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 or Westlaw citation can be retrieved, for a fee, via Internet.
• 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

     Federal appeals court upholds injunction against broad policy preventing inmates from receiving certain Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) materials and forms. The defendants failed to show that the policy was narrowly tailored to serve the legitimate goal of preventing the filing of fraudulent liens, and effective rules were possible which could serve this goal while still allowing inmates to receive a broad rang of UCC materials. Jones v. Caruso, #07-2393, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 13371 (6th Cir.).

     A warden's alleged seizure and confiscation of all legal materials from a prisoner's cell did not violate his right of access to the courts. The prisoner failed to show that he suffered any actual injury, since he managed to file his brief in court unhindered. Lee v. Hudson, #08-15892, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 13843 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).

DNA

     Qualified immunity was improperly granted in a lawsuit over the forcible taking of a DNA sample from a pretrial detainee merely because a prosecutor wanted to put the sample in a "cold case" data bank. At the time, the court stated, there was no warrant or court order authorizing the taking of the sample, nor was the detainee suspected of a crime for which a DNA sample might be justified. An officer allegedly forced his jaw open and forcefully took a swab from the inside of his mouth. If true, this action violated the detainee's clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. Friedman v. Boucher, No. 05-15675, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 13440 (9th Cir.).

Employment Issues

     After an Assistant Deputy Director in the Illinois Department of Corrections voluntarily testified at a Prisoner Review Board hearing supporting a prisoner's release, he was transferred to another role in the Department. He claimed that this violated his First Amendment rights, but a federal appeals court has upheld a grant of qualified immunity to the defendants in his lawsuit, holding that, at the time of the action, it was "not clearly established that the employer's action violated any constitutional rights." Matrisciano v. Randle, No. 06-1599, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 13922 (7th Cir.).

First Amendment

     A prisoner claimed that he suffered unlawful retaliation, in violation of his First Amendment rights, after he provided assistance in legal matters to other prisoners. The retaliation supposedly included deprivation of property, improper segregation, and interference with his right of access to the courts. A federal appeals court found that the plaintiff prisoner failed to show that the defendants' actions affected his ability to pursue his legal claims, or that the conditions in segregation imposed a major hardship. The court ordered further proceedings, however, on the claim that he was deprived of property in retaliation for his legal assistance to other inmates, and that he provided this assistance to try to protect constitutional rights or achieve social change, activities protected by the First Amendment. Taylor v. McSwain, #08-12238, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 12858 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).

     A federal prison rule that barred in-person meetings between reporters and prisoners confined in a special unit because they were sentenced to death did not violate equal protection, but was justified by the differing needs of security in different units. Additionally, press interviews could potentially turn some prisoners into celebrities, and increase prison tension. The First Amendment was not violated, given that uncensored outgoing correspondence directed to the media was allowed. Finally, since the ban on in-person media interviews was a blanket ban, it was viewpoint and content neutral. Hammer v. Ashcroft, #06-1750, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 13804 (7th Cir.).

     Rejecting a prisoner's claim that he had faced a false disciplinary charge in retaliation for his exercise of his First Amendment rights, the court ruled that any adversity suffered was minimal since the disciplinary charges were dropped after a week, no sanctions resulted, and the prisoner was afforded several opportunities to give his side of the facts to neutral persons. Starr v. Dube, #08-1322, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 13552 (Unpub. 1st Cir.).

Inmate Funds

     The Texas Supreme Court ruled that state prison officials can take money from inmate trust accounts to collect court fees owed and other costs without first notifying a prisoner. Due process was not violated, as the prisoners received "contemporaneous" notice of the withdrawal of the money, and the Constitution does not require pre-withdrawal notice. Harrell v. State of Texas, No. 07-0806, 2009 Tex. Lexis 321.

Mail

     Correctional employees were properly denied summary judgment on claims that they unlawfully opened a prisoners legal mail when there were factual disputes over whether or not they opened some items, and whether they disregarded existing prison rules in doing so. Merriweather v. Zamora, # 08-1570, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 13515 (6th Cir.).

