AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for
Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Work/Education/Recreation Programs
Monthly
Law Journal Article: Prisoner
Exercise and Civil Liability, 2008 (7) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
Monthly
Law Journal Article: Prisoner Work Programs, 2008 (8) AELE Mo. L.J. 301.
Monthly Law Journal
Article: Prison Work Release Programs, 2011 (12) AELE Mo. L.
J. 301.
A Texas prisoner claimed that repercussions he endured because of his religiously motivated decision not to participate in an unpaid prison work program violated his rights under the First, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution as well as the Texas Constitution and a Texas statute. A federal appeals court ruled that it was no abuse of discretion to dismiss the plaintiff’s First and Fourteenth Amendment claims as malicious and when it dismissed his retaliation and Thirteenth Amendment claims for failure to state a claim. Inmates sentenced to incarceration cannot state a Thirteenth Amendment involuntary servitude claim if the prison system requires them to work. Further, he could not assert a retaliation claim based on the theory that he was illegally retaliated against for asserting his constitutional right not to work when he had no such right. The trial court also did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state-law claims. Shakouri v. Davis, #17-20738, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 13200 (5th Cir.).
Iowa closed a state girls training school and entered into a contract to use a Wisconsin facility to place juvenile delinquents. Two such offenders placed there when they were 16 claimed that the facility, since its opening had had a very high staff turnover rate, resulting in an overworked and untrained staff, and “sordid and inhumane” treatment of juveniles. They claimed that they were subjected to prolonged isolation, received little or no educational instruction, were subjected to excessive force and sprayed with mace on multiple occasions, and both attempted suicide. A federal appeals court reversed the dismissal of their claims. The trial court acted prematurely in deciding the Director of the Iowa Department of Human Services’ entitlement to qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage. At the time the plaintiffs were allegedly in the defendant’s custody, isolation of pre-trial juvenile detainees not “reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective” could amount to a constitutional violation. On the record, it was impossible to determine whether such a constitutional violation occurred. Reed v. Palmer, #18-1429, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 28436 (7th Cir.).
A Minnesota prisoner sued the Department
of Corrections and various individual correctional employees after he injured
himself while using industrial equipment during a work assignment. The trial
court dismissed claims for violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments
and for negligence under state law. A federal appeals court upheld qualified
immunity for individual prison employees on the Eighth Amendment claim. Even if
the court were to assume that the prisoner’s assignment to operate the beam saw
with no safety guards and no formal training presented an objective risk of
serious harm, he had not alleged facts sufficient to show that the defendants
were deliberately indifferent to that
risk simply because of an absence of safety equipment or procedures and an
awareness of similar injuries. Their actions were, at worst, negligence,
insufficient for Eighth Amendment liability. Kulkay v. Roy, #16-1801, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 1845 (8th Cir.).
A
prisoner cleaning a fry hood in a food service area fell off a ladder, lost
feeling in his legs for several minutes, and experienced severe pain when he
stood up. For several days, he claimed, he had trouble walking and intense pain
persisted even when lying down. He filed an Eighth Amendment civil rights
lawsuit over what he claimed was inadequate treatment for his injuries,
including a delay in x-rays and refusal to perform an MRI to determine that he
had a broken back. The trial court dismissed, finding that the Inmate Accident
Compensation Act, 18 U.S.C. 4126(c), a workers' compensation scheme for federal
prisoners injured during the course of their prison employment, is the exclusive
vehicle by which a federal inmate may receive compensation for injuries
suffered during the course of prison employment. The federal appeals court
overturned that decision, holding that the statute did not bar otherwise
available claims just because the unconstitutional conduct allegedly occurred
during prison employment. Koprowski v. Baker, #14-5451, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis
8633, 2016 Fed. App. 111P (6th Cir.).
A federal prisoner sued
the U.S. government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2680,
asserting that a prison official withheld wages he was owed for work done while
incarcerated. A federal trial court erred in dismissing the lawsuit on the
pleadings, as Bureau of Prisons regulations allowed no discretion to refuse to
pay the wages. The prisoner claimed that the motive for the withholding was
racial animus. Claims for discrimination, retaliation, and intentional
infliction of emotional distress were properly rejected for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies. Douglas v. United States, #14-11444, 2016 U.S. App.
Lexis 3665 (11th Cir.).
A prisoner had a work assignment as a stockman in food
services. Three months after a work-related injury, he was fired for medical
reasons, specifically damage to his prosthetic leg. He sued prison
administrators for disability discrimination in employment under Title II of
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A federal appeals court upheld
summary judgment for the defendants, ruling that Title II of the ADA is
inapplicable to a claim of employment discrimination by a prisoner in a prison
job. Neisler v. Tuckwell, #15-1804, 807 F.3d 225 (7th Cir. 2015).
A pretrial detainee, who was an Army veteran, was
enrolled in a special veterans' program. He worked in the jail laundry and
lived in a special veterans' wing, apart from the general population. He sued,
claiming that he was paid $3 a day but should have been paid the federal
minimum wage, and that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, given
insufficient food, was subjected to rodents and insects, had to drink filthy
water, lacked outdoor recreation, and had to stand in a "hot, smelly
room" for several hours each day. A trial court held that the plaintiff
had no constitutional right to be paid at all for his work in jail, much less
to be paid minimum wage. Other conditions of confinement claims were dismissed
without prejudice for deficiencies in pleading. A federal appeals court
reversed the dismissal of the inadequate food and contaminated water claims,
but otherwise affirmed. Smith v. Dart, #14-1169, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 17003
(7th Cir.).
A prisoner raised a sufficient claim that his
free exercise rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
Act were violated by the prohibition on him consuming wine during communion,
the requirement that he work on the Sabbath, and assigning him non-Christian
cellmates. Summary judgment dismissing the lawsuit was reversed. The total ban
on consumption of wine during communion imposed a substantial burden on a religious
exercise and the legitimate safety and health concerns involved in the ban did
not preclude the possibility of a reasonable accommodation with minimal impact
or the availability of reasonable alternatives. The prisoner's need to not work
on the Sabbath could be accommodated by performing work hours entirely during
the week, and the plaintiff sufficiently alleged religiously motivated
harassment by assigning him a cellmate who chilled his exercise of religion,
which could be accommodated by assigning a compatible cellmate. Jehovah v.
Clarke, #13-7529, 792 F.3d 457 (4th Cir. 2015).
A 15-year-old who received special education
services while going to school was arrested before turning 16 on felony charges
and sent to a county jail awaiting trial. The Supreme Court of California held
that the school district where a child's parent lives has the responsibility of
providing special education services to qualifying individuals while
incarcerated in a county jail. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, S199639,
58 Cal. 4th 175, 2013 Cal. Lexis 9747.
A prisoner claimed that his Thirteenth
Amendment rights against involuntary servitude were violated by prison
officials refusing to pay him wages he earned in his prison job, as well as
allegedly failing to require all inmates to work and discriminating against
white inmates in favor of black inmates and "illegal aliens from
Mexico." His Thirteenth Amendment claims were properly dismissed because a
habeas corpus action was not the proper method of raising claims challenging
the conditions of his confinement. Luedtke v. Berkebile, #12-5656, 2013 U.S.
App. Lexis 1031, 2013 Fed. App. 0020P (6th Cir.).
Forcing a pretrial detainee to work in a prison laundry
under threat of legal process and physical restraint in "the hole"
could constitute "involuntary servitude" in violation of the
Thirteenth Amendment. Defendant prison officials were not entitled to qualified
immunity and could not defend such actions on the basis that work could have a
rehabilitative effect, since it was clearly established that they had no right
to attempt to "rehabilitate" pre-trial detainees, who have not been
convicted of any crime. McGarry v. Pallito, #10-669, 2012 U.S. App.
Lexis16253 (2nd Cir.).
A wheelchair-bound inmate may not be able to
pursue an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) disability discrimination claim
over a denial of outdoor recreation for seven weeks on the basis that not
enough disabled prisoners (at least nine) requested it, since state officials
may be immune from liability under the ADA. His claims did, however, state a
viable claim under the Rehabilitation Act, since the prison was a recipient of
federal funding, and outdoor recreation constituted a "program or
activity" under the Act, which he could not be denied participation in on
the basis of disability. Norfleet v. Walker, #11-2137, 684 F.3d 688
(7th Cir. 2012).
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.).
An insulin-dependent diabetic prisoner was hired
to work in a public works program off the prison premises. After he experienced
an incident in which he became ill from low blood sugar, he was removed from
the program. He sued, claiming that the true reason for his termination was his
gay sexual orientation. He claimed that officers supervising the work crews
treated him differently than other heterosexual insulin-dependent diabetic
inmates working on the project, taunting and harassing him. The prisoner
adequately stated a claim of class-based discrimination based on sexual
orientation, so that the dismissal of his lawsuit was improper. His claim was
not a "class-of-one" equal protection claim barred in the context of
public employment by Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture, #07-474. 128
S.Ct. 2146 (2008). Davis v. Prison Health Services, #10-2690, 2012 U.S. App.
Lexis 9548, 2012 Fed. App. 131P (6th Cir.).
Under an Indiana state law, a prison's recreation
fund that acquired money from sources other than state funds, such as profits
from sales at the prison's commissary, was required to spend those funds
strictly for the "direct benefit" of prisoners, and for things not
covered by state appropriations. A prisoner sued, claiming that money from the
fund was improperly being used for prohibited purposes, without due process of
law. He claimed prison officials had diverted some of the funds for their own
personal use and that other funds were used for purposes already covered by
existing state budget allocations, such as the purchase of cameras and other
devices for prison security enhancement. Regardless of the truth or falsity of
these claims, the prisoner had no property interest in the money in the fund.
The lawsuit was therefore properly dismissed. Booker-El v. Superintendent,
Indiana State Prison, #10–1490, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 2549 (7th Cir.).
A 21-year-old pretrial detainee in a county jail
sued, seeking the providing of special education services under the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., based on his
learning disability and speech and language impairment. The federal appeals
court stated that "Under the IDEA and corresponding California law,
children who are eligible for special education services are entitled to
continue receiving these services until they turn twenty-two or receive a high
school diploma." The federal appeals court asked the California Supreme
Court to answer the question "Does California Education Code § 56041,
which provides generally that for qualifying children ages eighteen to
twenty-two, the school district where the child's parent resides is responsible
for providing special education services, apply to children who are
incarcerated in county jails?" It noted that there appears to be no prior
California law on the issue. Los Angeles Unified School District v. Garcia, #10-55879,
2012 U.S. App. Lexis 1179 (9th Cir. 2012).
A prisoner was not allowed to go to his plumbing
crew work assignment, and was told that he fit the profile of an escape risk.
