AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for
Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Racial/National Origin Discrimination
Monthly Law Journal Article: Racial Classifications and Inmate Housing Assignments, 2010 (1) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
Prisoners who were exposed to a heightened risk of getting Valley Fever (coccidioidomycosis), a disease contracted by inhaling spores of a certain fungus, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against state officials for money damages, claiming that this exposure constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. African-American inmates also brought a claim under the Equal Protection Clause, claiming that African-American inmates were particularly likely to get Valley Fever and suffer serious injury. A federal appeals court ruled that several of the defendants could not be sued at all because they were not personally involved in any alleged violations. The court further held that the officials were entitled to qualified immunity against claims that they were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and also entitled to qualified immunity against claims that they racially discriminated against African-American inmates. In this case, the opinion stated, it would not have been “obvious” to any reasonable official that they had to segregate prisoners by race or do more than a federal receiver previously appointed told them to do. All the prisoners were treated the same, regardless of race. Hines v. Youseff, #15-16145, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 3312 (9th Cir.).
A California prison's refusal
to accommodate an Aryan Christian Odinist prisoner's request that he be
classified an ineligible to be housed with a cellmate of a different race did
not violate his religious free exercise rights under either the First Amendment
or the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C.
2000cc et seq. Denying a religious exemption to the prison's classification
scheme was the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling interest in
complying with constitutional restrictions on racial segregation. Walker v.
Beard, #12-17460, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 10255 (9th Cir.).
An African-American prisoner
at a California-state prisoner sued following a lockdown imposed on
African-American inmates, complaining, among other things, of injuries he
suffered related to shower restrictions, and about the race-based
classification of the lockdown. A federal appeals court found that the
conditions imposed did not violate Eighth Amendment restrictions on cruel and
unusual punishment, for which deliberate indifference had to be shown. That did
not, however, bar an equal protection claim for race discrimination under the
Fourteenth Amendment. The trial court erred, on the equal protection claim, in
allowing the jury to defer generally to officials rather than determining
whether the challenged race-based actions were narrowly tailored. Harrington v.
Scribner, #09-16951, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 7545 (9th Cir.).
A prison's modified policy of partial lockdown
based on a prisoner's racial o ethnic classification was subject to strict
scrutiny analysis and violated prisoners' rights since it was not narrowly
tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Prisoners were classified as
Black, White, Northern Hispanic, Southern Hispanic, or Other, and all members
of those racial groups were subjected, sometimes for extended periods of time,
to restrictions on movements and activities. This was done without any attempt
to discover whether an individual was affiliated with a racial gang or to
determine which inmates were responsible for incidents that triggered the
lockdown. Additionally, some of the restrictions imposed, such as denial of
visitation,. appeared to be punitive instead of being designed to maintain security,
particularly when applied to a large group of prisoners based on race for an
extended period of time. While avoiding gang violence was a compelling
interest, the means chosen to accomplish this had to be focused on responding
to the particular threat and not impose restrictions unnecessary to reducing
the risk of violence. In re Morales, #A132816, 2013 Cal. App. Lexis 42.
A facially neutral job assignment policy that
Black and Hispanic prisoners claimed resulted in racial discrimination against
them could not be challenged as a violation of equal protection on the basis of
its supposed "disparate impact." Individual state officials could not
be sued for intentional racial discrimination on the basis of a
"pattern-or-practice evidentiary framework," since that would not
show which officials purportedly acted with a discriminatory purpose. Reynolds
v. Barrett, #10-4208, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 14201 (2nd Cir.).
A man civilly committed in Illinois as a sexually
dangerous person failed to show that facility staff members acted with reckless
disregard to the danger of an attack on him by his cellmate or that they
treated him, as a black man, differently than similarly situated white
detainees. Young v. Monahan, #09-3401, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 4692 (7th Cir.).
A man civilly committed as a sexually
violent person claimed that an employee at the facility where he is confined
engaged in racial discrimination by refusing to serve him ice cream during an
ice cream social. Evidence concerning the incident showed that the employee
believed that the plaintiff's classification did not entitle him to participate
in the event, and that nothing was said about race, nor was there any other
evidence of racial animus. The plaintiff also claimed that administrators who
resolved his grievance over the incident by determining that the employee
simply made a mistake about his eligibility to participate acted with racial
animus. Noting that this was one of five lawsuits filed by the plaintiff in the
past year, "and by far the most frivolous," the appeals court upheld
the lawsuit's dismissal. The complaint was "speculative and does not
permit even a plausible inference that race motivated the employee's action.
