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.

Forced Feeding of Prisoners

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

     The highest court in New York has ruled that it did not violate a prisoner's rights to issue a judicial order allowing him to be force fed via a nasogastric tube when his hunger strike caused his health to deteriorate to the point that his condition was believed to be life threatening. Bezio v. Dorsey, #65, 2013 N.Y. Lexis 859, 2013 NY Slip Op 3118.

Foreign Prisoners and Immigrants

     A class of noncitizens was entitled to a preliminary injunction against their continued detention under federal immigration statutes without individualized bond hearings and a judicial determination as to whether their continued detention was justified. The plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their claim that a federal statute only allowed for six months of mandatory detention for alleged violations of immigration statutes, after which a bond hearing was required. Rodriguez v. Robbins, #12-56734, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 7565 (9th Cir.).

     A man who was detained for eight months by immigration authorities was initially agreed to be a U.S. citizen by the defendants in a lawsuit that he brought over his alleged unlawful seizure and false imprisonment. As a citizen, these claims were not barred under a 1996 immigration act, but did bar such claims by aliens. After the trial court dismissed his lawsuit for failing to state a claim, the federal government cancelled his U.S. citizenship, contending that it had been obtained illegally and fraudulently. A federal appeals court ordered proceedings in the trial court to determine whether the plaintiff was a citizen, as, only then could he pursue his claims and an appeal of the dismissal by the trial court. Belleri v. United States, #12-11564, 712 F.3d 543 (11th Cir. 2013).

Governmental Liability

     A federal appeals court overturned a judgment for a county in a lawsuit claiming that it was responsible for a man's false conviction that was based on perjured testimony obtained from a jailhouse informant who was unreliable. The court reinstated the claim, noting that the district attorney, in determining admiistrative policies and carrying out training regarding the functioning of the officer, represented the county, and that his actions had included establishing an index concerning the use of jailhouse informants. Goldstein v. City of Long Beach, #10-56787, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 9333 (9th Cir.).

Mail

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

     A federal district court judge ruled that a county jail that adopted a rule that restricted incoming and outgoing personal inmate mail to only postcards was unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The court ruled that it violated the rights of the inmates themselves, individuals who write to them, and the publishers of the Prison Legal News publication. The interest in keeping contraband out of the facility and reducing costs in screening mail did not outweigh the free speech rights involved. Prison Legal News v. Columbia County, #3:12-cv-00071, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 58669 (D. Ore.).

Medical Care

     A prisoner claimed that the failure to provide him with prescription eye drops for his glaucoma violated his Eighth Amendment rights as well as constituting negligence under state law. He failed to show that the delays in supplying him with the eye drops was due to deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, and the trial court did not err in declining to retain jurisdiction over the state law negligence claim. Byrd v. Shannon, #11-1744, 709 F.3d 211 (3rd Cir. 2013).

Positional, Restraint and Compressional Asphyxia

     An arrestee who appeared intoxicated actively resisted officers both during the process of being arrested and when taken into jail. He was handcuffed and pepper sprayed. Then, at the jail, when he continued to resist, he was held down and a Taser was applied to him three times in the stun mode. He was held face down, ceased breathing, and was taken to a hospital where he died. A medical expert for the plaintiff expressed the opinion that his cause of death was traumatic asphyxia due to compression of his neck and back while being restrained. A federal appeals court ruled that the defendant officers were entitled to qualified immunity when there was insufficient evidence to support the strangulation theory, since only the expert's conclusory opinion supported it. That opinion was contradicted by other evidence, including the testimony of all the officers and two EMTs. Burdine v. Sandusky County, Ohio, #12-3672, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 7691, 2013 Fed. App. 376N, 2013 WL 1606906 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).

Prison Litigation Reform Act: Exhaustion of Remedies

     An arrestee claimed that after he had been shot, correctional officers cuffed both his ankle and his wrist to a hospital bed, denied him medical treatment, and harmed him by restricting the movement of his injured leg. He claimed that he therefore suffered permanent harm from a pulmonary embolism which was life threatening. A federal appeals court ruled that summary judgment had been improperly granted to the defendants on the federal claims on the basis of failure to exhaust administrative remedies, because the plaintiff was not a prisoner at the time thev filed the lawsuit so that the exhaustion of remedies provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act did not apply to him. Lesesne v. Doe, #11-7120, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 7098 (D.C. Cir.).

Prisoner Assault: By Inmate

    A pretrial detainee in a county detention facility was housed in a maximum security cellblock because of a history of problems during a prior detention and a parole hold. While housed there another inmate severely beat him. He sued, claiming that the approach used in classifying detainees for cellblock placement created a risk to his safety by not taking steps to separate violent offenders from nonviolent ones, leading to his assault. Upholding summary judgment for the defendant sheriff's department, a federal appeals court found that the plaintiff failed to provide any real evidence that the security classification policy in effect represented a systematic failure to avoid obvious risks to detainee safety. Smith v. Sangamon Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't., #11-1979, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 7830 (7th Cir.).

Prisoner Discipline

     During an effort to remove a prisoner from his cell, an altercation occurred. Afterwards, an officer filed a major misconduct report, accusing the prisoner of assault and battery. At the hearing, the prisoner pled not guilty and tried to disqualify the hearing officer, claiming that he was biased. He was found guilty and given 30 days in detention. He was not allowed to view a video of the incident, since doing so would "reveal the limitations and capabilities" of the fixed point security device. The prisoner sued, claiming cruel and unusual punishment. The federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the defendants, ruling that the resolution of disputed facts by a major misconduct hearing precluded those issues from being relitigated in subsequent litigation. In this case, the hearing officer's finding that the inmate grabbed the officer's hand rather than, as the inmate claimed, the officer putting his hand into the cell to provide an excuse to pull him out of the cell and assault him. The prisoner was precluded from arguing that issue in subsequent litigation.  Peterson v. Johnson, #11-1845, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 7370, 2013 Fed App. 0106P (6th Cir.).

Segregation: Administrative

     A federal trial court dismissed a prisoner's challenge to the alleged lack of due process in the periodic reviews of his administrative segregation in a prison special housing unit, finding that it was barred by the decision in his earlier lawsuit raising similar issues. A federal appeals court reinstated his claims, finding that his current complaint was based on allegations of new facts not previously litigated. Proctor v. LeClaire, #11-3312, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 8381 (2nd Cir.).

•Return to the Contents menu.

     Prison Rape: PREA Audit Instrument - Prisons and Jails (May 2013).

     Prison Rape: "Sexual Abuse in Custody: A Case Law Survey," by Brenda V. Smith and Melissa C. Loomis (Feb. 2013).

     Prison Searches: "Cross-gender Searches: A Case Law Survey," by Brenda V. Smith and Melissa C. Loomis (Feb. 2013).

Reference:

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

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