AELE Seminars:
Public Safety Discipline and Internal Investigations
Oct. 29-Nov. 1, 2018– Orleans Hotel, Las Vegas
Jail and Prisoner Legal Issues
Jan. 14-17, 2019 -
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: 2018 JB August
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
Access to Courts/Legal Info
Bail
Defenses: Procedural
False Imprisonment
Medical Care
Prisoner Assault: By Officers
Prisoner Death/Injury
Prisoner Suicide
Sexual Assault
Transsexual Prisoners
AELE Seminars:
Public Safety Discipline and Internal Investigations
Oct. 29-Nov. 1, 2018– Orleans Hotel, Las Vegas
Jail and Prisoner Legal Issues
Jan. 14-17, 2019 -
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.
Access to Courts/Legal Info
The California Supreme Court has ruled that litigants, including prisoners, who are proceeding as paupers with civil lawsuits are entitled to a waiver of official court reporter fees for producing transcripts of the proceedings. The San Diego Superior Court’s general policy of not providing official court reporters in most civil trials while permitting privately retained court reporters for parties who can afford to pay for such reporters is invalid, and an official court reporter, or other valid means to create an official verbatim record for purposes of appeal, must generally be made available to pauper litigants upon request. Jameson v. Desta, #S230899, 2018 2018 Cal. Lexis 4999.
Bail
New Jersey changed its pretrial release system, abandoning one which had long relied on monetary bail, based on a finding that the system resulted in the release of defendants who could afford to pay for their release, even if they posed a substantial risk of flight or danger to others, and the detention of poorer defendants who presented minimal risk and were accused of less serious crimes. Following a constitutional amendment, a state law ushered in created a new framework that prioritizes the use of non-monetary conditions of release over monetary bail. Plaintiff arrestees challenged the law as a violation of the Eighth Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and the Fourth Amendment, seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the state “from taking any actions to enforce statutory provisions [of the Act] . . . that allow imposition of severe restrictions on the pre-trial liberty of presumptively innocent criminal defendants without offering the option of monetary bail.” A federal appeals court ruled that there is no federal constitutional right to deposit money or obtain a corporate surety bond to ensure a criminal defendant’s future appearance in court as an equal alternative to non-monetary conditions of pretrial release. Holland v. Rosen, #17-3104, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 18554 (4th Cir.).
Defenses: Procedural
A Kansas state inmate filed a federal civil rights lawsuit that named eleven prison employees as defendants and a variety of violations of his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. He later amended his complaint without seeking leave to do so, again asserting various violations of his constitutional rights and adding nine more defendants. The district judge screened that complaint, and after setting forth the claims, he decided they were “not linked by a common question of law or fact, involved different defendants, for a total of 20. The claims, the appeals court found, “arose from different transactions.”
The appeals court concluded that the plaintiff “may not present all of the claims in a single action” and instructed him to decide which claims he wished to pursue and file a second amended complaint accordingly. The second amended complaint the named 38 defendants and alleged myriad violations of his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Attached to the complaint were over 450 pages of exhibits.
The complaint fell far short of containing “a short and plain statement” of the claims showing entitlement to relief, the court ruled, nor did it provide any citations to the exhibits to aid any court in navigating them. The trial court again screened the complaint and concluded “many of [the] claims lack support or substance, and much of the material submitted as exhibits appears to be irrelevant and disorganized.” At the end, the trial judge identified two claims meriting discussion: (1) denial of hygiene supplies; and (2) denial of access to the courts. Both failed to state a claim for relief, however. The trial court then dismissed the entire complaint with prejudice, but did not first explicitly address whether amendment of the complaint would be futile, even though the complaint requested leave to amend if necessary to cure any deficiencies. Judgment was entered the same day. He filed a motion to alter or amend judgment, which the judge denied. After review, the appeals reversed dismissal with prejudice of one of the plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against prison officials regarding their alleged failure to protect him from a beating, but upheld dismissal of the second amended complaint in all other respects. Requena v. Roberts, #17-3040, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 17031 (10th Cir.).
False Imprisonment
Indiana’s special drug courts try to address substance abuse with flexible sentencing mandated by state law. The Clark County Drug Treatment Court (DTC) was allegedly not a success, and participants frequently stayed in jail for weeks and even months as “sanctions” for noncompliance with program conditions, without the procedural protections required by Indiana law, such as written notice, a right to counsel, or a right to present evidence. DTC personnel made arrests for program policy violations despite a clear lack of authority to do so. Program participants filed a class action under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
|
The Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Judicial Center shut down the program. The trial court denied class certification, dismissed some claims, and resolved most others on summary judgment. A final claim was settled. The plaintiffs failed to win relief. On appeal of due process claims against three defendants and Fourth Amendment claims against two defendants, a federal appeals court stated that it had “no doubt that the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights were violated,” but the plaintiffs did not establish that these particular defendants were personally responsible for the alleged systemic breakdown. Hoffman v. Knoebel, #17-2750, 894 F.3d 836 (7th Cir. 2018). |
Medical Care
A Michigan prisoner claimed that prison medical providers denied him required medical care for his end-stage liver disease (ESLD). Following his death, his brothers filed a revised complaint for his estate. Two doctors were granted summary judgment on Eighth Amendment claims. A federal appeals court affirmed. The prisoner failed to show deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. He did not establish the alleged wrongdoing “was objectively harmful enough to establish a constitutional violation and that the official acted with a culpable enough state of mind, rising above gross negligence.” Rhinehart v. Scutt, #17-2166, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 17749, 2018 Fed. App. 127P (6th Cir.).
