AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for
Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Gang Activity
Monthly Law Journal Article: Prisoner Classification and Gang Activity, 2013 (11) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
An Illinois inmate claimed that three corrections officers failed to follow mandatory legal procedures before imposing discipline upon him for violating prison rules relating to “unauthorized organizational activity” by “intimidation or threats” on behalf of the Latin Kings gang. He asserted that the process violated Illinois Administrative Code provisions relating to the appointment of hearing investigators to review all major disciplinary reports, service of the report no more than eight days after the commission of an offense or its discovery, provision of a written reason for the denial of his request for in-person testimony at his hearing, not placing him under investigation, failing to independently review notes, telephone logs, and recordings, denial of his requests to see the notes he had allegedly written, and lack of impartiality and improper refusal to recuse. He asserted that he had made a timely objection to the committee members’ lack of impartiality, but the committee failed to document that objection. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed that the inmate failed to state a claim for mandamus or common-law writ of certiorari for alleged violations of department regulations. Department regulations, the court stated, create no more rights for inmates than those that are constitutionally required. The prison officials did not, however, give reasons for denying the inmate’s witnesses and evidence during the disciplinary proceedings, nor did they explain that decision later; The court reversed with regard to the prisoner’s claim that the defendants violated his right to due process in revoking his good conduct credits. Fillmore v. Taylor, 2019 IL 122626, 2019 Ill. Lexis 451.
A California prisoner challenged a
decision by state correctional authorities to "validate" him as an
associate of the Mexican Mafia gang, which then led to his transfer to a
Security Housing Unit (SHU) for an indeterminate time. An appeals court found
that the warden did not establish a direct link between the prisoner's actions
while participating in a prison disturbance and orders from another prisoner
shown to be a Mexican Mafia associate. While the actions were consistent with
those orders, without evidence that he did so to comply with orders from that
specific person, the trial court properly ordered his gang validation expunged
and his residency in the SHU terminated. In re Martinez, #A142502, 42 Cal. App.
4th 299, 2015 Cal. App. Lexis 1026.
A settlement has
been reached in a lawsuit challenging the practice of long-term solitary
confinement in California prisons. The settlement basically ends indeterminate
long-term solitary confinement in the Special Housing Unit in California state
prisons, in which prisoners are often confined based on gang affiliation, and
spells out detailed procedural requirements. Ashker v. Brown, #C-09-05796, U.S.
Dist. Ct. (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2015).
The plaintiff was confined for many years to a
security housing unit (SHU) for the purpose of protecting other prisoners from
him and his gang underlings, as a result of his prior gang activities. He was
ordered released from the SHU in 2006 when he claimed that he was no longer an
active gang member. He was returned to the SHU subsequently on the basis of
allegations of further gang activity. The trial court later issued orders in
2009 and 2011 claiming that his return to SHU violated its 2006 order, and
again ordering him released. A federal appeals court found that the later two
orders were an abuse of discretion, ignoring developments after 2006, and
improperly impeded prison management. Griffin v. Gomez, #09-16744, 741 F.3d 10 (9th Cir. 2014).
An
amendment to the California state penal code under which a prison inmate who
chose to remain an active gang member during his incarceration was placed in
administrative segregation and deemed ineligible to earn sentence reduction
conduct credits did not violate his rights against ex post facto punishment
since his choice to remain in the gang continued after the passage of the
provision. The court also found that the determination that he remained a gang
member was adequately supported by "some evidence." In re Efstathiou,
#C067807, 2011 Cal. App. Lexis 1381 (Cal. App.).
White inmate's rights not violated by prison's
policy of permitting gang membership while limiting gang activity. David K. v.
Lane, 839 F.2d 1265 (7th Cir. 1988).