AELE Seminars:
Public Safety Discipline and Internal Investigations
Oct. 2-5, 2017– Orleans Hotel, Las Vegas
Jail and Prisoner Legal Issues
SAVE THE DATE:
Jan. 22-25, 2018 - 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 June
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
Inmate Funds
Medical Care: Dental
Medical Care: Mental Health
Prison and Jail Conditions: General
Prison Litigation: Exhaustion of Remedies (2 cases)
Retaliation
Segregation: Administrative
Sexual Assault
Youthful Prisoners |
•Return to the Contents menu.
AELE Seminars:
Public Safety Discipline and Internal Investigations
Oct. 2-5, 2017– Orleans Hotel, Las Vegas
Jail and Prisoner Legal Issues
SAVE THE DATE:
Jan. 22-25, 2018 - 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.
Inmate Funds
****Editor's Case Alert****
A Colorado woman was convicted of both felonies and misdemeanors connected with the alleged abuse of her children. She was sentenced to prison and ordered to pay $8,192.50 in fees, court costs, and restitution. Subsequently, her conviction was reversed on appeal, and she was acquitted on retrial. A Colorado man was convicted of attempting to patronize a prostituted child and attempted sexual assault. He was sentenced to prison and ordered to pay $4,413 in fees, costs, and restitution. His convictions were reversed and vacated and he was not retried. Colorado correctional officials withheld $702.10 from the woman’s inmate account between her conviction and acquittal. The man paid the state $1,977.75 after his conviction. After their convictions were overturned, both of them sought refunds of the money withheld or paid.
|
The Colorado Supreme Court denied the refunds, ruling that Colorado’s Exoneration Act provided the exclusive authority for refunds and that neither of them had filed a claim under that Act. The court also upheld the constitutionality of the Act, which permits the state to retain conviction-related assessments until the prevailing defendant institutes a separate civil proceeding and proves his or her innocence by clear and convincing evidence. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed. The Act’s scheme violates the guarantee of due process. The former prisoners had an obvious interest in regaining the money. The state may not retain these funds simply because their convictions were in place when the funds were taken. Once the convictions were erased, the presumption of innocence was restored. Colorado may not presume a person, adjudged guilty of no crime, guilty enough for monetary penalties. Colorado’s scheme creates an unacceptable risk of the erroneous deprivation of the defendants’ property, conditioning refunds on proof of innocence by clear and convincing evidence, while defendants in their position are presumed innocent. When the amount sought is not large, the cost of pursuing a claim under the Act would be prohibitive. The state had no equitable interest in withholding the refund of the money. Nelson v. Colorado, #15-1256, 197 L. Ed. 2d 611, 2017 U.S. Lexis 2615. |
Medical Care: Dental
A prisoner’s claim in his civil rights lawsuit that a prison dentist intentionally sutured his gum without removing pieces of a broken drill bit after extracting a wisdom tooth violating his Eighth Amendment rights was sufficient to survive initial screening under 28 U.S.C. 1915A. The prisoner alleged that he suffered pain for approximately two weeks before the shards from the broken drill bit were finally removed. Echols v. Craig, #14-1829, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 7957 (7th Cir.).
Medical Care: Mental Health
An inmate at a treatment and detention facility for persons believed to be prone to sexual violence claimed that the staff there had caused him to take the antipsychotic drug Risperdal for over a month without his knowledge or consent. A federal appeals court reversed summary judgment. The staff failed to follow Illinois’ mandated procedures for ordering forced medication. The plaintiff had not properly been found to be a danger to himself or others. A doctor had prescribed the medication after the inmate complained about feelings of aggression and hopelessness, so that he could take the medication if he wanted, but a nurse who did not know what the pill was, included it with the inmate’s medication for blood pressure, cholesterol, and stomach problems, which the plaintiff then took without consent or knowledge. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized a “significant liberty interest,” under the due process clause in “avoiding the unwanted administration of antipsychotic drugs,” which can have “serious, even fatal, side effects.” While the plaintiff was not forced to take the pill, the doctor “must have known that pills were delivered to the inmates, unlabeled, in little cups.” Johnson v. Tinwalla,#15-3525, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 7554 (7th Cir.).
Prison and Jail Conditions: General
Three Virginia death row inmates claimed that their conditions of confinement constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Among other things, they spent 23 hours a day alone, had only non-contact visits and contact visitations with immediate family members were subject to unspecified "extreme circumstances" with the warden maintaining unconstrained discretion to grant or deny such requests, and were barred from joining general population inmates for vocational, educational, or behavioral programming.
After the lawsuit was filed, the defendants substantially changed the policies governing the conditions of confinement for prisoners on Virginia's death row, addressing virtually all of the issues raised in the complaint. The appeals court agreed with plaintiffs that the defendants' voluntary cessation of the challenged practice has not yet mooted this action because the defendants failed to meet the U.S. Supreme Court's requirement of showing that it was absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur. In this case, nothing barred the Corrections Department from reverting to the challenged policies in the future. Porter v. Clarke, #16-7044, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 5217 (4th Cir.).
