AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for
Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Marriage/Procreation
Monthly Law
Journal Article: Prisoner
Marriage, 2007 (10) AELE Mo. L.J. 301.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Prisoner Procreation and
Abortion Issues, 2007 (11) AELE Mo. L.J. 301.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Shackling
of Pregnant Prisoners, 2009 (12)
AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
A trial judge issued an order offering a 30-day sentencing credit to White County, Tennessee inmates in exchange for submitting to sterilization. After public outcry, the judge declared that inmates could no longer enroll in the program. A third order clarified which of the inmates who initially enrolled could still receive the credit. Within months, the Tennessee Legislature passed a statute which made it illegal for courts to make sentencing determinations based on a defendant’s willingness to consent to sterilization. Three inmates who refused to submit to a vasectomy and were consequently denied the sentencing credit challenged the orders under the Equal Protection Clause. The trial court found that the claims were moot. A federal appeals court reversed, reasoning that none of those subsequent developments in the law ended the differential treatment that the plaintiffs challenged. They claimed that awarding them the 30- day sentencing credit would affect other collateral consequences related to sentencing. Tennessee law permits non-violent offenders to petition for expungement five years after the sentence termination date so that retroactive application of the sentencing credit would allow them to pursue expungement 30 days sooner. Sullivan v. Benningfield, #18-5643, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 9942 (6th Cir.).
A female prisoner was in county
custody for a nonviolent offense when she gave birth to her son. She sued after
her release, claiming that her federal civil rights were violated by her being
shackled and restrained during labor as well as during postpartum recovery. A
federal appeals court vacated and remanded the trial court's grant of summary
judgment for the county defendants on most of the plaintiff's shackling claims,
finding that the question of whether the U.S. Constitution allows law
enforcement officers to restrain a female inmate while she is pregnant, in
labor, or during postpartum recovery was one of first impression. In this case,
the answer to that question depended on factual disputes about whether the
restraint policy was justified that a properly instructed jury had to resolve.
The appeals court rejected equal protection claims as no evidence of
discriminatory intent was shown. Mendiola-Martinez v. Arpaio, #14-15189, 836
F.3d 1239 (9th Cir. 2016).
A federal prisoner had a prostate operation performed by a
doctor who was not a Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) employee. He later noticed
that the amount of his ejaculate was reduced, and the doctor diagnosed him with
retrograde ejaculation, advising that a specific medication should be
prescribed to heal a hole opened up during the laser surgery, in order to
prevent the prisoner's ejaculate from going into his bladder. The prisoner was
afraid that without the recommended treatment, he might experience impotence.
The BOP declined to provide the medication, taking the position that treatment
of a sexual dysfunction is not "medically necessary." It also stated
that medical providers should not talk to inmates about ejaculation,
"since it is a prohibited sexual act." The trial court held that the
prisoner's claims could survive summary judgment because the prisoner had
alleged that retrograde ejaculation could make him sterile and that prisoners
had a fundamental right to preserve their procreative abilities for possible
use after their release from custody. A federal appeals court reversed, finding
that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. No clearly established
law guaranteed a prisoner's right to treatment for infertility, erectile
dysfunction, or retrograde ejaculation. Michtavi v. Scism, #14-4104, 2015 U.S.
App. Lexis 21553 (3rd Cir.).
A female prisoner who was pregnant when she
arrived at a county jail claimed that the jail employees were deliberately
indifferent in failing to take a proper medical history, failing to respond to
several requests for medical assistance, and failing to react quickly enough
when she went into labor. As a result, she further claimed, her child suffered
serious birth defects. She was taken to a hospital where she gave birth and
then returned to the jail where she was transferred to another facility after
four days. The trial court erred in dismissing the lawsuit for failure to
exhaust available administrative remedies at the jail. Even had she been
informed upon her return to the jail from the hospital that he had only four
days to file a grievance, that time period would have been an unreasonable
deadline to impose on a woman right after she gave birth to a severely impaired
child. White v. Bukowski, #14-3185, 800 F.3d 392 (7th Cir. 2015).
The U.S. Supreme Court, by a 5-4
vote, has ruled that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage and
that each state must also recognize such marriages legally entered into in
other states. As a result, to the extent that prisoners have a constitutional
right to marry, which they generally do, with very limited exceptions, that
right now extends to entering into same-sex marriages. Prisons will now have to
universally accommodate prisoners entering into same-sex marriages to the same
extent as they now accommodate opposite sex marriages. Obergefell v. Hodges,
#14-656, 2015 U.S. Lexis 4250.