... We have said in another context that 'the concept of equal protection is
trivialized when it is used to subject every decision made by a state or local
government to constitutional review by federal courts.'" Thomas v. Priebe,
#10-2765, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 22465 (Unpub.7th Cir.).
Prisoners in a Delaware prison claimed that various
prison officials discriminated against their chapter of the NAACP on the basis
of race, discriminated against African-American inmates in job placement and
various prison procedures, and mistreated disabled prisoners. Most of the claims
were barred by the failure of the plaintiffs to exhaust available
administrative remedies by filing and pursuing grievances over these issues. A
grievance had, however, been filed concerning the alleged racial discrimination
against the NAACP chapter. The complaint claimed that prison officials had
closed the chapter's office, denied members access to the computer room, only
allowed chapter meetings if prison security staff members were available, and
prevented family and friends from attending such meetings. A federal appeals
court found that these allegations, even if true, did not show that the NAACP
chapter and its members had been treated differently than other prisoner groups
on the basis of race. The record showed that all prison groups had been prevented
from accessing the computer room in order to allow for more computer classes,
that prison security staff were required to be present at all prison group
meetings if a group does not have regular volunteers to run its meetings, and
that family and friends are not allowed to attend any prison group's regular
meetings. The NAACP chapter, the court concluded, still operates, and is
treated no differently from any other prisoner group. Hubbard v. Danberg,
#10-1886, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 21120 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
A California inmate sued prison officials who
allegedly assigned him a cellmate based on race. At the time this occurred,
however, the court ruled, it was not yet clearly established that a policy of
considering race in making such cell assignments was a violation of equal
protection. Instead, it was regarded as "undoubtedly a legitimate
penological interest" related to prison security, a concept later
overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in Johnson v. California, #03-636, 543 U.S.
499 (2005) (holding strict scrutiny should be applied to such racial
classifications). Prison officials were therefore entitled to qualified
immunity from liability. The court rejected the argument that various
international treaties prohibiting racial segregation were enough so that
prison officials should have known their policy was unlawful, noting that such
treaties did not provide for an individual cause of action for violations. The
prisoner was also not entitled to injunctive relief, as the prison has stopped using
race as a factor in housing prisoners, and the plaintiff has been transferred
to a dormitory facility. Mayweathers v. Woodford, #08-56835, 2010 U.S. App.
Lexis 17464 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
While the lockdowns that a prisoner was subjected
to did not impose an extraordinary hardship on him as required for a due
process claim, he could proceed with his racial discrimination claim. Prison
officials failed to justify allegedly putting every African-American prisoner
in a housing unit on lockdown in instances in which an assault was allegedly
perpetrated or planned by one or a few African-American prisoners. Richardson
v. Runnels, #07-16736, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 695 (9th Cir.).
By a 2-to-1 majority, a panel of a federal
appeals court ruled that a Washington state law that automatically
disenfranchises convicted felons results in denial of the right to vote on
account of race in violation of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973, due
to racial discrimination in the state's criminal justice system. A strong
dissent noted that three other federal circuit courts of appeal have ruled that
challenges to felon disenfranchisement laws cannot be brought under the Voting
Rights Act. Farrakhan v. Gregoire. No. 06-35669, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 141 (9th
Cir.).
An African-American prisoner claimed, among other
things, that he had been denied a particular work assignment because of his
race. He argued that he was similarly situated with medium security prisoners
with a history of escape. However, while at that facility, he was a medium
security prisoner serving a life sentence, and therefore was not similarly
situated to the other prisoners he referred to. Additionally, he only made
conclusory allegations of purposeful race discrimination, and, at most, showed
only a discriminatory impact. His prior grievances had also failed to assert
race discrimination claims, and instead argued that he was denied the work
assignment at issue because of his life sentence. The defendants' motion to
dismiss the lawsuit was granted. McKubbin v. Pettiford, #8:08-3248, 2009 U.S.
Dist. Lexis 91529 (D.S.C.).