Medical Care

     A prisoner's testimony appeared to indicate that his allegations that prison personnel deliberately denied treatment for his back condition actually amounted to a mere disagreement over the proper treatment under the circumstances. Rather than being deliberately indifferent towards the prisoner's pain, the defendants, at worst, were rude and "overly suspicious" as to whether the prisoner was overstating the pain he felt and engaging in drug-seeking behavior. If so, this did not rise to the level of a violation of constitutional rights. There was treatment provided, and there was a medical basis for its direction. Spruill v. Gillis, #07-3286, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 12941 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).

     A prisoner who suffered from hepatitis, herpes virus, and genital warts failed to show that prison non-medical personnel, such as a warden and members of a prison board had any actual knowledge or even a reason to believe that he was being mistreated. The prisoner also failed to show that three named doctors were personally involved in the mistreatment he claimed occurred. Additionally, claims based on incidents occurring longer than two years before were time barred, and the prisoner was not entitled to the extension of the applicable statute of limitations either on the basis that he was incarcerated, or that certain personnel supposedly refused to give their names. Despite this, the prisoner knew of the alleged misconduct at the time he said it occurred, and could have sued at the time. Smith v. Lycoming County, #07-3634, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 12972 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).

     A prisoner merely disagreed with prison personnel concerning the proper course of treatment for a back injury he suffered when a prison table collapsed, and did not show that anyone acted with deliberate indifference towards his serious medical needs. Non-medical personnel, the court also noted, could not be held liable simply on the basis of their role as supervisors. Claims of negligence the prisoner asserted against prison maintenance supervisors were not sufficient to constitute a violation of constitutional rights. Innis v. Wilson, #08-4909, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 12424 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).

Medical Care: Dental

     A prisoner's own description of the only symptoms he claimed to have suffered as a result of denial of a specific dental procedure, bonding of a tooth, amounted to a sensitivity to hot and cold and a constant aching. These symptoms, unlike such things as a gum infection or tooth decay, did not constitute serious medical needs as they did not pose substantial risks to his health if untreated. The prisoner's personal prediction that things might worsen over time was not enough to show an Eighth Amendment violation, and the prisoner had been free to request another dental appointment if his condition worsened. Greene v. Pollard, #08-3884, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 12655 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).

Medical Care: Mental Health

     Injuries a prisoner allegedly suffered from withdrawal from Xanax, which he claimed included hallucinations, nausea, anxiety, and fluctuating blood pressure, did not satisfy the requirement, under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 19997e(e) that he show physical injury before being able to recover damages for mental injuries. At the time, the plaintiff prisoner himself only complained of cold symptoms and "agitation." Additionally, because medical personnel provided other psychotropic medication during his Xanax withdrawal, they were not deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Chatham v. Adcock, #07-14995, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 13731 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).

     A new Florida law, effective July 1, 2009, requires law enforcement agencies to have a protocol with care facilities concerning mental health examination of persons transported there. "Each law enforcement agency shall develop a memorandum of understanding with each receiving facility within the law enforcement's jurisdiction which reflects a single set of protocols for the safe and secure transportation of the person and transfer of custody of the person. These protocols must also address crisis-intervention measures."

Prisoner Assault: By Inmates

     A jury verdict for a correctional officer in a lawsuit over the failure to protect a prisoner from a beating by his cellmate had to be overturned and further proceedings ordered when a jury instruction improperly indicated that, in order to find the officer liable, the jurors would have to conclude that the officer himself directly caused the prisoner's injuries. The instructions would not have allowed the jury to find for the plaintiff on the basis of his claim that the officer improperly failed to act, hearing the plaintiff's call for help, and failed to then take any steps to prevent the assault. Clem v. Lomeli, #07-16764, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 11931 (9th Cir.).

Prisoner Assault: By Officers

     An inmate claimed that he was severely beaten by Special Operations Group personnel who were in the process of securing the prison during a lockdown that followed an inmate's killing of a guard. Evidence of the prisoner's injuries, including photographs, his own testimony, and the testimony of an ombudswoman, supported the jury's decision to award the plaintiff compensatory and punitive damages against a prison administrator who was allegedly deliberately indifferent to a serious risk of harm to him. The award totaled $45,000 in compensatory, and $200,000 in punitive damages. Further proceedings were needed, however, to reconsider the amount of the punitive damage award, which the court stated might be supportable, but which merited a "hard look," which it believed was not done by the court below following the trial. Mejias v. Roth, #07-3913, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 12767 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).

