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

     After a Pennsylvania correctional official heard that prison inmates around the country were allegedly filing fraudulent liens and judgments against prison officials and prosecutors, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) declared all Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) forms, documents concerning UCC filings, and related materials and publications to be contraband. Acting under that declaration, correctional officers allegedly confiscated a variety of legal materials from the plaintiff inmates, while subsequently allowing them to retrieve documents and publications not covered by the declaration. A federal appeals court ruled that the inmates failed to show that these actions violated the inmates constitutional right of access to the courts, since they did not show that they suffered any actual injury to legitimate legal claims. The court also found that the prisoners had been given meaningful post-deprivation remedies and that there was a rational relationship between the penological interest furthered and the method used to further it--the declaration of UCC materials as contraband. Monroe v. Beard, No. 07-3711, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 15991 (3rd Cir.).

     A prisoner's motion seeking an appointed lawyer was denied. The prisoner's claims against correctional officers, including claims that they retaliated against him after he filed a grievance by putting him in keep-lock status for 16 days and slapping his face had survived a motion to dismiss. Based on the "clarity" and "comprehensiveness" of his filed complaint, as well as his ability to "articulate," the court believed that the prisoner would be able to assert his case to the finder of fact without difficulty, and that he understood the legal issues relevant to his claims, which were not complicated. Headley v. Fisher, No. 06 Civ. 6331, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 51986 (S.D.N.Y.).

     Indigent prisoner had no constitutional or statutory right to the appointment of a lawyer to represent him in his civil lawsuit against the defendant Department of Corrections employees, but the court could request that lawyer represent him under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(e)(1). The court declined to do so, however, based on the prisoner's own ability to investigate the facts of his case and present his claims. Rosales v. Ortiz, No. 06-cv-02438, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 10334 (D. Colo.).

False Imprisonment

     A prisoner who claimed that the state of Virginia subjected him to false imprisonment by improperly extending the length of his prison sentence could pursue a federal civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 for money damages. The court noted that the federal courts of appeal were split about whether a prisoner could obtain money damages in such a case when it was no longer possible to meet the "favorable termination" requirement of Heck v. Humphrey, #93-6188, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), via habeas corpus, but held that the "high purposes" of Sec. 1983 would be "compromised" if there was no judicial forum to seek relief for alleged unlawful imprisonment, and ruled that the plaintiff could proceed with his lawsuit. (Under Heck, in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus). Wilson v. Johnson, No. 07-6347, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 15870 (4th Cir.).

First Amendment

     A Delaware inmate failed to show that he had been subjected to unlawful retaliation in violation of his First Amendment rights by having a misconduct report filed against him after he allegedly reported violations of prison rules in the kitchen where he was assigned to work, and by being subsequently disciplined and transferred following a finding of guilty on the charged infractions. The inmate failed to show that he had been engaged in constitutionally protected speech before he was fired from his kitchen job, since he only made informal verbal complaints about kitchen incidents, and failed to file any formal grievances or complaints. St. Louis v. Morris, Civ. No. 06-236, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 57203 (D. Del.).

Injunctions/Mandamus

     A California prisoner complained that he was denied cell feeding and cell medication despite orders for such accommodations after he underwent ankle surgery, and that he allegedly fell down on two occasions, as a result, while trying to get his food and medication. Because it was "highly unlikely" that the prisoner was still subject to those cell feeding and cell medication orders, which were issued a year ago, he was not entitled to injunctive relief. Santos v. Singh, No. CIV S-08-0315, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 55507 (E.D. Cal.).

Medical Care

     A recovering alcoholic who also suffers from epilepsy was arrested on a probation violation and taken to a county jail on a Sunday morning. She had a seizure that afternoon, falling from the top bunk of a bed in her cell, and suffered significant injuries to her right hip and right clavicle. In a federal civil rights lawsuit, a jury found that none of the jail officials were deliberately indifferent to the detainee's serious medical needs, but also found that a county policy regarding weekend medical care constituted deliberate indifference and caused her injuries, awarding her $214,000 in damages. On the Sunday in question, neither of two nurses assigned to the jail was on the premises, and a form requesting medication for the detainee was merely placed in an inbox for the nurses. A federal appeals court has upheld the jury's award, and the denial by the trial court of motions to set it aside. Ford v. County of Grand Traverse, No. 07-1062, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 16487 (6th Cir.).