He was further told, however, that he had not lost his job, but would be
allowed to return to it after certain additional security precautions were in
place. After he filed a grievance challenging his classification as an escape
risk, he was terminated from his job. Given the sequence of events, he stated a
viable claim that he was fired in retaliation for filing the grievance in
violation of his First Amendment rights. Milligan v.
Archuleta, #11-1218, 659 F.3d 1294 (10th Cir. 2011).
A prison education director had an inmate
fired from his job as a clerk in the prison library. The prisoner subsequently
filed a grievance against the education director, who filed a misconduct report
against the prisoner a day later concerning the incident that led to the
firing. Based on the timing of the misconduct report, as well as its "threadbare"
nature, the prisoner stated a triable claim of unlawful retaliation in
violation of his First Amendment rights against the education director. Greene
v. Doruff, #10-3497, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 20597 (7th)
Prisoner failed to prove that he was disabled in
terms of his conditions of Hepatitis C, back pain, and psychiatric conditions
affecting his ability to perform major life activities. He therefore could not
continue to pursue his claim that he was barred from participation in prison
work and education programs on the basis of disability discrimination. Hale v.
King, #07-60997, 642 F.3d 492 (5th Cir. 2011)
A prisoner's claim that he was compelled to work
outdoors uprooting tree stumps in freezing cold weather without safety
instructions, protective gear, or gloves was sufficient to state a claim for
violation of the Eighth Amendment, requiring the reversal of the trial court's
dismissal of the lawsuit. The court also reinstated the prisoner's claim that
he was penalized for questioning the work assignment and making preparations to
sue, in violation of his First Amendment rights. Smith v. Peters, #10-1013,
2011 U.S. App. Lexis 955 (7th Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that requiring him to work in
the prison dining hall without his consent violated due process and constituted
involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment. He refused to
report to work, was found guilty of failing to carry out a work assignment in
several disciplinary actions and sentenced each time to 30 days without
telephone, visitation, and store privileges. He claimed that prison regulations
and state law created a protected liberty interest in being free from
involuntary work assignments and that he was wrongfully disciplined for
refusing to comply with the assignment. No Thirteenth Amendment violation was
shown, as the prisoner "does not challenge the validity of his conviction
or allege facts that amount to unconstitutional involuntary servitude."
The punishments imposed did not amount to "atypical" deprivations
that could implicate a liberty interest, and any violation of state law,
standing alone, was not a violation of federal civil rights. Ballard v. Pierce,
#10-60276, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 23993 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
A prisoner sued federal officials, claiming that they
violated his rights because he had been approved for a pay increase for his
prison job but had never received the raise. The only defendants he named were
the U.S. Attorney General and an administrative remedy coordinator at the prison.
Since the prisoner failed to show that these defendants were personally
involved in denying him his raise, a federal appeals court held that his
complaint was properly dismissed. Additionally, the court noted, "prison
inmates simply have no constitutionally protected interest in retaining prison
employment—let alone in promotions." McKay v. U.S. Dept. of Justice,
#10-3074, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 22939 (Unpub.3rd Cir.).
A Delaware prisoner sued, claiming that he had
been "illegally fired" from his prison job without a hearing. The
state Supreme Court rejected this claim, stating that it was
"well-established" under state law that an inmate "has no
protected liberty interest in a prison work assignment." Smith v. Salas,
#438, 2010 Del. Lexis 458.
A federal prisoner claimed that he was unjustly
terminated from his job with UNICOR (also known as Federal Prison Industries).
He contended that this occurred as a result of a forged "Inmate Request to
Staff" submitted by a UNIICOR staff member who was named as one of the
defendants in his lawsuit. The other defendants were accused of "covering
up" this forgery. The appeals court ruled that, even assuming this were
all true, the lawsuit was still properly dismissed since prisoners have
"neither a property nor a liberty interest in prison employment and thus
lack a due-process interest" implicated by the loss of their prison
employment. Further, while the prisoner also complained that his firing was
"retaliatory," he failed to present any facts to show this, and had
"done little else to suggest retaliation beyond using the word
itself." Dawson v. Frias, #10-2200, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 21278 (Unpub. 3rd
Cir.).
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), 42 U.S.C. Secs. 12131-12165, a federal appeals court ruled, does not
validly abrogate state sovereign immunity in a lawsuit brought by disabled
inmates who claimed that they were denied access to prison educational and work
programs on the basis of their disabilities. The lawsuit was filed against Mississippi
state prison officials in their official capacities. The court reasoned that in
authorizing such claims, Congress exceeded its authority to the extent that
they are not “congruent and proportional” to the enforcement of the Equal
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The parties in the case agreed that
none of the defendants' conduct arguably violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
Hale v. King, #07-60997, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 21463 (5th Cir.).
Current and former federal prisoners argued that the
low wages that they were paid for work done in prison (as low as nineteen cents
per hour) violated their constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment and
various sources of international law, such as articles 7 through 9 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”), Dec. 16, 1966,
999 U.N.T.S. 171; a UN document entitled “Standard Minimum Rules for the
Treatment of Prisoners;” and the general "law of nations." These
claims were all rejected, with the federal appeals court holding that prisoners
had no legal entitlement to any payment for their work in prison, under either
the U.S. Constitution or international law. Serra v. Lappin, #08-15969, 2010
U.S. App. Lexis 7324 (9th Cir.).
A sex offender claimed that prison officials
discriminated against him by denying him a job in a prison program. He
attempted to assert a "class of one" equal protection program,
arguing that other sex offenders were granted jobs in the same program he was
rejected for. Granting summary judgment for defendant officials, a federal
court found that, since the plaintiff was not a member of any protected class,
the defendants only needed to show that there was a rational basis for their
treatment of him. There clearly was a rational basis for the decision, since
the program at issue placed prisoners in a minimum security facility, and the
plaintiff had a history of disciplinary problems raising security concerns. The
fact that this reasoning was not explained to the prisoner when he was rejected
for the job did not alter the result. Unruh v. Moore, #08-40750, 2009 U.S. App.
Lexis 10315 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
A Michigan inmate assigned physical plant
maintenance duties was paid at a heightened pay scale of $3.04 a day instead of
the standard inmate pay of $1.77 per day because a classification director
noted that he had worked in numerous hazardous situations, he had a state
certified mechanics license, he had a certificate of completion in auto
mechanics from a local community college, and he had over 1,000 hours of
training. Such a pay differential was authorized under a prison policy
directive when a prisoner provides proof of having been licensed by a state
agency to provide specific services. The director, after auditing prisoners'
pay rates, reduced this prisoner's pay, finding that he was not using his
license in the performance of his prison duties. The defendants were entitled
to qualified immunity in the prisoner's due process claim over the lowering of
his pay without notice or a hearing. It was not clearly established that he had
a constitutionally protected property interest in a prison job a wages set by
state regulations. Pickelhaupt v. Jackson, #08-2310, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 2449
(Unpub. 6th Cir.).
A prisoner failed to show that his due process
rights were violated when he was allegedly terminated from his correctional
industries job assignment based on accusations of having taken paper towels
from the factory where he worked. Placing him on restricted status, which
lasted only 45 days, did not impose a significant or atypical hardship on him
as required for a due process violation. Anderson v. Cunningham, #08-1349, 2009
U.S. App. Lexis 6840 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).
A man convicted of a burglary was sentenced as a
habitual offender to eight years of hard labor. As part of his sentence, he
worked for the city, maintaining city property and facilities. He claimed that
the city's mayor and police chief forced him to work extra hours beyond the
work day, and sometimes to work for their private gain, such as work for the
police chief's private businesses. A federal appeals court found that allegedly
being forced to work for private businesses did not turn his labor into
involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment, and that he was
not entitled to either minimum wage pay or overtime under federal law. It was,
the court stated, possible that the mayor and police chief abused their
authority over the prisoner, but this did not give him a claim for violation of
either the Fair Labor Standards Act or the Thirteenth Amendment. Williams v.
Henagan, #07-30997 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 2036 (5th Cir.).
Correctional officers were not liable for
allegedly forcing a prisoner to work despite a prior shoulder injury when there
was an absence of evidence that they had knowledge of the prisoner's prior
injury before he reinjured his shoulder. The evidence also showed that the
officers then adequately responded to the prisoner's injury and enforced needed
safety measures at the work site. Knight v. Wiseman, #09-1435, 2009 U.S. App.
Lexis 28195 (7th 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.).
Prison lockdowns, which allegedly resulted in the
plaintiff prisoner being denied outdoor exercise, were reasonable precautions
in light of violence, including assaults on staff members, that had occurred at
the facility, so that defendant prison officials were entitled to qualified
immunity. Norwood v. Vance, #07-17322, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 15224 (2nd Cir.).
The Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) received complaints about the working conditions and air
quality in a prison factory where the plaintiff inmates had worked making
furniture components. The court found no evidence to show that prison staff
members were aware that conditions in the factory created an unreasonable risk
of harm to inmates. Additionally, any claim of deliberate indifference was
refuted by the fact that remedial measures which were taken in response to OSHA
violations and recommendations. Ward v. Lamanna, #07-2023, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis
12752 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
A federal prisoner does not have a
constitutionally protected property interest in a job assignment with the
Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (UNICOR). The court therefore rejected the
plaintiff prisoner's claim that his rights, constitutional or contractual, were
violated when he was terminated from such employment by his supervisor. Johnson
v. Rowley, #07-2213, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 12520 (2nd Cir.).
A prisoner employed in a facility's kitchen
claimed that he scalded his hand while performing cleaning duties. Even if, as
he alleged, his injury occurred because the kitchen manager raised the water
temperature unexpectedly to prepare for a state inspection, his claim, at most,
amounted to one of negligence, which was insufficient to support an award of
damages for violation of his federal civil rights. Caldwell v. Beard, #08-3286,
2009 U.S. App. Lexis 9029 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
A trial court acted erroneously in
dismissing a prisoner's claim that some prison employees forced him to work in
the prison laundry doing work that violated his medical restrictions and
aggravating existing injuries. He also could pursue claims that a prison doctor
refused to give him a note excusing him from performing the work as a result of
pressure from other employees. Claims for verbal harassment, however, were not
valid federal civil rights claims. Reese v. Skinner, #08-40490, 2009 U.S. App.
