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 or Westlaw citation can be retrieved, for a fee, via Internet.
• 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

     The trial court properly rejected a prisoner's claim that correctional officials and employees deprived him of his constitutional right of access to the courts. It was the prisoner's own actions in refusing to present the court clerk with a copy of his complaint and either the filing fee or a motion to excuse payment that resulted in the delay in filing his lawsuit. Parker v. Evans, #08-2249, 350 Fed. Appx. 77, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 24364 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).

     A federal prisoner failed to show a denial of his right of access to the courts arising from the alleged denial of access to legal materials, assistance from someone trained in the law, or photocopies of certain documents and materials. He did not demonstrate that he suffered any actual injury from these alleged deprivations. The prisoner's claims and his appeal were legally frivolous. Barrett v. Pearson, #09-7030, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 23556 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).

Attorneys' Fees

****Editor's Case Alert****  

     Current and former detainees in a county jail claimed that the county had an unconstitutional policy of stripsearching every detainee without reasonable suspicion and regardless of the offense they were charged with. A $2.5 million settlement was reached in their class action lawsuit, but the trial judge awarded the detainees counsel less than the requested amount of attorneys' fees from the settlement. A federal appeals court approved this result, finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that use of counsel's normal hourly rates for their time adequately compensated them, rather than awarding a percentage of the settlement, or using a multiplier on the normal hourly rate. While $650,000 in attorneys' fees (26% of the settlement) was requested, the court approved attorneys' fees and costs of $460, 796.50 (of which $344,795 were fees). McDaniel v. County of Schenectady, #07-5580, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 2922 (2nd Cir.).

Emotional Distress

     An Ohio prisoner claimed that the state correctional authorities were negligent in training and supervising a corrections officer who allegedly denied him a smoke break in retaliation for having previously filed complaints against the officer. The court, construing the prisoner's harassment complaint as seeking damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, ruled that any distress suffered from the denial of a smoke break was not extreme and outrageous as required for such an award of damages. Further, to the extent that the prisoner claimed that the officer issued him a conduct report for violation of institutional rules improperly, the officer's decision was granted a high degree of discretion, so that the defendant Department was entitled to discretionary immunity. The evidence showed that the officer was not incompetent so that no claims could be asserted for negligent hiring, training, or supervision. Duff v. Ohio Dept, of Rehabilitation and Correction, #2009-02260, 2010 Ohio Misc. Lexis 22 (Ct. of Claims).

First Amendment

     Prison employees investigating reports that an inmate and others were planning to engage in assaults and a work stoppage, discovered the existence of an inmate petition. The plaintiff inmate was then accused of conspiring to circulate an unauthorized petition and assault staff members and other inmates. Found guilty of these charges, he was transferred to Wisconsin's highest security prison as a result. Rejecting First Amendment retaliation claims, the appeals court found that the punishment imposed was essentially for his role in a planned prisoner uprising, not the petition. Claims were also rejected against some defendants because of their lack of involvement in the seizure of the petition from another prisoner's cell or the filing of a conduct report against the plaintiff. The appeals court also found no evidence of any improper racial motivation for the actions taken against the inmate. Felton v. Ericksen. #09-2450, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 4554 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).

Medical Care

     Rejecting claims that two deputies at a county jail were deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of a pregnant detainee who had used crack cocaine daily, the federal appeals court noted that the deputies knew that the detainee had been seen by a nurse at the jail who determined that her medical need was "not an emergency." The detainee later suffered a miscarriage, but the deputies were entitled to rely on the nurse's medical expertise in failing to take additional measures. The plaintiff failed to show that the deputies disregarded the risk to the health of her fetus with conduct that was more than gross negligence. Townsend v. Jefferson Cty., #08-15583, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 6500 (11th Cir.).

     A trial court ruled that a reasonable jury might be able to find that a sergeant had knowingly disregarded a light duty restriction on an inmate in ordering him to unload a truck despite his possible carpal tunnel syndrome. Despite this, the defendant sergeant was entitled to summary judgment because of the lack of evidence that unloading the truck actually caused the inmate harm or future aggravation of his condition. The inmate, to prevail, needed medical evidence concerning what the impact of lifting over twenty pounds was, and his own unqualified opinion, and the mere statement that his hands were more painful after doing the lifting was insufficient. Hoeft v. Harrop, #09-3488, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 4627 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).

     A federal prisoner claimed that medical tests showed that his liver was being damaged by Hepatitis C, and that a prison clinical director recommended medication treatment but that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Director improperly refused to approve such treatment, acting with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. A federal appeals court ruled that these allegations, if true, stated a claim against the Director. As to claims that the clinical director failed to take needed steps to prevent the delay and denial of treatment, the inmate was entitled to a chance to more specifically state what he was asserting the clinical director should have done. Arocho v. Nafziger, #09-1095, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 4200 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).