An African-American motorist stopped for
DUI was taken to a city jail based on a claim that there was a misdemeanor
warrant for his arrest. He claimed that, at the jail, officers physically
attacked him, causing him a spinal cord injury, and then dragged him into a
cell where he was left until a civilian jail employee complained about his
condition. A federal appeals court upheld the denial of summary judgment to the
defendant officers on claims of race discrimination, excessive force, and
delayed medical treatment, finding that a reasonable jury could conclude that
the reason for the excessive use of force and delayed medical treatment was
race. Harris v. City of Circleville, #08-3252, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 21641 (6th
Cir.).
The use of race as a factor in assigning
cellmates on the basis of concern about gang and racial violence was supported
by legitimate safety and security interests. The plaintiff prisoner failed to
show that prison employees should have known that their use of race in this
manner was unlawful under international treaties or the equal protection clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment. Mayweathers v. Hickman, Case No. 05cv0713, 2008
U.S. Dist. Lexis 85154 (S.D. Ca.).
A black prisoner asserted an arguable race
discrimination claim when he was denied a request to be reunited with his
previous white cellmate after being released from segregated confinement. The
trial court acted erroneously in dismissing this claim when the prisoner
claimed, and prison officials admitted, that race was a factor in the denial of
the prisoner's request. Brand v. Motley, No. 06-6362, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis
11082 (6th Cir.).
Five of six plaintiff prisoners failed to produce
any evidence that black prisoners were treated differently from similarly
situated white inmates in security classifications, disciplinary actions, or
job assignments. The remaining prisoner failed to present sufficient evidence
from which a reasonable jury could find that the defendants had engaged in
intentional racial discrimination against him. Wilson v. Taylor, Civil Action
No. 05-399, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 77435 (D. Del.).
When prison officials admitted that they might
classify prisoners by race in responding to a disturbance in the facility, the
policy was subject to "strict scrutiny." The plaintiff prisoner
claimed that, in responding to assaults by African-American prisoners on
correctional officers, the defendants made adverse disciplinary decisions
against him based on his race rather than on an individual determination
concerning his involvement. Prison officials, however, were entitled to
qualified immunity because in 2003, when most of the incidents in the case had
occurred, it was unclear how the general rule making race a "suspect
classification" applied in the context of the need to maintain order in a
maximum-security prison, like the one in which the plaintiff was incarcerated.
The alleged actions, therefore, did not violate clearly established law. Watts
v. Runnels, No. 2:03-cv-01928, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 723628 (E.D. Cal.).
A federal appeals court rejected claims by a jail
inmate that "racial discrimination, segregation, and cruel and unusual
punishment" accompanied a five-day lock down of the facility. Evidence
indicated that any racial segregation was ordered because of an inmate's
complaint of a fear of racial violence, and there was no evidence refuting that
motivation for the segregation. Further, there was also evidence that the
racial segregation ended immediately after it was determined that a threat of
racial violence was no longer present. Allegations concerning overcrowding,
sleeping, and shower conditions during the lock-down, including a denial of
sheets and showers, were insufficient to show a constitutional violation.
Fischer v. Captain Ellegood, No. 06-15167, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 13552 (11th
Cir.)
A Mexican-American correctional officer failed to
show that he had been subjected to national origin discrimination or that there
was any connection between the allegedly discriminatory conduct of two
employees of the Illinois Department of Corrections (such as discriminatory
remarks) and his firing. He was fired after an investigation concerning the
alleged smuggling of contraband cigars into a correctional facility. Jennings
v. IL Dep't of Corr., No. 06-1637 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 18325 (7th Cir.).
African-American civil detainees at a treatment
and detention facility for sexually violent persons failed to adequately show
that they were treated unequally to similarly situated Caucasian detainees as
to being returned to the Illinois Department of Corrections for criminal
prosecution in connection with assaults that led to them being placed on a
special/secure management status, or being referred to State Police for
batteries committed against facility staff members. Webb v. Budz, No. 00C1230,
2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 21700 (N.D. Ill.).
