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

     A prisoner who argued, in objecting to the dismissal of his lawsuit for alleged violation of his right of access to the courts, that the defendant prison officials took actions which prevented him from filing court actions concerning prison conditions or his conviction was entitled to amend his complaint to assert this claim. His initial complaint, which appeared to merely claim that their actions interfered with his ability to "effectively" litigate a habeas corpus petition, did not state a constitutional claim, and was therefore dismissed, with leave to amend. Russworm v. Yates, 1:05-cv-00649, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 84267 (E.D. Cal.).

Defenses: Qualified Immunity

      In inmates' lawsuit claiming that, while being transported, they were subjected for 10 to 15 hours in restraints so tight that many of them were injured and were denied access to water, defendant officers were entitled to qualified immunity, because the law on the use of severely tight restrains and denial of water for an extended period being constitutional violations was not "clearly established" until two years after the incident in question, in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Hope v. Pelzer, #01-309, 536 U.S. 730 (2002). Anderson-Bey v. District of Columbia, No. 00-2000, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 88891 (D.D.C.).

Defenses: Statute of Limitations

     In New Jersey prisoner's lawsuit claiming that prison officials conspired to keep him in prison beyond his maximum term, his claim was time barred because it was filed after the expiration of a New Jersey two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Additionally, the fact that the prisoner had filed more than 50 lawsuits in the federal trial court showed that he was not somehow prevented from filing his complaint in a timely manner. Wakefield v. Moore, No. 06-1687, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 30047 (3rd Cir.).

DNA

     Federal appeals court rejects argument that federal statute, the DNA Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 14135-14135e, requiring a convicted offender to submit to DNA collection while serving a sentence of supervised release violated his Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Thirteenth or Fourteenth Amendment rights. The law was rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest in fighting recidivism and compiling accurate identification records on criminals. Because the DNA samples were not sought as part of the investigation of particular crimes, it should be analyzed under a "special needs" framework which courts have developed and applied to such things as searches of probationer's homes and drug testing. U.S.A. v. Hook, No. 06-1362, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 30526 (7th Cir.).

Drugs and Drug Screening

     The fact that a prisoner's murder conviction was not related to use of drugs did not render invalid correctional officials' recommendation that he participate in a drug treatment program, in light of his past drug problems, despite his prior completion of another drug treatment program. The New York Department of Correctional Services had rational reasons to exercise its discretion in deciding that this was among his program needs. Gomez v. Goord, 2006 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 13260 (3rd Dept.).

Employment Issues

     Occasional incidents of sexually "inappropriate" language by co-workers were not severe and pervasive enough to show that female correctional employee faced a hostile work environment constituting sexual harassment in violation of federal law. The complained of remarks were "isolated" incidents, offhand comments, and simple "teasing." Benny v. Penn. Dept. of Corrections, No. 05-5499, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 28596 (3rd Cir.).

Expert Witnesses

     Court could not order defendants in inmate's federal civil rights lawsuit over alleged inadequate medical treatment to pay for a medical examination of the prisoner in order to provide him with an expert medical witness to testify against them, as he requested. The prisoner could, however, obtain a medical examination if he could pay for such an expert. Cabrera v. Clarke, No. 4:05cv3121, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 66761 (D. Neb.).

First Amendment

     Prisoner failed to show that retaliation against him for testifying against an officer, in violation of his First Amendment rights, was the reason he was placed in administrative detention and then transferred to another facility. These events occurred after the officer filed disciplinary charges against the inmate when he discovered a diagram of the facility's kitchen in the prisoner's cell. Gay v. Shannon, No. 06-1325, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 31742 (3rd Cir.).

     Even if a prisoner's letters to the governor were constitutionally protected First Amendment activities, he failed to show that he had been transferred in retaliation for writing them, when his "poor behavior," including three acts of misconduct, provided a sufficient basis for his transfer. Jerry v. Williamson, No. 06-1606, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 31325 (3rd Cir.).

Inmate Funds

     Bank's action in failing to send a prisoner a check for the balance in his account, after changing the interest rate paid on his savings, which was based on the fact that a Bureau of Prison (BOP) unit manager had not authorized the withdrawal, as required by prison policy, did not violate the prisoner's rights. Burnside v. Old National Bank, No. 06-2832, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 31221 (7th Cir.).

Mail

    Prison officials' actions in preventing prisoner from receiving mail containing legal materials bought for him by a person with a relationship to another prisoner did not violate his rights. The restriction imposed was justified by legitimate interest in prevention of extortion, contraband smuggling, and unauthorized bartering among prisoners assisted by persons outside the facility.  Wardell v. Maggard, No. 05-1210, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 29404 (10th Cir.).

