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.

Electronic Control Weapons: Dart Mode Cases

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

     A man was taken to a county corrections center on charges of assaulting a peace officer. He was later adjudicated not guilty by reason of insanity, but remained in a detention facility while awaiting placement elsewhere. He later had a seizure in his cell. Because of his prior assaultive behavior, it was decided that measures should be taken to control him upon entering his cell to take him to get medical attention. He did not respond to requests to submit to handcuffing. When one wrist was cuffed and he kept struggling, he was warned that a Taser would be used on him if he failed to submit. A Taser was used against him in the dart mode once and he put his hands up as if surrendering, saying "Okay, Okay, Okay." But he continued to resist, so the Taser was activated again and he ceased resisting and was handcuffed. Later in a hospital emergency room, he attacked a deputy with his hands raised and fists clenched and a Taser was used on him again in the dart mode.

     A federal appeals court rejected a Fourteenth Amendment excessive force claim. A video recording of the incident at the detention facility showed that the deputies repeatedly attempted to handcuff the plaintiff before finally resorting to the Taser after warning him. His thrashing round with a loose handcuff put them in danger. The deputies had no constitutional obligation to exhaust every possible alternative solution before using a Taser under such circumstances. The excessive force claim at the hospital failed too as the plaintiff, although restrained by leg irons, lunged towards the deputy with his hands raised. The deputy lacked time to deliberate what to do and there was no indication that he acted with any sadistic or malicious intent. Shreve v. Franklin County, Ohio, #13-3119, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 2225, 2014 Fed App. 0028P (6th Cir.).

Inmate Funds

     A prisoner claimed that his placement into "refuse" status in the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, and accompanying denial of certain privileges, violated his First Amendment rights. The program rewards inmates who participate in the program by paying off court ordered obligations. He said that he could not both make the minimum payments required by the program and also pursue various claims and appeals he had in the legal system. Rejecting these claims, the appeals court found that the prisoner suffered no actual injury and that the program at issue was reasonably related to legitimately penological interests. It also did not violate equal protection or due process. Driggers v. Cruz, #12-10775, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 838 (5th Cir.).

     An ordinance that imposes a $30 booking fee on any person who has been subject to a custodial arrest and that does not grant any hearing before attempting to collect the fee did not violate procedural due process, and the plaintiff lacked standing to assert a substantive due process claim. Markadonatos v. Village of Woodridge, #12-2619, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 382 (7th Cir.).

Medical Care

     Under a Texas state statute, inmates who receive medical care in the prison system are required to pay a $100 annual fee. The lawsuit filed challenging this did not support an Eighth Amendment claim as there was no allegation that the plaintiff had been denied medical care or forced to choose between medical care and other bare necessities. The court also rejected due process claims based on minor discrepancies between the notice posted to prisoners and the language of the statute. Taking the required funds from the plaintiff's inmate account was not unreasonable and was justified by the goal of controlling the prison budget, so no Fourth Amendment claim was viable. Morris v. Livingston, #12-50848, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 557 (5th Cir.).

Prison Litigation Reform Act: Exhaustion of Remedies

     A prisoner who had been released from custody pursued a lawsuit asserting claims for deliberate indifference to his mental health needs, violations of his right to exercise his religion, and interference with his right of access to the courts. A federal appeals court held that his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot as he was no longer in custody. His claim concerning his mental health treatment boiled down with a mere disagreement with the treatment provided, which was inadequate for a federal civil rights claim. His claims concerning religious freedom and access to the courts were properly dismissed, as he failed to exhaust available administrative remedies concerning these issues, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Lastly, he was properly denied an appointed lawyer as he was unlikely to succeed on the merits and was able to present the case adequately by himself. Cano v. Taylor, #10-17030, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 703 (9th Cir.).

Prisoner Assault: By Officer

     In a prisoner's lawsuit claiming that correctional officers used excessive force against him, federal rules of evidence barred the admission of his no contest (nolo contendere) on a charge of assault arising out of the same incident. The erroneous admission was not harmless, requiring further proceeding, when the plea could be used to assess his credibility when his trial testimony was at odds with that plea. A new trial was ordered. Sharif v. Picone, #12-4468, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 1084 (3rd Cir.).

Prisoner Transport

     Two handcuffed juveniles were being transported from a court hearing in a vehicle driven by a deputy. Seated in the back, they suffered multiple injuries when the transport van collided with another vehicle because the other driver allegedly turned into an intersection without yielding the right of way. The Colorado Supreme Court held that injury claims against the county should have been dismissed as allegations of mere negligence were insufficient to overcome a statutory grant of immunity on such claims or the presumption of good faith granted to law enforcement. Young v. Jefferson County, #13SA216, 2014 Colo. Lexis 1, 2014 CO 1.

Prison Conditions: Light

     A prisoner claimed that having continuous 24-hour a day light in his cell was a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. A federal appeals court found that there were material issues of fact as to how bright the light in the cell was, what effect it had on him, and whether the defendants were deliberately indifferent to that effect. Assuming that the defendants could defeat the Eighth Amendment claim by showing a legitimate penological interest in the constant cell illumination, so far they had failed to do so. Grenning v. Miller-Stout, #11-35579, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 865 (9th Cir.).

Transsexual Prisoners

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

     A 64-year-old born male transsexual prisoner was entitled to taxpayer-funded sex change operation, a federal appeals court has held, upholding a trial court order. Refusing to provide the procedure would violate the Eighth Amendment. The request for sex reassignment surgery was based on a serious medical need, and the defendant correctional department refused to meet that need for reasons amounting to a pretext that were not supported by any legitimate penological interests. Kosilek v. Spencer, #12-2194, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 951 (1st Cir.).

Terrorism, Enemy Combatants, & Military Prisoners

     A former Guantanamo prisoner held as an enemy combatant for seven years was released after being granted habeas corpus. He filed a lawsuit seeking to recover for injuries allegedly suffered during his detention. A federal appeals court ruled that a statute barred claims brought on behalf of aliens if they were determined by the Combat Status Review Tribunals to have been properly detained. The appeals court upheld the constitutionality of the decision by Congress to deny jurisdiction to the courts to entertain such claims. Janko v. Gates, #12-5017, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 934 (D.C. Cir.).

•Return to the Contents menu.

     Prison Rape and Sexual Assault: "Survey of Sexual Violence in Adult Correctional Facilities, 2009-11 - Statistical Tables," by Allen J. Beck and Ramona R. Rantala (January 23, 2014, NCJ 244227).

Reference:

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

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