Prisoner Discipline

     A prisoner could not pursue his claim that prison officials tampered with a videotape purportedly showing that he did not assault prison guards. He was ultimately subjected to prison discipline and criminal conviction on charges concerning the assault. Success on his federal civil rights lawsuit would imply the invalidity of his conviction, and was therefore barred when the conviction had not first been set aside. Ruiz v. Hofbauer, #08-1257, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 10850 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).

Prisoner Suicide

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

     After an 18-year-old female detainee at a Wisconsin prison for women managed to commit suicide despite being placed on 24-hour-a-day suicide watch, her estate and minor sisters sued a number of correctional employees for failure to prevent the death, seeking a total of $10 million in damages. After years of litigation, the plaintiffs accepted a settlement offer of $635,000, not including attorneys' fees. The plaintiffs then sought $328,740.42 in attorneys' fees. The trial judge reduced the request, awarding $100,000 in attorneys' fees, stating that he was doing so because the plaintiffs recovered only a "small fraction" of the damages they originally sought. The appeals court found that this was an improper approach, and stated that the fact that the plaintiffs initially requested an "absurd" amount of damages should not be held against them to reduce the attorneys' fee award, since they did obtain a "significant" recovery. Further proceedings were ordered on the right amount of attorneys' fees to award. Estate of Enoch v. Tienor, #08-4103, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 13920 (7th Cir.).

Prisoner Transport

     An inmate transported by a private company from Illinois to Florida pursuant to extradition alleged that he suffered injuries during the transport because he was placed in a cage smaller than a dog crate, he was handcuffed, chained at the waist, and shackled on his legs, and the van had inadequate ventilation and no seat belts. He also stated that the officer driving the vehicle drove recklessly, that there was a smoky smell inside, and that he was prevented from using an asthma inhaler. The court found that the prisoner failed, in his federal civil rights lawsuit, to meet the physical injury requirement of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(e), as his complaints of back pain, headache, and temporary chest pain were minimal. The court ruled that the statute applied because the prisoner was in custody even though the injuries took place outside the prison. The statute would not bar a claim for injunctive relief, but the plaintiff prisoner could not show that he would again be a passenger in a vehicle operated by the defendant company. Quinlan v. Personal Transport Services Co., #08-14121, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 12224 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).

Religion

     A prison substantially burdened a prisoner's right to religious freedom under both federal and Illinois law by difficult procedural requirements to receive a religious diet and refusal to provide meat-free meals during Lent and on Fridays. Further proceedings were ordered to determine if the defendants were acting to further a compelling governmental interest, were using the least restrictive means to do so, and whether they violated clearly established law. Nelson v. Miller, #08-2044, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 14240 (7th Cir.).

In a lawsuit against a prison official under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) claiming failure to accommodate a religious request for a kosher diet, the statute does not allow a claim for damages against an official in their individual capacity, so the complaint was properly dismissed. Rendelman v. Rouse, #08-6150, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 13659 (4th Cir.).

Sex Discrimination

     Female prison inmates did not show sex discrimination based on the different programs and facilities provided for female and male prisoners. Rather than gender discrimination, the defendants' actions were based on a need to provide adequate sex segregated housing for female prisoners. Vocational education programs offered in prison were not covered by Title IX of the Civil Rights Act. Differences in male and female programs offered were a result of the location of the facilities rather than sex discrimination. Roubideaux v. North Dakota Dep't of Corr. and Rehabilitation, #07-3780 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 14417 (8th Cir.).

Sexual Assault

     A former pre-trial detainee at a county jail, who was allegedly raped and sodomized by a deputy there, failed to show that the sheriff was aware of any sexual misconduct at the facility prior to the incident at issue. The court rejected her claims against the sheriff for deliberate indifference based on purported policies of underfunding, understaffing, inadequate training, and allowing male deputies to escort female prisoners without supervision. Boyd v. Nichols, #7:08-cv-26, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 37750 (M.D. Ga.).