A pregnant woman was being held as an immigration
detainee and classified as a medium-security inmate. She was restrained and shackled
prior to giving birth and claimed that this violated her rights. A federal
trial court granted her summary judgment on liability and a jury awarded her
$200,000 in damages. A federal appeals court reversed, finding that summary
judgment on liability had been improper. There were genuine material factual
issues as to whether she had been shown to be a flight risk, as well as
conflicting expert testimony about the alleged negative effects of shackling on
pregnant inmates. It was also not established whether or not the officers
involved in her restraint had any knowledge about a no restraint order.
Villegas v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cty., #11-6031, 2013 U.S.
App. Lexis 4382, 2013 Fed. App. 59P (6th Cir.).
The trial court should not have dismissed the
claim of a prisoner that denial of his request for a conjugal visit with his
wife violated his rights to religious freedom under the First Amendment and the
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc
et seq. by interfering with important provisions of his Islamic faith requiring
him to marry, consummate his marriage, and attempt to father children. His
claim, stemming from the denial of this request in 2008, was not time barred
despite the earlier denial, under the same regulation of a similar request
relating to his first wife in 2002. Pouncil v. Tilton, #10-16881 2012 U.S. App.
Lexis 24039 (9th Cir.).
A female prisoner suffering from cervical cancer
had her ovary and lymph nodes removed during a radical hysterectomy, allegedly
without her consent. A federal appeals court rejected her civil rights claim,
however, finding no evidence of deliberate indifference to her serious medical
needs. Her contention that the removals of the ovary and lymph nodes were not
necessary because subsequent examination revealed that they were not cancerous
was, at most, medical negligence or a mere disagreement with the medical
treatment given, which was insufficient for a federal civil rights claim. Sama
v. Hannigan, #10-40835, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 2107 (5th Cir.).
Because a county jail did not have the resources
to adequately handle pregnancy-related medical emergencies, a pregnant minor
stated a claim for deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs by alleging
that personnel there failed to rush her to a hospital when she began having
labor pains, and that she was not seen by a doctor until seven hours later. She
was subsequently taken to a hospital, but then returned to the jail, where her
baby was born, suffering various birth defects including severe mental
retardation and cerebral palsy. Havard v. Wayne County, #09-1235, 2011 U.S.
App. Lexis 17404 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
Rejecting claims that two deputies at a county
jail were deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of a pregnant
detainee who had used crack cocaine daily, the federal appeals court noted that
the deputies knew that the detainee had been seen by a nurse at the jail who
determined that her medical need was "not an emergency." The detainee
later suffered a miscarriage, but the deputies were entitled to rely on the
nurse's medical expertise in failing to take additional measures. The plaintiff
failed to show that the deputies disregarded the risk to the health of her
fetus with conduct that was more than gross negligence. Townsend v. Jefferson
Cty., #08-15583, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 6500 (11th Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that her constitutional rights
were violated when she was shackled to a bed while she was giving birth. A
state corrections department director was entitled to qualified immunity from
liability because he was not personally involved in the incident and had not
established any policies to require or encourage the shackling of pregnant
prisoners. A corrections officer directly involved in the shackling, however,
was not entitled to qualified immunity, given that she stated that the
prisoner, who was a non-violent offender, had not done or said anything to
indicate that she was an escape risk or that she posed any other threat. There
was evidence from which a fact finder could decide that the officer, in
shackling the prisoner's ankles to opposite sides of a hospital bed during the
final stages of labor, acted with deliberate indifference to her serious
medical needs. She allegedly knew that the prisoner had severe pain, that the
labor was risky, and that hospital personnel had requested that she be
unshackled. The officer also allegedly failed to abide by administrative
regulations requiring her to balance medical and security concerns in deciding
whether to shackle the inmate. At the time of the incident, September of 2003,
the prisoner's right to be free from unnecessary suffering was clearly
established. Nelson v. Correctional Medical Services; #07-2481, 2009 U.S. App.
Lexis 21730 (8th Cir.).
When a Pennsylvania prisoner had informed
correctional officials that he was already married, he was not entitled to an
order allowing him to marry his fiancee. Further, in that state, if he entered
into a valid common law marriage before January 1, 2005, he remained married,
and would have to get a divorce before he could remarry. He could also seek, if
he wished, a declaratory judgment concerning the validity of his alleged prior
marriage. Lennitt v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, No. 231 M.D. 2008,
2008 Pa. Commw. Lexis 627.
A pregnant prisoner brought to a hospital for
labor, was kept shackled to the bed at all times, except when medical personnel
requested that the shackles be removed. A federal appeals court ruled that the
policy of shackling inmates while they received medical treatment did not
constitute deliberate indifference to their medical needs, and the shackling
policy was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. Nelson v.
Correctional Medical Services, No. 07-2481, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 15270 (8th
Cir.).
