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 via Internet. Westlaw requires a fee.
• 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.

Chemical Agents

     An inmate in an Illinois maximum security facility claimed to have been exposed to fumes at least eight times when guards used pepper spray against other prisoners. He also claimed that this aggravated his glaucoma, although he never sought medical treatment for it. He asserted that officers ignored requests, after pepper spraying incidents, to air out cells. The prisoner failed to establish that the warden knew that he had been exposed to pepper spray fumes or that he suffered from glaucoma, which was thereby aggravated. Claims against the warden for deliberate indifference were therefore properly rejected. Flournoy v. Schomig, #09-3610, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 8303 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).

Drugs and Drug Screening

     A Wisconsin inmate claimed that his due process rights were violated by compelling him to undergo unnecessary substance abuse treatment. After he was sentenced to 20 years for a burglary crime, a screening found him not to be in need of substance abuse treatment, but he was ordered to undergo it anyway, since he had not completed a mandatory substance-abuse program while serving a prior sentence for a drug offense. A federal appeals court ruled that the plaintiff failed to show that he faced consequences sufficient to deprive him of a constitutionally protected liberty interest.

     By refusing treatment, he did face significant consequences, including a diminished chance of discretionary parole, work release, better custody classification, and transfer to institutions that he apparently regarded as better facilities. "Such privileges, however, are not protected under the Constitution." Additionally, as for his argument that he "faced stigma" from being labeled substance-dependent, "that label alone is insufficient to affect a liberty interest." Knowlin v. Heise, #10-3288, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 8792 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).

Furlough

     A Vermont prisoner claimed that his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights were violated by the revocation of his furlough or conditional re-entry status. Noting that no court has previously held that Vermont's conditional re-entry program vests a prisoner with a constitutionally protected liberty interest, a federal appeals court held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, as the law on the subject was not clearly established in 2005, the date of the revocation. Ladd v. Thibault, #09-4589, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 24848 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.).

Inmate Funds

     Upholding the Rhode Island Department of Corrections'  change in its policy and practice of no longer paying interest on prisoner's accounts, a federal appeals court ruled that inmates had no constitutionally protected property right to interest not yet paid into their accounts. The change in policy, therefore, did not constitute an unconstitutional taking. Young v. Wall, #10-1862, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 7692 (1st Cir.).

Mail

     A prisoner claimed that personnel at a county detention facility violated his rights by losing or keeping from him important legal documents in his mail that he needed for his defense to probation violation charges in a criminal case unrelated to his current incarceration. The lawsuit was properly dismissed, as the prisoner failed to allege that the improper opening of his legal mail prejudiced his defense, that opened mail was improperly returned to senders in violation of institutional policies, or that the policies in place were unconstitutional. Gutierrez v. Torres, #10-2183, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 5983 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).

     A Wyoming prisoner, as chairman of the Wyoming Prisoners' Association and an official of the Wyoming chapter of the Citizens United for Rehabilitation, published a combined newsletter for these organizations, reporting on legal issues of interest to prisoners. He shipped 693 copies of the newsletter together in one box addressed to the Wyoming State Penitentiary. Inside the box, each newsletter was addressed to an individual prisoner. The warden refused to deliver the newsletters to prisoners, while he would deliver newsletters which were individually addressed and sent.

     A federal appeals court upheld as constitutional the rule in question, which prohibited all bulk mailings, regardless of content. The policy was reasonably related to prison security, and unsolicited bulk mailings could increase tensions and result in disruptive behavior. The policy did not violate the plaintiff's First Amendment rights. Parkhurst v. Lampert, #10-8078, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 6567 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).

     A prisoner classified as a sex offender was denied a number of issues of subscription music publications such as Rolling Stone, Maxim, Blender, and Spin, based on the presence of photos of females thought to be sexually oriented, in violation of restrictions on the types of materials he could receive. He failed to show how such restrictions violated his First Amendment rights, and the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. The prisoner was allowed numerous issues of such publications, and only those containing materials believed to be adverse to his rehabilitation as a sex offender were withheld. Frazier v. Ortiz, #10-1133, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 6381 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).

