AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for
Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Defenses: Eleventh Amendment Immunity
A former Colorado state prisoner, “a near-total quadriplegic,” appealed the grant of summary judgment against his claims of discrimination on the basis of his disability. He claimed that certain decisions and policies of the Colorado Department of Corrections caused him to be excluded from access to the facilities and services available to able-bodied inmates, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act. A federal appeals court concluded that his Title II ADA claim was barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and that he failed to make the required showing of intentional discrimination on the basis of disability under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Therefore, summary judgment for the Department was upheld. Havens v. CDOC, #16-1436, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 20787 (10th Cir.).
A man was sentenced to 18
months of incarceration, with 560 days of credit for time served, covering the
entire incarceration period. At the sentencing hearing, the judge stated that
the defendant “may be supervised . . . if the parole board determines it is
necessary.” The board would make that determination “[b]efore [he is]
released,” and the sheriff’s office was to “process him.” The judge predicted that
the defendant will never be transported.” The sheriff failed to release the
prisoner for a couple of days after sentencing, and by the time the judgment
was filed, the sheriff had processed the prisoner to the state Department of
Corrections, where the time served credit was applied, and he was released. In
a lawsuit against the sheriff in his official capacity for false imprisonment
and violation of Fourteenth Amendment due process, a federal appeals court
upheld dismissal of all claims. While sheriffs in Ohio are generally regarded
as county policymakers, state law required him to transport the prisoner to the
Department. As he acted as an arm of the state in doing so, he was entitled to
Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from being sued in federal court. Jones
v. Hamilton Cty. Sheriff. #16-3259, 838 F.3d 782 (6th Cir. 2016).
A
Christian pretrial detainee alleged that he made a religious vow to abstain
from eating meat, animal fats, or gelatin. He also refuses to eat any part of a
meal that contains those items or to trade those items for acceptable food. He
sued a deputy sheriff in his official capacity for refusing to agree to supply
him with vegetarian meals. A federal appeals court found that the sovereign
immunity of the state of Georgia from damages under the Eleventh Amendment
extended to the deputy's denial of his dietary request. The county sheriff
derived his powers from the state under Georgia law and was largely independent
of the county, and the providing of food to county jail inmates was a state
function under a Georgia statute. The deputy's functions were derived from the
sheriff, so his performance as also a state function. Lake v. Skelton,
#15-13124, 840 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2016).
A 59-year-old
African-American man civilly committed as a sexually violent predator sued
state employees, claiming that he was improperly denied certain treatments for
Hepatitis C. Specifically, he claimed that a doctor used an explicitly racial
classification to deny him interferon and ribavirin treatment since such
treatment had been largely unsuccessful on African-American males. In addition,
after reviewing the plaintiff's biopsy results, the doctor told him that his
Hepatitis C had not progressed to a level that would justify the harsh side effects
of the requested treatment. Several years later, the plaintiff was placed on
interferon and ribavirin, and the treatment was ultimately unsuccessful.
Federal civil rights claims against the defendants in their individual
capacities were not barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, since that immunity
only extends to claims against the state, such as claims against the defendants
in their official capacities. But it was not clearly established that the use
of race-related success-of-treatment data as a factor in a medical treatment
decision would be unconstitutional, so the doctor was entitled to qualified
immunity. Mitchell v. State of Washington, #13-36217, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 4648
(9th Cir.).
A county sheriff was not entitled to Eleventh
Amendment sovereign immunity from a jail prisoner's claim under Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, 2 U.S.C. 12132, prohibiting disability
discrimination in the providing of government services and programs. The
statute unambiguously abrogates such immunity. While incarcerated, the
plaintiff was injured, and the medical staff placed him in a special cell where
he claimed that he enjoyed fewer privileges than other inmates. Black v.
Wigington, #15-10848, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 1057 (11th Cir.).
An Oregon prisoner claimed that his due process
rights were violated when he was housed in an Intensive Management Unit (IMU)
for twenty-seven months without periodic, meaningful review of his status.
