Click here for further information about all AELE Seminars.

---

 Search the Case Law Digest

     Some of the case digests do not have a link to the full opinion.

• Cases that have a Lexis citation can be retrieved, for a fee, at: http://web.lexis.com/xchange/forms/uas/catalog.asp
• Most Federal District Court opinions can be accessed via PACER. Registration required. Opinions are usually free; other documents are 8¢ per page.
• Access to cases linked to www.findlaw.com may require registration, which is free.

Access to Courts/Legal Info

     Prisoner's claim that he was denied his constitutional right of access to the courts because of the failure to process his administrative grievances was frivolous. The prisoner argued that this was the case because he was required to exhaust available administrative remedies before pursuing a lawsuit over his claims. The appeals court noted that the trial court had assumed that the prisoner had exhausted available administrative remedies because his grievances had not been processed within the required time limits, so that access to the courts was not interfered with. Mahogany v. Miller, #06-30927, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 24909 (5th Cir.).

     Prisoner failed to show that jail officials denied him his right of access to the courts by their response to his request for a packet to help him file a federal civil rights lawsuit. He failed to show that the packet he was furnished with differed from the one commonly provided by the federal district court. Additionally, the pencils he was furnished were "obviously sufficient" to allow him to prepare a 44-page document filed with the trial court. Friedman v. Kennard, No. 07-4116, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 22744 (10th Cir.).

Chemical Agents

     Prison officials were not entitled to summary judgment on prisoner's claim that the use of pepper spray against him constituted excessive force. A reasonable jury could conclude, from the evidence presented, that the prisoner had not advanced on the prison officials in a threatening manner, and that the use of the pepper spray had not been necessary to keep order. Barber v. Pinion, No. 1:04CV00118, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 72982 (M.D.N.C.).

Defenses: Eleventh Amendment Immunity

     Because Maine statutes clearly made a prison a state facility, a federal civil rights claim against a corrections superintendent in his official capacity was a claim against the state, and was barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. Under a state statute, however, the prisoner could pursue an individual capacity claim for the superintendent's alleged deliberate indifference to his health and safety on the basis of an attack by a fellow inmate. Nilson-Borrill v. Burnheimer, Civil No. 07-98-P-H, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 65025 (D. Maine).

Diet

     While a prisoner had a right to receive a kosher food diet based on his religious beliefs, prison officials had not intentionally denied him such food. He was unintentionally deprived of kosher food when he was briefly transferred to a facility that did not serve kosher food, but he was transferred again to one which did when officials discovered that he qualified for kosher meals. Under these circumstances, the temporary deprivation did not "substantially" burden the exercise of his religion, justifying the dismissal of his lawsuit. Williams v. Howes, Case No. 1:06-CV-168, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 64766 (W.D. Mich.).

False Imprisonment

     While an inmate was kept in the county jail over 200 days past his one-year sentence of incarceration (which was to be followed by several years of probation), there was no showing that the sheriff either directly imprisoned him beyond his sentence or was deliberately indifferent to the consequence of his inaction. The chief jailer had contacted a state probation and parole officer to determine when the prisoner should be released on probation, but received no response. Claims against the sheriff in his individual capacity were, therefore, properly rejected, while further proceedings were ordered on official capacity claims. Shorts v. Bartholomew, No. 06-5877, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 24634 (6th Cir.).

Inmate Funds

     It did not violate the rights of a prisoner serving a 197-year sentence to withhold $50 from his wages for "gate money" as authorized under an Arizona state statute. Gate money is money given to prisoners upon their release, and the prisoner argued that the withholding deprived him of property without just compensation or due process of law since he would not be released during his lifetime. The court ruled that the application of the statute to prisoners serving life imprisonment was not improper since it was possible that they could be released before the end of the lives, and the statute promoted the "common good" in assisting released prisoners in reentering society. Ward v. Stewart, No. CV 01-2226, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 73909 (D. Ariz.).

