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 failed to show that prison officials and employees interfered with his right of access to the courts, when he failed to show that their actions had caused any actual injury. Toussaint v. Good, No. 06-4638, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 9472 (3rd Cir.).

     In a prisoner's lawsuit claiming that his right of access to the courts was denied by his transfer from Illinois to a California facility without his legal materials, summary judgment was properly granted to certain individual defendants because the prisoner failed to show that they were personally involved in interfering with his mail or withholding his legal materials. Walker v. Kelly, No. 05-56556, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 6737 (9th Cir.).

     Pennsylvania prisoner failed to show that restrictions on his access to a law library actually hindered his ability to pursue his legal claims. The prisoner also failed to show that a non-frivolous legal claim was being interfered with. Tinsley v. Giorla, No. 05-2777, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 26397 (E.D. Pa.).

     On prisoner's claim involving alleged interference with his legal mail, even if he did not receive notice of a federal rule of civil procedure and what would happen if he failed to comply with it in relation to a motion for summary judgment, this was harmless since he had an actual understanding of the requirements of the rule. Strauss v. Hamilton, No. 06-35560, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 6011 (9th Cir.).

AIDS Related

     Prisoner with AIDS adequately alleged that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by delaying him from seeing a doctor for months, not permitting him to take his AIDS medications because of his housing assignment, and failing to provide him with medical attention on an occasion that he passed blood, as well as denying him adequate food, which affected his health. The prisoner failed, however, to establish a viable claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, since the mere fact that he had AIDS was inadequate standing alone, to show that he had a disability. Carter v. Taylor, Civ. No. 06-561, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 25158 (D. Del.).

Attorneys' Fees: For Plaintiff

     A former detainee awarded $1 against a corrections company and correctional officials on her claims for interference with her right to exercise her religion under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000bb, as well as $100,000 on related state law claims, was a prevailing plaintiff entitled to an award of attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. A total of $642,398.57 in attorneys' fees and costs was awarded. The court found that the results the plaintiff had achieved caused both a change in the defendants' behavior, and benefits for the plaintiff. Jama v. Esmor Correctional Services, Inc., Civ. No. 97-3093, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 32943 (D.N.J.).

Death Penalty

     Kentucky's use of lethal injection to execute death row prisoners did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Baze v. Rees, No. 07–5439, 128 S. Ct. 1520 (2008).

Diet

     Prisoner who admitted that he had not suffered any physical injury because of allegedly contaminated food trays, and who also stated that he was not aware that anyone else had suffered such injuries failed to show a violation of the Eighth Amendment. There was a lack of evidence that the defendants had acted with deliberate indifference. Barrow v. Texas Dept. of Corrections, No. 07-40274, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 6709 (5th Cir.).

Disability Discrimination: Prisoners

     When a prisoner's disability and its impact on his mobility were "obvious," any requirement that he provide correctional officials with "notice" of his disability was satisfied. The prisoner claimed both that he needed a cell with handicap accessibility features, and housing on a lower tier, and that the defendants failed to provide him with prescribed medications in a consistent manner. The court ruled that the prisoner, to show liability, did not have to prove that the state Department of Corrections engaged in intentional discrimination on the basis of his disability, but recovery of non-economic damages would depend on such a showing. Kiman v. N.H. Dept. of Correction, Civil No. 01-cv-134, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 23456 (D.N.H.).

Employment Issues

     Mississippi jailers claimed that, after they witnessed a sergeant beating a prisoner, they were told to report the incident to a supervisor, but were fired one day after they filed the report, purportedly on unrelated charges of misconduct. Ordering further proceedings on the fired jailers' First Amendment claims, an appeals court found that there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether their action in filing the report was part of their official job duties, and therefore not protected speech under the First Amendment. The issue is whether or not language in a policy manual stating that jailers should report certain kinds of incidents showed that their actions in doing so was part of their job duties. The plaintiff jailers argued that the manual did not create any such duty to report incidents such as the beating. Williams v. Riley, No. 07-60252, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 8990 (5th Cir.).