While the court agreed that the alleged conditions of confinement in the IMU
implicated a protected liberty interest, claims against the state department of
corrections and officials in their official capacities for damages were barred
by Eleventh Amendment immunity, while claims against individuals in their
individual capacities were barred by qualified immunity, as the right asserted
was not clearly established at the time. Summary judgment on a claim for
declaratory judgment was also properly granted when the plaintiff had
subsequently been released from the IMU and there was nothing to indicate that
he was likely to be subjected to the same conditions again. Brown v. Oregon
Dept. of Corr., #11-35628, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 8022 (9th Cir.).
Because failure to grow a beard was considered a
sin equivalent in severity to eating pork for a Muslim inmate, his lawsuit over
a policy prohibiting him from growing a one-eighth inch beard stated a claim
for violation of his right to religious freedom. Prison officials failed to
adequately explain how their policy was justified by health or security
concerns, or that they used the least restrictive means of satisfying a
compelling governmental interest. Couch v. Jabe, #11-6560, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis
9602 (4th Cir.).
A prisoner who belongs to the Ahlus Sunnati Wal
Jama'ah faith argued that none of the services two prisons offered for three
varieties of Islam (Nation of Islam, Moorish Science Temple, and Sunni) were
sufficient to meet his religious needs. A federal appeals court found that
individual state prison officials, since they were not personally the grant
"recipients" of federal funds, could not be held individually liable
under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) of
2000, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000cc et seq. That statute was passed under the spending
power given to Congress by the Constitution. As to a claim under the First
Amendment, it was not clearly established that the providing of Sunni religious
services was inadequate for prisoners of his faith. Sharp v. Johnson, #08–2174,
2012 U.S. App. Lexis 2560 (3rd Cir.).
A Missouri prisoner sought damages for
false imprisonment, claiming that he remained incarcerated for fourteen months
after the end of his sentence, because prison officials failed to credit him
for time served prior to sentencing, contrary to the court's order. The state
Department of Corrections was immune from a claim for damages under the
Eleventh Amendment. The trial court acted erroneously, however, in dismissing
the former prisoner's damage claims against individuals on the basis that his
proper remedy was a habeas petition. He was not seeking release from custody,
the appeals court noted, but compensation for prior unlawful confinement.
Harris v. McSwain; #11-1320, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 9527 (Unpub. 8th Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that prison officials deprived him
of due process in connection with a disciplinary hearing concerning his killing
of another inmate. Official capacity claims were barred by the Eleventh
Amendment. Individual capacity claims against a prison investigator assigned to
help him were also rejected on appeal. The prisoner claimed that the
investigator, to whom he had given written interrogatories for several
witnesses, had violated his due process rights by delaying his access to the
responses until after the disciplinary hearing. The appeals court found that
the minimal due process available for a disciplinary hearing does not include
access to interrogatory responses. Additionally, the prisoner had no
due-process right to confront or cross-examine witnesses, "and was not
even entitled to a hearing investigator." Thompson v. Stapleton, #09-1504,
2010 U.S. App. Lexis 25702 (Unpub. 6th 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.).
A prisoner's cellmate attacked and killed him on
the first night they were housed together. His estate filed a federal civil
rights lawsuit over the alleged failure to protect him against the assault. No
evidence was presented that would indicate that the individual defendants had
any knowledge of the risk to the prisoner that would indicate that they acted
with deliberate indifference. Additionally, as to money damage claims against
state officials in their official capacities, the Texas Tort Claims Act did not
waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal court. Walker v. Livingston,
#09-20508, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 12391 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
Even if there was little need for the use of
force against the prisoner, and little threat to the safety of other inmates or
staff members, since the prisoner was in his cell at the time, he failed to
show a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. The officer only struck him
once and merely inflamed an old injury, causing the prisoner's finger to become
swollen. The minor amount of force used, the minor resulting injury, and a
finding that the officer did not act in a sadistic or malicious manner
supported the dismissal of individual capacity claims against the officer for
excessive use of force. The court also rejected the argument that official
capacity claims, which were barred by the Eleventh Amendment, could be pursued
because of the state of Pennsylvania's waiver of sovereign immunity for claims
involving state property. The court did not agree with the prisoner's argument
that inmates such as himself were state property, as the Thirteenth Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution prohibits human beings from being property. Matthews
v. Villella, #4:08-CV-0964, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 8858 (M.D. Pa.).