Lexis 8471 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
The evidence showed that the plaintiff prisoner,
who claimed he was subjected to unsafe working conditions in the rubbermill
room of the prison's shoe shop, was actually given and told to wear a hooded
protective jump suit, along with insulated gloves, goggles and a face mask, as
well as being given training in the use of the rubbermill and the rubber-making
process. Reasonable attempts to obtain an upgrade for his face mask were made
when he complained that it was providing inadequate protection. The defendants
also tried to lessen problems with the workplace ventilation system. Given
these facts, the defendants could not be said to have acted with
"disregard" for prisoners' health and safety. At most, there may have
been some negligence in addressing these issues, which was insufficient to show
an Eighth Amendment violation. Heffran v. Mellinger, #07-4077, 2009 U.S. App.
Lexis 10099 Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
The Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et.
seq., does not apply to inmates performing work for state prison industries.
Dismissing the prisoner's claim that he had not received wages for work done
for a state prison food service provider, the court reasoned further that, even
if there was a property interest in wages allegedly due for such work, the prisoner
had to either pursue state law remedies, or else show that he was precluded
from doing so, before pursuing his claim in federal court. Tagariello v.
McDonough, #2:07-cv-248, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 10590 (M.D. Fla.).
Michigan state prison was not required, under
state or federal law, to provide special education services to mentally ill and
disabled inmates under the age of 27. Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service,
Inc. v. Caruso, Case No. 5:05-CV-128, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 80089 (W.D. Mich.).
A prisoner who created and produced certain
desk-blotter calendars while working for a government-owned company while in
federal prison could not pursue copyright infringement claims against the U.S.
government relating to the calendars. Walton v. U.S., 2008-5057, 2009 U.S. App.
Lexis 113 (Fed. Cir.).
When prisoners were injured in a vehicle
accident while on the bus being transported to a work assignment, claims for
their injuries were work-related, had to be filed against the Federal Bureau of
Prisons under the Inmate Accident Compensation Act, 18 U.S.C.S. § 4126, so that
claims the prisoners filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act were properly
dismissed. Baynes v. U.S.A., No. 07-6352, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 21775 (Unpub.
6th Cir.).
The provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act
concerning wages and related issues do not apply to inmates or to
civilly-committed sexually dangerous persons. The plaintiff's lawsuit against
state officials for cutting wages he received for work in the secure treatment
facility to which he was committed to below minimum wage was therefore properly
dismissed. The court also rejected claims that the wage cut violated the
plaintiff's rights as disability discrimination, denial of equal protection, or
denial of due process. Sanders v. Hayden, No. 08-1596, 2008 U.S. App.
Lexis 19984 (7th Cir.).
Prison's decision to eliminate an inmate
independent band program did not violate a prisoner's First Amendment right to
freedom of expression or his religious rights under the Establishment of
Religion Clause of the First Amendment. The court noted that the religious
music program offered by the facility was "entirely optional" and
there were a number of options for musical expression, including both religious
and non-religious music. The "independent" inmate band program was
eliminated on the basis of security concerns, based on the "poor
supervision" of the program, which created an unsafe environment. Prison
officials, in deciding to eliminate the program, engaged in a "standard
review process for evaluating a program," and did not arbitrarily decide
that it constituted a security problem. Young v. Beard, No. 07-1670, 2008 U.S.
App. Lexis 14315 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
New Jersey prison officials complied with the
requirements of state regulations by providing recreation time to the plaintiff
inmate which was consistent with safety and security concerns, the physical
facilities available, custodial considerations, and the general operation of
the facility. Rejecting the prisoner's civil rights claim that his Eighth
Amendment rights were violated when he allegedly received only two hours of
recreation time a month for exercise and fresh air, the court noted that the
prisoner was serving time in administrative segregation for a disciplinary
infraction during the period in question, and that prison officials showed that
they made efforts to make changes in schedules to increase the outdoor
recreation time provided to prisoners. The defendants' actions did not amount
to deliberate indifference. Barkley v. Ricci, No. 07-2760, 2008 U.S. Dist.
Lexis 37563 (D.N.J.).
A Pennsylvania inmate claimed that his
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection was developed
while he was working in a prison's laundry, and he sued for allegedly
unconstitutional working conditions. An expert witness offered by the prisoner
who was an environmental scientist and not a medical doctor could not testify
on the cause and nature of the prisoner's skin rashes, or that he suffered from
a MRSA infection, and further proceedings would determine whether he could
testify on the conditions present in the prison's laundry. While the prisoner's
medical records could be used to establish that he had a MRSA infection,
expert witness medical testimony was needed to establish that this condition
was caused by prison laundry working conditions. Wolfgang v. Smithers, Civil
No. 4:CV-03-167, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 28597 (M.D. Pa.).
Sheriff and jailer were entitled to summary
judgment in detainee's lawsuit claiming that he had not received any recreation
time for weeks at a time. The sheriff maintained that such recreation was
provided to all prisoners twice a week, but that the plaintiff did not always
use the time provided. The prisoner also failed to present evidence showing
that his weight and muscles dropped drastically during his four months at the
jail. Hafner v. Limoges, No. Civ. 06-4039, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 9346 (D.S.D.).
California prisoner did not have a
constitutionally protected liberty interest in the accrual of credits for
participation in a prisoner work training incentive program. Further, the
appeals court rejected his equal protection claim, finding that the State of
California had a rational basis for requiring that violent felons be treated
more harshly in order to ensure public safety, supporting its requirement that
the plaintiff, who had been sentenced for voluntary manslaughter, serve at
least 85% of his sentence. Etcheverry v. Woodford, No. 06-17398, 2007 U.S. App.
Lexis 27729 (9th Cir.).
A federal prisoner who claimed that he had
"essentially exhausted" his academic opportunities at the facility
where he was incarcerated did not show that his due process and equal
protection rights were violated by the failure to provide him with
"marketable" vocational opportunities allegedly provided to some
other similarly situated D.C. offenders in other facilities. There is no due
process right to participate in vocational and educational programs, the court
concluded, much less one of the prisoner's own choice. Boulware v. Federal
Bureau of Prisons, No. 06-2137, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 79609 (D.D.C.).
A federal prisoner claimed that the Federal
Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully ended his work program with UNICOR, which
provides work and training opportunities under 28 C.F.R. Sec. 345.11(a), and
sought reinstatement and an award of back pay. A federal court has rejected the
argument that the BOP's provision of a grievance system constituted an implied
waiver of sovereign immunity and that the prisoner could use the Administrative
Procedure Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3625 to challenge his termination. The U.S. and
its agencies cannot be sued in the absence of an explicit waiver of sovereign
immunity, and the APA does not apply to any determination made under the
statutes governing imprisonment. Anderson v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No.
06-01402, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 68137 (D.D.C.).
Federal appeals court rejects a claim by
17-year-old public school student convicted and incarcerated in Maryland who
alleged that the District of Columbia violated an agreement to provide him with
special education services in the Maryland prison, pursuant to the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1412(a). The Maryland prison allegedly
did not allow access to the prisoner for the purposes of providing those
services, and the appeals court found that the trial court acted erroneously in
ruling that the agreement provided that the District would provide those
promised special education services after the prisoner's release from custody
if access to the Maryland prison could not be obtained. Maryland, instead,
provided the plaintiff with its own special education services, and the
plaintiff sought compensatory services from D.C. to make up for the time he
spent in the Maryland prison without services from D.C., even though he
received such services in prison from Maryland. The appeals court, overturning
a decision by the trial court, ruled that the now released prisoner was not entitled
to additional special education services from D.C. Hester v. DC, No. 06-7102,
2007 U.S. App. Lexis 24415 (D.C. Cir.).
Federal prisoner performing the duties of his
prison job was not a federal "employee" and it did not violate his
rights to fail to pay him the federal minimum wage for that work. Banks v.
Roberts, No. 1:06-CV-01232, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 57697 (M.D. Pa.).
While the working conditions in the prison
commissary were "perhaps uncomfortable," they did not violate the
plaintiff prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual
punishment. The prisoner also failed to show that he was improperly transferred
from his commissary job in retaliation for his grievances against his
supervisors. Toolasprashad v. Wright, No. 06-3784, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 19875
(3rd Cir.).
A Pennsylvania prisoner's sentence was vacated in
a state court, and he continued to serve his sentence pending further
proceedings, which subsequently led to the vacating of his sentence being
overturned on appeal. Under these circumstances, requiring him to work during
the time that his sentence was vacated did not violate his constitutional
rights, nor did the deduction, during that time, of money from his prison
account to pay previously-ordered restitution. Under prior federal precedent,
the plaintiff remained a convicted person while any post-trial proceedings were
ongoing in the state courts. Forcing him to work during that time therefore did
not violate his 13th Amendment rights. O'Connell v. Johnson, No. 07-2001, 2007
U.S. App. Lexis 19664 (3rd Cir.).
Inmate's rights were not violated by the fact
that, as a barber school student in a vocational training program, he was
eligible to receive good time credits, but not pay, while other inmates
enrolled in a culinary arts program were both paid and eligible to receive a
greater number of good time credits. There is no federally protected due
process right to compensation for prisoners in such vocational training
programs, and there was no evidence that the plaintiff prisoner was unfairly
denied participation in other prison activities through which he might have
received additional good time credits. The federal court also ruled that it was
"not difficult" to think of rational reasons to give more favorable treatment
to students in a culinary arts program than to students in a barber training
program. Jackson v. Russo, No. 06-12044, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 50159 (D.
Mass.).
Federal appeals court disagrees with trial
court's conclusion that a reasonable jury could not find, based on a layman's
opinion, including the prisoner's opinion, that experienced work supervisors at
his prison job responded unreasonably to a known excessive risk to his health
and safety. The evidence could support a conclusion, the appeals court found,
that the supervisors knew that the prisoner was suffering from serious
respiratory distress from his job in a poorly ventilated and enclosed room, and
that the prisoner could not avoid instances where a razor blade would catch and
then slip loose uncontrollably, using the tools made available to him. Blay v.
Reilly, No. 04-1347, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 17603 (10th Cir.).
A Florida prisoner failed to show that prison
officials altered his work assignment in retaliation for his pursuit of grievances,
in violation of his First Amendment rights. Brown v. Mache, No. 07-10034, 2007
U.S. App. Lexis 12326 (11th Cir.).
Prisoner allowed to amend his lawsuit to further
explain his claim that he was suspended from a softball league and a hobby craft
program in retaliation for having filed grievances, in violation of his First
Amendment rights. The court found that his lawsuit did not adequately establish
due process claims, because he had no protected liberty interest in remaining
in the recreational programs from which he had been suspended. Bigbee v.