Prisoner Assault: By Inmates

     A prisoner claimed that a prison inspector and a guard, as well as others, violated his rights by assigning him to a cell with a dangerous cellmate who attacked him. A federal appeals court noted that the prisoner's own sole complaint about his cellmate prior to the attack was that he was "unhygienic," which did not suffice to put anyone on notice that there was a substantial risk of assault. Richardson v. Johnson, #08-16795, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 4269 (11th Cir.).

     The estate of an inmate fatally stabbed with a homemade glass shank by a fellow prisoner who broke a cell window sued the Ohio state correctional authorities for wrongful death. Affirming a judgment for the defendant, the appeals court found that the prior conduct of the assailant had not provided notice that he would attack the decedent. While the assailant was involved in many altercations, all but one of these incidents occurred ten years before the attack. Additionally, the most recent prior incident, which occurred two years before, involved the assailant threatening officers with a piece of glass and did not make it foreseeable that he would commit similar violent acts against fellow inmates. Elam v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction, #09AP-714, 2010 Ohio App. Lexis 1010 (10th Dist.).

     A pretrial detainee claimed that a warden and a deputy at a jail failed to protect him from other prisoners, resulting in one hitting him in the face and another stabbing him in the eye. A jury found that these defendants had been negligent, and awarded $12,500 in damages against them, but rejected the claim that they had violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights. Upholding this result, a federal appeals court found that jury instructions on the federal constitutional claims properly required a finding of deliberate indifference for liability. McCray v. Peachey, #08-31077, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 4159 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).

     Four days before an assault by his cellmate, which resulted in a prisoner's death from his injuries, he had filed an emergency grievance requesting placement in another cell. His estate's lawsuit adequately alleged that a defendant warden had engaged in a practice of housing him in "explosive" situations that ended in physical confrontations, and that the warden either actually knew of or consciously turned a blind eye towards obvious risks of assault and injury. Santiago v. Walls, #07-1219, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 6465 (7th Cir.).

Prisoner Assault: By Officers

     The trial court acted erroneously in granting a correctional officer summary judgment on a prisoner's excessive force claim when the record indicated that she engaged in a calculated attempt to use a moderate amount of force in a manner that threatened the use of significantly greater force, and that, if the facts were as the prisoner claimed, the force was used for the sole purpose of humiliating him rather than for any proper purpose. The officer allegedly used a weapon, a rubber headed hammer, pressing it against the prisoner's head in the crowded prison corridor in a manner that bent his head halfway backwards, which was not a minimal use of force. Abreu v. Nicholls, #08-3567, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 4407 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.).

****Editor's Case Alert****  

     A jail detainee claimed that deputies used excessive force against him, subjecting him to repeated Taser shocks and also shooting him twice with beanbag rounds from a shotgun. The defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity when they allegedly did this while he was already on his knees, holding his hands in the air before they entered his cell and remained there while they subjected him to the Taser and beanbag rounds. Council v. Sutton, #09-13968, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 2886 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).

     The Director of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and a prison superintendent could not be held liable for the alleged use of excessive force against a prisoner when there was no evidence that they were involved in the incident in any way. Claims against a sergeant and other officers concerning their alleged verbal abuse of the prisoner, while involving behavior that, if true, was "distasteful," did not rise to the level of violation of the plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights. The prisoner's other claims, that the sergeant deprived him of one meal on a single occasion and that an officer improperly confiscated his identification card were also not of constitutional magnitude. Lindsey v. O'Connor, #08-4579, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 10258 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).

Prisoner Death/Injury

     A prisoner claimed that a facility maintenance supervisor and three correction officers acted maliciously and willfully in exposing him to ultraviolet radiation, which caused him physical injuries. The defendant officers were not entitled to qualified immunity when they attempted to rely on their own, conflicting version of events to demonstrate that they had not acted for retaliatory or malicious reasons. The prisoner, however, alleged nothing more than negligence on the part of the maintenance supervisor, which was insufficient for a federal civil rights claim. Williams v. Jackson, #09-1843, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 6172 (8th Cir.).

Prisoner Discipline

     A New York prisoner was charged and found guilty of various disciplinary offenses, including violating a direct order, violent conduct, and refusing to comply with frisk procedures. There was substantial evidence to support these determinations, based on a misbehavior report, supporting documentation, and the testimony of one of the officers involved in the incident. The prisoner's claim that his rights were violated because he was denied a request to call another officer as a witness at the disciplinary hearing had no merit, as that officer had not witnessed the events at issue. Bermudez v. Fischer, #507740, 2010 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 2410 (3rd Dept. A.D.).