A medical service that provided care to prisoners
failed to show that it was an arm of the state of Delaware for purposes of
asserting Eleventh Amendment immunity from a lawsuit for damages arising out of
the successful suicide of a prisoner with psychiatric problems after he was
removed from suicide watch and placed on a less restrictive watch status. The
medical service was a corporate entity, was not exempt from state taxation, and
there was no showing that a judgment against it would be paid out of state
funds. The defendant also failed to show that it was entitled to state law tort
immunity. Lamb v. Taylor, #08-324, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 26853 (D. Del.).
A prisoner could proceed with his claims that a
captain slammed his head and face into a concrete sidewalk, rendering him
unconscious. If the prisoner's version of the incident were believed, it
established the excessive use of force. On claims against the captain in his
official capacity and against the correctional center, the defendants were
entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity because these were essentially claims
against the State of Louisiana. Cain v. White, #08-1015, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis
23322 (W.D. La.).
State prison officials sued in their individual
capacities were entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. The prisoner also
failed to show that three defendants did anything other than deny a grievance,
which did not suffice to show personal participation in the alleged violation
of his rights. Supervisory officials could not be held liable for problems with
the inmate's medical treatment solely on the basis of knowledge of his medical
grievances and history. Preble v. Milyard, Civil Action No. 07-cv-01361, 2008
U.S. District Lexis 81316 (D. Colo.).
The state of Louisiana was immune, under the
Eleventh Amendment, from a prisoner's lawsuit claiming that his exposure to
occasional second-hand smoke while housed in a non-smoking dormitory aggravated
his bronchitis, causing him to gasp for breath and suffer nausea. Evidence also
showed that violators of the dormitory's non-smoking policy were disciplined, and
that the plaintiff's "sporadic" exposure to second-hand smoke did not
rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation. Robinson v. Louisiana,
Civil Action No. 05-1016, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 88604 (M.D. La.).
Prisoner allegedly denied non-mandatory medicine
for arthritis during a jail lockdown failed to show that individual defendants
acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, so that
individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Claims against state
agencies were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. Mayes v. Issac, No.
07-51013, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 20555 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
Federal magistrate finds that Congress, in
passing the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42
U.S.C. Sec. 2000cc, did not unequivocally waive state immunity from suits for
damages, so that an inmate's claim for damages against an official in his
official capacity was barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, and a claim for
money damages was not available under the Act against a prison official in his
individual capacity. On the prisoner's claim for alleged violation of his First
Amendment rights to religious freedom by denying his request to purchase an
ankh cross, however, the magistrate found that 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e did not bar
punitive damages because punitive damages are not for mental or emotional
injury. Additionally, even if he were seeking damages for mental or emotional
injury, those damages would potentially be recoverable because Sec. 1997e does
not apply to First Amendment claims. Porter v. Caruso, No. 1:05-CV-562, 2008
U.S. Dist. Lexis 64347 (W.D. Mich.).
Prisoner could not seek to impose civil liability
on South Carolina correctional officials in their official capacities, as such
claims were essential claims for money damages against the state. The prisoner
could continue to pursue individual capacity claims against the defendants for
alleged excessive use of force in the course of a search of the prisoner's
cell. Frost v. Ozmint, No. 8:07-83, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 15784 (D.S.C.).
A prisoner with a hearing impairment could not
recover damages for any alleged emotional injury he suffered from the failure
of a Nebraska prison to provide him with visual alarms and assistive
communication devices in the segregation unit he was housed in, because he did
not assert any claim for physical injuries are required by 42 U.S.C. Sec.