     Inmate who claimed that treatment provided by a prison doctor for his injured ankle was inadequate was not entitled to a new trial after the jury returned a verdict for the doctor. A jury member's prior experience with an ankle injury did not result in improper prejudice to the inmate's case, based on the trial judge's post-verdict questioning of that juror. Arreola v. Choudry, No. 07-2696, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 14895 (7th Cir.).

     Inmate failed to show that two prison doctors acted with deliberate indifference in failing to diagnose his bladder cancer during sixteen months of treatment for gross hematuria. The plaintiff failed to present any evidence that either of the doctors knew of and disregarded a risk of cancer, even if they were aware that it was a possibility based on the plaintiff passing blood in his urine. Duckworth v. Ahmad, No. 07-3618, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 14893 (7th Cir.).

     A doctor who discontinued specific medications after an inmate complained about what he believed were the medications' side effects did not act with deliberate indifference to the inmate's serious medical needs. When the drugs were no longer administered, the side effects stopped, and the prisoner's mere "speculation" that the side effects may have been caused by something other than the drugs could not be used to show such deliberate indifference. Mayes v. Talbot, No. 08-1059, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 16083 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).

     Prisoner who claimed that a physician's assistant refused to provide him with prescribed antibiotics after colorectal surgery was sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to find that there was deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Summary judgment for prison medical personnel was vacated, with the case remanded for trial. Gil v. Reed, No. 06-1414, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 15827 (7th Cir.).

     Prisoner failed to show that prison medical personnel were deliberately indifferent in prescribing hernia surgery on an "elective" basis only, rather than as an emergency, resulting in a delay, and in failing to give him a hernia belt that he allegedly needed. The evidence showed that the defendants engaged in "extensive" efforts to diagnose, monitor, and control his hernia problem, and therefore did not violate his Eighth Amendment rights. The inmate was allegedly provided with a back brace rather than a hernia belt, but failed to complain about the purported inadequacy of the back brace until six months after it was given to him. Webb v. Hamidullah, No. 06-7381, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 15048 (Unpub. 4th Cir.).

     Prisoner failed to show that prison personnel were deliberately indifferent to his need for treatment for tuberculosis (TB), Hepatitis C, and sleep apnea. Additionally the administrator of the prison medical department, who was not a doctor, could not be held to be deliberately indifferent when she allegedly failed to directly respond to the plaintiff's medical complaints, when she knew that he was being treated by the prison doctor. Lee v. Cerullo, No. 08-2227, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 14827 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).

     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.).

Medical Care: Dental

     A disagreement by a prisoner concerning whether or not a tooth should be extracted was insufficient to show deliberate indifference to his serious dental medical needs. The prisoner claimed that dental treatment was improperly conditioned on his consenting to a tooth extraction that he objected to. The court found that this was nothing more than a difference of opinion concerning the appropriate dental treatment, and did not show that the prison dentist was deliberately indifferent to the prisoner's needs. While the prisoner was entitled to medical (specifically in this case, dental) treatment, he was not necessarily entitled to the type of care he preferred. The prisoner could proceed, however, on his claim that he told the defendants that he was in severe pain because of his diseased teeth, and that nothing was done to alleviate his pain. Anderson v. Fishback, No. CV F 05 0729, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 52791 (E.D. Cal.).

Overcrowding

     While pretrial detainees were allegedly housed in crowded conditions, including triple celling in some instances, a federal appeals court found, under the totality of the circumstances, that this did not constitute a due process violation of the detainees' rights. Additionally, even if the detainees' rights were violated, the defendant officials were entitled to qualified immunity, since the right of pretrial detainees to be free from overcrowded conditions was not clearly established at the time of the alleged problem. Hubbard v. Taylor, No. 06-4627, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 16545 (3rd Cir.).

Prisoner Assault: By Inmates

     While a inmate's complaint stated viable claims that prison officials violated his civil rights by failing to protect him from an assault by a fellow prisoner, as well as a viable claim for negligence under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the prisoner failed to seek to hold the U.S. government, the proper defendant in the FTCA claim, liable, so that claim was properly dismissed. The federal civil rights claim was also properly dismissed as frivolous because it was time barred. Bynum v. Menifee, No. 07-30821, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 13261 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).

