AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for
Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Freedom of Information
A California county refused in part to
agree to release information pursuant to an ACLU public records request for invoices specifying the amounts that the county had been billed by
law firms in several different lawsuits claiming excessive force against jail
inmates. It withheld invoices in pending cases on the basis of attorney-client
privilege. The California Supreme Court ruled that while attorney-client
privilege doesn’t categorically shield all attorney billing invoices from
public records disclosure, invoices in active and pending legal matters are
confidential under the privilege. Disclosure of such invoices could reveal
legal strategy. Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, #5S226645, 2016 Cal.
Lexis 9629.
A former federal
prisoner sued the Bureau of Prisons under the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, seeking certain records. A federal appeals court held that
the plaintiff was not required to plead in his complaint that he had exhausted
available administrative remedies before filing suit. While such exhaustion is
required, failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense that must be raised by
the defendant, not a pleading requirement. Moon v. Federal Bureau of Prisons,
#15-3751, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 7674 (8th Cir.).
The ACLU sued the
director of the Missouri Department of Corrections, claiming that a state
statute prohibiting the disclosure of the identity of persons who participated
in executions was unconstitutional. It arguably chilled the free speech of the
ACLU as to the dissemination of information contained in documents they
obtained under a state statute. The director was immune from liability, however,
as he did not have the power to enforce the statute barring the disclosure,
only private litigants who filed lawsuits for damages for wrongful disclosure
could take action to enforce it. Balogh v. Lombardi, 14-3603, 2016 U.S. App.
Lexis 4533 (5th Cir.).
An Arkansas prisoner claimed that a state freedom
of information law violated due process and equal protection by only allowing
incarcerated felons such as himself to request public records through an
attorney. Based on that restriction, a police department employee denied his
request for information concerning a person he had assaulted. A federal appeals
court rejected the equal protection claim, finding the restriction rationally
related to conserving government resources and to preventing the unlawful use
of the information to harass or threaten a witness or victim, both legitimate
governmental purposes. The due process claim was rejected since the prisoner
had not shown that he would suffer any actual injury as a result of the denial
of the request. Holt v. Howard, #14-3064, 806 F.3d 1129 (8th Cir. 2015).
In a case concerning compliance reports about
improving conditions in two correctional facilities under a settlement
agreement between the U.S. government and a New York County, the reports were
sealed from public disclosure. The New York ACLU intervened in the case,
seeking to have the reports unsealed. A federal appeals court ruled that a
fundamental right of the public under the First Amendment to have access to
judicial documents was wrongly denied by the sealing of the reports, which were
ordered unsealed. United States v. Erie County, #13-3653, 763 F.3d 235 (2nd
Cir. 2014).
Two Pennsylvania newspapers sued seeking expanded
access to prisoner executions. They asserted that various restrictions on
access imposed by correctional officials violated the First Amendment right to
report on matters of public interest. A settlement was reached allowing
witnesses, such as reporters, to see and hear inside the execution chamber from
the moment the prisoner enters until the time he or she is declared dead. The
settlement serves the right of officials to turn off the sound system if the
inmate attempts to make malicious or threatening remarks aimed at the
witnesses. The Philadelphia Inquirer v. Wetzel, #12-cv-01817, U.S. Dist Ct.
(M.D. Pa. Oct. 18, 2013).
An intermediate California appeals court found that a
trial court erred in ordering a prison warden to either disclose unredacted
copies of information in a prisoner's file or else not rely on the information
in opposing the prisoner's habeas corpus petition. The information involved was
conditionally privileged and came from other prisoners who served as
confidential informants. The disclosure of their identities would necessarily
endanger their lives. Ochoa v. Superior Court, #H036970, 2011 Cal. App. Lexis
1290 (Cal. App.).
