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.

Clothing

    A civilly detained sexually dangerous person who declined to cooperate with intake procedures at a treatment facility and threatened guards was taken to a secure infirmary room with large windows and denied clothing. He spent eight days there without clothes, but was given clothing on the ninth day after he started cooperating, and was then moved to the general population. A federal appeals court overturned summary judgment for the defendants on their due process claims. The detainee's eight days without clothes in a fan-blown stream of chilled air, imposed without a hearing was not justified as a part of the penalty for a crime, since he was not a prisoner convicted of a crime. Further, even for a convicted prisoner, that treatment might not be proper when it was for the goal of gaining cooperation in posing for a picture as part of the facility's procedures. Bell v. McAdory, #15-1036, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 7764 (7th Cir.).

Diet

      A prisoner serving a life sentence was diagnosed with arthritis and high cholesterol, and received a low-cholesterol diet planned by a prison dietician for ten years. Then a new warden fired the dietician and cancelled all special diets, as well as decreasing the frequency of outdoor recreation. The prisoner asserted cruel and unusual punishment claims, as well as an equal protection claim based on the assertion that other Illinois prisons provided prescription diets and more outdoor recreation. While upholding summary judgment on claims relating to outdoor recreation, a federal appeals court found that the defendants were not entitled to it on claims relating to the cancellation of the prisoner's prescription diet. McDonald v. Hardy, #15-1102, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 8535 (7th Cir.).

      An inmate claimed that two correctional officers subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment by depriving him of meals. The jury awarded nominal and punitive damages for deprivation of nutritionally adequate food. Reversing, a federal appeals court held that the admission into evidence of a prison monitoring report prepared by a private non-profit corporation was erroneous. It was hearsay as it contained statements by inmates complaining about conditions at the prison, and it did not fall under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. It was offered for the truth of the statements made and was not made under oath. Admission of the report was not harmless because the jury was most likely influenced by the trial court's abuse of discretion in admitting it. Abascal v. Fleckenstein, #14-1591, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 7760 (2nd Cir.).

Medical Care

     A prisoner in a prison job as an electrician's assistant fell off a ladder and suffered an umbilical hernia. His lawsuit claimed deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The trial court granted a preliminary injunction and ordered the prisoner's evaluation for surgery. He then received surgery on his hernia. He sought damages for the pain he suffered because of prison officials' refusal to authorize the surgery prior to the lawsuit. Rejecting this, a federal appeals court found the individual defendants entitled to qualified immunity because they relied on legitimate medical opinions, and it was at least debatable whether they had complied with the Eighth Amendment. Hamby v. Hammond, #15-35283, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 7894 (9th Cir. 2016)

Prison Litigation Reform Act: Exhaustion of Remedies

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

     As two guards undertook to move an inmate to a segregation unit, one of them allegedly assaulted him, pnnching him in the face. The prisoner sued that guard for excessive force and the second guard for failing to take protective action. A jury found the first guard liable, but the second raised as a defense the Prison Litigation Reform Act's requirement that a prisoner exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit. The prisoner argued that an internal investigation of the incident was a substitution for the grievance procedures. A federal appeals court overturned the dismissal of the failure to protect claim on exhaustion of remedies grounds. It held that "special circumstances" could excuse failure to comply with administrative procedural requirements, especially when the prisoner mistakenly, but reasonably, believed that he sufficiently exhausted his remedies. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned this ruling. “The Fourth Circuit's unwritten 'special circumstances’ exception is inconsistent with the text and history of the PLRA.” The exhaustion of available administrative remedies is mandatory under the statute. However, under circumstances were an administrative remedy is officially on the books but not actually available, operating as a dead end, it becomes, practically speaking, incapable of use. It is also not "available" if prison administrators thwart prisoners from using it by intimidation or misrepresentation. Further proceedings were required to determine whether the prisoner actually had an "available administrative remedy." Ross v. Blake, #15-339, 2016 U.S. Lexis 3614

Prisoner Assault: By Inmate

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

     A federal prisoner sued the U.S. government under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), claiming that he was severely beaten by another prisoner because of negligence by prison officials. The defendants were granted summary judgment under an exception to liability under the Act for “[a]ny claim based upon . . . the exercise or performance . . . [of] a discretionary function," in this case decided where to house inmates. While that lawsuit was pending, the prisoner filed a second claim asserting constitutional claims against prison employees arising out of the first incident. The first lawsuit was dismissed based on the discretionary function, and the second suit was then dismissed based on the first suit's dismissal. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this was improper. The trial court did not dismiss the first suit based on a finding that the employees were not negligent, but only based on an exception to the FTCA as to federal government liability. That had no bearing on the issue of whether employees could be liable instead on a constitutional claim. Simmons v. Himmelreich, #15-109, 2016 U.S. Lexis 3613.

Religion

     A Nebraska prisoner claimed that prison officials violated his religious freedom rights by refusing to accommodate his religion of "Pastafarianism," as a member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The judge held that it was not a genuine religion, although it played an important role as "a parody, intended to advance an argument about science, the evolution of life, and the place of religion in public education." Cavanaugh v. Bartelt, #4:14-cv-3183, 2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis 48746 (D. Neb.).

     A Muslim prisoner claimed that his rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq. were violated by the prison's grooming regulations denying permission to grow a "fist-length" beard not to exceed four inches and to wear a religious kufi. The trial court upheld thesec claims, granting declaratory and injunctive relief. Upholding this result, a federal appeals court agreed that the prison officials had not met their burden in failing to demonstrate that the prohibitions in question were the least restrictive means of furthering compelling interests in preventing contraband, providing inmate identification, orderly program administration, and cost control. Ali v. Stephens, #14-41165, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 7964 (5th Cir.).

Strip Searches: Prisoner

     A county sheriff had a written policy that mandated the strip search of every arrestee entering the detention center's general population. It also allowed manual body-cavity inspections of some arrestees. A class was certified of "All persons held in the custody of the Sheriff of Kankakee County from April 20, 2010 to the date of entry of judgment who, following a warrantless arrest, were strip searched in advance of a judicial determination of probable cause,” The lawsuit was later dismissed, finding that it was valid as applied to the class, based on the subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Florence v. Burlington County, #10-945, 132 S. Ct. 1510 (2012). A federal appeals court vacated, ruling that it was possible that while the written policy may be valid that its application might not be. At least two class members were allegedly not headed towards the general population when searched, claiming that they were arrested, strip searched, and immediately released. Fonder v. Kankakee County, #15-2905, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 9672 (7th Cir.).

Workers' Compensation

     A prisoner cleaning a fry hood in a food service area fell off a ladder, lost feeling in his legs for several minutes, and experienced severe pain when he stood up. For several days, he claimed, he had trouble walking and intense pain persisted even when lying down. He filed an Eighth Amendment civil rights lawsuit over what he claimed was inadequate treatment for his injuries, including a delay in x-rays and refusal to perform an MRI to determine that he had a broken back. The trial court dismissed, finding that the Inmate Accident Compensation Act, 18 U.S.C. 4126(c), a workers' compensation scheme for federal prisoners injured during the course of their prison employment, is the exclusive vehicle by which a federal inmate may receive compensation for injuries suffered during the course of prison employment. The federal appeals court overturned that decision, holding that the statute did not bar otherwise available claims just because the unconstitutional conduct allegedly occurred during prison employment. Koprowski v. Baker, #14-5451, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 8633, 2016 Fed. App. 111P (6th Cir.).

•Return to the Contents menu.

     Statistics: Aging of the State Prison Population, 1993–2013, by E. Ann Carson, and William J. Sabol (May 19, 2016 NCJ 248766).

  Reference:

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

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