     Prisoner failed to properly allege that prison officials violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to protect him from attack by another prisoner. Specifically, he failed to assert that officials had subjective awareness of the risk of harm to him or that they were actually aware of his own earlier attack on the other prisoner, or the likelihood that the other prisoner would retaliate. Given that the prisoner was acting as his own attorney, and that the trial court noted that he might have been able to allege additional facts to show the officials' had subjective knowledge of the risk of an attack on him, the complaint should not have been dismissed with prejudice without first giving him a chance to amend the lawsuit. Clark v. Maldonado, No. 07-14876, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 16564 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).

Prisoner Assault: By Officers

     The plaintiffs in a wrongful death lawsuit concerning the death of an inmate after he was forcibly removed from his cell by seven correctional officers sufficient alleged facts which, if true, would show that the officers violated the prisoner's clearly established Eighth Amendment rights, so that the defendants were properly denied qualified immunity on those claims. Additionally, when summary judgment was denied on certain claims based on the existence of disputed issues of material fact, there was no jurisdiction to hear an appeal of those denials. Iko v. Raley, No. 07-7569, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 16607 (4th Cir.).

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

     Federal appeals court upholds jury verdict for defendant corrections officers in lawsuit brought by prisoner allegedly injured by them when they used force to extract him from his cell. The plaintiff prisoner admitted that he had a weapon in his pocket at the time of the incident, and the evidence showed that he had been belligerent and uncooperative, and that the prisoner had created a disturbance in his cell block, taunted an officer, and that pepper spray and a 15 OC Stinger grenade used against the prisoner, as well as tear gas, had little effect and failed to subdue him. The officers then shot a 37MM Ferret OC powder round, designed to break through a barricade, at the cell wall, but he still allegedly refused to comply. They then dispensed a 28b Stinger 37 MM 60 Cal. rubber-ball round into the cell, and again failed to subdue the prisoner. Another Ferret OC powder round fired into the cell then went through a mattress that the prisoner used to barricade his cell door, and hit him in the groin area, finally subduing him. Muhammad v. McCarrell, No. 07-2235, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 16682 (8th Cir.).

Prisoner Discipline

     A prisoner failed to show that a disciplinary board was confused about the facts of his case because it heard two other cases during the same sitting. While the prisoner had wanted to call his cell mate as an adverse witness in order to try to discredit an earlier statement the cellmate made, the court found that there was no constitutional right to confront and cross-examine an adverse witness in a disciplinary proceeding. Wilson-El v. Finnan, No. 07-2861, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 12670 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).

     An inmate's action of kissing a nurse on the cheek was insufficient to support disciplinary charges against him for "soliciting a sexual act." Despite the nurse's testimony that the inmate did not harass her, however, the rule against harassment was broad enough to cover the prisoner's conduct. The court ordered expunging from the prisoner's record of all references to the charge of "soliciting a sexual act." Wells v. Dubray, No. 504063, 2008 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 6255 (A.D. 3rd Dept.).

     Court rejects prisoner's claim that he was improperly charged and convicted of disciplinary offenses arising out of the finding of a cell phone that prison employees traced back to him. Changing the charge in the charging document to engaging in conduct that disrupted or interfered with security was not improper, since the prisoner had one week after the charge was altered to prepare his defense. The hearing officer did not become the "charging officer" by changing the charging document to reflect the appropriate charge under current prison policies, nor did this show that he was not impartial. Greer v. Hogston, No. 08-1142, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 15016 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).

Prisoner Suicide

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

     Prison psychiatrist was not entitled to qualified immunity in a suicidal prisoner's lawsuit claiming that she acted with deliberate indifference to his serious injuries. Her action in ordering his transport 150 miles away for medical treatment while he was in a comatose condition hours after a suicide attempt, instead of attempting to provide immediate medical care, could be found to be conduct which would result in a "significant delay" or even complete denial of medical care. The exceptional circumstances of the prisoner's comatose condition, the court found, "obviously" required immediate medical care, so that the trial court did not err in finding that she was liable for the prisoner's injuries. The trial court awarded the prisoner $103,800 in compensatory damages, as well as attorneys' fees. Bias v. Woods, No. 05-10890, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 16299 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).

