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. .
• Most Federal District Court opinions can be accessed via PACER. Registration required. Opinions are usually free; other documents are 10¢ per page.
• Access to cases linked to www.findlaw.com may require registration, which is free.

Criminal Conduct

     A former federal corrections officer was sentenced to 48 months in prison and three years of supervised release on criminal charges that he arranged for prisoners to send money through the mail or via Western Union, to co-conspirators outside the prison. That money was then paid to the officer as bribes in exchange for smuggling cigarettes, marijuana, and other contraband into a federal corrections center. A co-conspirator was sentenced to two years probation. U.S. v. Hinnant, #5:11-cr-00354, U.S. Dist. Ct. (E.D.N.C. Aug. 15, 2012). Prosecutor's press release.

Exercise

     A Colorado prisoner in solitary confinement complained about the lack of outdoor exercise. He was locked in his cell 23 hours a day. He and other solitary confinement prisoners receive five one-hour exercise sessions in an exercise room per week. A federal judge ruled that this lack of outdoor exercise was cruel and unusual punishment and a "serious deprivation of a human need." Anderson v. State of Colorado Dept. of Corrections, 1:10-cv-01005, 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 120309 (D. Colo.).

False Imprisonment

     Two California prisoners were kept confined beyond their scheduled dates of release for the purpose of completing an evaluation of whether they should be classified as sexually violent predators and therefore civilly committed. In both cases, the parole board had issued 45-day parole holds. The California Supreme Court found that the definition of what a "good cause" was for holding a prisoner beyond their sentence, contained in a state regulation, was invalid, but the parole board's reliance on it was excusable since no prior court decision had invalidated it. The board's action was excusable as a good faith mistake of law. In re Lucas, #S181788, 53 Cal. 4th 839, 137 Cal. Rptr. 3d 595, 269 P.3d 1160 (2012).

Medical Care

     A prisoner argued that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs because they failed to comply with his medical chrono (a collection of informal notes taken by prison officials documenting medical orders) by not housing him in a ground floor cell, and by failing to provide him with an interpreter at his medical appointments. The trial court dismissed his complaint with prejudice. A federal appeals court vacated that dismissal, finding that the trial court acted erroneously by declining to consider arguments by the plaintiff which he raised for the first time in response to objecting to the magistrate's findings and recommendations. The plaintiff's objections directed the court's attention to fact explaining that he might have exhausted his administrative remedies, as well as the facts that he was disabled, had limited English skills, and was illiterate. Failure to consider these things was an abuse of discretion. Akhtar v. Mesa, #11-16629, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 22701 (9th Cir.).

     A prisoner's lawsuit asserted that he was suffering excruciating pain because he was not being provided with effective medical treatment for his hemorrhoids, which had grown to the size of golf balls. He sought an injunction against the alleged inadequate medical care. While trial judges assigned to such prisoner cases are supposed to screen them "as soon as practicable" after they were docketed, to weed out frivolous or malicious lawsuits and let the rest move forward, in this instance, the complaint had not been screened, even though ten months had elapsed. This was too long and federal judges "must not leave litigants to bear pain indefinitely." Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., #12-1806, 689 F.3d 680 (7th Cir. 2012).

Prison Litigation Reform Act: "Three Strikes" Rule

     A prisoner claimed that a correctional facility failed to enforce a grooming policy requiring that each inmate barber have three interchangeable razor heads, with one being disinfected while another was in use. He argued that this exposed him to a risk of infection. He sought to proceed on the lawsuit as a pauper and the trial court dismissed the claim, which was the plaintiff's third dismissal; for failure to state a claim. A federal appeals court interpreting the "three strikes rule" of the Prison Litigation Reform Act ruled that the dismissal of the immediate claim could not count as the third strike for purposes of the rule, as it was not a third "prior" dismissal. Counting it as the third strike would effectively insulate the dismissal itself from appellate review. Henslee v. Keller, #11-6707, 681 F.3d 538 (4th Cir. 2012)

