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.

Disability Discrimination: Prisoners

     A prisoner started experiencing blackouts, weakness and difficulty walking. Despite his written medical requests, he asserts, he was not properly examined for six months. Before he was eventually diagnosed with pernicious anemia, the defendants allegedly failed to use medication to slow the disease. He was paralyzed from the waist down and his condition continued to deteriorate. He complained that he was denied assignment to the Transitional Care Unit, and that he was placed in administrative segregation without a wheelchair or handicap access, forcing him to crawl and to eat meals on the floor. He was also denied someone to push his wheelchair, a handicapped-accessible cell, medically prescribed physical therapy, preventative treatment, examination by an outside specialist, wheelchair accessories, and exemption from activities requiring exposure to cold. He claimed that lack of accommodations caused him to miss meals, fall several times in his cell, be placed on strip-cell status, and be unable to move around his cell without hitting the toilet or walls.

     Individual capacity disability discrimination claims against two prison officials were dismissed because they could not be sued in their individual capacities under either the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Rehabilitation Act. Claims against doctors and a correctional medical service, as they related to medical treatment, could not form the basis of disability discrimination claims under either statute. Claims for injunctive relief, however, could continue, as could damage claims against the state and the correctional department, as some of the alleged conduct could have violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Dinkins v. Correctional Medical Services, #12-2127, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 3454 (8th Cir.).

Electronic Control Weapons: Stun Mode

     A jail detainee claimed that jailers used excessive force against him when they moved him to a different cell after he refused orders to take down a yellow sheet of paper covering the light in his cell. The prisoner refused to cooperate with the move, lying face down on his bunk and refusing to get up. He was forcibly removed and handcuffed and placed on a bunk. When the officers tried to remove the handcuffs, he allegedly resisted, which he later denied. The officers then allegedly smashed his head into the concrete bunk, which they later denied. A Taser was then applied to the detainee's back in stun mode for five seconds. He declined the attentions of a nurse. The trial court noted the case law that held that it was reasonable to use force against an inmate who refused to comply with orders but concluded that the issue in the case was "whether [the] defendants' response to plaintiff's obstinance was reasonable under the circumstances or whether it was excessive and was intended to cause [the] plaintiff harm." The court also concluded that, because a jury could find that the defendants had acted with malice, qualified immunity was not available.

     The jury returned a verdict for the defendants, which was upheld on appeal. The Fourteenth Amendment governed the plaintiff's claims as a pretrial detainee. The jury was adequately instructed on the elements of that claim. The jury instructions properly required them to find, in order to impose liability, that the defendants knew that their use of force posed a risk of harm to the plaintiff, but that they recklessly disregarded his safety. Kingsley v. Hendrickson, #12-3639, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 3972 (7th Cir.).

False Imprisonment

     A U.S. citizen working at a construction site was arrested along with other employees and the contractor, after the contractor allegedly sold drugs to an undercover officer. When arrested, the plaintiff had a wallet with his driver's license, Social Security card, debit card, and health insurance card. His place of birth was listed as in New Jersey. Despite this, an officer, believing that he had given false information, contacted immigration authorities, who issued an immigration detainer, The detainee later sued, claiming that he was improperly detained without probable cause for over 48 hours, without notice of the basis of his detention or an opportunity to contest it. A federal appeals court reversed the dismissal of his false imprisonment claim. An immigration detainer is permissive, and did not compel the defendants to detain him. They were free to disregard it, and therefore could not use as a defense that their own decision or policy did not cause the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights. Galarza v. Szalczyk, #12-3991, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 4000 (3rd Cir.).

Force-Feeding of Prisoners

     Detainees at Guantanamo Bay who were cleared for release but remain detained there went on a hunger strike demanding their release, and were force fed. A federal appeals court held that they had the right to challenge the conditions of their confinement in a habeas corpus proceeding, and that their claims were not barred by the Military Commissions Act. The prisoners, however, failed to establish that they were entitled to a preliminary injunction against the forced feeding, since it served legitimate penological interests in preserving the lives of the detainees and maintaining security and discipline. They failed to show a likelihood that the force-feeding was unconstitutional. The court also ruled that the protections of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act did not apply to the detainees. As nonresident aliens, they were not protected persons under the statute. Aamer v. Obama, #13-5223, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 2513 (D.C. Cir.).

