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.

False Imprisonment

      The California Department of Corrections was statutorily immune under state law from a lawsuit for damages stemming from the alleged erroneous revocation of parole. The plaintiff could not pursue his false imprisonment claim on the basis of his detention on a supposed parole violation after his parole had already expired. Torres v. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, #B242586, 2013 Cal. App. Lexis 526.

Furlough

     A New York prisoner claimed that officials violated his equal protection and Eighth Amendment rights by denying his request for a leave of absence from incarceration to seek treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. He claimed that prisoners suffering certain physical ailments were granted such leaves, but that he was denied one because his was a mental health issue. The defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because there was no evidence that they had acted unreasonably in believing that the mental health needs of prisoners were being adequately met in the facility. There was a rational basis for distinguishing between mental ailments for which treatment was available in the facility, and certain physical ailments that there were no treatments provided for while still incarcerated.  Spavone v. N.Y. State Department of Correctional Services, #11-617, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 12549 (2nd Cir.).

Lockdowns

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

    A prisoner adequately alleged a pattern of repeated prison-wide lockdowns for flimsy or no reasons at all. His grievance only listen two specific lockdowns, but mentioned 14 others and claimed that they were the result of a conspiracy among union employee and prison officials to artificially create a staff shortage and negotiate a pay raise. He adequately exhausted administrative remedies. In a less than three year period, the facility was locked down for 534 days, or more than 50% of the time. While none of the lockdowns were longer than 90 days, they could violate applicable norms if imposed for some "utterly trivial" infraction, such as isolated fights, rumors of potential fights, or no reason. He also stated a viable claim for unlawful deprivation of exercise when he asserted that it caused him serious medical conditions and injuries. Eighth Amendment claims for overcrowding, lack of hygiene and medical care, small cells, and overcrowding had all been the subject of prior lawsuits against the facility, similar to conditions described by the plaintiff, and these claims were also viable. Turley v. Rednour, #11-1491, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 13571 (7th Cir.).

Prison & Jail Conditions: General

     The trial court acted properly in dismissing a prisoner's individual capacity claims against a warden concerning supposed health, safety, and communications issues allegedly imposing unconstitutional conditions of confinement when there were no allegations, either directly or indirectly that the warden had himself acted or failed to act in any way that would subject him to personal liability. At the same time, the trial court did not properly exercise its discretion by refusing to allow the prisoner to attempt to amend his complaint. Grullon v. City of New Haven, #11-3184, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 12445 (2nd Cir.).

Prisoner Assault: By Inmate

     A 67-year-old male prisoner prone to disorientation and confusion and suffering from dementia sued jail officers and the county sheriff after his cellmate at the county jail severely beat him. The defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because there was no evidence that officers were subjectively aware that the plaintiff faced a substantial risk of serious harm or that the sheriff's department policies or customs caused his injuries. His wife's claims for loss of consortium were also rejected. Goodman v. Kimbrough, #12-10732, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 12740 (11th Cir.).

     After a prisoner who belonged to a gang was assigned to share a cell with a member of a rival gang, he was injured in an attack by his cellmate. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for defendant prison officials. There was no evidence that officials were deliberately indifferent to the risk of the assault occurring if the two prisoners were housed together. While the plaintiff allegedly informed an officer that he should not be housed with his cellmate, there was no other evidence showing that any of the defendants knew of any facts that would support an inference that they knew housing the two men together created a substantial risk of violence. While the plaintiff had been involved in an earlier fight with a member of a rival gang, he himself had said that the fight was personal and not gang related, and that the differences had since been resolved. There were no earlier disputes between the plaintiff and the man assigned to be his cellmate. Labatad v. Corrections Corporation of America, #12-15019, 714 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir.).

Prisoner Suicide

     A prisoner's mother and estate sued correctional personnel who were working at the county jail at the time he successfully committed suicide by using a bed sheet to hang himself, as well as various county entities. The lawsuit claimed that, despite knowledge of the prisoner's mental illness, the defendants failed to take appropriate precautions such as removing the bedding from his cell or making sure that he took his medications after a prior unsuccessful suicide attempt. The defendants filed an appeal challenging the denial of Alabama's state immunity under a section of a state statute concerning a state law wrongful death claim. The federal appeals court certified to the Alabama Supreme Court two unresolved questions of state law: 1. whether the immunity granted to sheriffs' jailers under the statute applied to conduct before the statute's effective date, but the lawsuit was filed after that date, and 2. whether the statute's requirement that jailers act "in accordance with the law" in order to receive immunity was intended to encompass only violations of the state criminal code or all violations of state law.  Johnson v. Conner, #12-15228, 203 U.S. App. Lexis 13831 (11th Cir.).

Prison Litigation Reform Act: Three Strikes Rule

     A federal trial court denied a prisoner the right to proceed with his lawsuit as a pauper under the "three strikes" rule of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, and ordered dismissal of the lawsuit if he failed to pay the required filing fee. The prisoner had, according to the trial court, accumulated three of his strikes while litigating a petition for habeas corpus challenging his criminal conviction and not raising any issues concerning his conditions of confinement. The federal appeals court ruled that since that his petition and its appeal were not civil actions for purposes of the three strikes rule, their dismissals were not "strikes." Since that eliminated three of his supposed five strikes, he should be allowed to proceed with his lawsuit as a pauper. Jones v. Smith, #12-401, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 12446 (2nd Cir.).

Sex Offender

     A federal sex offender who had already completed his sentence before Congress enacted the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C.S. § 16901 argued that the statute therefore did not apply to him, and challenged his conviction for failing to comply with the law's registration requirements when he moved within Texas. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a federal appeals court's ruling overturning his conviction on the basis that he had been unconditionally freed. Congress acted within its authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution in regulating the defendant's interstate movements and the registration requirements of the law applied to him and to others who had completed their sentences when the law became effective. U.S. v. Kebodeaux, #12-418, 2013 U.S. Lexis 4715

Strip Searches: Prisoners

     An ex-prisoner from Illinois claimed that, during his incarceration, he was subjected to a number of improper strip searches designed to humiliate him and that this was done in retaliation for his filing of grievances complaining about earlier searches. A jury returned a verdict for the defendants. On appeal, the court reversed, finding that the trial court improperly instructed the jury by putting the burden of proof on the wrong party, telling them that, to prevail on his retaliation claim, the prisoner had to prove that his filing of the prior grievances "were the sole cause of the particular strip search." The court stated that "The jury should have been instructed that the plaintiff had the burden of proving that retaliation was a motivating factor in the strip search, but that, even if he proved this, the defendants could still prevail if they persuaded the jury that it was more likely than not that the strip search would have taken place even if there had been no retaliatory motive."Mays v. Springborn, #11-2218, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 11762 (7th Cir.).

•Return to the Contents menu.

      AIDS/HIV: "Routine HIV Screening During Intake Medical Evaluation at a County Jail — Fulton County, GA, 2011–2012," 62 (24) Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 495-497.

     Prison Rape and Sexual Abuse: "PREA Data Collection Activities, 2013," by Allen J. Beck (June 13, 2013 NCJ 242114).

     Statistics: "Jails in Indian Country, 2012," by Todd Minton (June 27, 2013 NCJ 242187).

     Voting: "Felony Disenfranchisement: A Primer," by Jean Chung (The Sentencing Project, June 2013).

Reference:

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

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