1997e(e). His claims for damages against the State of Nebraska for disability
discrimination were further barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The prisoner
could, however, amend his complaint to seek injunctive or other equitable
relief. If he did not do so, his lawsuit would be dismissed. Stainbrook v.
Houston, No. 4:07CV3196, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 81195 (D. Neb.).
A Maine state prison, as an agency of the state,
could not be sued for damages under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 for alleged use of
excessive force against a prisoner, because of Eleventh Amendment Immunity, and
the fact that the state is not a "person" subject to such liability.
To the extent that there could arguably be a state law claim against the
prison, there was no showing that the state had waived its 11th Amendment
immunity from a suit in federal court. Additionally, the prison could not be
held vicariously liable under federal law for the actions of a prison officer
on the basis that it was his employer. Warren v. Maine State Prison, No.
CV-07-24, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 42982 (D. Maine).
The use of a Taser® against a prisoner is not, by
itself, a violation of constitutional rights when it is used to obtain his
obedience, and the plaintiff prisoner did not prove that its use against him
was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances. A correctional officer
was therefore entitled to qualified immunity on the prisoner's claims against
him individually. The prisoner had just suffered minor injuries during an
altercation with officers while receiving his medication. He subsequently
refused to obey orders to sit on his bunk while officers re-entered his cell to
retrieve some dropped keys, and the Taser® was used against him to compel his
compliance, after which the keys were retrieved, and a nurse entered the cell
to provide medical assistance. Claims against the officer in his official
capacity were barred by the Eleventh Amendment, as the state of Kansas had not
waived its immunity against federal civil rights lawsuits for damages under the
general language of a state statute, Kan. Stat. Ann. Sec. 19-811. Hunter v.
Young, No. 06-3371, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 13886 (10th Cir.).
Florida State Department of Corrections was
entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity against prisoner's claim that he was
provided with inadequate medical care and treatment. Claims against a doctor
failed to show deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, as even
the inmate admitted that he was provided with a special relief cream for his
arthritis when he complained of pain, along with anti-inflammatory medication
and an order barring him from standing for longer than ten minutes. He also did
not even claim that these specific treatments failed to help him, and only
complained that he was denied special boots, which he claimed were needed for
his arthritis. Leonard v. Dept. of Corrections, State of Florida, No. 06-11223,
2007 U.S. App. Lexis 9691 (11th Cir.).
State of Wisconsin was entitled to Eleventh
Amendment immunity in federal court against a lawsuit by a county seeking to
recover expenses that occurred while jailing a fugitive awaiting extradition.
The state never made an express waiver of its immunity to suit in federal suit
which would apply in these circumstances. Charles County v. State of Wisconsin,
No. 05-2808, 447 F.3d 1055 (8th Cir. 2006) [N/R]
Los Angeles County Sheriff, in establishing
policies concerning the assignment of detainees at the jail was carrying out
state law enforcement functions rather than acting as a county policymaker, and
the county therefore could not be held liable for injuries a detainee allegedly
suffered because he was placed in close proximity to other prisoners who
threatened and assaulted him. The sheriff was entitled to Eleventh Amendment
immunity. Bougere v. County of Los Angeles, No. B183930 2006 Cal. App. Lexis
1065, 141 Cal. App. 4th 237 (Cal. 2d App. Dist. 2006) [2006 JB Sep]
The waiver of sovereign immunity by Pennsylvania under
state law for dangerous conditions on governmental property did not apply to a
Pennsylvania prisoner's lawsuit against the state in federal court asserting a
state law negligence claim for injuries he allegedly suffered when his Achilles
tendon was torn by a pipe protruding from his cell floor. The statute
containing the waiver itself said that it did not waive the state's Eleventh
Amendment immunity, preventing it from being sued for damages in federal court.
Prisoner also failed to show that prison officials acted with deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs following his injuries, as required
for a federal civil rights claim. Brooks v. Beard, No. 05-3196, 167 Fed. Appx.