Even if supervisor at prison factory did tell
admittedly noisy African-American prisoners to "shut up" on one
occasion, while failing to similarly admonish equally noisy inmates of another
race to the same extent, this was insufficient to establish a claim for racial
discrimination. The plaintiff prisoner also failed to show that his subsequent
work assignments were retaliation for his having filed grievances. Lewis
v. Jacks, No. 06-1995, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 11093 (8th Cir.)
White male correctional employee failed to show
that his firing for having brought prohibited alcoholic drinks onto prison
property on several occasions constituted racial discrimination. Another
employee who was not fired for possession of alcohol on prison property was not
similarly situated since there was no showing of multiple incidents over a
period of time, as there was with the plaintiff. Veazey v. Ark. Dept. of
Corrections, No. 5:05CV080, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 73430 (E.D. Ark. 2006). [N/R]
Prisoner failed to establish a valid claim for
racial discrimination. While he filed grievances stating that "racism is
prevailing" at the correctional facility, and accusing white employees of
being "racist" and "hateful," he failed to allege that he
had suffered any "specific hardships" as a result of such racism. He
also failed to show that he had been punished for prior lawsuits and grievances
or that an officer filed false disciplinary reports against him, in violation
of his First Amendment rights. Jackson v. Madery, No. 04-1805, 158 Fed. Appx.
656 (6th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Black federal prison inmate failed to show
that a delay in his promotion to the highest pay grade in his prison factory
work assignment was due to racial discrimination. The evidence showed that the
delay was actually caused by shortcomings in his work. Hill v. Thalacker, No.
04-C-732, 399 F. Supp. 2d 925 (W.D. Wis. 2005). [N/R]
New York prison
regulations prohibiting a prisoner from wearing "corn row" braids if
the hair went below the "natural hairline" did not violate his free
speech or his equal protection rights as an African-American, but were
justified by valid penological interests in security, including preventing
prisoners from quickly changing their appearance after an escape and
facilitating searches of hair for contraband. Towles v. Eagen, 799 N.Y.S.2d 715
(Sup. 2005). [N/R]
Jury instructions by trial court properly
excluded prisoner's requested instructions that "malicious" use of
force, regardless of amount of force, is always "per se" a violation
of the Eighth Amendment. Trial judge also properly dismissed prisoner's racial
and religious discrimination claims. Baskerville v. Mulvaney, No. 03-0348, 2005
U.S. App. Lexis 10190 (2nd Cir.). [2005 JB Jul]
Shiite Muslim prisoner of Iraqi descent failed to
show that he was fired from his prison job with private manufacturer on the
basis of his sex, race, religion or national origin, when, in fact, at the time
of his discharge, he was not able to work at all because he had been placed in
segregation. Alleged discriminatory remarks by supervisor were not sufficiently
pervasive to create a hostile work environment. Al-Zubaidy v. Tek Indus., No.
03-3457, 406 F.3d 1030 (8th Cir. 2005). [2005 JB Jul]
Prisoner failed to exhaust his available
administrative remedies, as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e, on his claim that
a correctional officer was engaged in racial discrimination in seizing his
property purchased in the prison commissary. While the prisoner prepared a
number of statements about the incident he circulated to prison officials, they
were never property submitted to the warden or other officials as required by
regulations. Additionally, the statements circulated merely summarized the
incident without making any claim of racial discrimination. The prisoner's
lawsuit was therefore properly dismissed. Smith v. Rudicel, No. 04-3462, 123
Fed. Appx. 906 (10th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
U.S. Supreme Court, by 5-3, rules that prisons
cannot segregate prisoners by race even temporarily except under extraordinary
circumstances where there is a compelling interest in doing so. Johnson v.
California, No. 03-636, 2005 U.S. Lexis 2007. Supervisor of prison
transportation work crew did not violate an inmate's Eighth Amendment right
against cruel and unusual punishment by allegedly using a racial epithet
against him. While the use of the term, if true, was "inexcusable and
offensive," it did not, without more, constitute a violation of
constitutional rights. Moore v. Morris, No. 04-6140, 116 Fed. Appx. 203 (10th
Cir. 2004). [2005 JB Apr]
White detainee's assertions that prison guards
improperly failed to protect him against an assault by a black prisoner with a
known propensity for attacking whites by allowing him unsupervised access to a
dayroom occupied by him were sufficient to state federal civil rights claims.
Trial court improperly dismissed detainee's lawsuit. Brown v. Budz, No.
