AELE Seminars:
The Biometric, Psychological and Legal
Aspects of Lethal and Less Lethal Force
and the Management, Oversight, Monitoring, Investigation and Adjudication of
the Use of Force
April 3-6, 2017 - Orleans Hotel, Las
Vegas
Public Safety Discipline and Internal Investigations
Oct. 2-5, 2017– Orleans Hotel, Las Vegas
Click here for further information about all AELE Seminars.
A civil liability law publication for officers, jails, detention
centers and prisons
ISSN 0739-0998 - Cite this issue as: 2017 JB February
Click here to view information on
the editor of this publication.
Access the multi-year Jail & Prisoner Law Case Digest
Return to the monthly publications menu
Report non-working links here
Some links are to PDF files - Adobe Reader™
must be used to view content
False Imprisonment
Freedom of Information
Prisoner Assault: By Officers (2 cases)
Prisoner Discipline
Religion
Sexual Assault (3 cases)
Visitation
•Return to the Contents menu.
AELE Seminars:
The Biometric, Psychological and
Legal Aspects of Lethal and Less Lethal Force
and the Management, Oversight, Monitoring, Investigation and Adjudication of
the Use of Force
April 3-6, 2017 - Orleans Hotel, Las
Vegas
Public Safety Discipline and Internal Investigations
Oct. 2-5, 2017– Orleans Hotel, Las Vegas
Click here for further information about all AELE Seminars.
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 California man served part of a sentence for attempted murder before a federal court granted him habeas corpus relief for ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to present alibi testimony that the court found to be credible. He applied for compensation for wrongful imprisonment from the state’s Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board. The Board denied his claim after finding that he had not shown that he was factually innocent of the crime. An intermediate state appeals court held that the Board erred by refusing to be bound by the federal court’s order. It reversed and remanded for a new hearing, stating that it was reasonably probable that consideration of the federal court’s findings would cause the Board to award compensation. Madrigal v. Victim Compensation & Government Claims Board, #B265105, 2016 Cal. App. Lexis 1109.
Freedom of Information
A California county refused in part to agree to release information pursuant to an ACLU public records request for invoices specifying the amounts that the county had been billed by law firms in several different lawsuits claiming excessive force against jail inmates. It withheld invoices in pending cases on the basis of attorney-client privilege. The California Supreme Court ruled that while attorney-client privilege doesn’t categorically shield all attorney billing invoices from public records disclosure, invoices in active and pending legal matters are confidential under the privilege. Disclosure of such invoices could reveal legal strategy. Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, #5S226645, 2016 Cal. Lexis 9629.
Prisoner Assault: By Officers
An Illinois prisoner claimed that while he was being transferred to a new facility, officers subjected him to excessive force and failure to protect by lifting him over their heads and throwing him, head first, into a van. He claimed that this was their reaction to his request to be placed in a prison where he had no known enemies. He also claimed that other prisoners were allowed to refuse transfers on that basis. The officers disputed these claims. A federal appeals court upheld a verdict for the officers. It rejected the argument that he was entitled to a new trial because the trial court denied him a continuance after his attorney withdrew on the eve of trial. It also denied his request for an appointed lawyer as his past litigation experience and submitted pleadings showed that he was competent to represent himself. Jackson v. Willis, #14-3226, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 23282 (7th Cir.).
A jury awarded damages of $409,751 on federal and state claims that correctional officers hit him, fracturing a portion of his eye socket, choked him, and then left him in his cell without medical attention. The trial court reduced the damages to $307,733.82 and also awarded attorneys’ fees with 10% of the damage award to be applied to the fees. Liability was upheld by a federal appeals court, rejecting arguments that Illinois sovereign immunity applied to state-law claims against a state employee who violates constitutional or statutory law. The court also ruled, however, that under 42 U.S.C. 1997e(d) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the attorney fee award must first be satisfied from up to 25 percent of the damage award, and the district court did not have discretion to reduce that maximum percentage. Murphy v. Smith, #15-3384, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 22871 (7th Cir.).
Prisoner Discipline
The highest court in New York overturned a disciplinary hearing finding a prisoner guilty of violating two disciplinary rules. A violation of the prisoner’s right to call witnesses occurred at the administrative hearing because the hearing officer did not make a “meaningful inquiry” into a requested witness’s claim that he had been intimidated or coerced into refusing to testify. Cortorreal v. Annucci, # 519317, 2016 NY Slip Op 06943, 28 N.Y.3d 54. 2016 N.Y. Lexis 3214.
Religion
An Illinois prisoner filed a complaint in the Illinois Court of Claims against the Illinois Department of Corrections asserting that Muslims in state prisons were not permitted to attend prayer service each Friday, that prison officials regularly stole Arabic prayer cassette tapes and Muslim prayer rugs, and that Christians were permitted to have more volunteers enter the facility than are Muslims. He sought $5,000 in damages and the court, while holding a hearing, failed to issue an opinion for two years. The prisoner meanwhile filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against prison officials in their individual capacity, only seeking injunctive relief. The Court of Claims subsequently rejected all of the prisoner’s claims in a brief two page order. While the federal trial court dismissed the federal lawsuit as barred by res judicata, a federal appeals court reversed, finding that the Illinois Court of Claims had lacked jurisdiction to resolve federal constitutional claims. McDonald v. Adamson, #15-1305, 840 F.3d 343 (7th Cir. 2016).
