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.

Inmate Property

     A California prisoner claimed that the appeals coordinators at a prison violated his due process rights and California correctional regulations by cancelling his inmate appeal in which he asked that prison officials accept liability for personal property items of his that he said were damaged or lost when he was transferred there from another facility. An intermediate state appeals court held that he failed to show that he had a protected liberty interest in the prison's administrative lost property appeals process. In re Williams, #D066887, 2015 Cal. App. Lexis 938.

Medical Care

     A pretrial detainee who saw medical staff members 26 times during 18 months of detention failed to show deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs or that he was deprived of essential medical care despite his allegations that he did not receive the medications that he had been prescribed before confinement, as the medications he brought with him were confiscated. He did receive the medications prescribed for him by a physician's assistant at the detention center, including an opioid pain medication similar to Vicodin. A two-day delay in the distribution of his pain medication may have been negligent, but did not constitute deliberate indifference. Burton v. Downey, #14-3591, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 17616 (7th Cir.).

     A county detention center employee saw a newly arrived prisoner put something in his mouth and swallow, and conveyed her observation to deputies who had started the booking procedure. The prisoner was sweating profusely, and appeared to be under the influence of something. While being questioned, he had trouble standing and his demeanor deteriorated. He stated that he had high blood pressure, rheumatoid arthritis, gout, osteoporosis, and an MRSA infection. He denied alcohol or drug addiction and listed several prescription medications. A licensed practical nurse examined him and instructed the deputies to admit him to the facility despite his condition. While he was placed on suicide watch, there was no evidence that he was evaluated for suicidal ideation, that he received blood pressure medication, or that facility nurses questioned why his blood pressure dropped even in the absence of medication. Three days after arriving, he died from MRSA complications. A federal appeals court reinstated a claim for inadequate medical care, finding that the variety of medical conditions found that required treatment and care easily met the objective component of the deliberate indifference standard. The court also found that a reasonable jury could conclude that the medical contractor's failure to provide adequate training and supervision to the nurses could constitute deliberate indifference to the risk of the potential unconstitutional behavior by licensed practical nurses who lacked the essential knowledge and preparation to respond to prisoners' recurring medical needs in a jail setting. Shadrick v. Hopkins Cnty., #14-5603, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 19386, 2015 Fed. App. 272P (6th Cir.).

     A prisoner who claimed that a prison doctor was negligent in treating his hepatitis was not entitled to summary judgment when he did not even attempt to establish the amount of damages that he claimed he was entitled to. Establishing damages was an essential element of his state law claim. The court committed no error in failing to have the trial proceedings recorded by a court reporter when it informed the plaintiff that one was not then available. The plaintiff also failed to show that the trial judge exhibited bias or prejudice towards him. Jameson v. Desta, #D066793, 241 Cal. App. 4th 491, 2015 Cal. App. Lexis 919.

Prison Litigation Reform Act: Exhaustion of Remedies

     In deciding that a prisoner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies on one of his grievances, the trial court enforced a procedural bar that the prison may have waived when prison officials made a decision on the merits despite the fact that the manner in which the prisoner brought his grievance was procedurally flawed. Further, the prisoner's lawsuit for an alleged beating by prison staff for which he was denied medical treatment was improperly dismissed when the court failed to follow the applicable two-step procedure for deciding exhaustion of remedies challenges. It failed to accept the prisoner's facts as true and did not identify and resolve particular factual disputes to determine if administrative remedies were exhausted. Whatley v. Warden, #13-15117, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 16836 (11th Cir.).

Prisoner Assault: By Officers

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

     On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court in Kingsley v. Hendrickson, #14-6368, 2015 U.S. Lexis 4073, of a prisoner's claim for alleged assault by officers, including the use of a Taser in the stun mode and other force against a detainee, a federal appeals court vacated the district court's judgment for the defendants and ordered a new trial, as the plaintiff urged them to. Under the law as stated by the U.S. Supreme Court, the appeals court reasoned, the plaintiff should prevail if he is able to show that the officers acted in an unreasonable manner "without regard to their subjective intent." "The evidence of record would have supported a finding for him under that theory, but the jury was told that it also had to find the officers had a proscribed intent. This last requirement increased, significantly, his burden of proof. The error was not harmless." The appeals court rejected the defendants' argument that they should be entitled to qualified immunity since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision resolved a circuit split on the law, altering the law on liability, and thus the standard adopted was not "clearly established law" prior to the Supreme Court's ruling.