03-1997, 2005 U.S.App. Lexis 2646 (7th Cir. 2005) [2005 JB Apr]
Prison guard's action of showing a "racially
insensitive" drawing to an African-American prisoner, while
"offensive, degrading, and reprehensible," was not
"pervasive" or "severe" enough to be racial discrimination
in violation of the prisoner's constitutional rights. The picture consisted a
circle containing three pie pieces that were purported to represent the heads
of three hooded figures, and the guard allegedly told the prisoner that it was
"the last thing a black person see[s] when they fall down a well,"
the "KKK" looking down a well. Graves v. North Dakota State
Penitentiary, 325 F. Supp. 2d 1009 (D.N.D. 2004). [N/R]
African-American inmate did not show that he had
been subjected to racial discrimination in work assignments. Prisoner's
"rambling" statement concerning what occurred demonstrated, "at
most," that there may have been a "personality clash" between
the prisoner and some officers. Additionally, the prisoner had no property
right to his job or to working any particular number of hours, so his claim
that he was given fewer hours of work than some other inmates was not relevant.
Miles v. Wiser, 847 A.2d 237 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). [N/R]
If race was the only criteria used to exclude
black inmates from a critical worker list of those allowed to return to their
prison jobs during three lockdowns, then plaintiff prisoner was not required to
prove discriminatory intent in his racial discrimination lawsuit. Walker v.
Gomez, #99-55265, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 11157 (9th Cir.). [2004 JB Jul]
African-American prisoner's "conclusory
allegations" that he was singled out for "being an inmate of the
black race" and denied "the same rights enjoyed by white
inmates" on numerous occasions, including in connection with medical care
and transfer to administrative segregation were frivolous. He failed to point
to any similarly situated white prisoners who received preferential treatment.
Lawsuit was therefore properly dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1915A. Gadlin v. Watkins, #03-1313, 93 Fed. Appx. 204 (10th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Federal appeals court rejects Voting Rights Act
challenge to New York's felon disenfranchisement statute, removing the right to
vote from currently incarcerated felons and parolees, rejecting argument that
it infringes on the right to vote on the basis of race. Three-judge panel,
however, unanimously suggests resolution of the issue by the United States
Supreme Court. Muntaqim v. Coombe, #01-7260, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 8077 (2nd
Cir). [2004 JB Jun]
Editor's Note: Additionally, in Farrakhan v.
Washington, No. 01-35032, 338 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2003), rehearing en banc
denied 359 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 2004), a panel of the Ninth Circuit held that a
claim of vote denial based on Washington State's felon disenfranchisement
scheme could be pursued under the Voting Rights Act. [N/R]
U.S. Supreme Court to review issue of whether
California prison practice of routinely segregating prisoners by race during
initial period of incarceration is permissible for purposes of preventing
racial violence, as federal appeals court ruled, or unconstitutional
discrimination in violation of the right to equal protection. Johnson v.
California, #03-636, 72 U.S. Law Week 3551 (March 1, 2004). [2004 JB Apr]
Federal appeals court orders hearing in lawsuit
challenging Florida's ban on felons voting. Plaintiffs claim that imposition of
ban was motivated by intent to discriminate against African-Americans. Johnson
v. Governor of the State of Florida, #02-14469, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 25859
(11th Cir. 2003).[2004 JB Feb]
African-American prisoner's claim that parole
board chairman improperly made threats against him in violation of his First
Amendment rights and constituting racial discrimination seven years before his
parole was revoked was untimely and barred by the statute of limitations.