Prisoner Assault: By Officers
|
After two inmates fought over some pencils, officers handcuffed one prisoner and walked him to a van to be transported to a segregation unit. He kicked through the windows and was carried out of the van. Officers allegedly slammed his face into the ground, placed him in another van and continued to beat him. When he got to the segregation unit, an officer punched him in his ribs, according to the plaintiff. The assault allegedly continued after his clothing was taken away. A psychologist who treated the plaintiff following his injuries testified that that he “discussed his frustration with the lack of attention to the grievance he filed 'when the C/O’s [correctional officers] kicked my ass.’” The trial court redacted the statement—“the C/O’s kicked my ass”—as inadmissible hearsay. A fellow prisoner and the plaintiff’s only witness to the alleged beating, was unavailable for trial, so designated portions from his deposition were read to the jury. A federal appeals court affirmed judgment in favor of the defendants, upholding those evidentiary rulings. Lovelace v. McKenna, #17-1393, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 18146 (7th Cir.). |
Prisoner Injury/Death
|
Jail personnel and medical providers were not held liable for the death of a prisoner, the plaintiff’s son, from a perforated duodenal ulcer in a detention center. In this case the record would not support a jury finding that the defendants were deliberately indifferent. The facts instead indicated a case of misdiagnosis rather than one of deliberate indifference. Winkler v. Madison, #17-6072, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 17384, 2018 Fed. App. 123p (6th Cir.). |
Prisoner Suicide
A prisoner suffering from mental illness had a history of trying to commit suicide. He sued, alleging deliberate indifference to his suicidal tendencies and four suicide attempts. The court allowed some claims to proceed, relating to officials’ failure to prevent his self‐harm and failure to obtain medical assistance after self‐harm.
The inmate’s unsuccessful motion to recruit a lawyer argued that the issues were complex, that he has serious mental illnesses, a fifth‐grade reading level, little legal knowledge, and extremely limited access—as a segregation inmate—to the law library and witnesses. His unsuccessful motion added that he has a learning disability, had been transferred to a new prison, and did not know where his witness was located. After discovery began, the plaintiff’s third unsuccessful motion noted that another attorney had joined the defense and that he previously relied on other prisoners for assistance but was having difficulty getting help. No attorney was appointed. The prisoner, acting as his own lawyer, failed to hold depositions. The trial court granted the defendants summary judgment. A federal appeals court vacated this ruling. When denying the plaintiff’s third motion, the trial court did not specifically address circumstances that bore on his ability to competently litigate his case. McCaa v. Hamilton, #16-4109, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 17647 (7th Cir.).
A female arrestee booked into a county jail claimed that a detention officer raped her. She sued the sheriff for the alleged rape, under a theory of inadequate supervision. The sheriff argued that, even assuming he violated the Constitution - the trial court erred in finding that the contours of the constitutional right at issue were clearly established. A federal appeals court agreed: “the clearly established law must be 'particularized’ to the facts of the case.In reaching this conclusion, we do not mean to suggest that “[a] prior case” must have “identical facts” before it will put reasonable officials on notice that their specific conduct is unconstitutional.” Accordingly, the appeals court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded with directions to enter summary judgment in the sheriff’s favor on the basis of qualified immunity. Perry v. Durborow, #17-5023, 892 F.3d 1116 (10th Cir. 2018).
Transsexual Prisoners
A state prisoner was experiencing gender dysphoria. Born a woman, she displayed feminine characteristics and identified as female. She did receive medical care for her condition, but argued that the treatment was so inadequate that it violates the Eighth Amendment. The appeals court found that she produced undisputed evidence which showed the plaintiff received hormone treatment, testosterone-blocking medication, and weekly counseling sessions. A 1986 precedent, Supre v. Ricketts, #84-2803, 792 F.2d 958 (10th Cir. 1986), suggested that these forms of treatment would preclude liability under the Eighth Amendment. Given the evidence “no reasonable fact finder could infer deliberate indifference on the part of prison officials. And the district court did not improperly curtail [the plaintiff’s] opportunity to conduct discovery. Thus, we affirm the award of summary judgment to the prison officials.” Lamb v. Norwood, #317-3171, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 18557 (10th Cir.).
•Return to the Contents
•Report non-working links here
Prison Rape: PREA (Prison Rape Elimination Act) Data Collection Activities, 2018 by Jessica Stroop, (Bureau of Justice Statistics, June 29, 2018 NCJ 251672).
Reference:
• Abbreviations of Law Reports, laws and agencies used in our publications.
• AELE's list of recently-noted jail and prisoner law resources.
AELE Seminars
Public Safety Discipline and Internal Investigations
Oct. 29-Nov. 1, 2018– Orleans Hotel, Las Vegas
Jail and Prisoner Legal Issues
Jan. 14-17, 2019 -
Orleans Hotel, Las Vegas
Click here for further information about all AELE Seminars.
•Return to the Contents menu.
Access the multi-year Jail and Prisoner Law Case Digest
List of links to court websites
Report non-working links here.
© Copyright 2018 by AELE, Inc.
|
||||