Medical Care

     A juvenile detainee arrested in Oklahoma complained of a headache and dizziness and was told to go to sleep. When the problem persisted, he was given Tylenol. His headaches and nausea continued, he fell down, and he was ultimately found non-responsive in his cell. He had suffered a traumatic brain injury which left him non-verbal and non-ambulatory and he also requires a ventilator to breathe and intravenous feeding. Claims of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need survived summary judgment, as a jury could reasonably find that a correctional officer improperly delayed calling 911 and having the detainee taken to a hospital. Colbert ex rel. T.D.S. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, #10-6145, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 3877 (10th Cir.).

     A prisoner claimed that medical personnel exhibited deliberate indifference to his knee injury by failing to prescribe surgery instead of physical therapy, and by failing to more quickly arrange for a follow-up with an orthopedist. The federal appeals court, however, found that the knee injury was not serious enough that the alleged actions, even if true, amounted to deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. No medical records demonstrated a need for surgery, and the inmate appeared to respond well to the physical therapy provided. Goris v. Breslin, #10-0491, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 24462 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.).

Prison and Jail Conditions: General

     Despite a prisoner's complaints, a policy of double-bunking did not violate his constitutional rights, nor did one night spent with an "unhappy" cellmate demonstrate unconstitutional conditions of confinement. The prisoner's Eighth Amendment claims were properly dismissed. Allen v. Figuera, #10-1162, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 6097 (10th Cir.).

Prisoner Assault: By Inmate

     A pretrial detainee failed to show that a police detective, by disclosing to other prisoners his role as a state witness in a murder prosecution, caused him to suffer an assault. At the same time, the appeals court ordered further proceedings on the prisoner's claim for emotional and mental damages from the fear he suffered because of the detective's disclosure to the other prisoners, which was allegedly done when he declined to be interviewed about an unrelated matter. This claim was not barred by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e), which prohibits the awarding of damages for mental or emotional distress without a showing of prior physical injury, the court ruled, as the prisoner could still be awarded nominal or punitive damages for the violation of his constitutional rights. Harris v. Matthews, #10-1405, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 6386 (10th Cir.).

     A prisoner confined in a privately operated facility claimed that the company in charge or its authorized decision maker failed to enforce a policy of protecting inmates from harm, resulting in him being stabbed by a prisoner with known violent propensities. The prisoner failed to show that the defendant knew or should have known that housing him with the prisoner who attacked him created a dangerous risk of harm given his prior conduct and mental illness. Additionally, the prisoner could not assert his right to a jury trial simply because of his dissatisfaction with the findings of the magistrate judge, having previously waived a jury trial. Winding v. The Geo Group, Inc., #09-60693, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 26259 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).

Prisoner Assault: By Officer

     A jury returned a verdict against a prisoner on his claim that officers at a county jail had severely beat and injured him over an extended period of time. Officers present at the time gave conflicting testimony as to whether or not the plaintiff had swung at an officer, whether he had been hit at all, and whether force had been properly used to restrain him. A federal appeals court found that the trial court had applied the wrong legal standard in denying the plaintiff's motion for a new trial, incorrectly stating that it could not grant a new trial unless the evidence relied on by the jury contradicted indisputable physicals facts or laws. Instead, the court had the discretion to grant a new trial if it believed that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Further proceedings were ordered using that legal standard. Mejia v. Cook County, Illinois, #09-3540, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 8316 (7th Cir.).

Prisoner Discipline

     A prisoner's due process rights were violated during a disciplinary hearing when the hearing officer failed to watch security videotapes of the time at issue to resolve the conflict between a security captain's statement that the assault at issue had not been recorded, and the accused prisoner's testimony that the captain had previously told him that it was captured on videotape. It did not violate due process, however, to allow the victim of the assault not to testify, as "institutional concerns, including the possibility of retaliation, may make it wholly impractical to compel an inmate's testimony at a disciplinary hearing." Burns v. PA Dept. of Corrections, #09-2872, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 7999 (3rd Cir.).

