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 charges 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.

False Imprisonment

     An Arizona man on lifetime probation since 1997 for attempted sexual contact with a minor violated his probation and was given a sentencing order in 2006 with a prison term of ten years. He remained incarcerated until 2009, even though the state supreme court ruled in 2008 that the maximum period of probation for his offense was five years, rather than probation for life. Therefore, when he violated probation in 2006, he had already been on probation longer than authorized by law for his offense. In his lawsuit against correctional officials, he claimed that his constitutional right not to remain incarcerated under a sentencing order subsequently held to be invalid was violated, and that the defendants were negligent under state law. The appeals court held that there was no duty, or authority, for correctional officials to review the legality of a prisoner's sentencing order, so they could not be held liable for failing to do so. Additionally, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the federal civil rights claim, as his continued incarceration had not violated any clearly established federal right. Stein v. Ryan, #10-16527, 2011 U.S.App. Lexis 23027 (9th Cir.).

     A Mississippi man convicted of breaking into a car received a five year sentence, with four years conditionally suspended, and the first year to be served in house arrest. After he was arrested again during that first year on a misdemeanor charge, he was imprisoned for a total of fifteen months, until a state court held that the corrections department had not had the authority to reinstate the suspended four years of his sentence. He sued, claiming a violation of his constitutional rights. The appeals court held that the prisoner's detention for over 40 days in the absence of either a facially valid court order or warrant was a violation of his due process rights. The defendant Commissioner of the state Department of Corrections was entitled to qualified immunity from liability, however, since the department's interpretation of the original sentencing order was objectively reasonable, even though a state court subsequently held that the interpretation was wrong. Porter v. Epps, #09-60324, 659 F.3d 440 (5th Cir. 2011).

Inmate Funds

     Kansas prisoners argued that that a requirement that they save 10% of their income in accounts to be disbursed to them only upon their release violated their substantive due process rights. A federal appeals court disagreed, ruling that the requirement was rationally related to a legitimate goal of ensuring that the release eligible prisoners have some funds upon their release to assist their transition back into society. The court did not reach the issue of the constitutionality of the rule as applied to prisoners serving life sentences, since none of those plaintiffs had exhausted their available administrative remedies. Reedy v.Werholtz, #11-3040,  660 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir. 2011).

Prison Litigation Reform Act: Attorneys' Fees

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

     A Rastafarian prisoner claimed that a corrections officer violated his religious rights by touching his dreadlock hair without permission. While the jury held in favor of the prisoner, they only awarded nominal damages of $1. Under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(d)(2) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), the court's award of attorney's fees to the prevailing plaintiff were limited to 150% of the damage award, or $1.50. The appeals court noted that Congress, in granting a statutory right for prevailing plaintiffs in federal civil rights lawsuits to be granted attorneys' fees, departed from the normal rule in U.S. courts that litigants all pay their own attorneys' fees. It was accordingly also free to put a cap on such fees in cases brought by prisoners. Shepherd v. Goord, #10-4821, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 22928 (2nd Cir.).

Prison Litigation Reform Act: Exhaustion of Remedies

     A prisoner who claimed that he was beaten by correctional personnel in retaliation for having filed a grievance filed a federal civil rights lawsuit over the beating without first filing a new grievance over it. The defendants argued that the suit should be dismissed, given the requirement in 42 U.S.C. Sec 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) that a prisoner exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit. The appeals court held that the prisoner could proceed with his lawsuit if he could show that his fear of additional retaliation reasonably deterred him from filing another grievance. The appeals court concluded that when "a prison official inhibits an inmate from utilizing an administrative process through threats or intimidation, that process can no longer be said to be 'available.'" Tuckel v. Grover, #10-1353, 660 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2011).

Prisoner Assault: By Officer

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

     Prisoners stuffed a toilet, causing flooding, as well as breaking light, because they were angry over being denied time in the jail yard. A jail administrator allegedly then pushed one of these prisoners who refused to "catch the wall" when ordered to do so. The prisoner filed a federal civil rights lawsuit for excessive use of force. A federal appeals court upheld the trial judge's ruling for the defendant, finding that it was reasonable for him to use some amount of force against the prisoner under these circumstances for his own safety. The medical records did not support the prisoner's claimed version of the events, as they were not consistent with the defendant having beaten him with a flashlight. Story v. Norwood, #10-3178, 659 F.3d 680 (8th Cir. 2011).