923 (3rd Cir. 2006). [N/R]
U.S. Supreme Court rules that states and state
agencies can be sued for damages for disability discrimination under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to the extent that a disabled prisoner
asserts a claim for conduct that actually violates constitutional rights under
the 14th Amendment. U.S. v. Georgia, No. 04-1203, 04-1236 126 S. Ct. 877
(2006). [2006 JB Mar]
State correctional official sued in her official
capacity was immune under the Eleventh Amendment from claims for money damages
for alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 12132, but the State of Michigan waived any Eleventh Amendment immunity
from disability discrimination damage claims under the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 794, when it accepted federal funds for its corrections
department. Deaf inmate stated a possible claim for disability discrimination
by alleging that he was denied access to a device which would let him
communicate by telephone on a basis comparableto the telephone access given to
hearing inmates. Tanney v. Boles, No. 04-71260, 400 F. Supp. 2d 1027 (E.D.
Mich. 2005). [N/R]
State correctional agencies were immune from a
federal civil rights lawsuit for damages under the Eleventh Amendment as they
are not "persons" for purposes of claims under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.
Plaintiff prisoner also failed to show that individual correctional officers he
sued were individually liable for alleged violations of his rights, since there
was no proof that the claimed denial of access to the court resulted in any
prejudice to a particular non-frivolous legal claim, and an officer who opened
his legal mail did so solely for the purpose of looking for contraband and did
so in the prisoner's presence. Kelley v. DiPaola, No. CIV.A.04-11192, 379 F.
Supp. 2d 96 (D. Mass. 2005). [N/R]
Blind inmate's disability discrimination damage
claims against the State of New Jersey, which did not involve a denial of
access to the courts, but rather denial of talking books, a talking watch, and
a walking cane, were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Cochran v. Pinchak, No.
02-1047, 401 F.3d 184 (3d Cir. 2005). [2005 JB Jun]
Muslim prisoner's federal civil rights lawsuit
against state correctional authorities in their official capacity, claiming
that they violated his right to religious freedom and equal protection of law
by failing to provide him with ritually slaughtered meat while providing kosher
meals to Jewish inmates was barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. His lawsuit against
the defendants in their official capacity was, in essence, a lawsuit against
the State itself, and the State of Kansas had not waived its Eleventh Amendment
immunity. The prisoner failed to sue the defendants, the Secretary of the state
Department of Corrections, and the warden, in their individual capacities.
Johnson v. Simmons, No. CIV.A.02-3020, 338 F. Supp. 2d 1241 (D. Kan. 2004).
[N/R]
A county juvenile training facility was not
entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity against liability in a
federal civil rights lawsuit concerning the alleged failure to adequately train
employees and failure to investigate and prevent sexual abuse committed against
one juvenile resident by another. The facility was not an arm of the state,
because the county rather than the state would be responsible for paying any
damage award against the facility, even though the facility was built pursuant
to a state statutory scheme concerning juveniles found to be delinquent,
dependent, abused, unruly or neglected, as well as juvenile traffic offenders.
S.J. v. Hamilton County, Ohio, No. 02-3852, 374 F.3d 416 (6th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Federal trial court reinstates prisoner's
disability discrimination case against prison officials under the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq. claiming that his
rights were violated when he was denied the services of an aide to take him to
the law library, school, recreation and the barbershop. The prisoner uses a
wheelchair because of severe osteoarthritis in his hips, and the trial court
originally dismissed the ADA claim on the basis of them being barred by
sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment because his claim was against
state officials. The claim was reinstated on the basis of Tennessee v. Lane,
#02-1667, 124 S. Ct. 1978 (2004), finding that Congress expressed its intent to
abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity unequivocally when it wrote the ADA and
that it had the power to enact at least that portion of it that applies to
cases implicating the fundamental right of access to the courts. Flakes v.