Religion

     Rastafarian prisoner presented a viable claim that his clearly established constitutional right to religious freedom and his federal statutory rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000cc-1(1)(1), (2) were violated by a prohibition on him growing his hair in dreadlocks. The warden was found to have acted in an objectively unreasonable manner in insisting that the prisoner be prohibited from growing dreadlocks. Further, the court reasoned that a decision by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction to provide religious exceptions for hair grooming in its grooming code supported the prisoner's argument that growing his hair into dreadlocks was a legitimate part of his exercise of his religion. The warden failed to show that the dreadlocks would constitute a security problem. Johnson v. Collins, No. 3:07 CV 211, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 52127 (N.D. Ohio).

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

     Prison officials met their burden under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000cc of showing that prohibiting a Native American of Cherokee descent from establishing a sweat lodge for use in outdoor religious meetings furthered a compelling governmental interest and was the least restrictive means to furthering safety and security concerns. The prison argued that having such a sweat lodge, and allowing access to objects to be used during the sweat lodge, such as rocks, willow poles, deer antlers, split wood, and shovels, which could be used as weapons, would create unacceptable security problems. Fowler v. Crawford, No. 07-2946, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 15841 (8th Cir.).

     A prisoner who wished to be provided with prayer beads for use in performing shamanic religious activities stated a viable claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000cc, alleging facts which tended to show that the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (WDOC) substantially burdened his right to exercise his religion by refusing to allow him such beads. The religion of shamanism, he claimed, focuses on communicating with spirits, and the beads are needed to perform activities facilitating that communication, which could not be accomplished without them. The court found that it was "premature" to determine whether or not the WDOC asserted legitimate concerns justifying the denial. Meyer v. Wis. Dept. of Corrections, No. 08-cv-278, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 51362 (W.D. Wis.).

     Individual liability for money damages is not possible under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000cc, so that individual claims for such damages were properly dismissed against a jail chaplain and sergeant in their individual capacities in a Muslim prisoner's lawsuit. The lawsuit asserted that the prisoner was prevented from attending Friday prayer services, eating kosher meals some days during Ramadan, and wearing a Muslim kufi cap. Claims for injunctive relief were moot because the plaintiff was no longer at the jail. The court found that a county policy requiring prior approval for the wearing of a kufi cap did not violate the First Amendment because it was designed to make sure that the apparel in question did not pose a safety or security threat, and that legitimate budgetary problems prevented the jail from providing Friday religious services more often than every other week, while prisoners were allowed to pray in their cells the other Friday. Finally, the court ruled that the alleged failure to provide kosher meals on certain days during the Muslim religious month of Ramadan was merely an "oversight" in the kitchen, which the defendants subsequently remedied. Hathcock v. Cohen, No. 07-13596, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 15921 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).

     A "safe harbor" provision of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000cc, specifically 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000cc-3(c) applied to a temporary practice of not allowing Jum'ah prayer at a county detention facility on Fridays while the center was undergoing renovation construction. After the renovations were finished, such prayer services were provided on Fridays, and prior to that, they were provided on Sundays. While the renovation construction activity was ongoing, the facility did not have space available to provide a room for the services on Friday. The court also found that the RLUIPA did not mandate that the jail necessarily hire an imam to lead Jum'ah prayer services, as the plaintiffs demanded. Further, there was evidence that non-Muslims were allowed to prepare Halal meals suitable for consumption by Muslims, which refuted the plaintiffs' claim that such meals had to be prepared by other Muslims. Summary judgment was therefore entered for the defendants on all of the plaintiffs' claims. Tyson v. Guisto, No. CV 06-1415, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 49528 (D. Ore.).

Segregation: Administrative

     Prison officials and directors were not entitled to qualified immunity on prisoner's claim that they violated his due process rights by keeping him in administrative segregation for over a year while investigations of his alleged gang affiliation and disciplinary infractions were ongoing. The appeals court found that, even if the prison had received notice of the charges pending against him, there was no indication that he was presented with any opportunity to present his views. A gang investigation, however, was not on notice that his conduct in failing to interview the inmate to get his views prior to recommending that he be placed and kept in segregation could violate due process, since state regulations did not require such interviews, so the investigation was entitled to qualified immunity. Guizar v. Woodford, No. 07-15743, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 12614 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).