      A prisoner claimed that guards beat him with excessive force after he pulled at his restraints and attempted to grab as food cart. He further claimed that he was denied adequate medical attention after the incident. The trial court erroneously granted summary judgment to the guards on the excessive force claim, as there was an unresolved factual dispute as to whether the prisoner ceased resisting after he was taken to the floor, and whether the beating continued after his resistance ceased. Claims concerning his medical care lacked merit, however, as the record showed that the prisoner received "extensive" treatment for his toe and neck injuries. Alspaugh v. McConnell, #08-2330, 643 F.3d 162 (6th Cir. 2011), rehearing denied, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 14675 (6th Cir.).

Probation

     A man pled guilty to charges of false imprisonment and was placed on probation and released from custody. His probation officer required him to register as a sex offender and be placed in a sex offender probation unit. This was based on the probation officer's mistaken belief that the man's victim had been a minor. He sued, and got his name removed from the sex offender registry and himself from the sex offender probation unit. The plaintiff stated a valid claim against the probation officer for violation of his civil rights. The defamatory harm of being wrongly placed on sex offender status without procedural due process satisfied a "stigma plus" requirement for civil liability for such actions. The probation officer was not entitled to qualified immunity on the procedural due process claim, but substantive due process and equal protection claims were properly rejected. Claims for supervisory liability against the Secretary of the state Department of Corrections were rejected on the basis of qualified immunity, since there was no showing that he was personally involved in the action or that the probation officer acted on the basis of any policy he was responsible for. Brown v. Montoya, #10-2269, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 22533 (10th Cir.).

Religion

     A federal appeals court rejected a challenge to the legality of a prison-paid chaplaincy program that limited the hiring of chaplains to only those who were members of five major faiths--Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, and Native American religions. While a Wiccan chaplain believed that it was unfair that he was not compensated for his services, there was no showing of intentional discrimination against him on the basis of religion. On his employment discrimination claim, requiring that he be a member of the designated faiths was a bona fide occupational qualification justified by the requirement of meeting the religious needs of the prisoners. The court did not reach the issue of whether Wiccan inmates could succeed in a challenge to the policy, but did say that, at this point, there is no clearly established right of Wiccan prisoners to have a paid chaplain. McCollum v. California Department of Corrections, #09-16404, 647 F.3d 870 (9th Cir. 2011).

Retaliation

     A prisoner was not allowed to go to his plumbing crew work assignment, and was told that he fit the profile of an escape risk. He was further told, however, that he had not lost his job, but would be allowed to return to it after certain additional security precautions were in place. After he filed a grievance challenging his classification as an escape risk, he was terminated from his job. Given the sequence of events, he stated a viable claim that he was fired in retaliation for filing the grievance in violation of his First Amendment rights. Milligan v. Archuleta, #11-1218, 659 F.3d 1294 (10th Cir. 2011).

•Return to the Contents menu.

     Female Inmates: "An Examination of Admissions, Exits and End-of-the-Year Populations of Adult Female Inmates in the Illinois Department of Corrections, State Fiscal Years 1989-2011," by David E. Olson, Gipsy Escobar, and Loretta Stalans, The Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority (Oct .2011).

     Sentencing: "Report to Congress: Mandatory Minimum Penalties in the Federal Criminal Justice System," U.S. Sentencing Commission (Oct. 2011).

     Statistics: "Jails in Indian Country, 2010," by Todd D. Minton (December 6, 2011 NCJ 236073). Presents findings from the 2010 Survey of Jails in Indian Country, an enumeration of all jails, confinement facilities, detention centers, and other correctional facilities operated by tribal authorities or the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) on June 30, 2010. The report includes data on the number of adults and juveniles held, type of offense, number of persons confined on the last weekday of each month, average daily population, peak population, and admissions in June 2010. It also provides detailed data on rated capacity, facility crowding, and jail staffing for each facility. Highlights include the following: At midyear 2010, a total of 2,119 inmates were confined in Indian country jails, a 2.6% decrease from the 2,176 inmates confined at midyear 2009. Nationwide, 78,900 American Indians and Alaska Natives were under correctional supervision in the United States. The number of inmates admitted into Indian country jails (12,545) during June 2010 was about 6 times the size of the average daily population (2,009). The expected average length of stay during June 2010 was the highest (12.5 days) in facilities rated to hold 50 or more inmates and the lowest (2.3 days) for jails rated to hold 10 to 24 inmates. Press Release PDF (756K) ASCII file (36K) Spreadsheets (Zip format 32K).

Reference:

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

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