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.

False Imprisonment

     A federal inmate was erroneously awarded $172,465 in damages for false imprisonment under the Unjust Conviction and Imprisonment Act, 28 U.S.C.S. §§ 1495 and 2513(e). His lawsuit sought damages for 2,273 days he spent in pretrial an post-trial confinement before his conviction for transportation of a firearm in interstate commerce by a convicted felon was reversed. But he received credit for each day he was in confinement against a 15 year sentence he received after pleading guilty to mailing a threatening communication and other charges. Therefore, there remained no "period of incarceration" associated with the firearms charge that allowed him to receive an award of damages. Crooker v. United States, #15-5056, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 12762 (Fed. Cir.).

First Amendment

     A prisoner's complaint about being assaulted and injured by another inmate was not a "personal gripe" unprotected by the First Amendment. The plaintiff prisoner, therefore, could proceed with his lawsuit alleging that he was disciplined for pursuing his complaint concerning the incident. Ogurek v. Gabor, #15-1151 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 11712 (7th Cir.).

Immigration Detainee

     The U.S. government entered into a settlement agreement in a 1997 class action lawsuit, setting out a "nationwide policy for the detention, release, and treatment of minors in the custody of the INS." The plaintiff class in 2015 filed a motion to enforce the settlement, arguing that it applied to all minors held in the custody of immigration authorities, regardless of whether or not they were accompanied by parents. A federal appeals court agreed, but further held that this did not create affirmative release rights for parents, as the trial court erroneously held. The fact that the settlement agreement granted minors a right to preferential release to a parent did not mean that the government had any obligation to make a parent available for that purpose. Flores v. Lynch, #15-56434, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 12439 (9th Cir.).

Medical Care: Dental

     Current and former detainees at a county jail claimed that the level of dental care there amounted to deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The jail's subsequent implementation of a consent order in unrelated litigation with the U.S. Department of Justice eliminated a common question concerning inadequate staffing and brought care into compliance with national standards. A federal appeals court upheld decertification of the classes because of the lack of a common issue of fact or law. The plaintiffs could not now point to the type of "systematic and gross deficiency" that could support a finding that all detainees were effectively denied adequate dental treatment or that a specific policy directly caused delay, or that there was a "pattern of egregious delays" across the entire class. Phillips v. Sheriff of Cook County, #15-1616, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 12441 (7th Cir.).

     A county's deputies and nurse were not entitled to qualified immunity on a detainee's Fourteenth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to his severe pain from dental surgery. He alleged that they were aware of the severe pain and yet failed to give him his prescribed pain medication. His right to receive the medication under the circumstances was clearly established. Dadd v. Anoka County, #15-2482, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 12031 (8th Cir.).

Prison Conditions: General

     An inmate claimed that the warden of the facility where he was incarcerated violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to adequately address the infestation of vermin, insects, and birds in his cell. He alleged that the prison only cleaned "infrequently," and failed to repair either broken windows or holes in the walls. The inmate, who suffers from asthma, asserted that he had not had an attack for seven years before arriving at this prison. A federal appeals court overturned summary judgment for the warden, ruling that these individual claims were prematurely dismissed, and that on remand the trial court could determine how to coordinate the case with a pending class action raising similar allegations. There were triable issues of fact for a jury, which should determine the degree of both physical and psychological harm the plaintiff suffered because of the alleged conditions. Gray v. Hardy, #13-3413, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 11575 (7th Cir.).

Prison Litigation: Exhaustion of Remedies

     A prisoner sued two correctional officers for allegedly brutally beating him for talking back to a third officer. On the issue of whether the plaintiff exhausted available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a) prior to filing suit, a federal appeals court found that the prison's grievance procedures were not available to the plaintiff. This was because they were so confusing that they were, “practically speaking, incapable of use.” Williams v. Correction Officer Priatno, #14-4777, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 12775 (2nd Cir.).

Prisoner Assault: By Inmates

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

     Genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment for correctional officers on a prisoner's claim that they failed to protect him from a severe beating by another inmate. A reasonable jury could find that the correctional officers knew that the plaintiff faced a serious danger to his safety and could have easily averted the danger but failed to do so. There was evidence that the inmate repeatedly informed the officers that he was being threatened and robbed, and feared for his safety. Cox v. Quinn, #15-6943, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 12444 (4th Cir.).

Prisoner Classification

     A prisoner was placed in a Special Management Unit (SMU), a unit intended for those with a history of violence and prisoners who “participated in or had leadership roles in geographical groups/gang related activity." He sued, claiming that through a pattern, practice, or policy, prison officials often placed inmates with hostile cellmates, unnecessarily increasing the risk of violence. He also claimed that those who refused to accept a hostile cellmate were placed in painful restraints. He was transferred out of the facility, but a federal appeals court found that his class claims were not moot. When individual claims for relief are acutely susceptible to mootness, a would-be class representative may, in some circumstances, continue to seek certification after losing his personal stake in the case, and that applied to the plaintiff in this case. He could continue to seek class certification. Richardson v. Dir., Fed. Bureau of Prisons, #15-2876, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 12997 (3rd Cir.).

Religion

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

     A Wiccan prisoner was denied a request to wear a “pentacle medallion,” a five-pointed silver star set in a circle less than an inch in diameter. The pentacle medallion was claimed to be to the Wiccan religion what the cross is to many Christians. The medallion, he contended, was small enough to comply with the facility's jewelry regulation, yet it was confiscated. The warden contended that inmates were prohibited from possessing five or six point star symbols because they are used as gang identifiers. A federal appeals court ruled that the trial court erred in denying a preliminary injunction on religious freedom claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc–1. The court ruled that the statute's “substantial burden” inquiry asks whether the government has substantially burdened religious exercise, not whether the plaintiff is able to engage in other forms of religious exercise. The court noted that the plaintiff was willing to wear his medallion under his shirt whenever he was outside his cell to protect himself from being identified as a gang member and that he had tendered an affidavit from another Wiccan prisoner, who stated that he has worn his medallion in maximum security prisons since 1998 without experiencing threats or violence. Knowles v. Pfister, #15-1703, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 12853 (7th Cir.).

•Return to the Contents menu.

      Federal Prison Policies: Program Statement 7320.01, Home Confinement and Program and Statement 7300.09, Community Corrections Manual (August 1, 2016).

      Prison Rape: Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) and Inmate Education — A Resource Guide, a collaboration between Just Detention International and the National PREA Resource Center (2016).

  Reference:

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

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