Sexual Assault

     When detainee-on-detainee violence was "very rare" and there was no prior complaint by a detainee of sexual assault at the juvenile detention facility, a juvenile detainee allegedly raped by another detainee failed to show deliberate indifference to the risk of such an assault. Officers' alleged failure to provide assistance to the plaintiff detainee might constitute negligence, but was hardly deliberate indifference. The defendant juvenile detention officers, however, did not have discretion under state law to leave a detainee at the facility unsupervised, but allegedly did "exactly that," so that they were not entitled to "state agent immunity" under Alabama law on state law negligence, recklessness, and wantonness claims.  D.S. v. County of Montgomery, Alabama, No. 07-15671, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 14237 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).

Sexual Offender Programs and Notification

     The state of Washington, in limiting the Department of Correction's discretion to deny release plans for prisoners, and in requiring that any rejection of such a plan be based on specified criteria, created a constitutionally protected due process liberty interest in early release into community custody. The denial of a sex offender's release plan, under a DOC policy which provided for the automatic denial of release plans of those deemed to be violent sex offenders, combined with the "complete absence" of procedures for challenging such denials, violated due process. That right was not, however, clearly established, so that the Secretary of the DOC was entitled to qualified immunity from liability. Carver v. Lehman, No. 06-35176, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 12323 (9th Cir.).

     Convicted sex offender civilly committed to a special treatment unit under a New Jersey Sexually Violent Predators Act failed to show a violation of his Fifth Amendment constitutional right against self-incrimination by the requirement that he disclose, during the therapy, past criminal sexual acts he had committed, even if he suffered penalties, such as the withholding of certain privileges and placement in "treatment refusal status" when he refused to make such disclosures. The court further held that, even if the plaintiff had a right to remain silent about such past crimes, which was not certain, any such right was not clearly established, so that the defendants would be entitled, in any event, to qualified immunity on his Fifth and First Amendment claims. Aruanno v. Spagnuolo, No. 07-4276, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 15123 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).

Strip Search: Prisoners

     Policies applied at county correctional facility regarding strip searches were constitutional, and required the approval of such searches by supervisory personnel based on specific articulable facts justifying reasonable suspicion of possession by the individual of contraband or a weapon. In this instance, however, in which a suspected drug courier was strip searched, there were disputed issues of fact as to whether there was such reasonable suspicion that she possessed drugs, as the suspicion was based on an anonymous tip that a drug courier riding a bicycle would approach a specific intersection, and a police log indicated that officers were advised to be looking for a man on a bike, not a woman. Further proceedings, therefore, were ordered against a commanding officer and a city officer who allegedly recommended the strip search. Smith v. County of Riverside, No. 06-56848, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 15805 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).

     The use of male officers to remove a suicidal prisoner from her cell and remove her clothing was based on staffing exigencies. The clothing was removed so that it could not be used by the inmate to injure herself. The court granted all defendants summary judgment, also ruling that the prisoner's removal from her cell and placement in administrative segregation did not violate her rights, since her past suicidal threats and current conduct justified these actions. Graham v. Van Dycke, No. 05-3397, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 53253 (D. Kan.).

Work, Education, and Recreation Programs

     Prison's decision to eliminate an inmate independent band program did not violate a prisoner's First Amendment right to freedom of expression or his religious rights under the Establishment of Religion Clause of the First Amendment. The court noted that the religious music program offered by the facility was "entirely optional" and there were a number of options for musical expression, including both religious and non-religious music. The "independent" inmate band program was eliminated on the basis of security concerns, based on the "poor supervision" of the program, which created an unsafe environment. Prison officials, in deciding to eliminate the program, engaged in a "standard review process for evaluating a program," and did not arbitrarily decide that it constituted a security problem. Young v. Beard, No. 07-1670, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 14315 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).

    •Return to the Contents menu.