Prisoner Assault: By Officer

     A prisoner claimed that a corrections officer used excessive force against him in his cell by yanking his hands through a slot in the cell door before removing his handcuffs. Before the lawsuit was filed, there were color photos of the prisoner's injuries as well as stationary video footage of the area where the alleged assault occurred, which were used in an internal investigation. The prisoner asked the officer, during discovery, to produce the photos and video footage but this evidence could not be located by prison officials, and they must have been lost or destroyed. The prisoner was not entitled to a jury instruction concerning making an adverse inference against him because of this missing evidence. There was no indication that the officer should be held responsible for the loss of this evidence or that he had previously had possession of it so as to destroy it. The appeals court noted that to require all defendants in situations like this officer "take affirmative steps to ensure that their employing prison continues to maintain evidentiary records for every incident with a prisoner would impose an added burden on prison employees." Adkins v. Wolever, # 11–1656, 692 F.3d 499 (6th Cir.  2012).

Prisoner Classification

     California prison regulations provided that classifying a prisoner as a gang member could have the consequence of him being housed in a security housing unit. An intermediate appeals court granted a petitioner habeas relief from being designated a gang member, as it disagreed with the department's interpretation of the regulation at issue. The California Supreme Court overturned that ruling, finding that the appeals court had failed to appropriately defer to the corrections department's interpretation of its own regulations. The department interpreted the regulation as not requiring proof of two-way interaction between the prisoner and another inmate already deemed a gang affiliate. The department's policy of classifying some inmates as gang affiliates based on their own unilateral actions was not clearly unreasonable. In re Cabrera, #S19728, 2012 Cal. Lexis 9985.

Prisoner Suicide

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

     A 16-year-old in an Illinois juvenile detention facility had a history of mental illness and three known prior in custody suicide attempts. The record of his latest intake assessment indicated that he suffered from major depression, psychosis, bipolar disorder, anger, behavior disorders and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. He had also previously gone through drug abuse counseling. He had a history of setting fires, cruelty to animals, threatening to kill teachers, alcohol and cannabis use, gang affiliation, and putting a gun to a cousin's head. Despite all this, the juvenile stated that he was not having depressive or manic symptoms and had not recently had suicidal thoughts. Prozac and lithium was prescribed for him and he was evaluated for suicide risk from time to time. Subsequently, he successfully hung himself in his cell.

     Even assuming that the plaintiff had shown that the defendants were aware of the suicide risk of using metal bunk beds in rooms for mentally disturbed detainees, and that alternative arrangements were feasible, the law was not clearly established enough to defeat the defendant supervisors' defense of qualified immunity. A defendant doctor was not sufficiently enough involved with the decedent to be liable for his death. Miller v. Harbaugh, #11-3418, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 21855 (7th Cir.).

Private Prisons and Entities

     A prisoner appealed from the dismissal of his claims against a doctor on a federal civil rights claim. While the prisoner did not received required notices spelling out what he had to do to oppose her motion for summary judgment, this was harmless since it was clear that there were no facts that would allow the inmate to prevail. The doctor, at the time she treated the prisoner, was working as an independent contractor and not as an employee of the prison or the hospital. She was not a state actor and could not be liable for a federal civil rights claim. Emergency medical care is not a traditionally and exclusively government function. Stratton v. Buck, #10-35656, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 19660 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).

•Return to the Contents menu.

     Behavioral Health Problems: "Adults with Behavioral Health Needs under Correctional Supervision: A Shared Framework for Reducing Recidivism and Promoting Recovery," Justice Center, The Council of State Governments (September 27, 2012).

     Juvenile Prisoners: "Growing Up Locked Down: Youth in Solitary Confinement in Jails and Prisons Across the United States," by Human Rights Watch and ACLU (October 2012).

     Prison Overcrowding: "Bureau of Prisons: Growing Inmate Crowding Negatively Affects Inmates, Staff, and Infrastructure," U.S. Government Accountability Office (September 2012).

Reference:

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

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