Nalley, No. 07-C-71, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 25336 (W.D. Wis.).
New York prisoners' work for the state Department
of Motor Vehicles was not, in economic reality, an employer-employee
relationship entitling them to pursue their claims for federal minimum wages or
overtime compensation. The job assignments served correctional purposes by
giving the prisoners opportunities for job training and skill development.
Kavazanjian v. Naples, No. 06-CV-3390, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 69080 (E.D.N.Y.).
[N/R]
Ordering a prisoner to continue working with a
defective printing press, which subsequently tore off his thumb could be a
violation of the Eighth Amendment, despite the fact that the prisoner
originally obtained the specific prison work assignment by voluntarily applying
for it. Morgan v. Morgensen, No. 04-35608, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 25028 (9th
Cir.). [2006 JB Nov]
In Alabama prisoner's lawsuit seeking back pay
and damages and challenging the power of correctional officials to force
prisoners to perform work on a private contract job with an outside vendor of
sports equipment, the state agencies and Department of Corrections, and prison
warden were all entitled to sovereign immunity under state law. Latham v.
Department of Corrections, No. 1031810, 927 So. 2d 815 (Ala. 2005). [N/R]
County jail was not liable for inmate's burn
injuries suffered during kitchen work assignment. While the prisoner claimed
that the jail failed to provide him with reasonably safe equipment and adequate
training for the job, the prisoner admitted that he failed to use a funnel,
gloves, and other equipment provided for him to perform the task of
transferring boiling water from one container to another. He also admitted that
the task was "pretty basic" and that he had successfully completed
the job previously, refuting the argument that further training was required.
Spiratos v. County of Chenago, 815 N.Y.S. 2d 288 (A.D. 3rd Dept. 2006). [N/R]
Mother of youthful incarcerated son with alleged
disabilities, including emotional problems, and auditory and visual
hallucinations, as well as other mental health concerns, could not pursue
claims for money damages under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA), 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400 et seq. regarding educational services required to
be provided to him, when she failed to show that she provided any educational
expenses for her son. Court also rules that neither the Alabama Department of
Youth Services (ADYS) nor its employees could be held liable for allegedly not
providing the juvenile with services to which he was allegedly entitled under
the Americans with Disabilities Ac (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12112(a), as the
Department and the individual defendants sued in their official capacities were
entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, and the individuals could not be sued
in their individual capacities under ADA. McReynolds v. Alabama Department of
Youth Services, No. 2:04-CV-850, 426 F. Supp. 2d 1247 (M.D. Ala. 2006). [N/R]
Pennsylvania prisoner failed to present evidence
from which a reasonable jury could conclude that he was fired from his prison
kitchen job in retaliation for having filed grievances against his supervisor.
The evidence showed that complaints about his work performance were present
before he filed any grievances. Williams v. Meyers, No. 03-3938, 165 Fed. Appx.
201 (3rd Cir. 2006). [N/R]
An inmate doing work at or for a prison does not
qualify as an employee under federal minimum wage laws, and is therefore not
entitled to minimum wages for hours worked. Loving v. Johnson, No. 05-10679
2006 U.S. App. Lexis 16968 (5th Cir.). [N/R]
Prisoner's allegation that he was transferred to
a less desirable job assignment in retaliation for filing grievances was
insufficient to show a violation of his First Amendment rights, but his
assertion, if true, that he was transferred to an inferior and more dangerous
prison for retaliatory reasons did state a claim. Morris v. Powell, No.
05-40578, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 12033 (5th Cir.). [2006 JB Jul]
Inmate suffering from chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease from dust and smoke accompanying his work as a welder failed
to show that he had informed the supervisor of the prison unit overseeing
prison jobs of the risk to him allegedly posed by his working conditions. Since
the supervisor was not shown to have known of and disregarded the risk to him,
he could not be held liable for injuries allegedly suffered by the prisoner.
Additionally, the prisoner failed to file grievances concerning the work
conditions and also refused to wear a dust mask he was given. Flanyak v. Hopta,
No. 3:04-1634, 410 F. Supp. 2d 394 (M.D. Pa. 2006). [N/R]
A federal prisoner's lawsuit under the Federal
Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1346(b), 2671-80, alleging that he was
injured as a result of a negligent failure to train him to use machinery safely
during his prison employment was barred by the provisions of the Federal Prison
Industries' Inmate Accident Compensation (IAC) system under 18 U.S.C. Sec.
4126. Cordoba v. Morrison, No. 04-3642, 155 Fed. Appx. 933 (8th Cir. 2005).
[N/R]
Arkansas prisoner had no constitutional right to
being assigned to a particular prison job, and therefore could not pursue a
civil rights claim over his alleged loss of his prison job based on a
disciplinary conviction for violating correctional drug policies which was
later reversed on appeal. Sanders v. Norris, No. 05-2398, 153 Fed. Appx. 403
(8th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
State of New York had no duty to provide an
inmate with instructions on the use of or warnings concerning the dangerous of
using an angle grinder in his work assignment, and therefore was not liable for
injuries he suffered when he set the grinder down on a workbench while it was
still operating. Coming into contact with the spinning disk of the grinder was
an "obvious danger" and the prisoner, who had worked in the
construction industry for twenty years, was familiar with power tools and angle
grinders in particular. Manganaro v. State of New York, 805 N.Y.S.2d 710 (A.D.
3rd Dept. 2005). [N/R]
While prisoner filed grievances concerning his
claim that he was illegally terminated from his kitchen work assignment on the
basis of his race, he failed to show that he appealed his grievance to the
Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections, and therefore did not
exhaust his available administrative remedies prior to filing suit, as required
by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e. Lyons v. Trinity Services Group, Inc., No. 02-23142,
601 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (S.D. Fla. 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner's claim that his 8th Amendment rights
had been violated by an electronics instructor's instructions to go to a
restroom to clear his nasal passages and to cease bothering the class with his
"frequent" throat clearing was frivolous. The instructor did not act
in an "egregious" manner, and the prisoner had no constitutional
right to receive an education while incarcerated. Flanyak v. Ross, No. 05-2868,
153 Fed. Appx. 810 (3rd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Federal appeals court upholds injunction
requiring the provision of both general educational services and special
educational services for school age inmates incarcerated in New York City
jails, based on the failure to comply with federal law. Portions of the injunction
based on alleged violations of state law, the court held, were beyond the power
of the federal trial court. City defendants had previously waived a defense of
failure to exhaust available administrative remedies by stating that no such
remedies were applicable to the claims made in the class action lawsuit.
Handberry v. Thompson, No. 03-0047, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 1062 (2d Cir.). [2006
JB Mar]
Prisoner failed to show that he was reassigned
from a boiler-room job to a "hoe" squad and forced to work in dirty
clothes and in cold weather in retaliation for his filing of grievances and
complaints. The evidence showed, the court ruled, that he was actually
reassigned for legitimate reasons, including the prisoner's connections to
white supremacist groups and the risk of escape posed by his prior escape from
another facility. Breshears v. Brown, No. 04-41749 150 Fed. Appx. 323 (5th 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]
Prisoner who allegedly told medical staff at
prison that he could not work because of a prior gunshot injury failed to show
that they responded with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.
Prison medical staff used a medical team to evaluate the prisoner, and conducted
a physical examination, and once he complained of a spasm, they provided prompt
attention, including pain medications and adjustment of his work status. Randle
v. Webster, No. 04-2239, 124 Fed. Appx. 439 (7th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Inmate assigned to work as an audiovisual
technician was properly disciplined for disobeying a direct order when he
refused to select a videotaped movie to play from those available when a
problem arose with the movie scheduled to be shown. Bragg v. Selsky, 791
N.Y.S.2d 706 (A.D. Dept. 3 2005). [N/R]
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]
D.C. trial court lacked jurisdiction to order the
federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to provide educational services to a youthful
offender after he was transferred to BOP custody and outside of the District of
Columbia. U.S. v. Crockett, No. 03-C0-749, 861 A.2d 604 (D.C. 2004). [N/R]
Environmental conditions at prison print shop and
resulting minor health problems prisoners there allegedly experienced,
including skin irritation, nausea, and headaches, did not violate the Eighth
Amendment when the prisoners were fully aware of the potential health risks and
voluntarily chose to continue to work there. Wooten v. Goord, No. 04-2485, 123
Fed. Appx. 441 (2nd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner's question to work supervisor concerning
pay for prisoners laid off from prison sewing shop was not speech on a matter
of public concern for which he had First Amendment protection against
retaliatory action. McElroy v. Lopac, No. 03-3257, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 5611
(7th Cir.). [2005 JB Jun]
Jewish prisoner's apparently sincerely held
belief that it violated his religion to work in a non-kosher prison kitchen was
not entitled to lesser consideration simply because it might not be a
"central" tenet of his religion, but legitimate penological interests
including budgetary concerns and the need for non-discriminatory prison
staffing were sufficient, on limited review, to justify requiring him to accept
the work assignment. Searles v. Dechant, No. 03-3347, 393 F. 3d 1126 (10th Cir.
2004). [2005 JB Apr]
Prisoners at a privately operated prison are not
entitled to minimum wages for their prison work assignments. Bennett v. Frank,
No. 04-1959, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 960 (7th Cir.). [2005 JB Mar]
Juvenile pre-trial detainee's rights were not
violated by his incarceration in adult county jail when it was done in
compliance with Michigan state law and he was kept segregated from adult
prisoners. Conditions he faced in lock-down were not punitive but were
justified by a legitimate interest in preventing his possible suicide. Federal
appeals court further finds that his due process rights were not violated by
his loss of credit in alternative education program following his arrest and
detention or by the program's refusal to re-enroll him after his release. Daniels
v. Woodside, No. 03-2053, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 1127 (6th Cir.). [2005 JB Mar]
A New York prisoner's failure to file a timely
appeal to the highest administrative level of his grievance against a
correctional officer concerning his removal from his porter work assignment
barred his federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e for failure
to exhaust available administrative remedies. His failure to do so was not
excused by his transfer to another correctional facility. Soto v. Belcher, No.