Sexual Assault
****Editor's Case Alert****
A woman incarcerated at an all-female state prison claimed that she was raped by a prison maintenance employee. She sued, claiming that prison officials, including the warden, violated her Eighth Amendment rights by creating an environment in which sexual misconduct was likely to occur. A federal appeals court ruled that qualified immunity should not have been granted to the defendant warden, since a reasonable jury could have concluded that he created an atmosphere where “policies were honored only in the breach, and, as a result, he failed to take reasonable measures to ensure inmates were safe from the risk of sexual misconduct” by employees. The plaintiff had a clearly established” constitutional right against sexual assault by prison employees. Inadequate training claims, however, were properly rejected. Keith v. Koerner, #15-3219, 843 F.3d 833 (10th Cir. 2016).
A male detainee claimed that he was sexually assaulted twice by another male prisoner while in a county correctional facility. His lawsuit claimed that the county sheriff failed to protect him from a reasonably foreseeable hazard of sexual assault. The highest court in New York held that the lawsuit should not have been dismissed for failure to file a notice of claim on the county, since the county had a statutory duty to indemnify the sheriff on the claims presented. The complaint was otherwise sufficient to present a claim. Villar v. Howard, #153, 2016 NY Slip Op 06944, 28 N.Y.3d 74, 2016 N.Y. Lexis 3222, 64 N.E.3d 280.
A prisoner in a medium-security prison was placed in a cell with another prisoner who sexually assaulted him 12 days later. That assailant was incarcerated for having sexually assaulted a woman. Both prisoners were classified as “medium security. The assailant had committed eight violations of the prison’s rule in the past two years, but no sexual offenses, only offenses such as fighting, lying, theft, etc. Criminal charges were filed against him on the sexual assault. A federal appeals court upheld the dismissal of the lawsuit, upholding a practice of random assignment of cellmates. The court noted the prison’s compliance with the notification requirements of the 2003 Prison Rape Elimination Act, 42 U.S.C. 15601–15609, and that there was no evidence that plaintiff expressed any concern about being vulnerable to sexual assault. The prison staff was apparently unaware that the plaintiff was perceived by other prisoners to be homosexual, and there was no evidence of such a perception, apart from the plaintiff’s unsupported claim. Ramos v. Hamblin, #15-3052, 840 F.3d 442 (7th Cir. 2016).
Visitation
A California prisoner claimed to have discovered during his 2013 pre-annual interview that he was subject to a “child visiting” restriction that was allegedly unwarranted. His counselor promised to investigate and remove the restriction if appropriate. He was assured again at his 2014 review that the classification committee would investigation and take “appropriate” action. He received “a single-page copy” of the classification chrono from his 2009 program review, which noted his “sex offense history” and, under “Sex Offenses,” referred to “Sexual Perversion.” He denied ever being charged with any sexual crime against a child. His appeal was dismissed as untimely. An intermediate California appeals court held that California's Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) may not deem a prisoner's appeal untimely when the appeal was submitted within the 30-day period, even if the CDCR received the appeal after the expiration of the 30-day period. His appeal was timely, even though it was not stamped received until 31 days after the inmate's annual review, because he submitted the appeal via intra-institutional mail 29 days after the annual review. In re: Lambirth, #H041812, 5 Cal. App. 5th 915, 2016 Cal. App. Lexis 1014.
•Return to the Contents
Statistics: Correctional Populations in the United States, 2015, by Danielle Kaeble, and Lauren E. Glaze, Bureau of Justice Statistics (December 29, 2016 NCJ 250374).
Statistics: Jail Inmates in 2015, by Todd D. Minton, and Zhen Zeng, Bureau of Justice Statistics (December 29, 2016 NCJ 250394)
Statistics: Prisoners in 2015, by E. Ann Carson, and Elizabeth Anderson, Bureau of Justice Statistics (December 29, 2016 NCJ 250229).
Reference:
• Abbreviations of Law Reports, laws and agencies used in our publications.
• AELE's list of recently-noted jail and prisoner law resources.
The Biometric, Psychological and
Legal Aspects of Lethal and Less Lethal Force
and the Management, Oversight, Monitoring, Investigation and Adjudication of
the Use of Force
April 3-6, 2017 - Orleans Hotel, Las
Vegas
Public Safety Discipline and Internal Investigations
Oct. 2-5, 2017– Orleans Hotel, Las Vegas
Click here for further information about all AELE Seminars.
Access to Courts/Legal Info – See also, Prisoner Assault: By Officers (1st case)
Defenses: Sovereign Immunity – See also, Prisoner Assault: By Officers (2nd case)
Prison Litigation Reform Act: Attorneys’ Fees – See also, Prisoner Assault: By Officers (2nd case)
•Return to the Contents menu.
Return to the monthly publications menu
Access the multi-year Jail and Prisoner Law Case Digest
List of links to court websites
Report non-working links here.
© Copyright 2017 by AELE, Inc.
Contents may be downloaded, stored, printed or copied,
but may not be republished for commercial purposes.