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: Procedural
A Kansas state inmate filed a federal civil rights lawsuit that named eleven prison employees as defendants and a variety of violations of his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. He later amended his complaint without seeking leave to do so, again asserting various violations of his constitutional rights and adding nine more defendants. The district judge screened that complaint, and after setting forth the claims, he decided they were “not linked by a common question of law or fact, involved different defendants, for a total of 20. The claims, the appeals court found, “arose from different transactions.” The appeals court concluded that the plaintiff “may not present all of the claims in a single action” and instructed him to decide which claims he wished to pursue and file a second amended complaint accordingly. The second amended complaint the named 38 defendants and alleged myriad violations of his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Attached to the complaint were over 450 pages of exhibits. The complaint fell far short of containing “a short and plain statement” of the claims showing entitlement to relief, the court ruled, nor did it provide any citations to the exhibits to aid any court in navigating them. The trial court again screened the complaint and concluded “many of [the] claims lack support or substance, and much of the material submitted as exhibits appears to be irrelevant and disorganized.” At the end, the trial judge identified two claims meriting discussion: (1) denial of hygiene supplies; and (2) denial of access to the courts. Both failed to state a claim for relief, however. The trial court then dismissed the entire complaint with prejudice, but did not first explicitly address whether amendment of the complaint would be futile, even though the complaint requested leave to amend if necessary to cure any deficiencies. Judgment was entered the same day. He filed a motion to alter or amend judgment, which the judge denied. After review, the appeals reversed dismissal with prejudice of one of the plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against prison officials regarding their alleged failure to protect him from a beating, but upheld dismissal of the second amended complaint in all other respects. Requena v. Roberts, #17-3040, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 17031 (10th Cir.).
Under Missouri law, a county
sheriff's department and the medical department of the sheriff's department
were merely components of the county and could not be separately sued. Further,
a local government entity without the capacity to be sued under state law
cannot be sued in federal court. Catlett v. Jefferson County, 299 F. Supp. 2d
967 (E.D. Mo. 2004). [N/R]
County prison officials whose lawyer did not file
a response to inmate's claims concerning alleged deprivation of his medication
were entitled to set aside the default against them when the prisoner did not
show that doing so would result in any prejudice, or that the lawyer's failure
was willful or in bad faith. The lawyer did act to set aside the default within
seven days and the defendant officials appeared to have asserted meritorious
affirmative defenses. Jackson v. Delaware County, 211 F.R.D. 282 (E.D. Pa.
2002). [N/R]
When
trial court's order dismissed most of prisoner's claims against county
employees for allegedly keeping him incarcerated beyond his sentence, but
failed to dispose of his claims against one employee, the order was not a final
judgment and therefore was not yet appealable by the prisoner. Eubanks v.
McCollum, #2000758, 828 So. 2nd 935 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002).[N/R]
Prior felony conviction may be used to
impeach witnesses in federal civil lawsuits without a balancing of
"prejudicial effect". Green v. Bock Laundry Machine Co., 109 S.Ct.
1981 (1989).
Court again attempts to clarify limitations
period for civil rights actions. Owens v. Okure, 109 S.Ct. 573, 44 CrL 3049
(January 10, 1989).
Court's dismissal of inmate's civil rights claim,
without prejudice to filing amended complaint, was not appealable. Hatch v.
Lane, 854 F.2d 981 (7th Cir. 1988).