Smoking

      The right to protection against excessive exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is clearly established. A warden failed to show that a prisoner's purported sensitivity to ETS could not have been accommodated while still satisfying concerns about security in the facility. There were factual issues undetermined which made it an error for the trial court to have granted qualified immunity to the defendant warden. Colon v. Drew, #08-0033, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 12135 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.).

Strip Searches: Prisoners

     In a lawsuit brought by a civilly committed person detained as a sexually dangerous person, a federal appeals court held that treatment facility personnel did not act unreasonably by conducting visual body cavity searches of all patients after a cell phone case was found in a common area, resulting in suspicion of the presence of a contraband cell phone. The searches were carried out in private, and were strictly visual, and institutional security was the justification. Serna v. Goodno; #05-3441, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 11767 (8th Cir.).

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

     The City of Philadelphia will pay $5.9 million in settlement of a class-action lawsuit over thousands of strip searches at the city's six detention facilities. According to the lawsuit, all new detainees were strip searched, including persons detained overnight on minor charges because of lack of bail. Searches allegedly usually included visual body cavity searches. Court documents concerning the settlement can be accessed at the website at: http://www.philadelphiastripsearch.com  Boone v. City of Philadelphia, #05-CV-1851 (U.S. Dist. Ct., E.D. Pa.).

U.S. Supreme Court Actions

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

     The U.S. Supreme Court, in a federal civil rights lawsuit brought by a man convicted of sexual assault and other crimes, ruled that the plaintiff had no constitutional right to post-conviction access to the state's evidence for DNA testing for the purpose of attempting to prove his innocence. The Court also reasoned that it was a legislative task to develop procedures and rules for obtaining access to such evidence for DNA testing. District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial Circuit v. Osborne, #08–6, 129 S. Ct. 2308 (2009).

Work/Education/Recreation Programs

     The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) received complaints about the working conditions and air quality in a prison factory where the plaintiff inmates had worked making furniture components. The court found no evidence to show that prison staff members were aware that conditions in the factory created an unreasonable risk of harm to inmates. Additionally, any claim of deliberate indifference was refuted by the fact that remedial measures which were taken in response to OSHA violations and recommendations. Ward v. Lamanna, #07-2023, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 12752 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).

     A federal prisoner does not have a constitutionally protected property interest in a job assignment with the Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (UNICOR). The court therefore rejected the plaintiff prisoner's claim that his rights, constitutional or contractual, were violated when he was terminated from such employment by his supervisor. Johnson v. Rowley, #07-2213, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 12520 (2nd Cir.).

    •Return to the Contents menu.

     Prison Sexual Assault: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission: Report and Recommended Standards (June 2009). Under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 15601 et seq., the U.S. Attorney General has until June 23, 2010 to publish a final rule adopting national standards on the issue.

     Prison Sexual Assault: "Improving Prison Oversight to Address Sexual Violence in Detention," by Melissa Rothstein and Lovisa Stannow, American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (July 2009). The authors discuss the need for improved corrections oversight and the specific role that the recently proposed national standards can play. They conclude by urging the Attorney General to ratify the recommended standards, as well as establish a strong, independent mechanism for measuring compliance.

     Prisoner Reentry: The Public Health Implications of Prisoner Reentry in California. A new publication from the Rand Corporation looks at how behavioral and physical health care affects a former prisoner’s successful reintegration into society, and what role public health services can play in this transfer. According to the report, the prison population is “disproportionately sicker on average than the U.S. population in general, with substantially higher rates of infectious diseases (such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and hepatitis B and C), serious mental illness, and substance abuse disorders.”

     Immigration Detainees: A new publication from the Immigrant Justice Network examines what it terms the “Dangerous Merger” between the criminal justice system and immigration enforcement system. The paper touches on such phenomenon as the “Criminal Alien” program and how ICE contracts with local jails allegedly increase racial profiling.

 Reference:

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

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