Medical Care

     Refusal of prison and its medical personnel to provide inmate with a wheelchair after he suffered an injury did not violate his Eighth Amendment rights. Medical personnel were concerned that the use of a wheelchair would actually have harmed and weakened him under the circumstances, resulting in muscle atrophy causing his legs and back to deteriorate, and they supplied him instead with crutches to use. Callahan v. Poppell, No. 06-6090, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 31762 (10th Cir.).

     Inmate stated a viable claim for inadequate medical treatment based on alleged delay in provided prescribed special footwear, causing him to suffer further injury. Bugh v. Grafton Correctional Institution, No. 06AP-454, 2006 Ohio App. Lexis 6466 (10th Dist.).

     Federal trial court erroneously rejected prisoner's claims concerning the denial of the use of his hearing aids while incarcerated in a special housing unit without considering whether such a deprivation, by itself, was cruel and unusual punishment. The prisoner argued that he could not fully "function" without the hearing aids. Wheeler v. Butler, No. 04-1834, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 31026 (2nd Cir.).

     Medical personnel who provided a "great" amount of treatment to a prisoner after he suffered an injury from a fall in the prison kitchen did not act with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, and the evidence did not support his argument that he had been refused needed surgery. Quinn v. Palakovich, No. 06-2182, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 27606 (3rd Cir.).

     Two instances in which prisoner was assigned to a top bunk, despite having a medical authorization for placement in a lower bunk were insufficient to show a violation of constitutional rights. Williams v. County of Los Angeles, No. 05-55691, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 28085 (9th Cir.).

     Prison doctor who allegedly failed to diagnose and treat inmate's "scabies" could not be liable for "deliberate indifference" when he conducted several skin biopsies which failed to reveal that the inmate had "scabies." Deliberate indifference would only be present had the doctor known or believed that the prisoner had the disorder and he deliberately refused to treat it, which was not the case. Dusenbery v. U.S., No. 06-2021, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 31242 (3rd Cir.).

Prison & Jail Conditions: General

     While prisoner claimed that he was improperly exposed to triple celling, hot and cold temperatures, and forced to sleep on a mattress placed on the floor for almost half a year, with bugs crawling on him, the actions taken by prison officials were in response to overcrowding, and where not intended to be punishment. Additionally, prison officials took steps to attempt to remedy the prisoner's complaints concerning the bugs and temperature. Defendants were entitled to summary judgment. Poole v. Taylor, No. 99-635, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 91902 (D. Del.).

Prison Litigation Reform Act: Exhaustion of Remedies

     Prisoner who failed to show that he fully exhausted all available administrative remedies on one of his claims, that correctional officials did not give indigent inmates enough money to pay postage on legal documents, could not pursue any of the claims in his federal civil rights lawsuit. Amos v. Werholtz, No. 06-3258, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 30625 (10th Cir.).

Prison Litigation Reform Act: "Three Strikes Rule"

     Federal trial court improperly dismissed a prisoner's lawsuit under the "three strikes" rule in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(g). Prior dismissals of lawsuits did not count as "strikes" under the rule when the prisoner had not yet waived or exhausted his appeals in those prior cases. Campbell v. Davenport Police Dep't, No. 06-3143 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 32030 (8th Cir.).

Prisoner Assault: By Inmates

     Six officers who did not know of or did not deliberately ignore an inmate's reports that he was in danger of being attacked by other prisoners as a "snitch" were entitled to qualified immunity, but there was a genuine issue as to whether two other officers who knew that he was an informant had known of the risk and ignored his plea for protection, resulting in him being stabbed 28 times by other prisoners. Longoria v. Texas, No. 05-41052, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 31449 (5th Cir.).

Prisoner Assault: By Officers

     Alleged use of malicious and sadistic force, if true, is a violation of clearly established law, so that qualified immunity is not an available defense. Minor prisoner claimed that he was assaulted by prison guards after he attempted to make another complaint against a guard who had been previously suspended based on his first complaint, and that at least one of the guards involved in the alleged assault continued to hit him after he had already suffered injuries. The court also noted that the injuries suffered required eleven stitches to the plaintiff's head. McReynolds v. Alabama Dept. of Youth Services, No. 06-12542, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 26945 (11th Cir.).

     Prisoner's injuries from officer's alleged physical attack on prisoner were not minor, as he suffered some abrasions, and had prior conditions aggravated by the incident. Further, statements from some witnesses that the prisoner, at the time of the incident, was acting in a cooperative manner supported a possible conclusion that the officer was acting in bad faith during the dispute, so that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity. Brown v. Lippard, No. 05-41277, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 30522 (5th Cir.).