01 Civ. 7520, 339 F. Supp. 2d 592 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
South Carolina statute allegedly requiring state
Department of Corrections to pay prevailing wages to inmates employed by prison
industry did not provide a private right of action in the courts to inmates to
pursue claims for alleged violations. Prisoners could, however, seek a remedy
for violations by pursuing an inmate grievance. Adkins v. S.C. Depart. of
Corrections, #25860, 602 S.E.2d 51 (S.C. 2004). [N/R]
South Carolina inmate was entitled to payment of
"prevailing wage" for his work in prison industry under state
statute. Court upholds decision by administrative law judge in inmate's
grievance requiring correctional officials to pay such wages to prisoner.
Wicker v. S.C. Dept. of Corrections, No. 25859, 602 S.E.2d 56 (S.C. 2004).
[N/R]
Private industry was not entitled to any relief
against federal prison industry for alleged unauthorized expansion of
production of office furniture. Plaintiffs also failed to show that these actions
constituted a "taking" of its property right to a certain market
share of federal purchases of such furniture. Coalition for Gov't Procurement
v. Fed. Prison Indus., Inc., No. 01-2231, 365 F.3d 435 (6th Cir. 2004).
[2004 JB Dec]
Prisoner who was injured while doing electrical work as
part of prison work assignment was entitled to reversal of summary judgment for
defendants in his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against
supervisors. There was sufficient evidence to raise a factual issue as to
whether the defendants knew of the risks the prisoner would face from the work
he was being assigned to do. Hall v. Bennett, No. 02-2683, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis
16609 (7th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Oct]
Washington state statute, RCWA 72.09.100(1), under
which Department of Corrections entered into contract with private company
allowing them to employ convicts in its business, violated a state
constitutional provision, Art. 2, Sec. 29, concerning the employment of
prisoners by private entities, and prohibiting such transactions. Washington
Water Jet Workers Association v. Yarbrough, No. 70814-2, 90 P.3d 42 (Wash. en
banc., 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]
Prison officials violated prisoners' rights by
requiring them, as a condition of prison employment, to waive any property
rights to accrued interest on their inmate trust accounts, and violated
prisoners' due process rights by confiscating this interest despite a state
statute entitling them to the interest, when no procedure was provided to
contest the loss. Officials had qualified immunity from liability for the
seizure of interest, however, as prisoners' rights were not clearly established,
but not for retaliating against prisoners for refusal to waive the interest.
Vance v. Barrett, No. 01-15819, 345 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2003).[2004
JB Feb]
Update: Federal appeals court upholds
ruling that drivers' license examiner's alleged conduct of forcing female
inmate in work release program to have sex with him in exchange for special
privileges, and under threat of being removed from the program, violated
clearly established Eighth Amendment law. Smith v. Cochran, #01-5085, 339 F.3d
1205 (10th Cir. 2003). [2004 JB Jan]
Prisoner in Tennessee had no constitutional right
to a particular job assignment or to prison employment in general, and
therefore could not pursue claim for violation of due process based on prison's
failure to restore him to his former job after his disciplinary conviction was
reversed. Carter v. Tucker, No. 03-5021, 69 Fed. Appx. 678 (6th Cir. 2003).
[N/R]
Prisoner could state a claim for retaliatory
transfer for having filed a grievance against an officer based on a sequence of
events from which a retaliatory motive could be inferred, without proving
motivation in the complaint. Illinois prisoner had a protected liberty interest
in continued participation in work release program which could not be ended
without due process. Segreti v. Gillen, 259 F. Supp. 2d 733 (N.D. Ill. 2003).
[2003 JB Oct]
Participation in an "industrial
training" leave program was not a right for a New York inmate, so that he
was not entitled to a review of a decision denying his request to participate
in the program. Further, the nature of the prisoner's crimes, which included
his misconduct as an attorney in misappropriating over $4.7 million in funds
from his clients' escrow accounts, raised "serious doubts" about
whether he was trustworthy enough to participate, and whether his release for
participation "posed a threat to community safety." Wallman v. Joy,
760 N.Y.S.2d 560 (A.D. 3d Dept. 2003). [N/R]
A prison librarian's alleged filing of an
"erroneous" evaluation of a prisoner's performance in his work
assignment after the prisoner filed a grievance over an earlier evaluation was
not unlawful retaliation in violation of the prisoner's First Amendment rights.
The librarian had submitted other negative evaluations of the prisoner's work
performance before he ever filed a grievance. Keenan v. Daniel, #02-2059, 63
Fed. Appx. 180 (6th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Indiana prisoner was entitled to the benefit of
amendments to an educational credit time statute passed after his sentence,
allowing him to receive the maximum credit towards his release date for
post-amendment educational credits. Cotton v. Ellsworth, #48A04-0204-CV-185,
788 N.E.2d 867 (Ind. App. 2003).[N/R]
Prisoner's complaint about being compelled to
work in cold weather without warm clothing, or in hot, humid weather despite
his high blood pressure did not qualify as a claim of imminent danger of
serious physical harm coming under an exception to the "three
strikes" rule of the Prison Litigation Reform Act barring access to courts
as a pauper following the filing of three or more frivolous lawsuits. Martin v.
Shelton, No. 02-2770, 319 F.3d 1048 (8th Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Jun]
A union officer had standing, under California
state law, to sue the state as a taxpayer to make it ensure that a joint
venture company employing prisoners paid them "prevailing wages" when
they were employed under a statute, Ann. Cal. Penal. Code Sec. 2717.1 et seq.,
requiring them to work to reimburse the state for the cost of their
confinement. Vasquez v. State of California, #D038889, 129 Cal. Rptr. 2d 701
(Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner's alleged confinement to his cell during
working hours for refusal to accept a prison work assignment did not violate
his rights. Such confinement did not constitute an "atypical and
significant hardship" triggering a right to due process before the
sanction was imposed. Mayberry v. Starr, #01-2563, 44 Fed. Appx. 679 (6th Cir.
2002). [N/R]
299:169 Prisoner
who was allegedly exposed to raw sewage in the course of her work assignment
failed to show that correctional officials acted with deliberate indifference;
even if she was correct that protective clothing issued was inadequate, nothing
showed that defendants knew that before she complained. Shannon v. Graves, No.
00- 3029, 257 F.3d 1164 (10th Cir. 2001).
294:94 Louisiana
prison officials did not violate asthmatic prisoner's rights by forcing him to
do ditch digging on a dusty road, when they consulted with medical personnel
before compelling the prisoner to do the work. Lewis v. Lynn, No. 00-30783, 236
F.3d 766 (5th Cir. 2001).
292:62
Prisoner's rights were not violated by transferring him from a prison with
vocational training and substance abuse programs to one which had none, despite
his argument that he would have earned "good time" credits if he
successfully completed the programs. Zimmerman v. Tribble, #98-2163, 226 F.3d
568 (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).
284:125 County
liable for $40,000 for injuries to prisoner in protective custody who was
attacked by two gang member pre-trial detainees in common recreation area;
court rules that policy allowing prisoners with different security levels to
take recreation together was deliberate indifference in light of knowledge of
specific threats to plaintiff prisoner. Miller v. Shelby County, Tenn., 93 F.
Supp. 2d 892 (W.D. Tenn. 2000).
286:154 Federal
appeals court rules that Kansas state prisoner's lawsuit over his private
prison industry work assignment could proceed, at least insofar as it sought
money damages, despite failure to exhaust available administrative remedies,
when administrative remedies did not provide for awards of money. Miller v.
Menghini, #99-3401, 213 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 2000).
286:157
"Nation of Islam" members in New York state prison were not entitled
to a kosher diet, even though it was being supplied to Jewish prisoners, when a
pork-free "Religious Alternative Menu" provided to them was adequate
to meet their nutritional and religious requirements; prison did not violate
their rights by refusing to hire one of them as an inmate clerk to handle
"Nation of Islam" affairs in the facility. Muhammad v. Warithu-Deen
Umar, 98 F. Supp. 2d 337 (W.D.N.Y. 2000).
279:36 Federal
appeals court upholds the segregation of HIV-positive prisoners; U.S. Supreme
Court denies review. Onishea v. Hopper, #96-6213, 171 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir.
1999), cert. denied, sub nom. Davis v. Hopper, #98-9663, 120 S. Ct. 931 (2000).
279:41 Jury
awards $2 million to prisoner blinded while operating trash compactor during
prison work assignment; suit claimed a delay in medical treatment contributed
to blindness. Williams v. Patel, No. 96-1369, U.S. Dist. Ct (C.D. Ill.),
reported in The National Law Journal, p. A12 (Feb. 21, 2000). Subsequent
decision denying new trial at: 104 F. Supp. 2d 984 (C.D. Ill. 2000).
277:14 Prisoner
was properly required to work in prison cafeteria despite the overturning of
his conviction on appeal, when state was pursuing further appeals and
overturning of conviction was not final; neither convicted prisoners or
pretrial detainees were "employees" for purposes of Fair Labor
Standards Act minimum wage provisions. Tourscher v. Horn, #97-3671, 98-3499,
184 F.3d 236 (3rd Cir. 1999).
278:22 Minnesota
prison did not err in deducting court filing fee from prisoner's inmate account
rather than from his gross wages in prison work program; agreement prisoner
signed in order to be in work program manufacturing goods for sale in
interstate commerce, which mentioned deductions that could be made from his
pay, was not an enforceable "contract." Murray v. Minncor, No. C3-
99-376, 506 N.W.2d 702 (Minn. App. 1999).
279:45 Prison
officials did not violate the rights of a prisoner by reducing his level of
privileges and revoking his work assignment based on his refusal to agree to
participate in recommended educational and therapy programs. Johnston v.
Simmons, 45 F. Supp. 2d 1220 (D. Kan. 1999).
279:46 New York
prisoner had a protected liberty interest in participation in a work release
program that allowed her to live at home; "technical" violation of
requirement that she have notice of a hearing to consider her removal from the
program only entitled her to $1 in nominal damages when she had no real basis
for contesting her removal. Kim v. Hurston, No. 98-7051, 182 F.3d 113 (2nd Cir.
1999).
280:58 Federal
appeals court upholds $385,000 sanction against state correctional department
for failure to obey court orders to provide equal access to vocational training
and apprenticeship programs for female prisoners. Glover v. Johnson, #98-1900,
98-2140, 199 F.3d 310 (6th Cir. 1999).
281:67 Prisoner
is awarded $4,221.40 against two officers on his claim that they imposed
disciplinary sanctions on him, removed him from his job in the mess hall, and
transferred him to another facility in retaliation for his complaints about
prisoner work schedules which arguably violated state law limiting work hours.
Gaston v. Coughlin, 81 F. Supp. 2d 381 (N.D.N.Y. 1999).
