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 federal appeals court rejected a death row prisoner's claim that a warden violated her due process rights by ordering prison staff members not to talk to members of her legal team gathering evidence in support of her application for clemency. The due process clause of the Constitution does not guarantee state prisoners the right to acquire and present testimony from prison staff in support of an application for clemency, nor prevent state officials from limiting prisoners' access to such testimony. Gissendaner v. Commissioner, GA D.O.C., #15-10884, 794 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2015).

First Amendment

     Voicing inmate grievances as a member of an Inmate Liaison Committee qualified as constitutionally protected First Amendment activity, so that the trial court improperly dismissed the plaintiff's claim that he faced unlawful retaliation as a result of such activity. Dolan v. Connolly, #14-2561, 794 F.3d 290 (2nd Cir. 2015).

Medical Care

     A doctor at a prison infirmary prescribed Vicodin, crutches, and a week of "meals lay-in" after a prisoner felt a "pop" and extreme pain in his left ankle while climbing stairs. The medical director noted in the prisoner's medical file that he had suffered an "Achilles tendon rupture" and directed that he "urgently" be scheduled for an MRI and an examination by an orthopedist. Three appointments were cancelled, however, as a result of prison lockdowns, and eight weeks passed before the prisoner received an orthopedic boot. Over a year later, the prisoner claimed that he still suffered serious pain, soreness, and stiffness in his ankle, and that the medical director was deliberately indifferent by failing to immediately after the injury immobilize the ankle with a cast or orthopedic boot. He also claimed that a doctor he saw later was deliberately indifferent by failing to order physical therapy for him. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the defendants. The trial court had found that waiting before immobilizing the ankle was not deliberate indifference, since several doctors held different opinions about the appropriate treatment and that a jury could not reasonably find the rejection of a recommendation for physical therapy to constitute deliberate indifference, since it was based on medical judgment. The appeals court agreed that a jury could not reasonably find the treatment of the ankle injury to be a constitutional violation. Petties v. Carter, #14-2674, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 13281 (7th Cir.).

     An inmate suffered from gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), which can cause severe heartburn. When he arrived at the prison, he stated that he took prescription medication for the condition. He asked a nurse to get his prescription renewed, but an appointment to see the doctor the next day for that purpose was cancelled because of a prison lockdown. He filed an emergency grievance, but the warden decided that it was not an emergency, so that he could not see the doctor until the lockdown ended. He complained about his condition for two months to no avail until he saw a doctor, and once pressed an emergency button upon vomiting stomach acid. A responding guard allegedly told him “you are not bleeding, you are not dead… it can’t be an emergency.” Ultimately, a doctor renewed his prescription. A federal appeals court reversed a grant of summary judgment to the defendants on the prisoner's deliberate indifference lawsuit, finding that the trial judge had engaged in "medical speculation" rather than evidence in concluding that there was no deliberate indifference. Miller v. Campanella, #14-1990, 794 F.3d 878 (7th Cir. 2015).

Medical Care: Dental

     A civilly committed sex offender sued, claiming that a doctor and a nurse denied him essential dental care by requiring him to pay for partial dentures. He claimed that he was unable to properly chew food because he had many teeth pulled while in custody, suffered from acid reflux, and became diabetic. A federal appeals court held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. He received regular dental treatment, dentures were never prescribed as medically necessary, he had gained weight and received sufficient calories, and his discomfort did not reach the level of pain. He did not request a soft diet, and the defendants maintained that he had the funds to pay for the partial dentures if he wanted. Mead v. Palmer, #14-1680, 794 F.3d 932 (8th Cir. 2015).

