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.

 Attorneys' Fees: For Defendants

     Both federal and state courts hearing federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 have discretion to award a prevailing party (other than the federal government) reasonable attorneys' fees under 2 U.S.C. Sec. 1988. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, has restricted such awards to prevailing defendants only to cases in which the plaintiff's lawsuit was "frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation." The Idaho Supreme Court held that it was not bound by that interpretation of the law and made a Sec.1988 award of attorneys' fees to a prevailing defendant in a Sec. 1983 lawsuit without first deciding whether the plaintiff's claim was "frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation." The U.S. Supreme Court reversed. Sec. 1988 is a federal statute, so the Supreme Court's interpretation is final and binding on all courts, federal or state. James v. Boise, #15-493, 136 S. Ct. 685, 2016 U.S. Lexis 947.

Disability Discrimination: Prisoners

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

     A county sheriff was not entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from a jail prisoner's claim under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 2 U.S.C. 12132, prohibiting disability discrimination in the providing of government services and programs. The statute unambiguously abrogates such immunity. While incarcerated, the plaintiff was injured, and the medical staff placed him in a special cell where he claimed that he enjoyed fewer privileges than other inmates. Black v. Wigington, #15-10848, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 1057 (11th Cir.).

Medical Care

     A prisoner was diagnosed with a painful hernia when his incarceration began in 1995, and a second hernia in 2000. Outside doctors concluded that surgery was needed to repair them, but correctional officials and the company which provided medical care for inmates allegedly delayed until May 2007, when both hernias required emergency surgical repair. The prisoner sued over the delay and settled his claim with the private medical provider for $273,250, and signing a release of further claims against them and the doctors. A second surgery did not occur, however, until 2013, and the prisoner again sued. The trial court, based on the release, granted summary judgment to the defendants. A federal appeals court reversed, as the release did not mean that the medical provider was free to ignore the recurrent hernia, which allegedly grew increasingly painful and to act with deliberate indifference to a serious medical need by delaying the second surgery. The plaintiff claimed that this was done under a policy that classified all hernia operations as elective surgery. Heard v. Tilden, #15-1732, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 387 (7th Cir.).

     Late at night, an inmate who suffered from chronic high blood pressure woke up with excruciating pain in his chest and left arm, and symptoms of a heart attack. A guard and supervising lieutenant contacted the nurse on call, who told them that the prisoner's condition was not an emergency, and told them that the prisoner should go to the infirmary in the morning. Almost four hours after what proved to be a heart attack, the prisoner went to the infirmary and was taken to a hospital by ambulance. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the guard and prison doctor on deliberate indifference claims, but reversed the dismissal of such claims against the supervising lieutenant and the on-call nurse, stating that “civilization requires more in a life and death situation,” questioning “what the judge thinks the minimum level of care is to which a prisoner who is suffering a heart attack is entitled.” The supervising lieutenant told the prisoner that she believed that he was having a heart attack, and she had authority to call 911 to seek emergency medical care, yet failed to do so. The nurse, when contacted, made no efforts through tests or an examination to determine whether immediate emergency medical care was needed. Mathison v. Moats, #14-3549, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 2138 (7th Cir.).

Medical Care: Mental Health

     A county filed a petition for involuntary commitment of a prisoner for mental health care as well as for the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication and treatment. Upholding the granting of the petition, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the statute under which the requests were granted did not violate the prisoner's due process rights because it was reasonably related to a legitimate governmental interest in providing treatment to mentally ill inmates, and the evidence proved by a clear and convincing standard that the prisoner was incompetent to refuse treatment, based on undisputed testimony from a medical expert. Winnebago County v. Christopher S., #2014AP001048, 2016 WI 1, 2016 Wisc. Lexis 1

Prison Litigation Reform Act: Exhaustion of Remedies

     A California inmate sued over alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies because the prisoner failed to comply with a procedural rule requiring him to name two physicians involved in his care, which he claimed was inadequate.. A federal appeals court found that the prisoner exhausted "such administrative remedies as are available" in a case where, despite failing to comply with a procedural rule, prison officials ignore the rule and decide a grievance on its merits, as they did here. The grievance gave prison officials full notice of the alleged deprivation and an ample opportunity to resolve it. Reyes v. Smith, #13-17119, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 433 (9th Cir.).