281:78 Idaho
prisoner injured while performing maintenance work duties at the facility she
was incarcerated at did not qualify as a "community service worker"
entitled to workers' compensation benefits under state law. Crawford v. Dept.
of Correction, 991 P.2d 358 (Idaho 1999).
282:85
Correctional officials with no personal involvement in prisoner's alleged
exposure to dangerous chemicals in prison metal shop could not be held liable
for future harm to him, when there was no claim they failed to remedy it after
learning of it, or created a policy that allowed it to happen or continue; prisoner
could pursue claim against other correctional employees based on alleged
failure to provide him with safety equipment. Crawford v. Coughlin, 43 F. Supp.
2d 319 (W.D.N.Y. 1999).
275:174
Pre-trial detainee's rights were not violated by requiring him to work
distributing food, allegedly without pay, or else face segregation in
"lock-in"; compulsion to do chores in correctional facility did not
amount to involuntary servitude or slavery in violation of Thirteenth
Amendment. Ford v. Nassau Co. Executive, 41 F.Supp.2d 392 (E.D.N.Y. 1999).
266:30 Jail
nurse and two other jail employees liable for $500 each to prisoner required to
do heavy construction work despite medical conditions of past back injury and
hypertension; requiring prisoner to do such work was cruel and unusual
punishment. Williams v. Norris, #97- 3002, 148 F.3d 983 (8th Cir. 1998).
268:62
Correctional facility which disclosed prisoner's positive hepatitis C test
results to work-release employer, resulting in end of prisoner's work
assignment, did not engaged in disability employment discrimination under Iowa
law, since it was not the prisoner's employer. Zepeda v. Fort Des Moines Men's
Corr. Fac., 586 N.W.2d 364 (Iowa 1998).
269;78 Town and
its employee acted as agents of the state of Alabama while transporting inmate
to his work release job and was therefore entitled to sovereign immunity from
liability for injuries prisoner suffered when he fell off of back of truck;
employee, however, was not entitled to immunity individually for driving truck
to avoid potholes. Loxley, Town of v. Coleman, 720 So. 2d 907 (Ala. 1998).
270:94 Prisoner
removed from work release program without an opportunity to be heard after
being arrested for driving while intoxicated could not pursue federal civil
rights claim alleging violation of due process when his removal from program
was repeatedly upheld in prior administrative proceedings and state court
hearings. Roucchio v. Coughlin, 29 F.Supp.2d 72 (E.D.N.Y. 1998).
272:126 Oklahoma
prisons were entitled to sovereign immunity under state law for injuries which
inmate suffered while operating saw in prison furniture factory. Gaines v.
State Ex Rel., Dept. of Corr., 973 P.2d 905 (Okla Civ. App. 1998).
272:126 Ohio
correctional department had no duty to prevent prisoner's loss of thumb in
prison industry soap machine when there was no evidence it knew that anything
was wrong with the equipment or should have known; in absence of prior problems
with machine, no liability. Adair v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation &
Correction, 708 N.E.2d 302 (Ohio Ct. Claims 1998).
274:150
Prisoner's exhaustion of administrative remedies after filing federal civil
rights lawsuit over prison work assignment did not excuse his failure to do so
prior to filing lawsuit, as required by Prison Litigation Reform Act. Underwood
v. Wilson, #97-40536, 151 F.3d 292 (5th Cir. 1998).
274:158 Jail did
not violate any right of prisoner when it failed to process him for
participation in work release program; sentence provided an "okay"
for work release, but did not mandate it, and prisoner had no protected
constitutional right to participation in program.
Carter v.
McCaleb, 29 F.Supp.2d 423 (W.D. Mich. 1998). [N/R] Employee of a private
nonprofit corporation which operated a correctional work program for the
Florida state department of corrections was entitled to qualified immunity from
prisoner's claim that he was improperly denied an office position in the
program on the basis of race. Anthony v. Burkhart, 28 F.Supp.2d 1239 (M.D.
Fla).
[N/R] Georgia
Supreme Court rules that intermediate appeals court improperly decided that
prisoner's work supervisor was negligent, when issue was not presented by
proceedings below; trial court granted summary judgment on the basis of
sovereign and official immunity, so immunity issues were the sole issues on
appeal. Coweta Co. v. Simmons, 507 S.E.2d 440 (Ga. 1998).
[N/R] Prison
officials could not be held in contempt for alleged failing to comply with the
terms of remedial plans for sexual discrimination in educational and vocational
opportunities which had not been adopted as court orders. Glover v. Johnson,
#95-1521, 96-1852, 96-1931, 96- 1948, 138 F.3d 229 (6th Cir. 1998).
253:14 Female
prisoners could not base a Title IX claim of sex discrimination in educational
programs on a comparison of programs at one male prison; claim failed in
absence of a comparison of male and female educational programs in entire state
prison system. Klinger v. Dept. of Corrections, 107 F.3d 609 (8th Cir. 1997).
256:62 While
there is no constitutional right to prison employment, inmate stated a federal
civil rights claim by alleging that he was fired from prison job in retaliation
for refusal to sign an agreement waiving a property right to interest earned on
his inmate fund account. Vignolo v. Miller, 120 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 1997).
261:142 Failure
to provide safety goggles to prisoner who suffered eye injury while working on
machinery was not "cruel and unusual punishment" for purposes of
federal civil rights lawsuit; Georgia appeals court reinstates, however,
injured prisoner's state law negligence claim for injuries to eye. Webb v.
Carroll Co., 494 S.E.2d 196 (Ga. App. 1997).
263:174
Assigning prisoner to work in mess hall did not constitute cruel and unusual
punishment when his medical records showed nothing about an alleged serious
back condition, and prisoner himself did not initially mention anything about
alleged back problems. Wilson v. Johnson, 999 F.Supp. 394 (W.D.N.Y. 1998).
[N/R] Prisoners
failed to show that defendant prison officials had actual knowledge that
failure to provide protective gear to them while working as orderlies presented
a substantial risk of harm; defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from
liability. Rish v. Johnson, 131 F.3d 1092 (4th Cir. 1997).
241:14 Federal
appeals court rules that prison labor that produces goods or services to meet a
prison's own institutional needs is not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and its minimum wage requirements. Danneskjold v. Hausrath, 82 F.3d 37
(2nd Cir. 1996). » Editor's Note: See also Burleson v. State of Cal., 83 F.3d
311 (9th Cir. 1996), in which the court ruled that current and former inmates
in the California state prison system working for the state Prison Industry
Authority were not "employees" entitled to minimum wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
242:30 Inmate's
assignment to a facility where he did not have the opportunity to earn sentence
reduction credits by participating in work programs did not violate his right
to equal protection; prisoner had no constitutional right to assignment to a
particular facility or the opportunity to earn such credits. France v. Bradley,
922 S.W.2d 118 (Tenn. App. 1996).
242:30 Federal
appeals court overturns award of damages to prisoners on claim of unsafe
working conditions in Arkansas prison warehouse; evidence did not show
"deliberate indifference" to prisoner safety and health when
responsible correctional official provided various safety measures, while
rejecting request for provision of steel-toed boots for security reasons.
Stephens v. Johnson, 83 F.3d 198 (8th Cir. 1996).
243:42 Inmate's
own recklessness, not any breach of duty by State employees, caused his
injuries from touching live electrical wire while making assigned electrical
repairs; his prior training and experience as an electrician showed that he was
aware of the danger involved. Martinez v. State of N.Y., 639 N.Y.S.2d 145 (A.D.
1996).
244:62 Sheriff
was not liable for injuries prisoner suffered in hobby shop while operating
table saw without safety guard; prisoner's injuries were negligently
self-inflicted and there was no duty to provide him with training in a field he
was voluntarily pursuing. Mosley v. Law Enforcement Dist. of Avoyelles Parish,
670 So.2d 745 (La. App. 1996).
244:62 N.Y.
prison regulations setting aside some prisoner wages until prisoners are
released did not violate any constitutional rights; federal court also upholds
regulations imposing a $5 surcharge on such wages after prisoners are found
guilty, following a disciplinary hearing, of infractions of prison rules.
Rudolph v. Cuomo, 916 F.Supp. 1308 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).
247:111 New York
prisoner convicted of homicide related crime was properly denied eligibility
for educational leave program; fact that prisoner's conviction predated
effective date of regulation denying eligibility to those convicted of such
crimes did not alter result. Nicholas v. Pataki, 650 N.Y.S.2d 317 (A.D. 1996).
248:122 Prisoner
who claimed he was transferred to another facility and denied placement on a
job waiting list after complaining of alleged environmental violations by
Federal Prison Industries was not an "employee" entitled to
protection against retaliation under "whistleblowing" provisions of
federal environmental statutes. Coupar v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, 105 F.3d 1263
(9th Cir. 1997).
248:127 Update:
Federal appeals court affirms trial court ruling upholding N.Y. prison
regulations setting aside some prisoner wages until prisoners are released, and
imposing $5 surcharge on such wages after prisoners are found guilty of
disciplinary offenses. Allen v. Cuomo, 100 F.3d 253 (2nd Cir. 1996).
250;153
Prisoner's claim that his constitutional rights were violated because he had no
access to jobs, vocational, rehabilitation, or educational programs in prison's
"Idle Unit" dismissed as frivolous; there is no constitutional right
to such programs. Douglas v. DeBrun, 936 F.Supp. 572 (S.D. Ind. 1996).
[N/R] Male and
female prisoners were not similarly situation for purposes of female prisoners'
claim that they were denied equal prison industry employment opportunities.
Keevan v. Smith, 100 F.3d 644 (8th Cir. 1996).
234:93 Federal
appeals court rules that prison's refusal to release Muslim prisoner from work
assignment to attend Friday religious services did not violate First Amendment
or Religious Freedom Restoration Act; attendance at such services was not an
"essential tenet" of his religion and policy did not
"substantially burden" his religious freedom. Abdur-Rahman v.
Michigan Department of Corrections, 65 F.3d 489 (6th Cir. 1995).
239:163 Federal
appeals court rules that Americans With Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act
do not apply to prisoner employment situations. White v. State of Colorado, 82
F.3d 364 (10th Cir. 1996). 236:117 Prison employees were entitled to qualified
immunity for not providing protective coveralls, as required by prison policy, to
inmate work crew cleaning up human waste accumulated from clogged sewer line;
employees did supply protective eyewear, gloves, and boots, did not themselves
find it necessary to wear coveralls, and did not act with "deliberate
indifference" in not issuing inmates coveralls. Good v. Olk-Long, 71 F.3d
314 (8th Cir. 1995).
