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.

• Most Federal District Court opinions can be accessed via PACER. Registration required. Opinions are usually free; other documents are 10¢ per page.
• Access to cases linked to www.findlaw.com may require registration, which is free.

Disability Discrimination: Prisoners

     An Indiana prisoner who was a paraplegic claimed that correctional officials failed to adequately accommodate his disability. He claimed that he was subject to humiliating toileting arrangements, assigned to a cell that was so small that he had to move his wheelchair when his cellmate needed to use the toilet, had to travel over sidewalks that resulted in him tipping out of his wheelchair, that he was excluded from job training, transported in vehicles not equipped for wheelchairs, and denied access to the library and weight room. The defendants argued that he had failed to exhaust available administrative remedies, to which he claimed that such efforts would have been futile as he was threatened when he filed grievances.

      The trial court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants without first holding a separate hearing on the futility argument. A federal appeals court found no error, although stating that it would have been preferable to first hold such a hearing, but that the futility argument could be decided in ruling on summary judgment. In this case, there were no disputed issues of material fact. Additionally, the state Department of Corrections and its Commissioner in his official capacity were not persons for purposes of a Sec. 1983, as claims against them were claims against the state. The plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative remedies on all but two of his disability discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act--but the longer waits and humiliation he suffered by being transported in a van not equipped for wheelchairs did not amount to a denial of service. The failure to repair his wheelchair also did not show disability discrimination, especially as he was provided with a new wheelchair backrest before he filed his grievance. Wagoner v. Ind. Dep't of Corrections, #13-3839, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 1783 (7th Cir.).

Inmate Funds

     A prisoner received a $107,416.48 settlement on his claim against a drug manufacturer whose products caused him to develop diabetes. Correctional officials froze $65,353.94 in his inmate trust account, subsequently withdrawing it to pay the estimated cost of his incarceration and medical care. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the defendants in the prisoner's lawsuit, finding that there was no precedent imposing an obligation to provide a pre-deprivation hearing in these circumstances, and therefore, any right to such a hearing was not clearly established. As for the prisoner's Eighth Amendment claim, the taking of the funds was reimbursement for costs, not punishment, so no Eighth Amendment rights were violated. Shinault v. Hawks, #13-35290, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 971 (9th Cir.).

Inmate Property

     Two prisoners purchased fans and a typewriter from the prison's commissary, but the facility subsequently forbade inmates to possess these items, and the property was taken from them. In their proposed class action lawsuit, they argued that this was an unconstitutional taking of property and a breach of contract. Upholding the dismissal of the federal civil rights lawsuit, the federal appeals court held that a property owner cannot assert a claim under the Just Compensation Clause of the Constitution if a state has an adequate procedure for seeking just compensation until they have tried to use the procedure and been denied relief. In this case, the prisoners had not attempted to assert their claim under state law before filing their federal lawsuit. Sovereign immunity barred their contract claim in federal court. Sorrentino v. Godinez, #13-3421, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 1060 (7th Cir.).

Prison Litigation Reform Act: Exhaustion of Remedies

     A prisoner claimed that officials and employees had violated his rights by failing to respond to his grievances asserting that his uniform and linens were not changed often enough, that he was exposed to second-hand tobacco smoke, and that he was given a haircut against his will with unsterilized scissors. The lawsuit was properly dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. The failure of prison officials to respond to a prisoner's grievances at the preliminary stage did not excuse him from exhausting the remaining steps. Wilson v. Epps, #13-60574, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 321 (5th Cir.).

Prison Litigation Reform Act: Filing Fees

     The plaintiff prisoner claimed that he was denied adequate medical care and forced to live in unsanitary conditions. He sought to proceed as a pauper with his lawsuit, showing that his prison trust account was $300 overdrawn, and that he earned $10 a month from his prison job. The court assessed an initial filing fee of $2.02. The prison did not make the $2.02 payment, and the lawsuit was dismissed. The prisoner argued that the prison administrator was at fault, failing to comply with the court's order to pay the fee. Reversing the dismissal, the appeals court noted that there was no rule requiring a prison to process a payment to permit a lawsuit before satisfying a prisoner's debt to the prison. There was a conflict of interest in asking the prison to process a lawsuit fee for a prisoner in a lawsuit against it, and no prisoner can be prohibited from bringing a civil lawsuit because they lack the means to pay the fee. Sultan v. Fenoglio, #14-1376, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 71 (7th Cir.).