Frank, 322 F. Supp. 2d 981 (W.D. Wis. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner's negligence claims against state prison
officials in their official capacity in federal court seeking money damages but
not injunctive relief were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The enactment of
the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, M.G.L.A. ch. 258 Sec. 1 et seq., did not
waive the state's Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal court. Tort Claims
Act's provisions barred negligence claims against correctional officials in
their individual capacities. Caisse v. Dubois, No. 3-1176, 346 F.3d 313 (1st
Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Iowa State Tort Claims Act, I.C.A. Sec. 669.4,
providing a limited waiver of sovereign immunity to lawsuits brought in state
courts, did not expressly waive Eleventh Amendment immunity of the state and
state agencies for purposes of detainee's suit against the state mental
hospital, among other defendants, in federal court. Tinius v. Carroll County
Sheriff Department, 255 F. Supp. 2d 971 (N.D. Iowa 2003). [N/R]
Eleventh Amendment immunity barred prisoner's
claims against state probation board and prisons, as Pennsylvania did not waive
its immunity for purposes of federal civil rights lawsuits, Congress did not
abrogate state immunity in general, and plaintiff did not seek relief against
state officers in their individual capacities. Berthesi v. Pennsylvania Board
of Probation, 246 F. Supp. 2d 434 (E.D. Pa. 2003). [N/R]
Georgia sheriffs held to be an "arm of the
State" in establishing "use-of-force" policy for county jails,
and therefore entitled, in their official capacity, to Eleventh Amendment
immunity from liability. Sheriff was not subject to federal civil rights
lawsuit for damages for alleged assault on a detainee by deputy and a police
officer after the arresting officer stated that the prisoner had previously
struck him. Manders v. Lee, #01-13606, 338 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2003).
[2003 JB Oct]
Recipients of collect calls from Ohio inmates
could pursue their claim against counties and telecommunications providers that
rates were so unreasonably high as to violate their equal protection right to
fundamental freedom of speech and association. Claims against the State of Ohio
were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, and anti-trust and
telecommunications statute claims were not viable. McGuire v. Ameritech
Services, Inc., 253 F. Supp. 2d 988 (S.D. Ohio 2003). [2003 JB Aug]
New York State Department of Corrections (DOCS)
was immune under the Eleventh Amendment from a state prisoner's federal civil
rights lawsuit challenging prison conditions. Claims against prison
superintendent and two guards were also dismissed because of failure to
prisoner to exhaust available administrative remedies, as required by the
Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). Miller v. New York State
Department of Corrections, 217 F. Supp. 2d 391 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).[N/R]
District of Columbia correctional officials could
not assert an Eleventh Amendment immunity defense in a federal civil rights
claim filed against them in their official capacity by a prisoner. Eleventh
Amendment immunity only applies to states, and the District of Columbia is not
a state. Jones v. Barry, #01-2092, 33 Fed. Appx. 967 (10th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Federal appeals court rules that Congress did not
properly abrogate states' Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in enacting
disability discrimination statutes concerning public services. Eleventh
Amendment immunity barred mentally ill prisoners' class action lawsuit against
Louisiana state correctional department for purported violations of the
Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and Rehabilitation Act. Reickenbacker v.
Foster, #00-31121, 274 F.3d 974 (5th Cir. 2001). [2002 JB May]
Connecticut state Department of Corrections was
immune from a state prisoner's federal civil rights lawsuit for alleged
violation of his Eighth Amendment right to be free from deliberate indifference
to his medical needs, but a state statute, C.G.S.A. Sec. 4-165, that provides
personal immunity for state employees could not be used to shield them from
claims for violation of federal law. Torrence v. Pelkey, 164 F. Supp. 2d 264
(D. Conn. 2001). [N/R]
Inmate's claims that state department of
corrections violated state labor laws by failing to compensate inmates
adequately for work assignments and refusal to allow them to bargain
collectively were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, as were his claim that
his rights were violated when he was locked in his cell for twenty days under
keep-lock conditions when ammunition was found in several areas of the prison
accessible to inmates. Bryant v. N.Y. State Department of Correction Services,
146 F. Supp. 2d 422 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). [N/R]
Prisoner failed to state a claim against the
State of Mississippi under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 for money damages as states and
state agencies are not "persons" subject to such liability under the
statute. Lofton v. United States, #2000-CP-00671-SCT, 785 So. 2d 287 (Miss.