229:14 Workers'
compensation was exclusive remedy for death of North Carolina inmate who died
by falling into salt pile and suffering asphyxiation while performing assigned
road crew work duties. Blackmon v. N.C. Dept. of Correction, 457 S.E.2d 306
(N.C. App. 1995).
229:14 Federal
prisoners assigned to perform work for the Federal Prison Industries were not
"employees" entitled to minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act. Nicastro v. Clinton, 882 F.Supp. 1128 (D.D.C. 1995).
234:95 Ohio
inmate was not an "employee" under the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act while working as part of prison industry program, and was not entitled to
federal minimum wages. Lentz v. Anderson, 888 F.Supp. 847 (N.D. Ohio 1995).
235:110 Federal
appeals court orders trial of prisoner's suit claiming that he and other
prisoners were forced to clean up prison attic filled with loose asbestos
insulation for forty-five hours without proper protective clothing/equipment;
court rules that ordering prisoners to do so, given evidence of knowledge of
presence of asbestos, could be "deliberate indifference" to
prisoners' rights. Wallis v. Baldwin, 70 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir. 1995).
[Cross-reference: Medical Care].
236:125 Federal
prisoner had no constitutionally protected interest in particular job
assignment; Federal Prison Industries regulations did not create property right
to job. Bulger v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 65 F.3d 48 (5th Cir. 1995).
236:126 Federal
appeals court rules that sheriff/custodian of prisoner participating in work
release program, working for outside employer, is "simply not" an
employer for purposes of the federal minimum wage law; court upholds sheriff's
conditioning participation in program on inmate's signed agreement to deduction
of 10% of his wages as a contribution to victim compensation fund sheriff
established. Reimonenq v. Foti, 72 F.3d 472 (5th Cir. 1996).
237:143 D.C.
prisoner had no protected liberty or property interest in participation in work
training furlough program. Williams v. Moore, 899 F.Supp. 711 (D.D.C. 1995).
[N/R] Missouri
regulations did not create due process property interest in prisoner receiving
wages while incarcerated in another state. Jennings v. Lombardi, 70 F.3d 994
(8th Cir. 1995).
217:14 Federal
prisoner required to do work on grounds of naval air station was not an
employee under the terms of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and therefore was not
entitled to federal minimum wage for the work done. Henthorn v. Department of
Navy, 29 F.3d 682 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
218:30 Inmates
in state-run prison industries were not entitled to federal minimum wages.
McMaster v. State of Minn., 30 F.3d 976 (8th Cir. 1994).
219:45 Federal
statute prohibiting gender discrimination in education applies in state prisons
receiving federal funds; federal appeals court rules that "penological
necessity" is not a defense to suits brought under this statute, but
merely a factor to be considered in determining how it applies in the prison
context. Jeldness v. Pearce, 30 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 1994).
221:78 Requiring
prisoner convicted of sexual offense to attend educational program for such
offenders did not violate any liberty interest of his; state's interest in
rehabilitation outweighed any burden on inmate resulting from forced
participation in program. Bollig v. Fiedler, 863 F.Supp. 841 (E.D. Wis. 1994).
223:106
Prisoner's civil rights suit claiming that his due process rights were violated
when he was punished for refusing to work after his habeas corpus petition was
granted but he remained imprisoned should not have been dismissed as frivolous,
federal appeals court rules; prisoner claimed that this made him a pretrial
detainee. Cokeley v. Endell, 27 F.3d 331 (8th Cir. 1994).
223:110 Nevada
prisoner who was required to work or take vocational training for 40 hours per
week was not an "employee" entitled to federal minimum wages for his
work, federal appeals court rules. Morgan v. MacDonald, 41 F.3d 1291 (9th Cir.
1994).
225:131 Prison
officials were entitled to qualified immunity in blind prisoner's disability
discrimination lawsuit alleging that they denied him equal access to vocational
training programs because of his blindness when he neither applied for existing
programs nor requested accommodation in them. Lue v. Moore, 43 F.3d 1203 (8th
Cir. 1994).
227:158 Illinois
change in eligibility requirements to earn early release credits through
participation in educational programs constituted additional punishment for
prisoners already serving sentences for offenses which now made them
ineligible; Illinois Supreme Court rules that such prisoners must be allowed to
earn such credits under former criteria. Barger v. Peters, 163 Ill. 2d 357, 645
N.E.2d 175 (1994), cert. denied sub nom. Washington v. Barger, 115 S.Ct. 1838
(1995).
State of New
York liable for $700,000 to inmate whose hand and forearm were severed in
workplace accident at correctional facility sawmill, and for $36,000 to his
wife. Lowe v. State, 599 N.Y.S.2d 639 (A.D. 1993).
Claim that
prisoner was justified in refusal to work because of physical condition was
properly viewed as frivolous when this condition was adequately considered in
assigning his work detail. Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191 (5th Cir. 1993).
Termination of
prisoner's job assignment in Federal Prison Industries was a proper result of
discretion in program administration and not the result of discrimination or
additional disciplinary sanction for job-related misconduct. Gladson v. Henman,
814 F.Supp. 46 (D. Kan. 1993).
Federal court
declines to dismiss suit by pre-trial detainees of school age claiming that
denying them educational services similar to those given to non-incarcerated youth
denied their right to due process and equal protection of law. Donnell C. v.
Illinois State Board of Education, 829 F.Supp. 1016 (N.D. Ill. 1993).
Nevada state
prisoner did not have a constitutionally protected right to continued prison
employment under state statutes or administrative regulations. Collins v.
Palczewski, 841 F.Supp. 333 (D. Nev. 1993).
Federal appeals
court overturns $2,500 civil rights award to inmate with artificial knee cap
who was injured while working on roof as part of prison construction work crew;
evidence did not show that defendant prison officials were deliberately
indifferent, since they did not know of his artificial knee. Choate v.
Lockhart, 7 F.3d 1370 (8th Cir. 1993).
Former director
of department of correction was entitled to qualified immunity against
liability for revoking Arkansas inmate's work release status with a prison
disciplinary style hearing, rather than providing the kind of due process
hearing provided in parole revocation cases. Jackson v. Lockhart, 7 F.3d 1391
(8th Cir. 1993).
Iowa prisoner
could not be disciplined for refusal to obey direct order to work a second
overtime shift which would include time during which Super Bowl football game
was played, when no prison rule required prisoner to work overtime upon
request. Blair v. State, 498 N.W.2d 412 (Iowa App. 1993).
Prisoner injured
in prison workplace accident did not show that prison officials were
deliberately indifferent to either workplace safety or his need for medical
treatment for his injury. Warren v. State of Mo., 995 F.2d 130 (8th Cir. 1993).
N.Y.
Correctional officials were entitled to a qualified immunity for removing a
resident alien prisoner from a work release program once the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) issued an immigration warrant for him. Severino v.
Negron, 996 F.2d 1439 (2nd Cir. 1993).
Applying a new
requirement of performing work assignments to receive good time credits to
inmate incarcerated before the requirement was imposed did not retroactively
increase his punishment; refusal to perform work assignments had previously
been punishable as disciplinary infractions which could result in loss of
good-time. Chauvin v. Erickson, 998 F.2d 617 (8th Cir. 1993).
Prison inmates
were not entitled to minimum wages or "prevailing wages"; Fair Labor
Standards Act did not cover inmates and federal law requiring that prevailing
wages be paid to prisoners producing goods being transported in interstate
commerce was not passed for inmates' benefit, but to prevent unfair competition
with private industry. McMaster v. State of Minn. 819 F.Supp. 1429 (D. Minn.
1993).
West Virginia
law created no constitutionally protected right for inmates to participate in
work release programs; termination of participation in program without a
hearing did not violate due process. Beasley v. Duncil, 792 F. Sup. 485 (S.D.
W. Va. 1992).
Alaska inmate
had no constitutional right to continued employment as prison law librarian;
Alaska Supreme Court holds that job reassignment was not subject to judicial
review. Hays v. State, 830 P.2d 783 (Alaska 1992).
Prisoner was not
subject to cruel and unusual punishment by being compelled to work outside in
winter, when appropriate protective clothing was available to him. Pendergrass
v. Hannigan, 788 F.Supp. 488 (D. Kan. 1992).
Prisoner's
assignment to hoe squad did not violate Muslim religious prohibitions nor had
prison officials knowingly compelled him to do work beyond his physical
capacity; he had been disciplined numerous times for refusal to do the work,
but had never raised the defense that he was incapable of the work. Franklin v.
Banks, 979 F.2d 1330 (8th Cir. 1992).
Sheriff and
county liable for disregarding court order that inmate be released to work
during the day; while sheriff thought the order was unenforceable, he never
tried to get a formal ruling on its invalidity. Huddleston v. Shirley, 787
F.Supp. 109 (N.D. Miss. 1992).
Prisoner had no
constitutionally protected liberty or property interest in selection for work
release under Illinois law and regulations, nor was he denied equal protection
of law when he was not selected for the program despite being eligible.
DeTomaso v. McGinnis, 970 F.2d 211 (7th Cir. 1992).
Removing an
inmate from a work release program, based in part on the complaint of his
victim's relative, did not violate the inmate's constitutional rights. O'Bar v.
Pinion, 953 F.2d 74 (4th Cir. 1991).
Prisoner had no
constitutionally protected right in a particular prison job assignment; state
statute limiting the options of prison officials in making changes in such work
assignments for disciplinary reasons did not create a liberty or property
interest. Wallace v. Robinson, 940 F.2d 243 (7th Cir. 1991).
Inmates not
sentenced to hard labor who worked for $20 a day in work release program were
not subjected to involuntary servitude, but they were "employees" of
the private employers who utilized them, and entitled to protections of the
Fair Labor Standards Act. Watson v. Graves, 909 F.2d 1549 (5th Cir. 1990).
Policy
prohibiting male prisoners from enrolling in vocational classes at women's
prison did not violate equal protection because of security concerns. Smith v.
Bingham, 914 F.2d 740 (5th Cir. 1990).
Prison officials
did not violate inmate's rights by refusing his request that he be transferred
to a work camp; Illinois law did not create liberty interest in such transfer.
Joihner v. McEvers, 898 F.2d 569 (7th Cir. 1990).
Compelling an
inmate to work without pay on private property did not violate his
constitutional rights. Murray v. Mississippi Dept. of Corrections, 911 F.2d
1167 (5th Cir. 1990).