A Florida appeals court held that recordings of
inmates' phone calls from jail to their family members and other third parties
were not public records subject to disclosure to the media. While monitoring of
the calls for security purposes was related to official business of the
sheriff's office, maintaining recordings of purely personal conversations was
not. Bent v. State of Florida, 46 So. 3d 1047 (Fla. App. 4th Dist. 2011).
A newspaper reporting on prisoner legal
controversies sought the disclosure, under the federal Freedom of Information
Act, of a video showing the aftermath of a prison murder and autopsy photos of
the victim, among other materials. A federal appeals court upheld the
withholding of some of the material sought, as the video and photos, if
disclosed, would amount to an unjustified invasion of the privacy of the murder
victim's family. Prison Legal News v. Exec. Offc. for U.S. Attys., #09-1511, 2011
U.S. App. Lexis 499 (10th Cir.).
A news organization submitted a Freedom of Information
Act request seeking information concerning alleged detainee abuse at the
Guantanamo Navy Base in Cuba by military personnel or fellow detainees. A
federal appeals court ruled that a privacy exemption to the Act barred the
disclosure of the detainees' names and other identifying information, as well
as the disclosure of the names and addresses of their family members.
Associated Press v. U.S. Dept. of Defense, Docket No. 06-5352-cv, 2009 U.S.
App. Lexis 18 (2nd Cir.).
Federal appeals court rejects prisoner's claim
that excluding prisoners from using the Virginia Freedom of Information Act to
request public records violated equal protection and due process of law as
protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiff failed to show that the
classification excluding prisoners from the application of the statute was not
rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Nothing more needed to be
shown by the defendants, since the classification applied did not violate a
fundamental right and was not based on a suspect classification, such as race.
Additionally, there was no showing that the denial of the plaintiff's freedom
of information requested obstructed him from filing a lawsuit, so there was no
viable claim for denial of his First Amendment right of access to the courts.
Giarratano v. Johnson, No. 06-7890, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 6144 (4th Cir.).
While the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) produced a
two-page incident report requested by the prisoner under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552, it refused to either deny or confirm
the existence of disciplinary records regarding a former prison staff member,
contending that they were excluded from disclosure because of an exemption in
the statute for the disclosure of records compiled for law enforcement
purposes. The court ordered further proceedings however, as a declaration
concerning such records did not demonstrate the circumstances under which they
may have been compiled. Coleman v. Lappin, No. 06-2255, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis
15421 (D.D.C.).
A prisoner filed a request under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552 for the release of all
documents concerning a psychological examination of him by a Bureau of Prisons
(BOP) staff psychologist. The court ruled that certain test materials,
including the test protocol and extended score report were not subject to
disclosure, based on the test publisher's objection that their disclosure would
compromise the validity of the test and reveal trade secrets. The handwritten
notes of the psychologist and other documents, such as a summary report,
however, were subject to disclosure. Ruston v. Dept. of Justice, Civil Action
No.: 06-0224, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 83009 (D.D.C.).
Despite a prisoner's claim that more than 500
documents he had previously supplied to the Bureau of Prisons were omitted from
the documents released in response to his Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C.
Sec. 552, request, a federal trial court ruled that the Bureau, which had then
released an additional 123 pages of records, and found no additional responsive
materials, satisfied the court that it had conducted a reasonable search for
the purpose of finding all available records. The Defendant agency was
therefore entitled to summary judgment in the prisoner's lawsuit. Toolasprashad
v. Bureau of Prisons, Civil Action No. 06-1187, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 6542
(D.D.C.). [N/R]
Trial court improperly granted summary judgment
for the Bureau of Prisons in a prisoner's lawsuit alleging that it violated his
rights under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552(a)(3)(B)
by providing him with requested BOP documents in paper form rather than in an
electronic format because of prison rules against inmate access to or
possession of electronic media. A federal appeals court noted that the statute
itself, as amended, requires federal agencies to provide, so far as possible,
material in the format requested. At the same time, the issue of whether the
BOP could apply its policy barring inmate access to electronic media to
materials provided under the FOIA was found to be not properly before the
court, leaving that issue to future proceedings. Sample v. Bureau of Prisons,
No. 05-5038, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 27242 (D.C. Cir.). [N/R]
Prisoner's lawsuit asserting claims under the
Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, and the Fifth Amendment's due
process clause over Bureau of Prisons records concerning him was properly
dismissed. The prisoner objected to the Bureau maintaining, in his files, three
pre-sentence reports prepared by the U.S. Probation Office, which he claimed
were used to his detriment in making prisoner security and programmatic
decisions and in determining his eligibility for parole. The BOP, under 28
C.F.R. Sec. 16.97(j) exempted its inmate Central Record System from the
accuracy provisions of the Privacy Act, and the Bureau also provided a
reasonable explanation for its refusal to make the corrections that the
prisoner requested, on the basis that information showed that the information
was accurate. Martinez v. Bureau of Prisons, No. 04-5343, 444 F.3d 620 (D.C.