Missouri Department of Corrections' policy of not
providing transportation for inmates' elective, non-therapeutic abortion is
unreasonable under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The
court also rules, however, that elective non-therapeutic abortions are not a
serious medical need, and that a prison's refusal to provide such an abortion
is not deliberate indifference for purposes of an Eighth Amendment claim. Roe
v. Crawford, No. 06-3108 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 1185 (8th Cir. 2008).
Pregnant female detainee presented sufficient
medical evidence to show that she had a serious medical problem of prolonged
amniotic leakage. which could lead to an infection and the death of her fetus.
A jail facility commander was not entitled to qualified immunity, based on his
alleged knowledge of this problem and his alleged deliberate decision to
disbelieve all inmate complaints about medical care. The sheriff, however, was
not shown to have had actual knowledge that jail policies were being
implemented in a way that arguably ignored legitimate medical needs, and was
therefore entitled to summary judgment. Goebert v. Lee County, No. 06-10606,
2007 U.S. App. Lexis 29513 (11th Cir.).
Female prisoner's claim that delayed labor,
caused by improper medical care, caused the stillbirth of her viable fetus was
sufficient to constitute a "physical injury" to her satisfying the
physical injury requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42
U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(e). That statutory provision, barring the pursuit of a
federal civil rights claim for mental distress unaccompanied by physical
injury, did not bar the prisoner's Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims in
these circumstances. Clifton v. Eubank, No. 00-CV-2555, 418 F. Supp. 2d 1243
(D. Colo. 2006). [N/R]
New York prisoner's application to participate in
family reunion program was properly denied based on the heinous nature of his
crimes (involving the brutal murder of his sister-in-law and a violent assault
on her three-year-old daughter), along with his life sentence, which eliminated
the need to preserve his family structure to promote future integration into
society. Denial of a request for participation in such a program will be upheld
if based on a rational reasons, since participation is a privilege rather than
a right. Williamson v. Department of Correctional Services, 792 N.Y.S. 2d 719
(A.D. 3rd Dist. 2005). [N/R]
Inmate's incarceration did not excuse him from
compliance with court's procedural rules which apply to all litigants
concerning obtaining service of process. Inmate's divorce action against his
wife, which he filed while acting as his own lawyer, was therefore properly
dismissed when he failed to obtain service on her. Hessmer v. Hessmer, 138
S.W.3d 901 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). [N/R]
New York prisoner incarcerated for the murder of
his first wife, who married his current wife prior to his incarceration, was
entitled to further proceedings on his request to participate in a "family
reunion" program with his wife and daughter, when no reason or factual
basis was provided for the denial of his request. Bierenbaum v. Goord, 787
N.Y.S.2d 438 (A.D. 3d Dept. 2004). [N/R]
While a prisoner had a fundamental constitutional
right to marry, there was no duty on the part of a court clerk to travel to the
prison to conduct a required oral examination to enable the prisoner to obtain
a marriage license without personally appearing at the clerk's office, or to
implement video conferencing so that the interview could be remotely conducted.
In re Appeal of Coats, 849 A.2d 254 (Pa. Super. 2004). [N/R]
Prison policy of requiring inmate to get a court
order to obtain an elective abortion did not violate her constitutional rights.
Victoria W. v. Larpenter, No. 02-30598, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 8602 (5th Cir.).
[2004 JB Jun]
Ohio prisoner had a clearly established
right to marry his girlfriend, but it was not clearly established that he had
the right to affirmative assistance from correctional officials in obtaining a
marriage license. Correctional officials were therefore entitled to qualified
immunity from liability for money damages for initially failing to provide such
assistance. Couple, who married following settlement of their federal civil
rights lawsuit, were not "prevailing parties" entitled to an award of
attorneys' fees when they did not obtain a judgment on the merits of their
claim or a court-ordered consent decree. Toms v. Taft, No. 01-4035, 338 F.3d
519 (6th Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Nov]
Parole rule which absolutely prohibited parolee
traveling internationally to the Philippines to marry a woman with whom he had
been corresponding did not violate his constitutionally protected right to
marry or to travel, and was justified by the state's desire to avoid losing all
right to supervise the parolee once he was outside the country. The rule did
not absolutely prohibit him from marrying, but merely affected the timing or
place of his marriage plans. Williams v. Wisconsin, No. 02-4233, 336 F.3d 576
(7th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Prison officials were entitled to qualified
immunity on a claim for damages for postponing a prisoner's marriage to his
fiancee for twelve months, since it was not clearly established that a delay of
that length was unconstitutional. Lawsuit's claims for injunctive relief were
moot, since prior restrictions on the fiancee's visits were lifted and the
couple had been allowed to marry. Martin v. Snyder, No. 02-1135, 329 F.3d 919
(7th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Federal appeals court by 6-5 vote rules that a
prisoner serving a sentence of 100 years to life plus eleven years had no
constitutional right to provide his wife with a sperm specimen that she could
use to be artificially inseminated. Gerber v. Hickman, #00-16494, 2002 U.S.
