 WL 5243925, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 101371 (N.D.N.Y.).

Segregation: Disciplinary

     Placement of a prisoner in disciplinary segregation for 240 days following a hearing was a sufficiently long period of time to involve a constitutionally protected liberty interest provided the conditions of confinement there were severe enough. The appeals court overturned the dismissal of the prisoner's due process and equal protection lawsuit, and ordered further proceedings. Marion v. Columbia Corr. Inst., #07-2556, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 6171 (7th Cir.).

Sex Offenders

     Overturning a federal trial court's decision to the contrary, a federal appeals court has held that the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. § 16913, requiring sex offender registration, (and punishment, under 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a), for failure to register) is constitutional, and within the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause. U.S. v. Powers, #08-12764, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 6592 (11th Cir.).

Smoking

     A prisoner's exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke from other prisoner's in an extradition van several times a day for several days while being transported did not amount to an extreme deprivation and did not violate his Eighth Amendment rights, despite his claim that the smoke gave him an allergic reaction, made him feel ill, and "endangered" him. The prisoner also failed to show that the extradition agent who allowed the prisoners to smoke acted with deliberate indifference to an known substantial risk of serious harm. Blackburn v. Colo. Dept. of Corrections, #09-cv-00168, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 16853 (D. Colo.).

     In order to establish a claim based of present injury from exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke, a prisoner must show both a serious medical need related to that exposure and deliberate indifference by prison officials to that need. Even assuming that the plaintiff prisoner in this case satisfied the first element of this test, he failed to show the subjective deliberate indifference needed to recover damages. The defendant warden established clear smoking regulations, and tried to enforce them. The prisoner's request to be transferred out of a unit where smoking was allowed was honored. The prisoner himself, following that initial transfer, made no further requests to be moved because of smoking, and his medical records did not show any indications of complaints related to excessive exposure to tobacco smoke, indicating that correctional officials could not have been deliberately indifferent, since there was insufficient documentation to put them on notice that there was a problem.  Panton v. Nash, #07-4840, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 5233 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).

Strip Searches

     A woman failed to show that she suffered from severe emotional distress as a result of cross-gender strip searches during her weekend incarcerations. While she allegedly cried all night after the first weekend, she went to work the following day and suffered no lost wages. While she saw a counselor who diagnosed her as suffering from acute stress disorder, she did not attend the regular counseling or seek any other medical attention. She also claimed to have refrained from intimate relations with her husband for several months, but led a mostly normal life aside from that. The court found that she failed to establish a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, since a reasonable jury could not find, on the basis of her allegations, that her emotional distress was too severe for a reasonable person to endure. Bryan v. Fultz, #1:08cv365, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 10224 (E.D. Va.).

Visitation

     A Washington state inmate was properly denied participation in an Extended Family Visit program with his wife because he was married in 2006 after his incarceration. There were legitimate reasons for the change, which eliminated the eligibility for such visits with spouses married after incarceration. Lowden v. Miller-Stout, #C08-5365, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 16188 (W.D. Wash.).

Work/Education/Recreation Programs

      The Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et. seq., does not apply to inmates performing work for state prison industries. Dismissing the prisoner's claim that he had not received wages for work done for a state prison food service provider, the court reasoned further that, even if there was a property interest in wages allegedly due for such work, the prisoner had to either pursue state law remedies, or else show that he was precluded from doing so, before pursuing his claim in federal court. Tagariello v. McDonough, #2:07-cv-248, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 10590 (M.D. Fla.).

    •Return to the Contents menu.

     Immigration Detainees: A 78-page Human Rights Watch report, "Detained and Dismissed: Women's Struggles to Obtain Health Care in United States Immigration Detention," claims to document dozens of cases in which the immigration agency's medical staff either failed to respond at all to health problems of women in detention or responded only after considerable delays. Letter from US Immigration and Customs Enforcement to Human Rights Watch is a response to the report. (PDF, 656.77 KB) (March, 2009).

     Immigration Detainees: Dying for Decent Care: Bad Medicine in Immigration Custody a report by the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center (FIAC). (77 pages .pdf) (February 2009).

     Immigration Detainees: "Jailed Without Justice," a report by Amnesty International criticizing the immigration detention system in the U.S. (March 25, 2009). Executive Summary | Key Findings | Full Report (PDF 662K)

     Military Detainees: In a declaration filed in federal district court in the District of Columbia, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder stated a new legal standard for the authority to hold detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility in Cuba. The definition does not rely on the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief independent of Congress's specific authorization, but instead relies on the international laws of war and statutory authority granted by Congress. It further states that persons who supported al Qaeda or the Taliban may be detained only if the support was "substantial." It also fails to use the term "enemy combatant."

     Voting: A state-by-state summary on different approaches being taken to felon voting restrictions and the restoration of voting rights.

 Reference:

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

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