Prison Litigation Reform Act: "Three Strikes" Rule

     A female prisoner claimed that prison officials put her in danger and caused gang members to threaten her by starting rumors that she was a convicted sex offender and changing her prison records. She could proceed with her appeal as a pauper despite having previously suffered "three strikes" by having lawsuits dismissed as frivolous when she argued that she faced an imminent danger at the time she filed the notice of appeal. Further proceedings were ordered on the issue of exhaustion of available administrative remedies. Williams v. Paramo, #13-56004, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 24694 (9th Cir.).

Prisoner Assault: By Inmates

      A prison's Special Management Unit housed violent prisoners and those with a history of gang involvement while incarcerated. Those in the unit were confined to their cells 23 hours a day and allwed one hour daily in a recreation cage. A prisoner claimed that prison officials engaged in a pattern, practice, or policy of improperly placing prisoners with known conflicts with each other in the same cell, failing to intervene when predictable violence erupted between such prisoners, and improperly restraining prisoners who refuse cell assignments with prisoners known to be hostile to them. A federal appeals court vacated denial of class action certification and summary judgment on an Eighth Amendment claim. A proposed class of inmates placed in special housing unit cells with other inmates known to be hostile to them despite the facility's knowledge of the risk of violence from such cell assignments was not overly broad or improperly defined. A dismissal of a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act for negligence was properly dismissed, however, for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. Shelton v. Bledsoe, #12-4226, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 253 (3rd Cir.).

     A prisoner's mother claimed that two other inmates attacked and severely injured him, causing permanent mental impairment, when a corrections officer was escorting the three of them through an isolated prison passage. The federal appeals court found that there were triable issues of fact as to whether the officer was aware of an objectively substantial risk of serious harm since all three prisoners were high-security and mutually hostile prisoners and were half-restrained, lacking leg restraints. Both a federal civil rights Eighth Amendment claim and a state law gross negligence claim could proceed. Cortez v. Skol, #12-16688, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 1178 (9th Cir.).

Religion

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

     The U.S. Supreme Court held that a correctional policy that prohibited prisoners from growing beards (with an exception for inmates with a diagnosed skin condition allowed to grow 1/4 inch beards) violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000cc-1(a), when used to deny a sincerely devout Muslim prisoner the right to grow a 1/2-inch beard as required by his religious beliefs. The rights granted by the statute are not limited to beliefs shared by all practitioners of a religion. The defendants failed to show that enforcing the policy in this manner served the stated compelling interests in safety, keeping out contraband, and preventing inmates from quickly changing their appearance. It would be difficult to hide contraband by such a short beard, and hair on the head was allowed to be that length. It was not shown that security concerns could not be satisfied by searching such beards. Requiring prisoners to be photographed both with and without beards would be a less restrictive means of preventing them from being able to quickly change appearance, such as during an escape. The opinion noted that many other institutions allowed facial fair.Holt v. Hobbs, #13-6827, 2015 U.S. Lexis 626.

Visitation

     The wife of an inmate claimed that her visitation privileges with him were terminated in retaliation for her exercising her First Amendment rights by engaging in public protests asserting that the Department of Corrections was violating the rights of her husband and other prisoners then on a hunger strike. While a reasonable jury could find that the motivation for the termination, in part, might have been to retaliate for her role in the protests, it was also motivated by legitimate concerns about the security and safety of inmates and staff members. The defendant officials were entitled to qualified immunity for both the period of time during the hunger strike and after it ended, as the decision to terminate visitation rights was made while the hunger strike was ongoing and was lawful when it was made. Jackson v. Humphrey, #14-10183, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 469 (11th Cir.).

•Return to the Contents menu.

     Inmate Records: Inmate Central File, Privacy Folder, and Parole Mini-Files, Federal Bureau of Prisons Program Statement 5800.17 (January 9, 2015").

     Medical Care: Medical Problems of State and Federal Prisoners and Jail Inmates, 2011–12, by Marcus Berzofsky, Laura M. Maruschak, and Jennifer Unangst. Bureau of Justice Statistics (February 5, 2015 NCJ 248491).

     Probation: Corrections Statistical Analysis Tool (CSAT) - Probation, by Bonczar, Thomas P., and Mulako-Wangota, Joseph. Bureau of Justice Statistics (2015),

     Smoking: Smoking/No Smoking Areas, Federal Bureau of Prisons Program Statement 1640.05 (January 7, 2015).

  Reference:

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

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