Prison Litigation: Exhaustion of Remedies
An inmate missing toes on his right foot fell and was injured while going up stairs to his upper-tier cell. He sued correctional defendants and the trial court dismissed the lawsuit for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). A federal appeals court found that the dismissal, entered on the trial’s court’s own motion, was improper. It was not clear from the face of the complaint that administrative remedies were not exhausted. In such cases, failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense and plaintiffs are not required to demonstrate exhaustion in their complaint. A court cannot dismiss a complaint on that basis without first giving the plaintiff an opportunity to address the issue. Custis v. Davis, #15-7533, 851 F.3d 358 (4th Cir. 2017).
After prison staff members failed to respond to a prisoner’s grievance alleging excessive use of force against him, he filed a state court writ of habeas corpus regarding his attempt to exhaust the claim. He also filed a federal civil rights lawsuit claiming that administrative remedies were unavailable because of the failure to process his grievance. The state court granted habeas relief, finding that the grievance had been timely filed, and ordering the grievance to be processed. The federal trial court dismissed the excessive force lawsuit, finding that administrative remedies had not been exhausted at the time it was filed.
A federal appeals court vacated, ordering further proceedings. It reasoned that the plaintiff prisoner had exhausted his available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. “When prison officials fail to respond to a prisoner’s grievance within a reasonable time, the prisoner is deemed to have exhausted available administrative remedies” within the meaning of the PLRA. Andres v. Marshall, #15-56057, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 6990 (9th Cir.).
Retaliation
****Editor's Case Alert****
Prison officials were not entitled to qualified immunity on a prisoner’s claim that they retaliated against him for filing a grievance by imposing disciplinary charges against him in violation of his First Amendment rights. While no prior published Fourth Circuit decision directly addressed whether filing a grievance was protected First Amendment conduct, the right was clearly established based on general constitutional principles or a consensus of persuasive authority. In this case, the inmate’s right was found to have been clearly established based on the Second, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits all recognizing in published decisions that inmates possess a First Amendment's Petition Clause right to be free from retaliation in response to filing a prison grievance. Booker v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, #15-7679, (4th Cir.).
Segregation: Administrative
Placing a pretrial detainee in administrative segregation and restricting his telephone privileges while allegations of misconduct were being investigated did not violate his due process rights. The suspected misconduct involved him threatening other detainees in order to coerce them into using “Speedy Bail Bond Service” and receiving compensation from Speedy for doing so. The detainee had not met his heavy burden of showing that defendants exaggerated their response to the genuine security considerations that resulted in his move. His transfer was for institutional security reasons rather than for discipline or punishment. Steele v. Cicchi, #14-3127, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 7844 (3rd Cir.).
Sexual Assault
A civilly committed sex offender sued his treatment team at the facility where he was confined, claiming that another resident sexually assaulted him, that he was subsequently forced to continue group therapy sessions with his alleged assailant, and that the staff retaliated against him. Granted a jury trial on these claims, he was represented by law students. He appeared in person at his trial. During an off‐the‐record break after closing arguments, the judge removed him for transport back to his faculty. The court did not address this removal on the record and issued no cautionary jury instruction regarding his absence, but instructed the jury that its verdict must be unanimous. He was not present when the jury found in favor of the defendants. The judge asked whether the students wanted the jury polled, and a student, without consulting the plaintiff, said no. A federal appeals court affirmed the verdict. There was no evidence that the jury had questions during deliberation or had any reason to know that the plaintiff was not present during deliberations. Failing to poll the jury when it is clear that the verdict was unanimous, was a “minor matter.” Smego v. Payne, #13-2055, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 6243 (7th Cir.).
Youthful PrisonersA federal appeals court overturned a grant of qualified immunity to the defendant employees of a juvenile home on claims by a juvenile formerly confined there that he was improperly housed in prolonged solitary confinement, failed to receive educational services, and was allowed to be sexually abused. The trial court in its decision addressed only the fact of juvenile court supervision and occasional review in determining that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and its opinion did not contain sufficient detail to allow the appeals court to review whether the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Reports submitted to the juvenile court did not show that it was made aware of the alleged conditions of his confinement. Bradford v. Palmer, #16-1767, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 7655 (8th Cir.).Correctional Employment: Employment, Program Statement 3300.03, Federal Bureau of Prisons (May 8, 2017). • Abbreviations of Law Reports, laws and agencies used in our publications. • AELE's list of recently-noted jail and prisoner law resources.
Public Safety Discipline and Internal Investigations Oct. 2-5, 2017– Orleans Hotel, Las Vegas
Jail and Prisoner Legal Issues Jan. 22-25, 2018 - Orleans Hotel, Las Vegas Click here for further information about all AELE Seminars.
Defenses: Qualified Immunity – See also, Retaliation First Amendment – See also, Retaliation Sex Offenders – See also, Sexual Assault Telephone Use – See also, Segregation: Administrative U.S. Supreme Court Actions – See also, Inmate Funds Visitation – See also, Prison and Jail Conditions: General
|
||||