Prison Litigation Reform Act: Filing Fees

     Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a prisoner who qualifies to proceed in a lawsuit as a pauper has to pay an initial partial court filing fee of 20% of the larger of either the average monthly deposits in their inmate account or the average monthly balance of that account over the last six months, and then pay the rest of the fee in monthly installments of 20% of the last month's income credited to their account. A federal inmate who frequently engages in litigation argued that such monthly payments were not due in a new case until all obligations incurred in a prior case were paid off. A federal appeals court disagreed, holding that monthly payments on a new case were due together with the monthly payments for prior cases. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld this ruling. The statute, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(b)(2), requires simultaneous rather than sequential payment of multiple monthly installment payments. Bruce v. Samuels, #14-844, 136 S. Ct. 627, 193 L. Ed. 2d 496, 2016 U.S. Lexis 620.

Prisoner Discipline

     An Illinois prisoner was sanctioned with the loss of a year of accumulated good time credits as a result of two incidents involving interaction with the same guard. He claimed that he was improperly denied access to recordings of the incident, denied an opportunity to call witnesses in support of his version of the facts, and denied the opportunity to present certain evidence. A state appellate court denied relief without reaching the merits of these claims because the prisoner had failed to follow instructions to tear off the top part of a form requesting witnesses. A federal trial court denied habeas relief, partially on the merits and partially on a procedural ground concerning the form. The federal appeals court upheld the portion of the ruling on the merits, but found that the state court's “novel ruling carried bureaucratic concerns about paperwork to an unreasonable extreme and does not bar federal consideration of the prisoner’s constitutional claim on the merits.” Donelson v. Pfister, #14-3395, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 1384 (7th Cir.).

Segregation: Administrative

     A prisoner who spent about a year in administrative segregation while waiting for a transfer claimed that this violated his rights. A federal appeals court rejected the claim. The state court order mandating the transfer when his conviction was vacated was stayed for an appeal, and he remained in segregation while the appeal was pending. He remained a prisoner and did not regain the status of a pretrial detainee. He was not deprived of a liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment. Ballinger v. Cedar County, #14-3576, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 567 (8th Cir.).

Transsexual Prisoners

     A transsexual prisoner being released on probation sued to compel her probation officers to allow her to reside with her family rather than in a man's homeless shelter, as well as allowing her to dress as a woman, and referring her to treatment programs for gender dysphoria. The trial court denied a preliminary injunction, finding that she had failed to show either that she was likely to prevail on the merits or that she would suffer irreparable harm if no injunction was granted. While an appeal was pending, she was returned to custody, having pled guilty to resisting an officer, theft, and prostitution. A federal appeals court dismissed the appeal as moot, while allowing her to continue the lawsuit on claims against her prison doctors. The court stated that if she was released from jail again while the litigation was pending and placed on probation once again, she could renew her objections to her conditions of probation. Mitchell v. Wall, #15-1881, 808 F.3d 1174 (7th Cir. 2015).

•Return to the Contents menu.

     Disability Discrimination: Accommodating the Violent: Analyzing Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Relevant to Arrests of the Armed, Violent, and Mentally Ill, by Ashley Torres, published by AELE (2016).

     Prison Rape and Sexual Misconduct: Sexual Victimization Reported by Juvenile Correctional Authorities, 2007–12, by Allen J. Beck, and Romana R. Rantala, Bureau of Justice Statistics (January 28, 2016 NCJ 249145).

     Solitary Confinement: Report and Recommendations Concerning the Use of Restrictive Housing in Federal Prisons, U.S. Department of Justice (January 2016).

  Reference:

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

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