Prisoner Suicide

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

     A private company that contracted with a county to provide medical services at a jail was found liable for failing to prevent the suicide of a detainee. The defendant was aware of the risk that he might commit suicide when he answered "yes" to ten questions on a suicide screening form at intake. The jury awarded $750,000 in damages, and the court also awarded the plaintiffs $234,320 in attorneys' fees, and $11,302.20 in costs. The court also reduced the damage award against the defendant company to $257,000 to reflect the amount paid by other defendant parties who settled before trial. The jury had found the private company 35% at fault for the death, while assessing 65% of the blame against the county and its employees. A federal appeals court upheld this result. Sinkov v. Americor, Inc., #10-0309, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 7667 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.).

Religion

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

     The U.S. Supreme Court has held that states, in accepting federal funding, do not consent to waive their sovereign immunity to private suits for money damages under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U. S. C. §2000cc-1. The decision means that prisoners may still file lawsuits seeking injunctive or declaratory relief to compel states to change policies or practices that they claim unduly restrict religious freedom under the statute, but may not seek money damages against states and their agencies. The lawsuit was brought by a Texas inmate who claimed that he was denied the right to attend Christian worship services because of disciplinary rules restricting him to his cell, and sought damages from the state and its prison officials. Sossamon v. Texas, #08–1438, 2011 U.S. Lexis 3187.

     A prisoner sued Jewish organizations that contracted with the Washington State Department of Corrections to provide Jewish religious services to prisoners, claiming that they violated his rights to religious freedom under the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U. S. C. §2000cc-1 by refusing to recognize him as Jewish. As a consequence, they denied his requests for access to a Torah, a Jewish religious calendar, and a visit from a rabbi. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the defendants, holding that they were private parties and not state actors, and did not "foster or further" any government policy. They therefore could not be sued for allegedly violating the prisoner's civil rights. Florer v. Congregation Pidyon Shevuyim, #07-35866, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 7742 (9th Cir.).

     A Muslim inmate who attends "Jumah" services on Fridays, complained that he was not allowed to comply with the requirement that he perform ablution, or ritual cleansing, prior to the services because he was only allowed to shower during specified times, and during the only designated shower time on Friday prior to the services, he was required to work. The court ruled, however, that this did not substantially burden his religious freedom since partial ablution, washing his hands, face, and feet, was an acceptable religious practice prior to the service, and he was able to perform such washing at the sink in his cell. Sayed v. Profitt, #10-1491, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 5525 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).

Retaliation

     A prisoner filed a number of grievances concerning his medical care, the confiscation of his tennis shoes, and his request to have an extra blanket for medical purposes. A letter he sent to the director of the state Department of Corrections regarding his grievances was regarded as abuse or misuse of the grievance procedure, so he was placed on 12-month grievance restriction. This restriction requires that all grievances be submitted as verified affidavits, under penalty of discipline for lying, along with a list of previously submitted grievances. He then sued, claiming that the grievance restriction was retaliatory for his exercise of his First Amendment rights. A federal appeals court upheld the rejection of this claim, finding the prisoner's allegations "too general" to really show that he had suffered an actual injury from the grievance restriction. Troutt v. Jones, #10-6111, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 5638 (10th Cir.).

     A prisoner filed a grievance against a correctional officer for allegedly smoking at an entrance to a prisoner housing unit, in violation of Michigan law and prison regulations. He claimed that the officer, in retaliation, came to his cell, despite having no duties there, and ordered him to turn off his television, issuing him a misconduct slip when he refused to do so. He was later placed in "Top Lock" for 12 days, lost 8 days' wages, and had four points added to his institutional record, all for disobeying the order, despite the officer's admission that he had the right to watch the television. These sanctions reduced his ability to move to a better job, to obtain placement in a lower security facility, and to be paroled. Based on these facts, a federal appeals court held that the prisoner could proceed with his First Amendment retaliation claim. Taylor v. Lantagne, #08-1696, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 7107 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).

 •Return to the Contents menu.

     Drug Abuse and Treatment: "Treatment Behind Bars: Substance Abuse Treatment in New York State Prisons, 2007-2010," The Correctional Association of New York (Feb. 2011).

     Prisoner Reentry: "Reentry Myth Busters," Federal Interagency Reentry Council (2011).

     Private Prisons: "Prisons For Profit: A Look at Prison Privatization," ACLU of Ohio (April 2011).

Reference:

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

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