Norwood v. Michigan Department of Corrections, No. 02-1779, 67 Fed. Appx. 286 (6th
Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner assaulted by gang members, and attacked
yet again when he was moved to a new housing assignment after identifying his
assailants, did not show that jail officials were responsible for the second
assault. Prisoner failed to provide evidence of his claim that the jail had
policies of segregating prisoners by race, and putting predominantly black
prisoners in "gladiator cell blocks" in which staff members failed to
intervene when fighting erupted. Palmer v. Marion County, #02-2267, 327 F.3d
588 (7th Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Aug]
Admitted policy of using race as a factor--even
the dominant factor--in assigning new inmates with their initial cell mate for
a 60 day period did not constitute racial discrimination in violation of the
right to equal protection. Johnson v. State of California, No. 01-56436, 321
F.3d 791 (9th Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Jun]
Prisoner's placement in segregation for three
days after being found guilty of a disciplinary charge of making threatening
statements did not implicate a protected liberty interest, since it was not an
"atypical and significant hardship." No basis found for prisoner's
race discrimination claim. Adams v. Jones, No. 02-5472, 52 Fed. Appx. 744 (6th
Cir. 2002). [2003 JB May]
Black prison inmate's equal protection claim,
arguing that his rights were violated when he was not returned to an area of
the prison after completion of an investigation into an escape attempt, while
white prisoners were returned there, was frivolous. The plaintiff prisoner
himself admitted that he "did not want to be returned" there after
the investigation was completed. Williamson v. Campbell, #02-5104, 44 Fed.
Appx. 693 (6th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Correctional officer's use of racial slur to
prisoners was insufficient to support a federal civil rights claim for racial
discrimination. His alleged comment that "all you black prisoners do is
sit around trying to get out of prison," while not "polite," was
not accompanied by "brutal or cruel acts that would have caused" the
prisoners "legitimate concern for their personal safety or
well-being," and therefore, while not condoned, failed to rise to the
level of a constitutional claim. Pendelton v. Mills, 73 S.W.3d 115 (Tenn. App.
2001), permission to appeal denied by Tenn. Supreme Court, Feb. 11, 2002. [N/R]
New Jersey state prison inmates who alleged
racial discrimination and conspiracy to violate their rights on the basis of
race following the fatal stabbing of a correctional officer by a inmate could
pursue their federal civil rights lawsuit without pursuing supposed remedies
described in state prison's inmate handbook. Court finds that grievance
procedures described were not sufficiently clear and that therefore no
available administrative remedies existed for inmates to exhaust before filing
suit. In Re Bayside Prison Litigation, No. 97-5127, 190 F. Supp. 22d 755
(D.N.J. 2002). [2002 JB Jul]
Prisoner's claim
that he was restrained with 5-point restraint for 48 hours because of his race
and prior complaints about expressions of racism -- and that he was shown a
drawing of a person in a noose -- state a claim for denial of equal protection.
Use of restraints for such an extended time period could also constitute
excessive use of force. Davis v. Lester, 156 F. Supp. 2d 588 (W.D. Va. 2001).
[2002 JB Jan]
294:83 Incident
in which a white female correctional officer was not disciplined for allegedly
kissing an inmate did not show that firing an African-American male officer for
allegedly having sex several times with a female prisoner was a
"pretext" for racial discrimination. English v. Colorado Dept. of
Corrections, No. 99-1452, 248 F.3d 1002 (10th Cir. 2001).
294:84 Warden
was entitled to qualified immunity for using race as a criteria to deny a white
correctional officer promotion to one of three lieutenant positions; appeals
court rules that it was not clearly established in 1992 that this could violate
the plaintiff's rights. Elwell v. Dobucki, No. 98-1920, 224 F.3d 638 (7th Cir.
2000).
289:14 Prisoner
could pursue federal civil rights lawsuit over loss of his prison job which
allegedly resulted from officers pursuing false disciplinary charges against
him after he filed a complaint against an officer; despite the lack of a
property or liberty interest in his job assignment, prisoner's equal protection
(racial discrimination) and retaliation claims were not barred. DeWalt v.
Carter, No. 98-2415, 224 F.3d 607 (7th Cir. 2000).
283:109
African-American prisoner's claim that he was racially segregated by only being
placed in two-person cells with other African-American inmates, and that this
was done deliberately as a policy by California state correctional authorities,
stated a claim for violation of equal protection. Johnson v. State of California,
#98-55302, 207 F.3d 650 (9th Cir. 2000).
277:8 Prisoner's
claim that correctional officer used excessive force by shooting him in the leg
during prison fight was not barred by disciplinary determination of prisoner's
participation in incident, since excessive force could be found without
implying invalidity of disciplinary conviction; evidence contradicting findings
of disciplinary hearing could be presented. Marquez v. Guttierez, 51 F. Supp.
2d 1020 (E.D. Cal. 1999).