Prison Litigation Reform Act: Three Strikes Rule

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

     The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a prisoner who had accumulated three previously qualifying lawsuit dismissals ("strikes") under the "three strikes rule" of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(a) could not file an additional lawsuit as a pauper while his appeal of one of those dismissals was still pending. The rule bars pauper status for prisoner litigants who accumulate three or more actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A literal reading of the statute's phrases "prior occasion" and "was dismissed" was consistent with the statute's discussion of actions and appeals, it was supported by the way in which the law ordinarily treated trial court judgments, and it was supported by the statute's purpose to filter out bad claims and facilitate consideration of good claims. Coleman v. Tollefson, #13-1333, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 191 L. Ed. 2d 803, 2015 U.S. Lexis 3201.

Prisoner Assault: By Inmates

     The mother of a juvenile allegedly beaten to death by other residents at a juvenile detention facility sued the Districrt of Columbia, claiming that th death occurred because the facility was overcrowded and understaffed, that deliberate indifference was shown towards her son's safety, and that the District was negligent in hiring, training, and supervising its employees at the detention center in violation of District of Columbia tort law, the Eighth Amendment, and 42 U.S.C. 1983. A federal appeals court vacated the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the defendant and its denial of the plaintiff's motion to disqualify the Attorney General of the District of Columbia as the counsel for the defendant because of an alleged conflict of interest. The appeals court ruled that the trial court should have resolved the motion to disqualify before determining the merits of any dispositive motion, such as one for summary judgment, since the motion to disqualify called into question the integrity of the process in which the allegedly conflicted counsel participated. The plaintiff mother raised at least a plausible claim of conflict of interest, and the trial court did not consider the merits of her motion, instead granting summary judgment first and then denying the motion to disqualify as moot. Before becoming Attorney General, the counsel for the District had represented a class of detainees that included the decedent, on claims against the District for alleged overcrowding of its detention facilities and resulting unsafe conditions. Grimes v. District of Columbi, #13-7038, 794 F.3d 83 (D.C. Cir. 2015).

 Prisoner Death/Injury

     An inmate was injured during a baseball game at a correctional facility's recreation yard, and sued the state and the Department of Corrections for damages. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the claims against both the state and the Department were barred by sovereign immunity under Wisconsin law. The Department was not independent from the state, and therefore was entitled to the state's sovereign immunity. A statutory grant to the Department of the power to sue and be sued was not an express waiver of sovereign immunity, but rather only addressed the issue of capacity. Mayhugh v. State, # , 2015 WI 77, 867 N.W.2d 754 (2015).

Religion

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

     A prisoner raised a sufficient claim that his free exercise rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act were violated by the prohibition on him consuming wine during communion, the requirement that he work on the Sabbath, and assigning him non-Christian cellmates. Summary judgment dismissing the lawsuit was reversed. The total ban on consumption of wine during communion imposed a substantial burden on a religious exercise and the legitimate safety and health concerns involved in the ban did not preclude the possibility of a reasonable accommodation with minimal impact or the availability of reasonable alternatives. The prisoner's need to not work on the Sabbath could be accommodated by performing work hours entirely during the week, and the plaintiff sufficiently alleged religiously motivated harassment by assigning him a cellmate who chilled his exercise of religion, which could be accommodated by assigning a compatible cellmate. Jehovah v. Clarke, #13-7529, 792 F.3d 457 (4th Cir. 2015).

Sexual Abuse

     Two former inmates sued for alleged sexual abuse by a male guard, claiming that he fondled their genitals for personal gratification without any legitimate penological justification. The trial court improperly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, as the allegations, if true, would violate the Eighth Amendment. Crawford v. Cuomo, #14-969, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 14023 (2nd Cir.).

•Return to the Contents menu.

     Prison Reform: Reducing Mass Incarceration Requires FaR Reaching Reforms, by Ryan King, Bryce Peterson, Brian Elderbroom, and Elizabeth Pelletier, Urban Institute (August 2015).

     Terrorism and National Security: Report to the Special Committee of the Board of Directors of the American Psychological Association. Independent Review Relating to APA Ethics Guidelines, National Security Interrogations, and Torture, Sidley Austin LLP (July 2, 2015).

  Reference:

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

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