     Environmental Issues: Working Toward a Sustainable DOC, Washington State Department of Corrections (Olympia, WA 2008). The application of sustainability to correctional operations in Washington State is explained at this website. "Sustainability is the protection and management of our resources to meet current needs without sacrificing the needs of future generations." Points of entry include accountability, OMNI (Offender Management Network Information) System, strategic plan, going green, energy and fuel, water, toxic materials, facilities, waste, commitment and awareness, related links, and Sustainability Progress Report.

     Jail and Prison Conditions: Conditions at Cook County Jail in Chicago, Illinois. Letter from the U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civil Rights Division reporting on investigation of the Cook County Jail facility. "Conditions at the Cook County Jail in Chicago, Illinois that violate the constitutional rights of inmates are explained. This findings letter is comprised of the following sections: background, legal standings, findings regarding inadequate protection from harm, inadequate medical care, inadequate mental health care, inadequate fire safety, and inadequate sanitation and environmental conditions, and remedial measures. (August 2008).

     Parole: Characteristics of State Parole Supervising Agencies, 2006. Presents information for 52 state parole supervising agencies at midyear 2006, including the California Youth Authority and the District of Columbia. This report describes, by state, where these agencies were located in each state's administrative structure, the number of adult parolees, and probationers, if any, under supervision, and the number of separate offices the parole agency operated. National estimates are presented for the number and type of staff employed by parole supervising agencies and of parole supervision caseloads. Use of drug abuse testing, various treatment programs, and the availability of housing and employment assistance programs are documented. Highlights include the following: * Five state agencies accounted for about half of the adults under parole supervision on June 30, 2006: Departments of Corrections in California (125,067 adults on parole); Texas (101,175); and Illinois (33,354); and two independent agencies, New York (53,215) and Pennsylvania (24,956, excluding adults supervised by county parole offices). * Half of parole supervising agencies had a role in releasing prisoners to parole, setting the conditions of supervision, or conducting revocation hearings. * Up to 16% of at-risk parolees in some agencies were re-incarcerated for a failed drug test. 08/08 NCJ 222180. Press release | Acrobat file (133K) | ASCII file (19K) | Spreadsheets (zip format 19K).

     Sex Offenders: Criminal Justice Resources: Sex Offender Residency Restrictions by Ken Strutin (2008). This article collects recent court decisions, research papers and reports that have addressed the efficacy of exclusionary zoning laws and the impact of these restrictions on sex offenders reentering their communities.

     Sex Offenders: Risk Assessment Instruments to Predict Recidivism of Sex Offenders: Practices in Washington State, by Tali Klima and Roxanne Lieb, Washington State Institute for Public Policy (Olympia, WA). (2008). The use of risk assessment instruments for sex offender recidivism in Washington State is examined. Sections following a summary are: introduction; the Department of Corrections; sex offender risk assessment -- decision points, party conducting assessment, and instruments employed; Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) -- civil commitment; DSHS' Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration; local law enforcement agencies; private sex offender treatment providers; concerns about the WSSORLCT (Washington State Sex Offender Risk Level Classification Tool); and conclusion.

     Statistics: Sexual Violence Reported by Juvenile Correctional Authorities, 2005-06. Presents data from the 2005 and 2006 Survey on Sexual Violence, an administrative records collection of incidents required under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-79) of youth-on-youth and staff-on-youth sexual violence reported to juvenile correctional authorities. The report provides counts of sexual violence, by type, for juvenile correctional facilities. The report also provides an in-depth analysis of substantiated incidents, including where the incidents occur, time of day, number and characteristics of victims and perpetrators, nature of the injuries, impact on the victims and sanctions imposed on the perpetrators. The appendix tables include counts of sexual violence, by type, for all state systems, and all sampled locally or privately operated facilities. Highlights include the following: * Approximately 1 in 5 of reported allegations of juvenile sexual violence were substantiated. * Youth-on-youth incidents were more likely to occur in the victim’s room (37%) or in a common area (32%), compared to staff-on-youth incidents (7% and 13%, respectively). * Victims received physical injuries in 12% of substantiated incidents of youth-on-youth sexual violence; about half received some form of medical follow-up. 07/08 NCJ 215337 Press release | Acrobat file (221K) | ASCII file (31K) | Spreadsheets (zip format 45K)

Reference:

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

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