App. Lexis 9749 (9th Cir.). [2002 JB Jul]
Woman who pled guilty to providing a prohibited
object to an inmate, a cryogenic sperm preservation kit intended to preserve
her inmate husband's sperm, was not entitled, post-conviction, to the return of
the confiscated seminal fluids. Wife was not entitled to equitable relief in
the form of return of the seized property since she had "unclean
hands," having bribed a correctional officer to smuggle her husband's
semen out of the prison. U.S. v. Parlavecchio, 192 F. Supp. 22d 349 (M.D. Pa.
2002). [N/R]
298:150 Federal
appeals court rules that male prisoners have a fundamental constitutional right
to procreate; prisoner serving a life sentence could pursue federal civil
rights claim over denial of request that he be allowed to send his semen out of
prison for artificial insemination of his wife. Gerber v. Hickman, #00-16494,
264 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2001).
284:120 Female
prisoner and her husband, who was allowed to attend the birth of their child
after filing a federal civil rights lawsuit, were prevailing parties entitled
to $5,743.67 in attorneys' fees and costs; hourly fee limits of Prison
Litigation Reform Act did not apply since the husband was not a prisoner; lawsuit
claimed denial was based on prisoner giving newspaper interview regarding
prison conditions. Turner v. Wilkinson, 92 F. Supp. 2d 697 (S.D. Ohio 1999).
284:121 Denying
female prisoner access to abortion services violated her rights and constituted
deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of a pregnant prisoner.
Doe v. Barron, 92 F. Supp. 2d 694 (S.D. Ohio 1999).
272:119 A policy
of discharging a prison employee for her intimate association with a state
prison inmate was rationally related to a legitimate interest in prison
security; policy did not improperly limit female guard's right to marry
convicted felon who was the father of her child. Wolford v. Angelone, 38
F.Supp.2d 452 (W.D. Va. 1999).
230:22 Inmate was
not entitled to judicial order requiring warden to transport him to court
clerk's office to sign marriage license, or requiring warden to allow clerk to
visit prison to get inmate's signature. Leach, [State Ex Rel.,] v. Schotten,
653 N.E.2d 356 (Ohio 1995).
237:135 New York
prisoner had no constitutionally protected right to participation in conjugal
visits with wife; denial of such visits on basis of wife's status as an
ex-offender was not a violation of equal protection of law. Champion v. Artuz,
76 F.3d 483 (2nd Cir. 1996). [Cross-reference: Visitation].
222:87 Refusal
to allow New Jersey male prisoner to artificially inseminate his wife did not
violate his constitutional right to procreation; security concerns and scarce
resources adequately justified policy. Percy v. Dept. of Corrections, 278 N.J.
Super. 543, 651 A.2d 1044 (1995).
Federal appeals
court rules that N.Y. prisoner, despite having participated in conjugal visit
program at three prior prisons, had no liberty interest in participating in
program at fourth prison; reject's prisoner's claim of a constitutional privacy
right to conjugal visits. Hernandez v. Coughlin, 18 F.3d 133 (2nd Cir. 1994).
Prison could
require inmates who wished to get married to attend six premarital counseling
sessions without violating prisoner rights. Hanselman v. Fiedler, 822 F.Supp.
1342 (E.D. Wis. 1993).
N.Y. prison
visitation regulations did not create a constitutionally protected liberty
interest in conjugal visits, but court orders further hearings on whether
denial of such visits violated inmate's right of marital privacy. Cromwell v.
Coughlin, 773 F.Supp. 606 (S.D. N.Y. 1991). Prisoners have a constitutional
right to marry, but prison officials may reasonably regulate marriages of inmates
to further legitimate penological interests. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78
(1987); Butler v. Wilson, 415 U.S. 953 (1974); Johnson v. Rockefeller, 365
F.Supp. 377 (S.D.N.Y. 1973).
Bureau of
Prisons' policy restricting inmate procreation, including artificial
insemination of wives by male inmates is reasonably related to legitimate
government interest in treating all inmates equally. Goodwin v. Turner, 908
F.2d 1395 (8th Cir. 1990).
Sheriff was
entitled to qualified immunity for alleged refusal of inmate's request to marry
while incarcerated. Jackson v. Mowery, 743 F.Supp. 600 (N.D. Ind. 1990).
Love may have
blossomed behind bars for two inmates; but federal judge denies them permission
to marry, stating reasons. Los Ang. Daily Jour., Vol. 103, No. 64, Sec. 1, p. 1
(March 29, 1990).