278:27 Officer's
use of a racial epithet, standing alone, did not constitute a violation of the
equal protection rights of the person so addressed. Williams v. Bramer, #98-
10254, 180 F.3d 699 (5th Cir. 1999).
280:56 Black prisoner's
claim that he was denied an extra mattress and blanket while his white cellmate
was given one stated an equal protection claim, as did his assertion that he
was placed in solitary confinement for racially discriminatory reasons. Powells
v. Minnehaha County Sheriff Dept., No. 99-2029, 198 F.3d 711 (8th Cir. 1999).
265:15
Prohibition on voting for incarcerated felons did not violate 15th Amendment;
fact that many incarcerated felons were members of minority races did not prove
discrimination. Jones v. Edgar, 3 F.Supp.2d 979 (C.D. Ill. 1998).
274:156 Prison
superintendent allegedly fired because he refused to stop dating an
African-American woman should be treated as a member of a "protected
group" under New Jersey employment discrimination statute. O'Lone v. N.J.
Dept. of Corrections, 712 A.2d 1177 (N.J. Super. A.D. 1998).
262:155
African-American inmate stated claim for violation of equal protection based on
assertion that white inmates were allowed to order electronic equipment from outside
sources, while his repeated requests to do so were all denied. Foster v. Delo,
130 F.3d 307 (8th Cir. 1997).
243:39 Federal
appeals court found that correctional officials did not violate constitutional
right of equal protection by giving preference, for appointment to position of
lieutenant in "boot camp" for "shock incarceration" of
young prisoners, to black male applicant over white applicants who scored
higher on promotion test; preference was justified by penological interest in
success of program, given that 68% of camp prisoners were black. Wittmer v.
Peters, 87 F.3d 916 (7th Cir. 1996).
234:91
African-American prisoner's general assertion that he was subjected to racial
discrimination when kept in extended lockdown was insufficient when he
presented no evidence of racial motive; prison officials showed that treatment
of him was based on serious nature of his offenses. Woods v. Edwards, 51 F.3d
577 (5th Cir. 1995).
Prisoners failed
to show racial discrimination in assignment of inmates to various housing
units; racial composition of units in question was consistent with that of
overall inmate population. Arney v. Thornburgh, 817 F.Supp. 83 (D. Kan. 1993).
Former Louisiana
correctional officials liable for $4,000 in punitive damages for general policy
of racially segregating two- man cells at state penitentiary. Sockwell v.
Phelps, 20 F.3d 187 (5th Cir. 1994).
Even if
discipline of black inmate for playing a radio too loud was "dispensed
arbitrarily," this did not prove that it was done for racially
discriminatory purposes. Giles v. Henry, 841 F.Supp. 270 (S.D. Iowa 1993).
Prisoner's
rights were not violated by state's failure to invest inmate funds in minority
owned banks or by alleged racial discrimination in correctional department
hiring. Martin v. Lane, 766 F.Supp. 641 (N.D. Ill. 1991).
Black inmate's
allegation that white inmates were given work assignments without completing
any training while he was required to take 90-days of training for electrician
assignment, despite the fact that he was an electrician by trade, stated a
claim for racial discrimination. LaBounty v. Adler, 933 F.2d 121 (2nd Cir.
1991).
Black prisoner's
allegation that white inmates, unlike black inmates, were allowed to possess
photos of nude white women stated a triable claim of race discrimination.
Johnson v. Daniels, 769 F.Supp. 230 (E.D. Mich. 1991).
Correctional
officer's alleged verbal reprimand of black prisoner in the presence of four
white inmates was not race discrimination or cruel and unusual punishment.
Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 746 F.Supp. 662 (E.D. Mich. 1990).
Prison
officials' refusal to change inmate's records to reflect race classification of
"African American" instead of "black" did not violate any
federal constitutional right. Moore v. U.S. Attorney General, 737 F.Supp. 1186
(D. Kan. 1990).
White inmate's
claim of racial discrimination in disciplinary process settled for $2,000 in
damages, $33,500 in attorneys' fees. Propst v. Leapley, 886 F.2d 1068 (8th Cir.
1989).
Finding of no
racial discrimination against white inmates in prison disciplinary process was
"clearly erroneous." Propst v. Leapley, 886 F.2d 1068 (8th Cir.
1989).