     The appeals court noted that the Supreme Court's instructions to it did not mention returning to the issue of qualified immunity. The appeals court also stated that it did not think a qualified immunity defense was viable in this case, as "the scope of the right in issue must be drawn more narrowly than the right of a pretrial detainee to be free from excessive force during his detention; instead, we must examine whether the law clearly established that the use of a Taser on a non-resisting detainee, lying prone and handcuffed behind his back, was constitutionally excessive." On that specific issue, the appeals court believed, the law was clearly established at the time of the incident, if the plaintiff was not resisting at the time the Taser was used. Kingsley v. Hendrickson, #12-3639, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 15963 (7th Cir.).

     A magistrate judge improperly dismissed a prisoner's complaint of infliction of cruel and unusual punishment by a guard at the screening stage under 28 .S.C. Sec. 195A before any response by the defendants. The decision below stated that “standing alone, verbal harassment of an inmate does not constitute a constitutional violation." Reversing, a federal appeals court ruled that it was arbitrary to draw a categorical distinction between physical and verbal harassment. Pain bad enough to amount to cruel and unusual punishment can be psychological or physical. While most verbal harassment does not rise to that level, some can. Before dismissing the complaint, the magistrate should have considered asking the plaintiff inmate for amplification and clarification. Beal v. Foster, #14-2489, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 17338 (7th Cir.).

Prisoner Discipline

     At a disciplinary hearing for a misbehavior report, a prisoner pled not guilty and requested that another inmate be called as a witness, asking the hearing officer to contact the witness. When the hearing reconvened, the hearing officer did not state whether the witness had been contacted, but found the prisoner guilty. On a claim that the hearing officer violated his constitutional rights by failing to make reasonable to contact the witness. The trial judge ordered a new disciplinary hearing. The inmate appealed, arguing that an expungement of the discipline was instead the proper remedy. The appeals court disagreed, ruling that the granting of a new hearing was the appropriate remedy for failing to provide written notice of whether the prisoners request to call the witness was denied, and if so, why, as required by state regulations. Texeira v. Fischer, 2015 N.Y. Lexis 3549, 2015 NY Slip Op 07783,

Religion

     A prisoner in administrative segregation claimed that a limit of two personal books imposed by the prison violated his sincerely-held religious beliefs in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA"). He was later moved out of segregation and allowed 15 personal books. The trial judge declined to dismiss the case as moot, finding that the prisoner would likely be returned to segregation in the future, and ruling that the two-book policy violated the RLUIPA, enjoining future enforcement of the policy. A federal appeals court reversed, finding that the plaintiff's transfer from segregation to the general population did moot the case, depriving the court of jurisdiction. It rejected an argument that a "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception to the mootness doctrine applied, since it declined to assume that the prisoner would repeat the misconduct that previously resulted in his segregation. Ind v. Colorado Dept. of Corrections, #14-1168, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 16223 (10th Cir.).

Retaliation

    After finishing his prison sentence for a sex offense, the plaintiff was civilly committed as a Sexually Violent Person. While committed, he argued that he was fired from his dietary services job in retaliation for his having previously filed lawsuits against staff members, based on "trumped-up" disciplinary charges. A federal appeals court reversed the screening out of the lawsuit as containing only conclusory allegations. The trial judge had interviewed the plaintiff via telephone. The appeals court noted that it had previously ruled against ex parte telephone interrogation as a permissible method of screening complaints to decide whether they stated a claim. While a trial judge can interview a pro se detainee to determine what the case is (but not its merits) a transcript or recording must be made to allow for review on appeal. Henderson v. Wilcoxen, #15-2029, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 17443 (7th Cir.).

•Return to the Contents menu.

     Telephone Use and Issues: FCC Takes Next Big Steps In Reducing Inmate Calling Rates, Federal Communications Commission (Oct. 22, 2015).

     Transsexual Prisoners: Further Guidance Regarding the Care of Transgender Detainees, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (June 19, 2015).

  Reference:

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

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