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.

Mail

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

     An inmate claimed that correctional officials violated his rights by censoring his Chinese-language mail and denying him the ability to make phone calls to China. A federal appeals court upheld the rejection of his First Amendment claim as the restrictions were reasonably related to legitimate concerns about security. The regulations were neutral in furthering a substantial governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of expression. His equal protection claim was rejected as there was no evidence that the different treatment of Chinese speaking inmates from Spanish speaking inmates was motivated by race or national origin or was a pretext for discrimination. The government was not required to bear the financial burden of paying for Chinese translations. Yang v. MO Dep't of Corr., #15-2231, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 14924 (8th Cir.).

Medical Care

     A federal prisoner suffered burns on his leg, foot, and ankle while working in the prison kitchen. His second-degree burn was treated by a nurse and he returned to the healthcare unit daily for cleaning and dressing of his wound. A physician's assistance told him that the pain and numbness he was experiencing were probably normal and that he should return in six months. When he did so, he was told that his symptoms were probably permanent. A doctor allegedly refused to examine him, look up his records, or authorize any treatment. The doctor allegedly told him that he would not have gotten burned if he wasn't in prison, and that only "God" could help him. He also allegedly threatened to write up a disciplinary report if the prisoner complained again. The doctor disputed this. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for a prison administrator who was not a medical professional, but reversed it as to the doctor. A reasonable jury might infer that personal hostility, divorced from medical judgment, motivated the doctor's refusal to authorize any further treatment, including from a burn specialist that the prisoner's family would have paid for. Rivera v. Gupta, #15-3462, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 16544 (7th Cir.).

     A prison doctor sent an inmate to an off-site orthopedic surgeon when he broke his wrist. X-rays were taken and instructions were given that the prisoner should return in three weeks. The prison doctor did not follow those instructions, but waited almost seven weeks to send the prisoner back. By then, the wrist had healed at an improper angle and two surgeries were needed to correct the problem. A federal appeals court overturned summary judgment for the prison doctor. There was evidence from which it could be found that rather than simply disagreeing with the specialist, which would have been insufficient to prove deliberate indifference, the prison doctor consciously disregarded the specialist's instructions. Zaya v. Sood, #15-1470, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 16374 (7th Cir.),

Officer Assault: By Inmate

     An inmate was prosecuted and convicted of assaulting a correctional officer by head-butting him while arguing about a pat-down search. The prisoner unsuccessfully argued self-defense at trial. Upholding the conviction, a federal appeals court held that the trial court had erred in stating that a prisoner had to show an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm before justifiably using force in self-defense, but the trial court correctly found that the prisoner had had a legal alternative to force in complying with the pat-down. No one argued that the search itself had been a violation of his rights. United States v. Waldman, #15-1756, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 16058 (7th Cir.).

Prison and Jail Conditions: General

     A pretrial detainee claimed that the sheriff violated his substantive due process rights by confining him in an unsanitary and overcrowded cell. A federal appeals court found that the detainee's claim that he was temporarily forced to sleep on a mattress on the floor near a toilet was insufficient to clearly show that his conditions of confinement were unconstitutional. The sheriff was therefore entitled to qualified immunity. Jacoby v. Baldwin County, #14-12932, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 15929, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 726 (11th Cir.).

Prison Litigation Reform Act: Exhaustion of Remedies

     After a corrections officer allegedly intentionally injured an inmate by twisting his arm "real hard" and said “since today is my last day, I wanted to leave you with a present,” the prisoner submitted a sick call request and filled out a form describing the incident and asking for an investigation. While he was assessed and received medication, no investigation followed, and his follow-up requests for a decision were ignored. Overturning a finding of a failure to exhaust administrative remedies, a federal appeals court found that the exhaustion of remedies provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act was satisfied by the prisoner's attempt to avail himself of the prison's administrative processes and the prison's noncompliance with its own deadline. Robinson v. Superintendent Rockview SCI, #14-2994, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 13650 (3rd Cir.).

Prisoner Assault: By Inmates

     A trial court acted erroneously in dismissing a pro se handwritten complaint by a prisoner with a third-grade education for failure to state a claim. He claimed that he was savagely attacked while on his way to the dining hall by another prisoner who had been threatening him. He claimed that the attack occurred because he was not a gang member and not a Muslim and was housed in a unit in which gang members ruled, weapons were tolerated, and violence was widespread. He also claimed to have asked officials to move him, but to no avail. The appeals court found that the allegations in the complaint were sufficient to make out a claim that the defendants were aware of the severe risk of harm. The prisoner would be allowed to amend his complaint. Lane v. Philbin, #14-11140, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 15797, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 723 (11th Cir.).

Prisoner Classification

     A Massachusetts correctional policy of using discretionary override codes to block juvenile homicide offenders from being placed in a minimum security facility unless and until they had received a positive parole vote violated a state statute barring a categorical ban on such placement and requiring a consideration on suitability for minimum security classification on a case-by-case basis. The practice did not, however, violate juvenile homicide offenders' right to a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation because there is no constitutionally protected expectation under the Eight Amendment or Mass. Const. Decl. Rights art. 26 that a juvenile homicide offender will be released to the community after serving a statutorily prescribed portion of his or her sentence. Deal v. Comm'r of Correction, #SJC-12053, 475 Mass. 307, 56 N.E.3d 800 (Mass. 2016).

Prisoner Death/Injury

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

    While shaking down some cells, prison guards allegedly handcuffed a prisoner behind his back and then ordered him to walk down a flight of stairs in a holding area while his cell was searches. The stairs, he claimed, had been covered with food, milk, and garbage for several days, and guards refused requests to help him walk. He slipped and fell down 13 stairs, knocking himself unconscious and suffering permanent injuries. A federal appeals court vacated the dismissal of the lawsuit, ruling that the risk of serious harm involved in negotiating such littered stairs while handcuffed and unaided was substantial and obvious, and refusal to aid him in such circumstances, if true, could constitute deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Anderson v. Morrison, #14-3781, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 15761 (7th Cir.).

Retaliation

     A prisoner claimed that an officer broke off the antenna on his radio during a cell search, while the officer claimed that it was already broken and secured by tape. The officer confiscated the broken radio as contraband and refused the prisoner's request that he fill out an incident report stating that he broke the radio. He alleged requested a grievance form but did not receive one. Instead he was summoned to the security office later that day and reprimanded for giving officers a hard time. He was told he would receive a misconduct, and subsequently filed a grievance against the officer over the radio incident after getting a form from someone else. He was then found guilty of misconduct. Overturning dismissal of a First Amendment retaliation claim, a federal appeals court held that not every violation of prison protocols supported by some evidence bars such a claim, especially relatively minor offenses, such as a radio antenna secured by tape. Watson v. Rozum, #13-3510, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 15429 (3rd Cir.).

•Return to the Contents menu.

     Female Prisoners: Overlooked: Women and Jails in an Era of Reform, by Elizabeth Swavola, Kristine Riley, and Ram Subramanian, Vera Institute of Justice (2016).

  Reference:

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

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