Cir. 2006). [N/R]
Prison records requested by inmate under New York
Freedom of Information Law, relating to an investigation of his claim that a
correctional officer sexually assaulted him, were not subject to disclosure
based on an exemption in the law for information that could endanger a person's
life or safety, based on court's review of the documents at issue. John H. v.
Goord, 809 N.Y.S.2d 682 (A.D. 3rd Dept. 2006). [N/R]
Wisconsin prisoner was not entitled under state
law to access to some records he had requested from a prison concerning a
disciplinary incident in which he had been involved, and which had previously
become the subject of litigation against the state Department of Corrections
(DOC). Correctional officials had properly determined that turning over the
withheld records could endanger other prisoners or prison staff and could
compromise the inmate's rehabilitation. Portions of the withheld records
constituted, or reference gang related literature, the officials stated, which
was contraband which a prisoner may not possess. State v. Stahowiak, No.
2004AP1755, 706 N.W.2d 161 (Wis. App. 2005). [N/R]
Under Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec.
552, federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) records concerning an investigation into a
prisoner's contacts with security agencies while falsely claiming to be a
prison staff member were exempt from disclosure, as was information regarding
sexual assaults at the prison, but no exemptions applied to a list of staff
names and titles for all staff at the prison, or to information about housing
units in which prisoners were housed. Maydak v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, No.
CIV.A. 00-0562, 362 F. Supp. 2d 316 (D.D.C. 2005). [N/R]
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections incident
report, prepared after two inmates became ill and required medical attention,
was not a public record required to be disclosed under the state's
"Right-to-Know" law. Court also rules that chemical disbursement
sheets recording the weekly and monthly disbursement of chemicals at the prison
in connection with the making of rubber in a rubbermill room were not related
to fiscal governance and were therefore also not subject to disclosure to
prisoner requesting access to them. Heffran v. Department of Corrections, 878
A.2d 985 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005). [N/R]
Investigations by the Washington state Department
of Corrections into alleged medical misconduct by prison medical staff were not
carried out for purposes of "law enforcement" and therefore were not
exempt from disclosure to the press and public as law enforcement investigative
records under the state's public disclosure act. Prison Legal News, Inc. v.
Department of Corrections, No. 74890-0, 115 P.3d 316 (Wash. 2005). [N/R]
Employee accident reports, employee interviews,
and employee training records were not exempt from disclosure under New York
law to prisoner seeking information concerning an incident in which he was
allegedly injured by correctional officers, so long as personal data about
individual officers was excluded. Disclosure of employee staffing records,
however, were exempt, as their disclosure could endanger officers' lives and
safety by revealing where they were posted within the correctional facility.
Beyah v. Goord, 766 N.Y.S.2d 222 (A.D. Dept. 3 2003). [2004 JB Apr]
Federal Bureau of Prisons properly showed
justification for the withholding from disclosure under a freedom of
information request of its internal personnel rules and practices, but not for
withholding staff manuals, and also failed to show that it had conducted an
adequate search for the records which the plaintiff had requested. Maydak v.