2001). [N/R]
297:132 Federal appeals court rules that Los
Angeles County sheriff's department, in checking records to determine when
prisoners are to be released, acts on behalf of the county whose jails it
administers, and not as an "arm of the state," and therefore is not
entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity in lawsuit by former prisoners claiming
that they were improperly detained for longer time periods. Streit v. County of
Los Angeles, #99-55897, 236 F.3d 552 (9th Cir. 2001).
291:35 U.S. Supreme Court rules that Congress
exceeded its authority by attempting to make employment discrimination
provisions of Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) applicable to state
government; employees can no longer sue states under this federal statute for
money damages for disability discrimination. Board of Trustees of the
University of Alabama v. Garrett, #99-1240, 531 U.S. 356 (2001).
265:4 State was not entitled to Eleventh
Amendment immunity from suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),
but African-American employees suffering from skin condition requiring them to
wear beards did not have a disability for purposes of ADA. Seaborn v. State of
Fla. Dept. of Corrections, #97-2855, 143 F.3d 1405 (11th Cir. 1998).
253:3 Correctional officer liable for $175,000
for shooting prisoner to break up altercation and prison doctor liable for
$50,000 for medical malpractice for treatment of prisoner's wounds; fact that
state of California would indemnify defendants for damages did not render
lawsuit one against the state, so defendants were not entitled to Eleventh
Amendment immunity in federal court. Ashker v. Calif. Depart. of Corrections,
112 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 1997).
[N/R] Eleventh Amendment barred claims for money
damages in federal court against state of Indiana and its Department of
Corrections. Lembach v. State of Indiana, 987 F.Supp. 1095 (N.D. Ind. 1997).
[N/R] Eleventh Amendment barred prisoner's damage
claims against state prison officials in their official capacity, but not his
claims for injunctive relief. Ganther v. Ingle, 75 F.3d 207 (5th Cir. 1996).
230:26 Lawsuit against prison officials and
guards by prisoner allegedly raped by HIV positive cellmate should not have
been dismissed as frivolous, despite his failure to specify required mental
state of individuals or name of guard who allegedly stood by and failed to
intervene during rape. Billman v. Indiana Dept. of Corrections, 56 F.3d 785
(7th Cir. 1995).
230:25 Seizure and loss or destruction of
prisoner's Koran, Islamic prayer shawl, and other religious items did not
violate his right to exercise his religion; prison had valid regulation
allowing only prisoners who designated themselves a member of a religious group
to possess such items, and prisoner did not do so.Caffey v. Johnson, 883
F.Supp. 128 (E.D. Tex. 1995).
229:8 In suit over death of inmate allegedly shot
to death by correctional officer, Eleventh Amendment barred state law damage
claims from being asserted by plaintiffs in federal court when damages, if awarded,
would ultimately be paid by state. Gaston v. Colio, 883 F.Supp. 508 (S.D. Cal.
1995).
States and state agencies or "entities"
may immediately appeal trial court denials of Eleventh Amendment immunity
claims; Eleventh Amendment provides not only a defense to liability, but an
immunity to suit, including the burdens of discovery and trial. Puerto Rico
Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 113 S.Ct. 684 (1993).
Federal appeals court holds that civil rights
claims brought against a state or state agency directly under Sec. 1 of the
Fourteenth Amendment are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. Santiago v. NYS
Dept. of Correctional Services, 945 F.2d 25 (2nd Cir. 1991).
Prison warden sued in his individual capacity for
alleged violation of inmate's right to medical treatment was not entitled to
Eleventh Amendment immunity, even if he was acting in his official capacity
when the alleged incident occurred. Harrington v. Grayson, 764 F.Supp. 464
(E.D. Mich. 1991).