Inmates
disciplined for refusal to clean out prison's raw sewage station without
protective clothing established prima facie Eight Amendment violation. Fruit v.
Norris, 905 F.2d 1147 (8th Cir. 1990).
Male inmates in
Montana prisons were statutorily barred from suing on gender discrimination or
minimum wage complaints that they were paid less than female inmates for
similar work. Quigg v. South, 793 P.2d 831 (Mont. 1990).
Prison did not
negligently expose inmate to unsafe levels of asbestos; protective clothing was
provided, which inmate wore on all but two days on the assigned job. Dobranski
v. State, 555 N.Y.S.2d 966 (A.D. 1990).
Placing inmates
in administrative segregation if they refused to work without pay did not
violate the Eighth Amendment and was not involuntary servitude. Mikeska v. Collins,
900 F.2d 833 (5th Cir. 1990).
Claim that work
assignment exceeded inmate's physical capacity stated eighth amendment claim;
claim that handling manure and dead animals violated prisoner's Muslim religion
could also be brought. Franklin v. Lockhart, 890 F.2d 96 (8th Cir. 1989).
Inmate's lawsuit
against requirement that he sign work release agreement or be barred from
program dismissed as frivolous. Coakley v. Murphy, 884 F.2d 1218 (9th Cir.
1989).
Nebraska inmate
had no due process right to prison employment or particular wage rate. Moore v.
Grammer, 442 N.W.2d 861 (Neb. 1989).
Prisoners have
no constitutional right to be paid for prison work; state restrictions on use
of pay requiring forced savings upheld. Rochon v. Louisiana State Penitentiary
Inmate Account, 880 F.2d 845 (5th Cir. 1989).
Federal inmate
fired from prison job for failing to comply with financial responsibility
program requirement entitled to reinstatement and back pay. Prows v. United
States Department of Justice, 704 F.Supp. 272 (D.D.C. 1988).
Prisoner was not
deprived of liberty when transferred to another facility which did not have
courses he needed to finish paralegal training. Dudley v. Shaver, 770 S.W.2d
712 (Mo. App. 1989).
Inmate financial
responsibility plan, requiring use of wages for obligations, did not violate
prisoner rights. James v. Quinlan, 866 F.2d 627 (3rd Cir. 1988).
Inmate did not
have liberty interest in having job best suited to his abilities; refusal to
consent to employment or literacy test warranted discipline. Lee v. Coughlin,
530 N.Y.S.2d 884 (A.D. 1988).
Inmates not
entitled to minimum wages for work done in state prison for private employer.
Young v. Cutter Biological, 694 F.Supp. 651 (D. Ariz. 1988).
Inmates have no
constitutional right to educational or rehabilitative programs; correctional
system may be structured for punishment. Termunde v. Cook, 684 F.Supp. 255 (D.
Utah 1988).
Inmate's
preference for clerical rather than manual labor job did not support claim of
cruel and unusual punishment. Jackson v. O'Leary, 689 F.Supp. 846 (N.D. Ill.
1988).
Permissible to
systematically exclude prisoners convicted of sex crimes from work release
program. Fuller v. Lane, 686 F.Supp. 686 (C.D. Ill 1988).
Requiring
convicted inmate to perform assigned work while appeal is pending does not
violate thirteenth amendment. Plaisance v. Phelps, 845 F.2d 107 (5th Cir.
1988).
Out of state
proxy marriage of inmate serving life sentence void in New York; inmate cannot
participate in "family reunion" program. In Matter of Miner v. N.Y.
State Dept. of Correctional Services, 524 N.Y.S.2d 390 (N.Y. 1987).
Requirement that
prisoners work without pay was not "involuntary servitude." Wendt v.
Lynaugh, 841 F.2d 619 (5th Cir. 1988).
Court rules that
prisoner did not have a right to remain in same wage grade following voluntary
transfer to new institution. Salahuddin v. Coughlin, 674 F.Supp. 1648 (S.D.
N.Y. 1987).
Change in work
assignment did not violate inmate's due process rights, but claim was stated
for order to continue work on unsafe ladder. Gill v. Mooney, 824 F.2d 192 (2d
Cir. 1987).
Court appoints
administrator to design and implement educational programs for female inmates
on a parity with male inmates. Glover v. Johnson, 659 F.Supp. 621 (E.D. Mich.
1987).
Participation in
work release program renders inmate a county employee for purposes of workmen's
compensation. Morales v. W.C.A.B., 230 Cal.Rptr. 575 (App. 1986).
Wages can be
deducted for court costs. Hrbek v. Farrier, 787 F.2d 414 (8th Cir. 1986).
Prisoner has no
right to same rate of pay when transferred. Burkins v. Scully, 485 N.Y.S.2d 89
(A.D. 2 Dept. 1985).
No back pay
unless court action is taken. Johnson v. Smith, 490 N.Y.S.2d 414 (A.D. 1985).
New stature
allows wage deductions for room and board. Turner v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison
Com'rs., 624 F.Supp. 318 (D. Nev. 1985).
Prison ordered
to hire woman for director of education's position in reformatory; security
reasons do not justify hiring "kick-ass tough guys" instead of her.
Ind. Dept. of Correction v. Ind. Civ. Rights, 486 N.E.2d 612 (Ind. App. 1985).
Judgment for
$300,000 for prison teacher's rape during lunch hour reversed. Hayes v. Vessey,
777 F.2d 1149 (6th Cir. 1985).
Court upholds
state's method of handling inmate wages and savings accounts. Cumbey v. State,
699 P.2d 1094 (Okla. 1985).
Sheriff liable
for inmate's back wages when terminated improperly. Smith v. Stoner, 594
F.Supp. 1091 (N.D. Ind. 1984).
Working
prisoners could be charged room and board in "chargeback" program.
Mastrian v. Schoen, 725 F.2d 1164 (8th Cir. 1984).
Prison officials
can withhold maintenance costs from inmate's salary as condition of employment.
Ervin v. Blackwell, 733 F.2d 1282 (8th Cir. 1984).
"Maintenance"
costs deducted as condition to working. Ervin v. Blackwell, 585 F.Supp. 680
(W.D. Mo. 1983).
No liability to
state or officials for juvenile's killing while out of mental hospital on
two-day pass. Sherill v. Wilson, 653 S.W.2d 661 (Mo. 1983).
Inmate convicted
of destruction of property can be placed on work-release program upon the
condition that he make restitution for damages. Davidson v. United States, 467
A.2d 1282 (D.C. App. 1983).
Inmate has no
right to notice or hearing when being removed from one job to another. Watts v.
Morgan, 572 F.Supp. 1385 (N.D. Ill. 1983).
Inmate has no
right to participate in work-release program in Iowa. Johnson v. Stark, 717
F.2d 1550 (8th Cir. 1983).
Even though
prisoner has no right to participate in workrelease program, administrators may
be liable for unequal treatment or discrimination in denial of the benefit.
Tones v. Lane, 568 F.Supp. 1113 (N.D. Ill. 1983).
California statute
created right for inmate that he be afforded due process procedures when denied
work furlough. In Re Head, 195 Cal.Rptr. 593 (App. 1983).
Inmate failed to
meet statutory requirements for work- release. Matter of LeGrand, 466 N.Y.S.2d
943 (App. 1983).
Juvenile inmates
have no legal right to rehabilitative programs. Sanata v. Collazo, 714 F.2d
1172 (1st Cir. 1983).
Requiring
prisoner to work is not involuntary servitude. Omasta v. Wainwright, 696 F.2d
1304 (11th Cir. 1983).
Imposing work
week of 56 hours may constitute cruel and unusual punishment if inmates were
knowingly worked beyond human endurance. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215 (5th Cir.
1983).
No inmate due
process right regarding transfer from one prison job assignment to another.
Anderson v. Hascall, 566 F.Supp. 1492 (D. Minn. 1983).
Inmate has no
right to participate in work release program, but his "equal
treatment" rights may have been violated. Jones v. Lane, 568 F.Supp. 1113
(N.D. Ill. 1983).
Inmate has no constitutionally
protected interest in participating in state established work release program.
Johnson v. Stark, 717 F.2d 1550 (8th Cir. 1983).
Inmate has no
protectible interest in maintaining a specific work assignment. No due process
required prior to removal or transfer to another job. Watts v. Morgan, 572
F.Supp. 1385 (N.D. Ill. 1983).
Inmate
improperly denied credit and compensation for time in prison work program.
Administrators failed to follow law and were not entitled to "good
faith" immunity. Ingenito v. Dept. of Corrections, State of N.J., 568
F.Supp. 946 (D. N.J. 1983).
No liability for
state's failure to have work or rehabilitation programs. Lovell v. Brennan, 566
F Supp. 672 (D. Me. 1983).
No
constitutional obligation to provide rehabilitation program for juvenile
inmates. Santana v. Collazo, 714 F.2d 1172 (1st Cir. 1983).
District court
holds prison policy that disqualifies "medically disabled" from
earning work credits does not violate a New Jersey statute; holds prison
officials have wide discretion in providing work opportunities for inmates.
Rowe v. Fauver, 533 F.Supp. 1239 (D. N.J. 1982).
Inmates not
entitled to minimum wage. Lavigne v. Sara, Inc., 424 So.2d 273 (La. App. 1982).
Prison allowed
to use pesticide for crops; no liability for prisoner injured by parathion
while working in fields. Sampson v. King, 693 F.2d 566 (5th Cir. 1982).
Circuit court
ruled that white inmate cannot be denied kitchen job because of race; district
court erred in dismissing suit. Bentley v. Beck, 625 F.2d 70 (5th Cir. 1980).
Allowance of
furlough a condition of confinement; denial subject to challenge of Section
1983. Wright v. Cuyler, 624 F.2d 455 (3rd Cir. 1980).
Alabama detainer
prevents Tennessee Prisoner from achieving work release status. Bracey v. State
of Tennessee, 616 F.2d 268 (6th Cir. 1980).
Denial of access
to work release because of severity of inmate's crime unconstitutional; good
faith defense applicable. Winsett v. McGinnis, 617 F.2d 996 (3rd Cir. 1980).
Nevada inmates
do not have the right to constitutional review of work-release decisions,
federal court rules. Austin v. Armstrong, 473 F.Supp. 1114 (D. Nev. 1979).
Michigan Federal
Court enjoins unequal rehabilitation programs between male and female inmates;
partial funding of libraries with prison- fund money approved. Glover v.
Johnson, 85 F.R.D. 1 (E.D. Mich. 1979).