     Despite the fact that a prisoner had been convicted of assault on a prison staff member, he was entitled to pursue his claim that an officer used excessive force against him when he placed his arms out of an opening on his cell door to have his handcuffs taken off, resulting in his wrist being cut to the bone. A finding that the officer used excessive force did not necessarily require the overturning of the disciplinary conviction, so that the officer was not entitled to summary judgment. Woods v. Lozer, No. 3:05-1080, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 83785 (M.D. Tenn.), adopted by, and summary judgment denied, Woods v. Lozer, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 83766 (M.D. Tenn.).

     Officer was properly granted judgment in prisoner's lawsuit claiming that he used excessive force against him in trying to separate him from another prisoner during an inmate fight. Even if it were assumed that the plaintiff prisoner did stop fighting just before the officer intervened, the officer could not have known which of the inmates involved in the altercation would lunge at the other one again, so that his method of intervention was a reasonable method of stopping the fight. Ensman v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction, No. 06AP-592, 2006 Ohio App. Lexis 6691 (10th Dist.).

Prisoner Discipline

     Prisoner was properly subjected to discipline for obtaining a private investigator to subject an off-duty prison staff member to surveillance. The disciplinary determination was adequately supported by some evidence, and physical evidence corroborated the confidential information relied on by the hearing officer, supporting its reliability. Funtanilla v. Pliler, No. 04-16983, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 30542 (9th Cir.).

     Disciplinary decision that prisoner was guilty of conspiring to bring drugs into prison and making a prohibited third-party phone call using another inmate's I.D. number is reversed based on hearing officer's error in denying the prisoner's request to have two inmates testify who allegedly would have supported his contention that he did not make the calls at issue. Since the drug/smuggling charges were based on the content of the phone calls, such testimony would have, if offered and believed, refuted all of the charges against the prisoner. The hearing officer also improperly denied the prisoner's request that the person caught smuggling drugs into the facility testify in the hearing, without a stated reason for doing so. Caldwell v. Goord, No. 99630, 2006 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 14109 (3rd Dept.).

Prisoner Restraint

     Prisoner's rights were not violated by placing him in shackles and handcuffs while obtaining dental treatment when the prison's routine security measures provided that prisoners were subject to such restrains whenever they left their assigned areas. Samuel v. First Correctional Medical, No. 05-037, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 87247 (D.Del.).

Religion

     Inmate in Wisconsin county jail failed to show that sheriff was involved in the alleged refusal to provide him, as an Orthodox Jew, with kosher meals, or that the jail had a policy of refusing such requests. His claim for money damages against the State of Wisconsin were also barred, first because he failed to show that the State was involved in any way in denying him the kosher meals, and secondly because claims against the state for money damages were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court also rejects arguments that the prisoner had a right to be involved in supervising how his meals were prepared, or that the jail had to spend additional funds to purchase prepackaged kosher meals for him. Andreola v. Wisconsin, No. 06-1491, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 31210 (7th Cir.).

     In prisoner's lawsuit alleging that his rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000cc et seq., were violated by the denial of kosher meals, his claim for money damages against the State of Virginia were barred by Eleventh Amendment, but the state, since it accepted federal funds for its correctional facilities, could be sued for non-monetary relief. The statute, the court held, was a valid use of the spending power of Congress. Madison v. Commonwealth of VA, No. 06-6266, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 32053 (4th Cir.).

Segregation: Disciplinary

     Even if a prisoner was mistakenly kept in a special housing unit in disciplinary segregation for an additional 60 days after his transfer to a new facility, his constitutional rights were not violated when he failed to show that the conditions to which he was subjected were an "atypical and significant hardship." Anderson v. Beaver, No. 01-CV-6536, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 73902 (W.D.N.Y.).

Sexual Harassment

     Florida appeals court overturns trial court decision dismissing a charge against a prisoner of exposing his sexual organs to a female deputy in a county jail. While the trial court ruled that a deputy could not be an "offended" party to such an exposure, and that the prisoner's cell was not a public place, the appeals court ruled that criminal charges under the statute did not require proof that the deputy was "offended," and that after the deputy told him to stop masturbating, he knew that he was not by himself and was therefore in "public" for purposes of the law, and still allegedly continued his exposure of himself. State of Florida v. Cromartie, No. 4D05-1568, 2006 Fla. App. Lexis 16476 (4th Dist.).

Smoking

     Prison officials who made several attempts to satisfy non-smoking prisoner's request that he be protected against secondhand tobacco smoke, including transferring him to a cell with another non-smoking cellmate, and creating policies that tried to limit exposure to such secondhand smoke were entitled to summary judgment, since they had not acted with deliberate indifference to a serious risk to his health or safety. Bean v. Farwell, No. 05-15691, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 30918 (9th Cir.).