Expert Witnesses

     A Pennsylvania inmate claimed that his Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection was developed while he was working in a prison's laundry, and he sued for allegedly unconstitutional working conditions. An expert witness offered by the prisoner who was an environmental scientist and not a medical doctor could not testify on the cause and nature of the prisoner's skin rashes, or that he suffered from a MRSA infection, and further proceedings would determine whether he could testify on the conditions present in the prison's laundry. While the prisoner's medical records could be used to establish that he had a MRSA infection, expert witness medical testimony was needed to establish that this condition was caused by prison laundry working conditions. Wolfgang v. Smithers, Civil No. 4:CV-03-167, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 28597 (M.D. Pa.).

Frivolous Lawsuits

     A former prisoner's lawsuit claiming that individual prison officers, a private company and its employees, and a national federal prison employees' union, among others, were involved in an "international conspiracy" to permit and assist Muslim African-American inmates to abuse, torture, and rape Christian Caucasian inmates, and that his wife was kidnapped by some conspirators was "obviously" frivolous, so that the federal trial court did not have jurisdiction to consider them. The trial court should not, however, have dismissed, in the same manner, the prisoner's claims that he was retaliated against for filing lawsuits and grievances, or that his right of access to the courts was restricted while he was incarcerated. Allen v. Am. Fed. of Government Employees, No. 06-4943, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 8963 (3rd Cir.).

     Prisoner's claims that he was subjected to abuse by "death ray" devices and exposure to chemical agents within the prison, causing damage to his body tissue, heart, and brain were frivolous and properly dismissed. The fact that he allegedly had a learning disability and a mental illness label did not alter the fact that he could not "rationally establish" the existence of the forces he claimed were injuring him. Prince v. Ryder, No. 07-2031, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 7562 (6th Cir.).

Inmate Property

     California prisoner had no procedural due process right to a hearing prior to the seizure of property from his cell when the search he challenged was part of a criminal investigation and there were adequate post-deprivation remedies available. Mickey v. Skeels, No. 06-15350, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 6725 (9th Cir.).

     Prisoner's claim that some of his property was negligently placed in a closet for unauthorized property while correctional officers were making an inventory of his property did not show a violation of due process, as there was no intentional deprivation. Further, because the property was not taken for a "public use," there was no viable claim under the Takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. Whitehurst v. U.S.A., No. 06-40419, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 9212 (5th Cir.).

     A prisoner failed to show that the need to use some of his allotted personal locker space to store legal materials, resulting in the unavailability of space for other property, some of which was confiscated, violated his equal protection rights. There was no showing that correctional officials treated similarly situated prisoners involved in litigation differently from other inmates. The space limitations on prison storage space were "facially neutral" and were not intended to restrict prisoners' constitutional rights. Guajardo v. Crain, No. 07-50814, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 8305 (5th Cir.).

Medical Care

     A prisoner's claim that jail employees and officials acted with deliberate indifference to his need for medical care for sores on the back of his thighs, which turned out to be a Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection, accrued no later than the date he was taken to a hospital emergency room after allegedly seeking medical treatment for a week, since he was provided with medical care for his condition after that date. Certain claims were therefore time barred. The prisoner also failed to show that the defendants were deliberately indifferent once they became aware of his serious medical needs. Davis v. Bartholomew County Jail, No. 1:07-cv-639, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 18500 (S.D. Ind.).

     No reasonable jury could find that prison officials acted with deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious medical needs, resulting in her death. When transferred to the facility in question, she had rapid breathing and was uncooperative, but this was insufficient to indicate the presence of a serious medical condition requiring immediate care. Additionally, the prisoner did not request medical assistance, and was found dead in her cell the next day. The cause of death was a pulmonary edema. Jones v. Minnesota Dep't of Corr., No. 06-3900, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 325 (8th Cir.).

     Prisoner's claim that his hand, broken during a fight in jail, was placed in a cast without first being set, that he did not see a bone specialist within 48 hours, and that one doctor did not comply with follow-up procedures showed, at most negligence, which was insufficient for a federal constitutional claim. Further, correctional officials could not be held vicariously liable for the actions of medical personnel. Case v. Riley, No. 07-11489, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 6434 (11th Cir.).

     Mother of deceased inmate failed to show that deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs caused his death when she submitted no evidence or affidavits to oppose the defendants' expert's affidavit stating that the prisoner received reasonable medical treatment in response to his complaints, and consistent with his medical history. Johnson v. McDonough, No. 07-13623, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 6122 (11th Cir.).

