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.

AIDS/HIV Related

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

    Massachusetts state prisoner suffering from HIV challenged a change in medication practices. While previously, they had been provided with a monthly or bimonthly supply of their prescribed HIV medications, the state Department of Corrections decided to only dispense such medication in single doses. The prisoners claimed that this violated their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as constituting disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Upholding summary judgment for the Department, the federal appeals court ruled that the change did not violate these constitutional or statutory rights. Nunes v. Mass. Depart. of Corrections, #13-2346, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 17647 (1st Cir.).

Freedom of Information

     In a case concerning compliance reports about improving conditions in two correctional facilities under a settlement agreement between the U.S. government and a New York County, the reports were sealed from public disclosure. The New York ACLU intervened in the case, seeking to have the reports unsealed. A federal appeals court ruled that a fundamental right of the public under the First Amendment to have access to judicial documents was wrongly denied by the sealing of the reports, which were ordered unsealed. United States v. Erie County, #13-3653, 763 F.3d 235 (2nd Cir. 2014).

Inmate Funds

     Pennsylvania prisoners were provided with bank accounts from which they could purchase various items including over the counter medications, soap and toothpaste, as well as pay the costs of some medical and legal services. The accounts contain gifts they received from friends or family, as well as earnings from prison jobs. State legislation authorized the Department to deduct court-ordered restitution or other court ordered costs or obligations from such accounts, and the Department adopted a policy of paying 20% of the inmate's account balance and monthly income for such costs, automatically triggered by sentencing orders. Prisoners challenged this as a violation of due process because they were not provided with notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to the funds being deducted. The federal appeals court held that some claims were time barred, and that correctional officials were entitled to qualified immunity from money damages, but reversed summary judgment on a procedural due process claim, finding that there were factual disputes as to the providing of notice and that a plaintiff prisoner had no opportunity to be heard prior to the funds being deducted. Montanez v. Sec'y PA. Dep't of Corrs., #13-1380, 763 F.3d 257 (3rd Cir. 2014).

Medical Care

     A hospital sued federal agencies and officials, asking the court to issue a declaratory judgment that 18 U.S.C. 4006(b)(1), imposing the current Medicare rate as full compensation for medical services a hospital renders to a federal detainee, was unconstitutional as applied. Rejecting the argument, a federal appeals court ruled that the hospital had voluntarily opted into the Medicare program, that as a condition of participation it was required to provide emergency services to federal detainees, and that it was therefore barred from challenging the compensation provided as an "unconstitutional taking" under the Fifth Amendment. Baker County Medical Services v. U.S. Attorney General, #13-13917, 763 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2014).

Medical Care: Eye and Vision Related

     An inmate claimed that prison officials were deliberately indifferent in refusing him cataract surgery to restore his vision. A federal appeals court ruled that blindness in one eye caused by the cataract was a serious medical condition. It further held that the blanket denial of the surgery, based solely on a policy that "one eye is good enough for prison inmates," if true, could be found to be deliberate indifference by a jury. The record appeared to indicate that prison officials ignored the recommendations of treating medical specialists, instead relying on the opinions of non-specialist and non-treating medical personnel who rendered their decisions based on the administrative policy. Colwell v. Bannister, #12-15844, 763 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2014).

Medical Care: Mental Health

     A private psychiatrist who examined a pretrial detainee in a county jail under a contract with his employer to provide mental health services there acted under color of state law. She performed a public function in examining the detainee, who had been acting strangely, and determining that he did not meet the criteria for involuntary hospitalization in a psychiatric facility. Accordingly, the detainee could proceed with his claim that her actions denied him the mental health services he needed while detained. Carl v. Muskegon County, #13-2296, 763 F.3d 592 (6th Cir. 2014).

Parole

     A Michigan prisoner was sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole for drug offenses. At the time of his arrest, he was 17 years and 10 months old and he was 18 years and 7 months old when sentenced. A Michigan Supreme Court decision later held that life without parole for simple drug possession was unconstitutional. The prisoner was denied parole at his first opportunity, and in 2012, the Parole Board indicated that it had no interest in taking action on his case then, scheduling his next interview for 2017. A federal appeals court rejected a claim that the parole consideration process failed to provide him with a meaningful opportunity to obtain his release in violation of due process, but allowed him to proceed with his claim that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated, since the trial court had failed to take into account his youth at the time of his arrest. Wershe v. Combs, #13-1209, 763 F.3d 500 (6th Cir. 2014).

Prisoner Assault: By Officer

     A prisoner sued four prison officials over an incident in which a correctional officer allegedly assaulted him, causing him physical injuries. During a trial of the case, a juror fell asleep off-and-on for two hours. The jury retuned a verdict for the defendants, and a motion for a new trial based on the sleeping juror was denied. A federal appeals court upheld this result, noting that the plaintiff had been aware of the juror's purported misconduct, and had declined to object to her retention on the jury at the time when the magistrate judge informed the parties, after interviewing the juror, that he would not dismiss her from the jury. Cummings v. Dept. of Corrections, #11-13507, 757 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2014).

Prisoner Death/Injury

    A pretrial detainee was in jail waiting for a probable cause determination. He was rapidly tapered off of psychotropic medication by the jail's medical staff, and complained of seizure-like symptoms, but was placed in an isolated cell for seven hours, after which he was found dead. A lawsuit was filed against the county and a jail nurse. During summary judgment proceedings in the case, an appeal, and post-remand pretrial preparations, both sides used a deliberate indifference legal standard, but six weeks before trial, the plaintiff's counsel argued for the first time that the correct legal standard for the jury instructions was objective reasonableness rather than deliberate indifference. The trial court abused its discretion in granting the nurse's motion to bar the plaintiff arguing this legal standard and in trying the case under the deliberate indifference standard. While the plaintiff's long, unexplained delay in asserting the correct standard was "puzzling," there was not a sufficient explanation in the trial court's ruling as to how the defendant nurse would suffer prejudice as a result of the delay. The judgment in favor of the county was upheld, however, as the shift in the legal standard would not have any impact on the ruling as to it liability. King v. Kramer, #13-2379, 763 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2014).

Strip Search: Prisoners

     A man arrested for DUI admitted that he had recently smoked marijuana and he was then subjected to a visual inspection body cavity search at a detention center. In his lawsuit over the search, defendant officers were entitled to qualified immunity. At the time of the strip search, there was no clearly established law in the Eighth Circuit, and a reasonable officer would have had a "solid belief" that strip searching an arrestee was constitutional if there was reasonable suspicion that the detainee possessed contraband. Jacobson v. McCormick, #12-3530, 763 F.3d 914 (8th Cir. 2014).

•Return to the Contents menu.

     Prison Rape and Sexual Abuse: Anti-Fraternization Policies and their Utility in Preventing Staff Sexual Abuse in Custody, by Brenda V. Smith and Melissa C. Loomis, Project on Addressing Prison Rape, American University, Washington College of Law (May 1, 2013).

     Statistics: Mortality in Local Jails and State Prisons, 2000–2012 - Statistical Tables, by Scott Ginder and Margaret E. Noonan (October 9, 2014 NCJ 247448).

     Statistics: Prisoners in 2013, by E. Ann Carson (September 16, 2014 NCJ 247282).

Reference:

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

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