U.S. Department of Justice, 254 F. Supp. 2d 23 (D.D.C. 2003). [N/R]
Inmate who succeeded in his claim that he was
improperly denied access to certain public records by a state official was
entitled to an award of postage, envelope, and copying costs as
"reasonable costs of enforcement" under Florida statute, F.S.A. Sec.
119.12, when the prisoner acted as his own attorney, even if such costs would
not be recoverable if he was represented by a lawyer, since these would be
"normal office overhead expenses" for an attorney. Weeks v. Golden,
846 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. App. 1st Dist. 2003). [N/R]
Sheriff's department failed to show that
information related to excessive force complaints concerning alleged excessive
use of force against prisoners were exempt from release under Texas Public
Information Act, T.C.A. Government Code Sec. 552.006 on the basis of either a
litigation or a law enforcement exemption. Trial court erred, however, in
limiting the amount of reimbursement that the sheriff could charge a newspaper
for the cost of copying the requested information. Thomas v. Corny, No.
03-01-00099-CV, 71 S.W.3d 473 (Tex. App. --Austin, 2002). [N/R]
284:119 Illinois prison employees did not
violate prisoners' rights when they inspected their incoming mail and seized as
contraband copies of travel vouchers submitted by members of the state's
Prisoner Review Board obtained by prisoners' relatives under the state's
Freedom of Information Act; prisoner access to these vouchers presented
a possible threat to the safety and security of
Review Board members. Holloway v. Meyer, No. 2-98-1641, 726 N.E.2d 678 (Ill.
App. 2000).
269:73 Illinois prisoner was not entitled to
access to a copy of Department of Correction's administrative directives; revealing
such directives could pose a danger to institutional safety and security.
Romero v. O'Sullivan, 707 N.E.2d 986 (Ill. App. 1999).
261:134 New York correctional officials properly
denied prisoner access to letter written by his former girlfriend in their
possession; exemptions to state Freedom of Information Law for unwarranted
invasion of privacy and material which could endanger a person's life or safety
barred disclosure. Deane v. Annucci, 669 N.Y.S.2d 696 (A.D. 1998).
223:102 Statements made by confidential prisoner
informants, used in prison disciplinary proceeding, were exempt from disclosure
under Michigan state Freedom of Information Act. Hyson v. Dept. of Corrections,
521 N.W.2d 841 (Mich. App. 1994).
Release of correctional officers' social security
numbers without their express written consent would violate the federal Freedom
of Information Act. Seelig v. Sielaff, 603 N.Y.S.2d 305 (A.D. 1993).
U.S. government not entitled to a presumption
that all persons supplying information to FBI during a criminal investigation
are "confidential sources" exempt from disclosure as part of inmate's
request under the Freedom of Information Act. U.S. Dept. of Justice v. Landano,
113 S.Ct. 2014 (1993).
Release of documents to a prisoner under the
Freedom of Information Act which allegedly revealed that cellmate was a
confidential informant gave cellmate the right to sue government for money
damages under the federal Privacy Act. Sterling v. U.S., 798 F.Supp. 47 (D.D.C.
1992).
Michigan Freedom of Information Act does not
require disclosure of prison disciplinary hearings, records and decisions.
Walen v. Dept. of Corrections, 473 N.W.2d 722 (Mich. App. 1991).
Videotape showing inmate's transfer to special
housing unit was exempt from disclosure for safety reasons. Lonski v. Kelly,
540 N.Y.S.2d 114 (A.D. 1989).
Inmate awarded $500 punitive damages for
arbitrary refusal to provide copies of prison disciplinary record under state
FOIA. Kincaid v. Department of Corrections, 446 N.W.2d 604 (Mich. App. 1989).
Inmate was not entitled to free copy of his
800-page psychiatric treatment record. Kearney v. Department of Mental Health,
425 N.W.2d 161 (Mich. App. 1988).