Religion

     In a prisoner's challenge, on religious grounds, to California's prison grooming regulations, contending that they imposed a substantial burden on his exercise of religious freedom, a federal appeals court rule that the state's acceptance of federal prison funding did not amount to a waiver of sovereign immunity from suit that would allow a claim for money damages against state officials in their official capacity to proceed in federal court. Holley v. Cal. Dept. of Corrs., #07-15552, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 6977 (9th Cir.).

     A Muslim prisoner could assert his claim for denial of his preferred religious diet, a halal diet that includes meats, even though other Muslims may well find religiously sufficient a vegetarian or non-pork diet. There was no evidence indicating that the plaintiff was not sincere in holding his expressed beliefs. Abdulhaseeb v. Calbone, #08-6092, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 6861 (10th Cir.).

Retaliation

     A federal appeals court upheld a jury verdict finding that corrections officers did not retaliate against him in violation of his First Amendment rights. Further, the alleged conduct of confiscating his eyeglasses and verbally threatening him did not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation, since there was no indication that these actions caused him sufficiently serious harm or injury. Felder v. Filion, #08-1767, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 4680 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.).

Segregation: Administrative

     A Pennsylvania prisoner sought an injunction against his placement in a Special Management Unit (SMU). He asserted that a Periodic Review Committee had decided to release him to the general prison population but that a prison superintendent rejected this and requested that he be returned to the SMU. A federal appeals court found that the plaintiff prisoner had failed to show that SMU conditions were so different that he had a protected liberty interest in avoiding a transfer there. He had also failed to show that, in any future transfer to the SMU, he would not be provided with appropriate procedural protections. The plaintiff had a history of serious institutional misconduct, and had previously served lengthy periods in disciplinary segregation. He had not shown that other prisoners with a history of such serious disciplinary infractions had been treated differently or that there was no rational reason for his treatment, so he failed to establish the basis for an equal protection claim. Pressley v. Pa. Dept. of Corrections, #09-3324, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 3016 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).

     A prisoner's claim that housing him in administrative custody for three months without notice and a hearing violated his due process rights was rejected. Even if this arguably violated a state Department of Corrections administrative directive, the prisoner had failed to show that conditions to which he was subjected amounted to an "atypical and significant" hardship. Further, his contention that 16 other inmates were released from administrative segregation while he alone remained there did not show a violation of equal protection, as he did not allege that the other prisoners were placed in segregation for the same reasons and were held in the same form of custody. Jenkins v. Murray, #08-4824, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 25556 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).

Segregation: Disciplinary

     A prisoner placed in disciplinary custody should have been allowed to proceed with his due process claims. The trial court improperly analyzed the case under a lower standard only sufficient for restraint for administrative rather than disciplinary reasons. Claims concerning the alleged denial of assessment hearings once he was in disciplinary custody were properly rejected, however, when the prisoner himself had refused to sign the required form when presented with the opportunity for such a hearing. Pressley v. Blaine, #08-1517, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 25405 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).

Sex Offender Programs and Notification

     A sex offender claimed that prison officials discriminated against him by denying him a job in a prison program. He attempted to assert a "class of one" equal protection program, arguing that other sex offenders were granted jobs in the same program he was rejected for. Granting summary judgment for defendant officials, a federal court found that, since the plaintiff was not a member of any protected class, the defendants only needed to show that there was a rational basis for their treatment of him. There clearly was a rational basis for the decision, since the program at issue placed prisoners in a minimum security facility, and the plaintiff had a history of disciplinary problems raising security concerns. The fact that this reasoning was not explained to the prisoner when he was rejected for the job did not alter the result. Unruh v. Moore, #08-40750, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 10315 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).

Work/Education/Recreation Programs

     Current and former federal prisoners argued that the low wages that they were paid for work done in prison (as low as nineteen cents per hour) violated their constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment and various sources of international law, such as articles 7 through 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”), Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171; a UN document entitled “Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners;” and the general "law of nations." These claims were all rejected, with the federal appeals court holding that prisoners had no legal entitlement to any payment for their work in prison, under either the U.S. Constitution or international law. Serra v. Lappin, #08-15969, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 7324 (9th Cir.).

    •Return to the Contents menu.

     Jail Planning: Jail Planning and Expansion: Local Officials and Their Roles, Second Edition, NIJ, March 2010, NCJ 230031.

    Prison Rape and Sexual Assault: Evaluating the Use of Radio Frequency Identification Device (RFID) Technology to Prevent and Investigate Sexual Assaults in a Correctional Setting, NIJ-Sponsored, October 2009, NCJ 229196. (87 pages). PDF NCJRS Abstract

Reference:

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

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