     A state statute which allowed the garnishment of a prisoner's "monthly income" to satisfy court judgments, such as a fine and court costs assessed against the plaintiff prisoner, did not allow the seizure of "non-income" such as money received as a gift from the prisoner's family. The court prohibited the warden from seizure of gifts or other amounts from the prisoner's account which were not attributable to earnings. State ex rel. Turner v. Eberlin, Case No. 07 BE 6, 2007 Ohio App. Lexis 4445.

Mail

     Prisoner was entitled to notice when packages of legal transcripts sent to him by his attorney were rejected and returned to the attorney for failure to comply with prison regulations. Failure to provide such notice could be the basis for a Fifth Amendment claim against the warden even if there had been a reasonable basis for returning the packages. The prisoner's claim was not barred by the Prison Litigation Reform Act's requirement in 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(e) requiring that an inmate litigant show a physical injury before asserting a claim for mental or emotional injuries, since he had alleged that he was prejudiced in legal proceedings by the warden's actions. The warden's motion to dismiss the lawsuit was denied. Bonner v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Civil No. 03-6347, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 64954 (D. Minn.).

Medical Care

     Prison employees without medical training, who relied on advice from medical personnel in transferring a prisoner with hepatitis C to a unit where he allegedly could not receive prompt medical attention, did not act with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Glover v. Haferman, No. 07-1674, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 25610 (7th Cir.).

     Prisoner failed to show that his exposure to black mold at a correctional facility caused any particular harm or symptoms, and merely expressed unsupported predictions of future medical problems. The evidence showed that correctional officials, on learning of the black mold, took immediate remedial actions to make sure that prisoners were not exposed to it, so the plaintiff failed to show deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Additionally, the prisoner did receive medical care for headaches, the only symptom he complained of. McIntyre v. Phillips, Case No. 1:07-CV-527, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 75353 (W.D. Mich.).

     Prison did not ignore an inmate's medical problems, but rather engaged in evaluation of his complaints both in a prison infirmary and subsequently in a hospital. A wrist fracture which was not initially diagnosed was not obvious, so that the delay in diagnosing it, while it might have been negligent, was not a violation of the prisoner's constitutional rights. The court also found that the evidence showed that the force used against the prisoner during a forced cell-entry was objectively reasonable. Arceneaux v. Leger, No. 06-30918, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 24393 (5th Cir.).

     While a prison nurse may have acted negligently in applying bleach to a prisoner's bee sting, allegedly causing him a second-degree burn, the prisoner failed to show any facts which would have established that she acted with deliberate indifference to a known danger of serious harm in allegedly applying undiluted bleach to his skin. Johnson v. Seckler, No. 07-40027, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 24149 (5th Cir.).

     Prisoner had a right not to be subjected to unwanted medical treatment, except in certain instances when such treatment is necessary to secure the "health and safety of the affected individual, other inmates, and prison personnel." His medical request form asking that he be examined by the medical staff did not dispose of the issue as to whether subsequent medical treatment was imposed upon him without his consent, or whether that treatment was medically necessary in a manner justifying imposition without consent. Simms v. Bair, No. 07-6403, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 23680 (4th Cir.).

Prisoner Assault: By Inmates

     Federal government was not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2671 et seq. for failure to protect a prisoner from an assault by another inmate on the basis of the alleged failure of the prison staff to supervise and monitor a stairwell while prisoners were passing through it. The federal government was entitled to summary judgment under a "discretionary function" exception to liability under the Act, as the prisoner failed to show any evidence that there was a mandatory duty to monitor a specific inmate or the area of the stairwell. Queen v. U.S.A., No. 05-3341, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 78823 (D. Kan.).

     Prison employees were not deliberately indifferent in failing to protect a prisoner from an attack by another inmate in a gym when there were no prior conflicts between the two prisoners. The prisoner himself did not request permission to leave the gym at the time prior to the assault, indicating that he himself did not believe that he was facing a substantial risk of harm. The alleged failure to provide continuous supervision of the inmates in the gym was, at most, negligence, which was insufficient to show a violation of constitutional rights. Burnley v. Evans, No. 06-2053, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 23384 (8th Cir.).