     Diabetic prisoner failed to show that correctional authorities violated his rights by failing to give him a "diabetic diet." His primary physician stated that he had first placed the prisoner on a "therapeutic diet" with a calorie-controlled menu, and had later switched him to a carbohydrate-controlled diet, and that these diets were sufficient to improve the prisoner's condition. The prisoner's claims amount to, at most, his disagreement with the treatment provided, and did not show deliberate indifference to his diabetes. Anderson v. Burge, No. 06-CV-6227, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 24517 (W.D.N.Y.).

     Prisoner presented some evidence that he was denied medical care for nine hours after an injury, was not given prescription drugs for needed treatment, and that he was prevented from showing up for follow-up surgery intended to restore vision to his left eye. He also claims that he sent notice to the sheriff regarding these medical needs, but that no remedial actions were taken. If the prisoner's claims were true, the sheriff's inaction was objectively unreasonable. Baker v. Bowles, No. 07-10833, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 6707 (5th Cir.).

Medical Care: Mental Health

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

     A psychiatrist's deliberate indifference caused a mentally ill prisoner's death from severe dehydration he experienced after he was kept in a 90 to 100 degree observation room for several days. A jury awarded $2 million in compensatory damages and $3 million in punitive damages. The compensatory damage award was reduced to $1.5 million. A federal appeals court rejected arguments that the remaining damage awards were excessive, and found that there was sufficient evidence for the deliberate indifference finding, as well as a medical malpractice claim. Further proceedings were ordered on the trial court's reasons for allocating the compensatory damage award between the federal deliberate indifference claim and a state law medical malpractice claim, which was subject to a cap on non-economic damages. Gibson v. Moskowitz, No. 07-1074, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 9233 (6th Cir.).

Prison Litigation Reform Act: Similar State Statutes

     When fourteen of the prisoner's prior lawsuits concerning prison conditions had been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or not stating a viable claim, his lawsuit challenging the mail policy at the facility where he was incarcerated was properly dismissed under the "three strikes" rule of a state Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 Pa. C.S. Secs. 6601-6608. The court rejected arguments that this rule violated the prisoner's federal or state constitutional rights to equal protection of law. Additionally, the court could properly consider lawsuits filed by the prisoner prior to the passing of the PLRA as strikes for purposes of the rule. Jae v. Good, No. 1750 C.D. 2007, 2008 Pa. Commw. Lexis 174.

Prison Litigation Reform Act: "Three Strikes" Rule

     A prisoner's lawsuit was properly dismissed under the "three strikes" rule provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(g), as he had three-strikes from previous litigation and failed to show that he was in "imminent danger" simply because he was on a "food strike." Any threat of "imminent danger" came from his own decision to cease eating and not from any outside source. The court also noted that the prisoner, in each of three prior lawsuits he filed since January of 2008, threatened in connection with each one to go on a food strike to object to his detention. His lawsuits claimed that he was illegally detained and had never been convicted or sentenced. In Re: Whitfield, Misc. No. C-08-021, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 25044 (S.D. Tex.).

     While four prior lawsuits filed by the plaintiff prisoner had been dismissed, two of them were dismissed on the basis that he had failed to adequately affirmatively state exhaustion of remedies in his complaints, a requirement that the court later eliminated. Those two dismissals, therefore, were not for frivolous or malicious litigation or failure to state a claim, and did not count as "strikes" for purposes of the rule. A dismissal of the prisoner's lawsuit for failure to protect him from assault by another inmate while in protective custody was therefore overturned. Feathers v. McFaul, No. 07-3930, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 8909 (6th Cir.).

Prisoner Assault: By Inmates

     Prisoner attacked by other prisoners who allegedly identified him as a "snitch" based on the circulation of information to that effect by an unidentified prison guard could not pursue his failure to protect claim when he had no evidence that any of the defendants were direct participants in the alleged actions. Skinner v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, No. 07-6293, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 8754 (10th Cir.).

     Correctional officer on duty did not violate a prisoner's rights by failing to prevent another inmate's attack on him with a metal pipe when the officer had no prior warning that such an attack was threatened. Blaylock v. Borden, No. 06 Civ. 4387, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 31743 (S.D.N.Y.).

Prisoner Classification

     A security threat group (STG) policy under which a prisoner was classified and housed as a member of such a group did not constitute impermissible additional punishment for his crimes. Additionally, the prisoner failed to show that his STG classification was based on retaliation rather than legitimate penological goals. Ramirez v. Guinn, No. 06-16553, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 6738 (9th Cir.).

