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.

Access to Courts/Legal Info

     A prisoner accused officials of interfering with his access to the court by first confiscating and then destroying his legal papers, doing so in retaliation for an early lawsuit he had filed concerning medical care. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the defendants, pointing out that the prisoner failed to produce evidence either that the defendants acted for retaliatory motives or actually destroyed his papers. Instead, there was evidence that the prisoner created a fire hazard by stacking excess property, including the papers, near his bed. Officials had allowed him to keep some legal materials and he had stored the rest of them, and officials were actually unaware of his pending lawsuit. The prisoner did not submit any evidence to refute this version of events. Devbrow v. Gallegos, #13-1627, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 22278 (7th Cir.).

Electronic Control Weapons: Dart Mode Cases

     A DUI arrestee was being processed at a police station. While handcuffed and sitting in a chair, he kicked an adjacent chair, and then stood up and lifted up that chair. He let go of the chair and began to sit back down again, but before he was completely seated, an officer shot him with a Taser in the dart mode, causing him to fall to the floor. He later pled guilty to menacing in the second degree. The trial judge denied the officer's motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. There was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the force used was reasonable when there was no physical contact between the plaintiff and the officer. He was in the process of sitting down again, and was handcuffed and leg shackled to the wall; he did not struggle with the officer. Further, a video of the incident appeared to show a delay of time between when the plaintiff put down the chair he had picked up and the time the Taser was fired.

     The plaintiff was not precluded from asserting his excessive force claim by his guilty plea to the menacing charge, as the issue of whether the force used by the officer was reasonable was not considered by the court in the criminal case. No basis was found for municipal liability claims against the city. Dudley v. City of Glens Falls, #9:12-cv-00429, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 1355426 (N.D.N.Y.). For additional discussion of the facts of the case, see the earlier magistrate's report and recommendations, which were adopted in whole by the trial judge. Dudley v. City of Glens Falls, #9:12-cv-00429, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 136157 (N.D.N.Y.).

     A pretrial detainee at a Parish jail was involved in a fight with another prisoner. He claimed that jail personnel used excessive force by spraying him with mace and using a Taser in the dart mode against him without warning while breaking up the fight and while he was defending himself against the other prisoner, who he claimed had attacked him. His claims against the sheriff were frivolous as he had not alleged any personal involvement. His claims against the warden for allegedly failing to respond to his grievance about the incident also were frivolous. He also failed to show that the force used was deployed in a malicious and sadistic manner with the intention to cause harm rather than in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore order. His excessive force claim was therefore also frivolous. A magistrate recommended that all claims be dismissed. Jefferson v. Strain, #13-0328, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 126126 (E.D. La.). The trial judge, in a brief order, adopted this recommendation. Jefferson v. Strain, #13-0328, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 126117 (E.D. La.).

     A Vietnam veteran who suffers from posttraumatic stress, chronic back pain, and pain in his knees was arrested for delivering a controlled substance; he was taken to a county detention facility. He claimed to have told personnel there about all of his medical problems, but they said he told them only of his back pain. When he complained later about pain, demanding to be taken to a hospital, he allegedly kicked out and hit a correctional officer. He was told he had to get up from his bunk or a Taser was used on him. He stated that he could not do so because of his pain. A Taser was fired at him in the dart mode and activated twice. The second time, he claimed, he accidently kicked the officer.

     The court found that disputed issues of fact precluded summary judgment in favor of either side on excessive force claims. It was disputed when the prisoner kicked the officer, and whether the second use of the Taser was necessary. Claims against a second officer present at the time for failure to intervene were also allowed to continue. Claims against the county based on an unconstitutional policy were also allowed to continue based on a dispute as to whether official policy allowed a Taser to be used on a prisoner any time they disobeyed an order or only when they posed a danger to an officer or others. Summary judgment was also denied on failure to train and to supervise claims. The individual defendants were denied qualified immunity on all claims except deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Smith v. Conway County, #4:12-cv-268, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 131976 (E.D. Ark.).

False Imprisonment

     A federal appeals court ruled that federal law enforcement officers whose unlawful conduct causes a person to be held in pretrial detention for three months without probable cause, may be liable for a Fourth Amendment claim asserted as a Bivens claim (a direct constitutional claim). The court ruled that "an individual's Fourth Amendment right to be free from seizure but upon probable cause continues through the pretrial period, 2 and that, in certain circumstances, injured parties can vindicate that right through a § 1983 or Bivens action." The two defendant officers were denied qualified immunity on a claim that they falsified their identification of the plaintiff as the suspect in an affidavit for an arrest warrant. The statute of limitations did not expire at a given time from the arrest, but rather from the date of the end of the wrongful incarceration as the continued detention without probable cause was a continuing wrong. Hernandez-Cuevas v. Taylor, #12-1053, 723 F.3d 91 (1st Cir. 2013).

Medical Care

     An inmate with a medical record of hypertension, Parkinson's disease, delusions, and bipolar disease failed to show that his alleged injuries could have been prevented if the director of the medical department for the state Department of Corrections had implemented a policy of allowing for the administration of three pill calls a day. Claims against a prison doctor should not have been rejected as the prisoner was not given a notice and opportunity to show good cause or excusable neglect for having failed to achieve timely service on the doctor. Crowley v. Bannister, #12-15804, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 22087 (9th Cir.).