     Prison officials were not entitled to qualified immunity on inmate's claim that they acted with deliberate indifference in failing to protect him and two other inmates from injury in an assault by four members of a rival gang. Their appeal was dismissed due to remaining disputed issues of fact which had to first be decided by the trial court. Adame v. Flowers, No. 06-41764, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 23714 (5th Cir.).

Prisoner Assaults: By Officers

     Evidence established a genuine issue of fact as to whether two correction employees used excessive force against a detainee, allegedly rendering him unconscious from a beating and the breaking of his dental bridge. While these injuries were not recorded in the detainee's medical records, there was an indication that he was kicked in the head, and the jury could decide whether a videotape taken at the time showed those injuries. The court did, however, uphold summary judgment in favor of a third defendant because the evidence showed that he was not present during the incident. Hasemeier v. Shepard, No. 07-10688, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 24719 (11th Cir.).

      In a prior decision, Felder v. Howerton, No. 07-10241, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 11154 (11th Cir.), the court ruled that there was no evidence, other than the prisoner's own "self-serving" testimony, that prison officers had used any force against him, much less that they used excessive force or that prison officials failed to take action to prevent "beatings" by staff members. The record of the case showed, at most, that after the prisoner started a confrontation, he had a three millimeter abrasion on his chest, and there was also medical evidence that this abrasion was actually suffered during a basketball game he had played in five days before. The court further rejected the prisoner's argument that he had been "tortured" in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340. In a rehearing, however, the appeals court vacated the summary judgment in part. It ruled that the prisoner's sworn statement that the officers beat him, as well as sworn testimony presented that they told him that "all prisoners" were subjected to that treatment created material issues of fact barring summary judgment on the prisoner's federal constitutional claim. The appeals court, following the rehearing, still upheld summary judgment on the "torture" claim. The prisoner, the appeals court found, failed to show that 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340A(a), imposing criminal penalties for persons committing torture outside of the U.S., gave him any additional rights. Felder v. Howerton, 07-10241, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 22118 (11th Cir.).

Prisoner Classification

     The New York Department of Corrections acted in an "arbitrary and capricious manner" in failing to provide an inmate with a written statement of why he was denied the right to call witnesses at a hearing to determine whether he should be placed in "close custody" on the basis of his alleged gang influence and ability to "orchestrate" violence. The DOC's own regulations required such a statement and there was nothing in the hearing record to indicate why the prisoner's request to call witnesses was denied. The court ordered a new hearing. Matter of Singh v. Okada, #403573/07, 2007 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 6880 (Supreme Court, N.Y. County).

Prisoner Discipline

     When the chairman of a conduct adjustment board which conducted a disciplinary hearing was not involved in the case in an investigative capacity, but had observed some of the evidence before the hearing, this did not disqualify him from presiding. The hearing resulted in discipline of an inmate for being in possession of materials belonging to another prisoner, and the chairman had observed the inventorying of the contents of a garbage bag containing the materials, but did not personally examine the items or participate in the process. Reid v. Smith, No. 07-1208, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 24321 (7th Cir.).

     Trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to transfer a prisoner's lawsuit over two disciplinary decisions to another federal district, which would have cured jurisdictional defects in the case, when its "quick look" at the merits indicated that the prisoner had been given required due process in the two disciplinary hearings. In both cases he had received written notice of the charges more than a day before hearing, had an opportunity to present evidence and witnesses, and there was "some evidence" to support the decisions reached. Queen v. Nalley, No. 07-3163, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 24086 (10th Cir.).