Telephone Access and Usage

     A federal prisoner's First Amendment rights were not violated by an increase in the long-distance telephone rates at federal prisons. Prisoners had no right to any specific rate for their phone services. Court also rejects equal protection claims since there was no showing that the plaintiff was treated differently than other prisoners, or that there was a discriminatory purpose for the difference in rates between international and domestic long distance rates charged. Harrison v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. 1:06cv1182, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 90646 (E.D. Va.).

Visitation

     Prison properly decided that prisoner serving a sentence of life without parole for beating and stabbing to death his sister-in-law was not entitled to participate in family reunion program including visits with his mother. Because he would never return to society, given his sentence, his participation would not further the goal of strengthening family ties disrupted by imprisonment. Williamson v. Nuttall, No. 500309, 2006 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 14443 (A.D. 3rd Dept.).

    •Return to the Contents menu.

     Elderly Prisoners: True Grit: An Innovative Program for Elderly Inmates, by Marry T. Harrison, Corrections Today, published by the American Correctional Association. (December 2006). Discusses a program developed at the Northern Nevada Correction Center in Carson City, Nevada to address special physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual needs of elderly inmates.

     Employment Issues: Camp, S. D. and Lambert, E. G. (2006). The Influence of Organizational Incentives on Absenteeism: Sick Leave Use Among Correctional Workers. Criminal Justice Policy review, 17: 2: 144-172 (47 pages, pdf format).

     Prison & Jail Conditions: Abandoned & Abused: Orleans Parish Prisoners in the Wake of Hurricane Katrina, a report by the ACLU National Prison Project. Discusses the experiences of prisoners confined at Orleans Parish prison in the days after the storm, and the eventual evacuation process. (142 pgs., .pdf format, 2006).

     Prison Job Training Programs: Saylor, W. G. and Gaes, G. G. (2006). Commentary About the Scientific Merit of the Post Release Employment Project (PREP). Federal Bureau of Prisons, Washington, DC. (15 pgs., pdf format).

     Prison Rape and Sexual Misconduct: "Hope for Healing: Information for Survivors of Sexual Assault in Detention," a report by Stop Prisoner Rape. (31 pages, .pdf format, 2006). A publication intended to offer information about the impact of sexual abuse and to assist survivors in efforts to heal from this form of violence.

     Prison Rape and Sexual Misconduct: "In The Shadows: Sexual Violence in U.S. Detention Facilities," a report by Stop Prisoner Rape. (29 pgs., .pdf format, 2006). Reviews application of the Eighth Amendment, the Prison Rape Elimination Act, and U.S. rape and custodial misconduct laws to prison sexual assault, discusses the relationship of overcrowding and inmate classification to prison sexual assaults, and describes particular custodial populations vulnerable to sexual assault, including first-time, non-violent offenders, youth, gay and transgender detainees, and immigration and customs enforcement detainees, and other issues.

     Prison Rape and Sexual Misconduct: Still in Danger: The Ongoing Threat of Sexual Violence Against Transgender Prisoners. Joint publication by Stop Prisoner Rape and the ACLU National Prison Project (14 pgs., .pdf format, 2005).

     Sexual Offenders: Sex Offender Management Programming in Massachusetts, by Allison Hallett, Corrections Today, published by the American Correctional Association. (December 2006). Discusses treatment programs utilized by the Massachusetts Department of Corrections to attempt to reduce recidivism of sex offenders.

     Statistics: Capital Punishment, 2005 Presents characteristics of persons under sentence of death on December 31, 2005 and of persons executed in 2005. Preliminary data on executions by States during 2006 are included. The report also summarizes the movement of prisoners into and out of death sentence status during 2005. It presents data on offenders' sex, race, Hispanic origin, education, marital status, age at time of arrest for the capital offense, legal status at time of the offense, methods of execution, trends, and time between imposition of death sentence and execution. Highlights include the following: At yearend 2005, 36 States and the Federal prison system held 3,254 prisoners under sentence of death, 66 fewer than at yearend 2004. This represents the fifth consecutive year that the population has decreased. Of those under sentence of death, 56% were white, 42% were black, and 2% were of other races. Fifty-two women were under sentence of death in 2005, up from 47 in 1995. 12/06 NCJ 215083  Press release | Acrobat file (389K) | ASCII file (32K) | Spreadsheets (zip format 23K)

     Youthful Prisoners: The South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice: Raising the Voices of Girls, by Susan Alford, Corrections Today, published by the American Correctional Association. (December 2006). Discusses recent strides towards improved conditions for female juvenile prisoners in South Carolina juvenile justice system.

Reference:

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

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