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.

Attorneys' Fees

    After a prisoner's negligence and emotional distress claims against an Idaho county were found to be frivolous, the defendants were awarded $13,172 in attorneys' fees and costs against the prisoner under state law. The prisoner tried to avoid this award by filing a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. A federal bankruptcy appellate panel ruled that the discharge granted in the bankruptcy proceeding did not relieve him from having to pay. The award constituted a debt arising out of a "fine, penalty, or forfeiture payable to and for the benefit of a governmental unit," which cannot be discharged through bankruptcy. Searcy v. ADA County Prosecuting Atty. Office (In re Searcy), #09-00248, 2012 Bankr. Lexis 204 (B.A.P. 9th Cir.).

DNA

     The state of California's compelling interest in collecting DNA samples for the purposes of solving and deterring crimes far outweighs any privacy interest that arrestees have in declining to provide such samples for inclusion in a DNA database. A federal appeals court, therefore, refused to enjoin an amendment to a state statute requiring the collection of DNA samples from all adult arrestees taken into custody on felony charges. Haskell v. Harris, #10-15152, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 3588 (9th Cir.).

Inmate Funds

     Under an Indiana state law, a prison's recreation fund that acquired money from sources other than state funds, such as profits from sales at the prison's commissary, was required to spend those funds strictly for the "direct benefit" of prisoners, and for things not covered by state appropriations. A prisoner sued, claiming that money from the fund was improperly being used for prohibited purposes, without due process of law. He claimed prison officials had diverted some of the funds for their own personal use and that other funds were used for purposes already covered by existing state budget allocations, such as the purchase of cameras and other devices for prison security enhancement. Regardless of the truth or falsity of these claims, the prisoner had no property interest in the money in the fund. The lawsuit was therefore properly dismissed. Booker-El v. Superintendent, Indiana State Prison, #10–1490, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 2549 (7th Cir.).

Interrogation

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

     A prisoner was questioned for between five and seven hours in a conference room at a prison by two deputies who asked him about crimes he was accused of engaging in before his incarceration. He confessed and was later convicted, with the confession admitted into evidence despite the fact that he had been given no Miranda warnings during the questioning. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the prisoner had not been taken into custody for Miranda purposes, since he was told at the beginning and reminded later that he was free to leave and go back to his cell. Additionally, he was not physically restrained or threatened, was interviewed in a well-lit, average-sized conference room where the door was sometimes left open, and was offered food and water. These "facts are consistent with an environment in which a reasonable person would have felt free to terminate the interview and leave, subject to the ordinary restraints of life behind bars." Howes v. Fields, #10-680, 2012 U.S. Lexis 1077.

Medical Care

     A female prisoner suffering from cervical cancer had her ovary and lymph nodes removed during a radical hysterectomy, allegedly without her consent. A federal appeals court rejected her civil rights claim, however, finding no evidence of deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs. Her contention that the removals of the ovary and lymph nodes were not necessary because subsequent examination revealed that they were not cancerous was, at most, medical negligence or a mere disagreement with the medical treatment given, which was insufficient for a federal civil rights claim. Sama v. Hannigan, #10-40835, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 2107 (5th Cir.).

Religion

     A prisoner who belongs to the Ahlus Sunnati Wal Jama'ah faith argued that none of the services two prisons offered for three varieties of Islam (Nation of Islam, Moorish Science Temple, and Sunni) were sufficient to meet his religious needs. A federal appeals court found that individual state prison officials, since they were not personally the grant "recipients" of federal funds, could not be held individually liable under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) of 2000, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000cc et seq. That statute was passed under the spending power given to Congress by the Constitution. As to a claim under the First Amendment, it was not clearly established that the providing of Sunni religious services was inadequate for prisoners of his faith. Sharp v. Johnson, #08–2174, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 2560 (3rd Cir.).

     On a Native American prisoner's claim that state correctional officials substantially burdened the practice of his religion, he could not pursue money damages claims against them in their official capacity because of the Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity of the state. Since the prisoner had subsequently been freed from incarceration, his claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were moot. Alvarez v. Hill, #10-35865, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 1174 (9th Cir.).

Retaliation

     Any humiliation which an inmate suffered when a correctional officer laughed and brushed his thigh against the inmate's while he was sitting on the toilet in his cell rather than leaving, was insufficient for an Eighth Amendment violation. The prisoner's claims, however, that officers threatened to hit him, to not bring him breakfast, and filed a false disciplinary charge against him, stated valid First Amendment retaliation claims if done because of his filing of various grievances. A retaliation claim was also adequately stated against a warden who allegedly was motivated by the prisoner's grievances to lie about him so that his parole would be denied. Watison v. Carter, #10–16778, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 2818 (9th Cir.).

Sex Offenders

     Cutbacks imposed for budgetary reasons on a treatment program for sexually violent predators did not violate an institutionalized offender's substantive due process rights. He was placed in the institution until his condition sufficiently changes and it is safe for him to be released, and the cutbacks reduced the amount of treatment he received. Sex offenders do not have a fundamental constitutional right to treatment. Confining him and his fellow offenders to a restriction table for the entire time period from early morning until late evening except for meals was not "overly restrictive." Strutton v. Meade, #10–2029, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 2117 (8th Cir.).

Telephone Access and Usage

     A prisoner sued over the allegedly excessive fees charged by a company providing telephone services to prisoners at a facility. The phone provider paid the prison 45% of the gross revenues provided. The federal appeals court ruled that the prison had no First Amendment obligation to provide any telephone services at all, and also had no obligation to do so at any "particular cost to users." Holloway v. Magness, #11–1455, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 1961, (8th Cir.).

     Editor's note: For more on this issue, see Legal Issues Pertaining to Inmate Telephone Use, 2008 (2) AELE Mo. L.J. 301.

•Return to the Contents menu.

     Prisoner Reentry: "A Signaling Perspective on Employment-Based Reentry," Special issue of Criminology & Public Policy (February 2012).

     Female Prisoners: "Reproductive Health Locked Up: An Examination of Pennsylvania Jail Policies," Pennsylvania ACLU (Feb. 15, 2012).

     Private Prisons: "Private Prisons: The Public's Problem. A Quality Assessment of Arizona's Private Prisons," American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) (February, 2012).

Reference:

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

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