Prisoner Restraint

****Editor's Case Alert****

     Prior to trying to get a court-ordered blood sample from a detainee at a county jail, employees there placed him in a three-point restraint, and a blanket was allegedly placed against his head. The prisoner then allegedly stopped breathing and, while CPR was attempted, he was subsequently pronounced dead at a hospital. Upholding summary judgment for defendant correctional officers and county, as well as the county sheriff, a federal appeals court noted that the detainee had resisted arrest, was "aggressive" at the time of the incident, and that it took several officers to restrain him. The officers were then faced with the need to make a quick decision about how to control him, and the court found that they did not apply excessive force in doing so. Burkett v. Alachua County, No. 06-14777, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 24172 (11th Cir.).

Prisoner Suicide

     The mother of a detainee who committed suicide in a county jail failed to show that the jailers knew, or reasonably should have known, of his suicidal tendencies or that any delay in providing medical assistance contributed to his death. The court also found that even if the county sheriff was deliberately indifferent in failing to maintain a surveillance system in good operating order, there was no showing that existing law would have clearly established that the absence of an operating surveillance system would violate a detainee's constitutional rights. Justus v. County of Buchanan, No.1:06CV00117, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 75238 (W.D. Va.).     

Public Protection

     State of New York was not liable for the murder of the plaintiff's daughter on the basis of inadequate supervision of the parolee who killed her. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the State owed the decedent a duty of compliance with its supervisory procedures and policies which was different from that owed to the public at large. Lodge-Stewart v. N.Y., No. 501952, 2007 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 10976 (3rd Dept.).

Race Discrimination

     Five of six plaintiff prisoners failed to produce any evidence that black prisoners were treated differently from similarly situated white inmates in security classifications, disciplinary actions, or job assignments. The remaining prisoner failed to present sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the defendants had engaged in intentional racial discrimination against him. Wilson v. Taylor, Civil Action No. 05-399, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 77435 (D. Del.).

     When prison officials admitted that they might classify prisoners by race in responding to a disturbance in the facility, the policy was subject to "strict scrutiny." The plaintiff prisoner claimed that, in responding to assaults by African-American prisoners on correctional officers, the defendants made adverse disciplinary decisions against him based on his race rather than on an individual determination concerning his involvement. Prison officials, however, were entitled to qualified immunity because in 2003, when most of the incidents in the case had occurred, it was unclear how the general rule making race a "suspect classification" applied in the context of the need to maintain order in a maximum-security prison, like the one in which the plaintiff was incarcerated. The alleged actions, therefore, did not violate clearly established law. Watts v. Runnels, No. 2:03-cv-01928, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 723628 (E.D. Cal.).

Religion

     A prisoner who practices the religion of Odinism failed to show that prison officials' denial of his possession of a small quartz crystal and a "fire pit" substantially burdened the practice of his religion. He also failed to demonstrate that allowing him to practice his religion in a "secure location," while barring him from doing so in the general prison area hampered his rights. The court also held that the remedies section of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000cc et seq., while it may allow for the awarding of money damages, only provides for such awards against state officials in their official, as opposed to individual, capacities. Smith v. Allen, 05-16010, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 23038 (11th Cir.).

     California prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity for the discipline of a Sikh inmate in 2001 and 2002 for refusing to cut his hair since it was not clearly established until 2005 in Warsoldier v. Woodford, No. 04-55879, 418 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005), that a regulation requiring inmates to have short hair imposed a substantial burden on an inmate's practice of religion under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000cc-1(a). Haley v. Donovan, No. 06-55856, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 23236 (9th Cir.).

     Federal appeals court overturns decision granting qualified immunity to parole officer who allegedly required parolee with methamphetamine addiction to participated in a religion-based drug treatment program over his objections. The appeals court found that the law on the issue was clearly established, and that a jury could conclude that the parole officer actually had notice that his actions were unconstitutional because of the parolee's letter objecting to compulsory placement in the program. Inouye v. Kemna, No. 06-15474, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 23106 (9th Cir.).