Prisoner Discipline

     Discipline of prisoner was supported by adequate evidence, including testimony by one officer stating that he had observed him out of his cell when he was supposed to be in it for a head count, and other evidence of the confiscation of altered property from the prisoner's cell. Wilson-El v. Finnan, No. 07-1703, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 7713 (7th Cir.).

     The fact that a guard may have filed charges of trading or trafficking" in tobacco against a prisoner because he "had it in" for him did not alter the fact that the penalties of one month's segregation, the loss of commissary privileges, and loss of prison employment did not violate due process as they did not deprive him of either "liberty" or "property." Antoine v. Uchtman, No. 07-2691, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 9483 (7th Cir.).

     Denial of the opportunity to present evidence at a disciplinary hearing of a prior involuntary protective custody report filed against the prisoner did not render the hearing unfair, when the prisoner failed to explain how that report was in any way relevant to the current hearing. Reyes v. Leclaire, No. 2007-04628, 2008 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 2800 (A.D. 2nd Dept.).

Religion

     Prisoner's claim that he requested a non-meat diet for religious reasons was found to be sincere. Prison officials had refused to provide a non-meat diet because they argued that such a diet was not required by the religious group, and the prisoner failed to submit to the prison chaplain a written verification of his membership in a religious group and its beliefs. The federal appeals court found that the defendant correctional officials failed to provide any evidence that their basis for denying the request served any compelling governmental interest, as required by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000cc et seq., or that the rules used were the least restrictive means of advancing such an interest. Further proceedings were ordered on the prisoner's claims. Koger v. Bryan, No. 05-1904, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 8825 (7th Cir.).

     A Muslim prisoner's claim that correctional employees subjected him to disrespect, humiliation, and embarrassment because of his religious beliefs did not state a claim for violation of his constitutional rights when the alleged harassment was only verbal harassment and derogatory comments about his religion, and was not accompanied by any physical acts. The prisoner's claim that one of the prison staff members may have "tugged" on his beard was insufficient to state a claim for excessive use of force. Aponte v. Karnes, Civil No. 4:CV-08-183, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 9675 (M.D. Pa.).

Smoking

     Federal appeals court orders further proceedings as to whether prisoner adequately showed that he suffered physical injuries, including an asthma attack, after a prisoner who was drunk and smoking cigarettes was placed in his cell in order to be able to recover mental or emotional damages as required by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1346(b)(2) of the Federal Tort Claims Act, and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(e) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Perez v. U.S., No. 07-1199, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 6494 (3rd Cir.).

    •Return to the Contents menu.

     Prisoner Reentry: The Jail Administrator's Toolkit for Reentry (NCJ 222041), Urban Institute, May 2008 (PDF). Provides practitioner-oriented guidelines and principles, accompanied by examples from jails and criminal justice officials across the country, to assist in developing strategies for preparing inmates to transition from jail to the community, including prerelease planning, discharge planning, transition planning, continuity of care, community-oriented corrections, and transitional care. This toolkit is a companion piece to Life after Lockup: Improving Reentry from Jail to the Community, summarized below. (NCJ 220095).

     Prisoner Reentry: Life After Lockup: Improving Reentry from Jail to the Community (NCJ 220095), Urban Institute, May 2008 (PDF). Presents an overview of U.S. jails and the people who cycle through them, examines various ways that jurisdictions can address reentry from jail, profiles numerous and diverse reentry efforts from around the country, and explores the role of probation in reentry from jail. This monograph is a companion piece to The Jail Administrator's Toolkit for Reentry, summarized above. (NCJ 222041).

     Statistics: HIV in Prisons, 2006. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (April 2008). A web page with information on the number of state and federal inmates who were infected with HIV or had confirmed AIDS at yearend 2006. Topics covered include HIV infection by region and state, infection by gender, confirmed AIDS cases, AIDS related death, HIV testing in prisons, statistical tables, and a list of related publications. (April 2008).

     Statistics: Medical Problems of Prisoners, U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (April 2008). Findings on state and federal prisoners who reported a current medical problem, a physical or mental impairment, a dental problem, or an injury since admission based on data from the 2004 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional facilities.

Reference:

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

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