    A prisoner's claim that a nurse practitioner and correctional counselor were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by failing to see to it that he receive his hypertension medication for a three week period. The appeals court criticized the failure by the plaintiff's lawyer and the trial court to use any medical literature or other scientific resources to more quickly determine that such a brief failure to take hypertension medication would not result in serious consequences. Noting that this "plainly meritless suit was filed … more than four years ago. …," the court said that "A stronger judicial hand on the tiller could have saved a good deal of time, effort, and paper."Jackson v. Pollion, #12-2682, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 21983 (7th Cir.).

Prison Litigation Reform Act: Attorneys' Fees

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

     In Wilkins v. Gaddy, #08-10914, 559 U.S. 34 (2010), the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the argument that a prisoner, to impose liability on a correctional officer for excessive use of force, must show more than a "de minimus" (minimal) injury. On remand, the prisoner was awarded $0.99 in damages by the jury, which was rounded up to $1. The trial court awarded attorneys' fees limited to $1.40, based on the limit of attorneys' fees in the Prison Litigation Reform Act of no more than 150% of the money damages awarded, rather than the over $92,000 in attorneys' fees requested. A federal appeals court has rejected an argument that this limitation on attorneys' fees was unconstitutional. The court applied rational basis scrutiny and that Congress could have believed that this limit would help deter frivolous, marginal and trivial claims. Wilkins v. Gaddy, #12-8148, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 22389 (4th Cir.).

Prisoner Assault: By Officers

     A DUI arrestee resisted, resulting in arresting officers carrying out a takedown from which he did not suffer any apparent injuries. At the jail, it was disputed whether or not he continued to be noncompliant when personnel there attempted to search him, and they too carried out a takedown. He woke up late, he claimed, with facial and head pain and a broken tooth. Despite that, he filled out a medical screening form indicating no medical or physical conditions that the jail should be aware of. After release, CT scans at a hospital showed fractures requiring surgery. While the trial court dismissed excessive force, failure to intervene, and deliberate indifference claims and found the defendants entitled to qualified immunity, a federal appeals court reversed based on disputed material facts. It also noted that the right to be free from excessive force during booking, based on the facts as alleged by the plaintiff, was clearly established. Further proceedings were also ordered on assault, battery, negligence, emotional distress, and loss of consortium claims as well as a spoilation of evidence claim. Burgess v. Fischer, #12-4191, (4th Cir.).

Prisoner Restraint

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

     A pre-trial detainee at a juvenile facility who arrived there at the age of 11 claimed that his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights were violated by the regular use on him of a "Pro-Straint Restraining Chair, Violent Prisoner Model." The chair, which was equipped with wrist, chest and ankle restraints, was sometimes used in a legitimate effort to prevent him from committing suicide, but he claimed that it was mostly used to improperly punish him. A federal appeals court upheld the denial of qualified immunity to all defendants but one,. That one defendant was granted qualified immunity on a claim that he was liable for failure to transfer the detainee to a nearby unlocked shelter where he had been housed before and had apparently been disobedient. Blackmon v. Sutton, #12-3199, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 22680 (10th Cir).

Public Protection

     The California State Department of Mental Health and its officials were not liable for the rape and murder of the plaintiff's sister by a prisoner four days after he was released from prison. The plaintiff argued that they should be liable because they breached mandatory duties under the state's Sexually Violent Predators Act by failing to designate two mental health professionals to determine if the prisoner should continue to be confined as a sexual predator through a civil commitment. While the officials and the department were not immune from liability under state law for the breach of a mandatory duty, the plaintiff could not show that their failure caused the rape and death of her sister, because there was too much distance between the alleged breach and the criminal acts. Even had the mandatory duty been carried out, there was no certainty that this action would have resulted in a civil commitment. The plaintiff did have standing, however, to carry forward a action seeking a mandate that the defendants carry out their mandatory duties under the Act. State Dept. of State Hospitals v. Superior Court, #B248603, 2013 Cal. App. Lexis 882.

Segregation: Disciplinary

     A prisoner's grievance that his rights were violated when he was given six months of disciplinary segregation was upheld and the disciplinary conviction overturned because insufficient details about the specific time, place or date of the incident were given and he allegedly was not allowed to see the official electronics contract forms he was accused of trafficking in or argue any defense during the hearing. In a lawsuit, he sought damages for this, as he had already served his six months of segregation by the time the discipline was overturned. He also claimed that he was improperly denied a cell with bars which he requested because of a childhood incident involving abuse and rape, making him afraid of being behind closed metal doors. He claimed he suffered mental anguish, was attacked by a cellmate, and was only taken out of his cell once a week to shower and use the yard. A federal appeals court upheld a grant of qualified immunity to the defendants as the right to avoid disciplinary segregation in a cell with a solid metal door and a confrontational cell mate for 182 days with weekly access to the shower and recreational yard was not a clearly established right in September 2009.  Hardaway v. Meyerhoff, #12-2856, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 22386 (7th Cir.).

•Return to the Contents menu.

     Education: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Correctional Education: A Meta-Analysis of Programs That Provide Education to Incarcerated Adults (NCJ 243309). BJA-Sponsored, August, 2013.

     Prisoner Reentry: Integrated Reentry and Employment Strategies: Reducing Recidivism and Promoting Job Readiness (NCJ 243628), BJA-Sponsored, 2013.

     Prison Rape and Sexual Misconduct: Anti-Fraternization Policies and Their Utility in Preventing Staff Sexual Abuse in Custody (NCJ 242314), BJA-Sponsored, July 2013.

     Statistics: Corrections Statistical Analysis Tool - Prisoners. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Reference:

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

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