Sexual Offender Programs and Notification

     Requiring an inmate to participate in a sex offender treatment program, which required him to attend explicit group discussions of a sexual nature and view certain images, did not violate his First Amendment rights, based on the "vital" public and governmental interest in rehabilitation of convicted sex offenders. Additionally, even if an individualized sex offender treatment program existed which would have met the plaintiff's objections, it would have "unduly depleted" the prison's resources to provide it. The court failed to rule on the prisoner's objection to participation in the program under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000cc et. seq. on the basis of the defendants' claim that they had not had sufficient opportunity to respond to that claim. Schnitzler v. Reisch, No. Civ. 06-4064, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 72938 (S.D.).

     Federal appeals court upholds the dismissal of a prisoner's claim that it violated his constitutional due process rights to classify him as a sex offender based on a prison disciplinary conviction without a further proceeding. The prisoner received all the due process required at his disciplinary hearing, so that his classification as a sex offender was an acceptable automatic consequence of his disciplinary conviction. The only additional due process he was entitled to was the receipt of notification of his sex offender classification. Mariani v. Stommel, No. 07-1068, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 24256 (10th Cir.).

Visitation

     Warden was entitled to summary judgment on prisoner's claim that his rights under the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated by denying him visitation with persons whose mailings had generated positive alerts from a drug screening device. The prisoner had no constitutionally protected right to visitation from any particular person, and a total denial of all visitation for an extended time period was required before such a denial could be considered "cruel and unusual" under the Eighth Amendment. Steinbach v. Branson, Case No. 1:05-cv-101, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 75156 (N.D.).

Voting

     Massachusetts felon disenfranchisement laws, contained in the Massachusetts state Constitution and a state statute, did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibiting the retroactive increasing of the penalties for a crime, or the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, since they were not criminal penalties and there was a reasonable basis to disenfranchise incarcerated felons. The plaintiff incarcerated felons did, however, state a possible claim under Sec. 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973(b) on the basis of their contention that the provisions disproportionately disenfranchised African-American and Hispanic-American voters in the state, entitling them to further proceedings on that issue. Simmons v. Galvin, No. 01-11040, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 64358 (D. Mass.).

Work/Education/Recreation Programs

     Federal appeals court rejects a claim by 17-year-old public school student convicted and incarcerated in Maryland who alleged that the District of Columbia violated an agreement to provide him with special education services in the Maryland prison, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1412(a). The Maryland prison allegedly did not allow access to the prisoner for the purposes of providing those services, and the appeals court found that the trial court acted erroneously in ruling that the agreement provided that the District would provide those promised special education services after the prisoner's release from custody if access to the Maryland prison could not be obtained. Maryland, instead, provided the plaintiff with its own special education services, and the plaintiff sought compensatory services from D.C. to make up for the time he spent in the Maryland prison without services from D.C., even though he received such services in prison from Maryland. The appeals court, overturning a decision by the trial court, ruled that the now released prisoner was not entitled to additional special education services from D.C. Hester v. DC, No. 06-7102, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 24415 (D.C. Cir.).

    •Return to the Contents menu.

     Annual Reports: State of the Bureau 2006. The annual report of the U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons.

     Inmate Debts and Financial Obligations: "Repaying Debts." (October 2007). The Council of State Governments Justice Center has released a report on the financial obligations of people released from prisons and jails, which was developed with the support of BJA. The report includes recommendations to help policymakers increase accountability among people who commit crimes, improve rates of child support collection and victim restitution, and make people’s transition from prisons and jails to the community safe and successful. (Summary or Full Report).

     Medical Care: Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a growing problem in correctional and detention facilities. The National Institute of Corrections Information Center has many resources available on MRSA, including training videos from the Federal Bureau of Prisons, "MRSA Awareness," and the New Jersey Department of Corrections "MRSA: Preventing Outbreaks in NJ Prisons" and "MRSA: What You Need to Know."

     Prisoner Reentry: "Major Study Examines Prisoners and Their Reentry Needs," by Christy A. Visher, Ph.D., and Pamela K. Lattimore, Ph.D., NIJ Journal No. 258 (October 2007).

Reference:

     • Abbreviations of Law Reports, laws and agencies used in our publications.

     • AELE's list of recently-noted jail and prisoner law resources.