Medical Care

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

     A prisoner at a federal facility contracted Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus, (MRSA), a staph infection resistant to certain antibiotics, there and was hospitalized for over 40 days. He suffered permanent damage to his heart and lungs. He sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act, asserting that the prison's negligence caused his injuries. After a bench trial, the court held that he had not proven that he had contracted the infection from contact with a fellow employee in the prison laundry or from sloppy procedures in handling infected prison laundry. The federal appeals court upheld this ruling as to those two theories or liability, but found that the trial court should have considered a broader theory contained in the plaintiff's complaint--that the prison was negligent in failing to adhere to its MRSA-containment policies. Buechel v. United States, #13-2278, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 4260 (7th Cir.).

     Editor's Note: For more on this topic, see Avoiding Liability for Antibiotic Resistant Infections in Prisoners, 2011 (3) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.

     While the trial court held that the plaintiff prisoner had voluntarily, and with informed consent, signed a form refusing to have a consultation with a retinal specialist, the appeals court reversed summary judgment for the defendants. It ruled that there were genuine issues of material fact as to the validity as well as the scope of the refusal form. Further proceedings were ordered as to whether any of the individual defendants acted with deliberate indifference on failing to provide him with medical treatment for his retinopathy. Kuhne v. FL Dept. of Corrections, #12-13387, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 2460, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1013 (11th Cir.).

Prisoner Assault: By Officer

     A federal jury awarded a total of $451,000 in damages to a man serving a life sentence for murdering seven employees of a Brown's Chicken restaurant. The award was based on his claim that a county jail deputy beat him in 2002 a few hours after he was placed in a maximum security wing at the jail. The beating left him with facial fractures requiring surgery during which two metal plates were inserted into his face. The deputy was subsequently fired. The deputy claimed that the beating was in self-defense and he was acquitted of battery charges. The award consisted of $225,000 in compensatory damages on the excessive force claim, and $226,000 in punitive damages. Degorski v. Wilson, #1:04-cv-03367, (N.D. Ill., March 7, 2014).

Religion

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

     A Native American prisoner serving a life sentence for murdering his daughter claimed that correctional officials violated his constitutional and statutory rights to religious freedom by denying him access to the prison's sweatlodge. Prison officials claimed that the cost of providing the necessary security to accompany him from the special protective unit he was housed in to the sweatlodge was "unduly burdensome." A federal appeals court disagreed, finding that the burden to his exercise of religion was high, given that he was granted no access of any ki9nd, ever, to a religious exercise, and the cost to the prison left undefined by the record and thus presumably low." Under these circumstances, the appeals court concluded, a reasonable fact finder could find a violation of the prisoner's statutory right to religious freedom. Yellowbear, Jr. v. Lampert, #12-8048, (10th Cir.).

     A Muslim prisoner challenged a prison policy that conditioned accommodation of participation of Ramadan (fasting, special meals at night, etc.) on possession of a "physical indicia" of faith, such as a Quran, Kufi, prayer rug, or written religious material obtained from the prison chaplain's office. Those who did not have these items were deemed insincere in their religious beliefs and barred from participating in Ramadan. The plaintiff was classified as insincere. A federal appeals court overturned summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity for the defendants, despite the fact that the policy had later been abandoned. The defendants failed to show that the policy, as it was applied to the plaintiff, did not violate the First Amendment. Qualified immunity was not available, as the rights at issue were clearly established. The defendants also failed to meet a burden of showing that it was "absolutely clear" that they would not later reinstate the same policy. Wall v. Wade, #13-6355, 741 F.3d 492 (4th Cir. 2014).

Segregation: Administrative

     The plaintiff was confined for many years to a security housing unit (SHU) for the purpose of protecting other prisoners from him and his gang underlings, as a result of his prior gang activities. He was ordered released from the SHU in 2006 when he claimed that he was no longer an active gang member. He was returned to the SHU subsequently on the basis of allegations of further gang activity. The trial court later issued orders in 2009 and 2011 claiming that his return to SHU violated its 2006 order, and again ordering him released. A federal appeals court found that the later two orders were an abuse of discretion, ignoring developments after 2006, and improperly impeded prison management. Griffin v. Gomez, #09-16744, 741 F.3d 10 (9th Cir. 2014).

•Return to the Contents menu.

     Homosexual, Bisexual, and Transgender Prisoners: The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, or Intersex Inmate Population: "A 21st Century Dilemma!" by Adam E. Hopkins and Margaret A. Dickson. National Jail Exchange, National Institute of Corrections (2014).

Reference:

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

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