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

     An indigent prisoner in Alaska claimed that the dismissal of appeals from his prison disciplinary actions violated his constitutional right of access to the courts, since he lacked the means to pay even a reduced filing fee. Reinstating the appeals, the Alaska Supreme Court held that the statute as applied prevented him from exercising his right of access to the courts in violation of the due process clause of the state constitution. Barber v. Alaska Dept. of Corrections, #S-14475, 314 P.3d 58 (Alaska 2013).

Disability Discrimination: Prisoners

     The daughters of a deceased prisoner appealed summary judgment granted to jail officers who allegedly refused to provide him with batteries for his hearing aids, rendering them useless, and preventing him from hearing. They claimed that this constituted deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The appeals court ruled that the officers did not have fair warning that their alleged actions were unlawful, entitling them to qualified immunity. Gilmore. v. Hodges, #11-12674, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 25326 (11th Cir.).

Employment Issues

     The federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) appealed a ruling that it had to bargain with a union of employees over installation of metal detectors at a compound in a high security facility. The metal detectors were placed where prisoners had to pass when going in or out of an exercise yard. A federal appeals court ruled that the order should be enforced in part, but ordered further proceedings to determine whether subsequent changed circumstances resulting from the changed use of the metal detectors meant that the order to bargain over the issue should be revised. U.S. DOJ v. FLRA, #12-1383, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 24925 (D.C. Cir.).

Immigration Detainees

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

     A man who was a U.S. citizen began a DUI home confinement sentence wearing a monitoring device. A federal immigration detainer was received by correctional officials for an unlawful alien with a similar but not identical name and birth date. Officers took him to jail since the department had a policy of incarcerating those for whom it received such detainers and did not conduct an independent investigation of his citizenship. He was incarcerated for three days. Both the city officers and the immigration official who issued the detainer were entitled to qualified immunity, which the court commented protects everyone but the "plainly incompetent." Ortega v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, #12-6608,737 F.3d 435 (6th Cir. 2013).

Medical Care: Mental Health

     A federal appeals court upheld an order for the forced medication of a defendant to render him competent to stand trial. The fact that he might subsequently face civil commitment did not alter the circumstances, nor was the court impressed with the argument that he was "not dangerous" aside from having allegedly threatened bodily harm to the President of the U.S. This did not make it unimportant to uphold the government's interest in prosecuting him for a crime that was dangerous and serious and there was a solid evidentiary basis for the trial court's order, which was not clearly erroneous. United States v. Dillon, #13-3044, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis25597 (D.C. Cir).

Prisoner Assault: By Officer

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

     A prisoner claimed that three correctional officers wearing masks sprayed him with a mixture of vinegar, machine oil, and fecal matter. The federal appeals court overturned the dismissal of the lawsuit, finding that the complaint plausibly alleged violations of constitutional rights, that the alleged actions could not be regarded as a "de minimus" use of force, and even if it was, it would have been "repugnant to the conscience of mankind." Hogan v. Fischer, #12-4246, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 25337 (2nd Cir.).

     A prisoner engaged in a hunger strike to protest what he claimed was unwarranted prison discipline was supposed to be placed in a separate cell after missing three meals. He claimed that two prison employees put him in an isolated cell, holding him down while two others retaliated against him for his hunger strike and a previous grievance he had filed against an officer by punching him in the stomach. He sued, acting as his own lawyer, and the defendants denied that any assault took place. The plaintiff was sent back to prison to wait for the jury's verdict rather than keeping him at the courthouse. A verdict for the defendants was returned, but the prisoner was not immediately notified. A federal appeals court ruled that the plaintiff's total exclusion from the courtroom when the jurors returned had denied him the right to poll the jury, which might have made a difference. Even without it, a juror said that they were convinced that the defendants had been involved in what happened to the plaintiff but that they could not find the defendants liable because of a lack of evidence. Verser v. Corr. Officer Robinson, #11-2091, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 25322 (7th Cir.).

Sexual Assault

     Two guards who had sex with a female prisoner in solitary confinement in a county jail confessed to doing so and were fired. The prisoner sued the two guards and the county sheriff, seeking damages. A federal appeals court ruled that the defendants were properly granted summary judgment because the sexual acts had been consensual. The court stated that while "we recognize a need to examine consent carefully in the prison context, this case does not present a factual issue with regard to" the prisoner's consent. Graham v. Sheriff of Logan County, #12-6302, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 25401 (10th Cir.).

Work/Education/Recreation Programs

     A 15-year-old who received special education services while going to school was arrested before turning 16 on felony charges and sent to a county jail awaiting trial. The Supreme Court of California held that the school district where a child's parent lives has the responsibility of providing special education services to qualifying individuals while incarcerated in a county jail. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, S199639, 58 Cal. 4th 175, 2013 Cal. Lexis 9747.

Work Release Programs

     A state corrections department's interpretation of a statute as allowing it to collect charges from a prisoner's work release order that were not incident to his confinement, such as transportation costs, that exceeded a 40% withholding cap stated in the statute was consistent with the statutory language and reasonable. The 40% cap only applied to costs associated with incarceration. Thomas v. Merritt, #1120264, 2013 Ala. Lexis 172.

•Return to the Contents menu.

     Statistics: "Prisoners in 2012: Trends in Admissions and Releases, 1991-2012," by E. Ann Carson, and Daniela Golinelli (December 19, 2013 NCJ 243920).

Reference:

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

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