AELE Seminars:

The Biometric, Psychological and Legal Aspects of Lethal and Less Lethal Force
and the Management, Oversight, Monitoring, Investigation and Adjudication of the Use of Force
April 3-6, 2017 - Orleans Hotel, Las Vegas

Public Safety Discipline and Internal Investigations

Oct. 2-5, 2017– Orleans Hotel, Las Vegas

Click here for further information about all AELE Seminars.

Search the Case Law Digest

Jail and Prisoner Law Bulletin
A civil liability law publication for officers, jails, detention centers and prisons
ISSN 0739-0998 - Cite this issue as: 2017 JB April
Click here to view information on the editor of this publication.

Access the multi-year Jail & Prisoner Law Case Digest

Return to the monthly publications menu
Report non-working links here
Some links are to PDF files - Adobe Reader™ must be used to view content

CONTENTS

Digest Topics

Disability Discrimination: Prisoners

False Imprisonment

Mail

Medical Care

Medical Care: Dental

Overcrowding

Prison and Jail Conditions: General: Water

Religion

Segregation: Administrative (2 cases)

•Return to the Contents menu.

Resources

Cross_References

AELE Seminars:

Public Safety Discipline and Internal Investigations

Oct. 2-5, 2017– Orleans Hotel, Las Vegas

Click here for further information about all AELE Seminars.

MONTHLY CASE 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

A deaf man confined as a sexually dangerous person sued the federal Bureau of Prisons for alleged failure to provide him with needed American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters for medical appointments and other essential communications, as well as refusal to provide him with access to a videophone or otherwise accommodate his disability. A federal appeals court concluded that the evidence presented by the plaintiff was adequate to satisfy both the objective and subjective components of deliberate indifference, so that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendant on a claim of inadequate medical care for his disability, and his claim that it was unreasonable to deny him access to a TTY device. Heyer v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, #15-6826, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 3265 (4th Cir.).

False Imprisonment

A man was sentenced to 18 months of incarceration, with 560 days of credit for time served, covering the entire incarceration period. At the sentencing hearing, the judge stated that the defendant “may be supervised . . . if the parole board determines it is necessary.” The board would make that determination “[b]efore [he is] released,” and the sheriff’s office was to “process him.” The judge predicted that the defendant will never be transported.” The sheriff failed to release the prisoner for a couple of days after sentencing, and by the time the judgment was filed, the sheriff had processed the prisoner to the state Department of Corrections, where the time served credit was applied, and he was released. In a lawsuit against the sheriff in his official capacity for false imprisonment and violation of Fourteenth Amendment due process, a federal appeals court upheld dismissal of all claims. While sheriffs in Ohio are generally regarded as county policymakers, state law required him to transport the prisoner to the Department. As he acted as an arm of the state in doing so, he was entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from being sued in federal court. Jones v. Hamilton Cty. Sheriff. #16-3259, 838 F.3d 782 (6th Cir. 2016).

Mail

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

An Idaho prisoner filed a federal civil rights lawsuit claiming that prison employees on four occasions had opened legal mail before it was delivered to him rather than opening it in his presence. He asserted that there was a policy or custom of ignoring the improper handling of legal mail. The trial court dismissed the complaint at the pre-screening stage under 28 U.S.C. 1915A. A federal appeals court found that two of the four claims should not have been dismissed. Prisoners do have a protected First Amendment interest in having properly marked legal mail opened only in their presence and a plaintiff need not allege a longstanding practice of violating his First Amendment rights in order to state a claim for relief on a direct liability theory. Additionally, a plaintiff need not show any actual injury beyond the free speech violation itself to state a constitutional claim. The other two claims were properly dismissed, as the prisoner had not met the burden of showing that those items were legal mail. Mail from the United States courts, as opposed to from an attorney, is not legal mail that must be opened in the prisoner’s presence. Hayes v. Idaho Correctional Center, #14-35078, 2017 U.S.App. Lexis 3851 (9th Cir.).

Medical Care

An Illinois prisoner sued a prison doctor and nurse for alleged deliberate indifference to his pain following nine abdominal surgeries, the management of his diet, and inattention to a possible renal cell tumor. Upholding summary judgment for the defendants, a federal appeals court found insufficient evidence to show that either of the defendants had ignored a substantial risk of harm to the prisoner. Every time he went to the medical center he was evaluated and treated. He was also told to return if his symptoms continued. He had no right to dictate the specifics of his treatment or whether his treatment required that he be transferred. The doctor discontinued his Vicodin prescription but was engaged in efforts to manage his pain, and his active monitoring of the prisoner’s diet was the opposite of deliberate indifference. Harper v. Santos. #15-1903, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 2521 (7th Cir.).

Medical Care: Dental

An Illinois prisoner complained that the prison’s dentist had refused to send him to an outside dentist to extract a decayed tooth that was causing him pain, and that the contractor serving the medical needs of the facility had a policy of withholding medical care to save money. While the prison dentist had assured him that his mouth could be successfully numbed, the prisoner refused to let her pull the tooth and complained to the contractor that he was suffering needlessly because of its refusal to provide him with access to outside treatment. Later, he agreed to let a different prison dentist pull the tooth with a local anesthetic used during the extraction, but he complained that the extraction had been painful. Summary judgment was granted for the defendants. A federal appeals court reasoned that the alleged events did not reflect deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, but the exercise of medical judgment. Lake v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., #15-2360, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 2685 (7th Cir.).

Overcrowding

An intermediate California appeals court issued an order to show cause on a prisoner’s claim that he was denied due process of law when he was not released at the conclusion of a prison-reduction procedure developed pursuant to the order of the three-judge federal court concerned with overcrowding. He argued that the Board of Prison Hearings should have granted him parole as a non-violent, non-sex-registrant second-strike (NVSS) inmate.

The federal court order was issued in a prison class action litigation after the court found that California state prisoners' federal constitutional rights had been violated as a result of overcrowding, and after the court found that a prison release order was the only relief capable of remedying the constitutional deficiencies. Further, it was issued after the United States Supreme Court affirmed those rulings, after the three-judge court issued its remedial order in reliance on the state defendants' representation and agreement that they would develop comprehensive and sustainable prison population-reduction reforms, and after the state defendants agreed not to contest the remedial order.

The appeals court concluded that, because the Board's decision involved a constitutionally protected liberty interest, the plaintiff was entitled to judicial review of the decision. It also concluded that the record of what was presented to the Board during the review process contained some evidence to support the decision not to grant parole, so the prisoner’s due process rights were not violated. The appeals court considered the prisoner’s petition on its merits and denied it. The prisoner was serving a sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm with a gang enhancement, and therefore posed an unreasonable risk to public safety. His history of violent conduct included battery, burglary, two robberies, and stockpiling guns and ammunition. In re Ilasa, #D069629, 3 Cal. App. 5th 489, 208 Cal. Rptr. 3d 17, 2016 Cal. App. Lexis 779.

Prison and Jail Conditions: General: Water

A sexually violent person detainee claimed that a facility engaged in deliberate indifference to his hydration during a five-day “boil order” imposed by the city which was applicable to the facility. The order directed residents to boil tap water before drinking it. The detainee had a sink in his room and access to a microwave so that he could, in fact, boil his drinking water. He also was given an eight-ounce carton of milk at each meal, but still claimed to have gone without drinkable water for five days, and to have become dizzy and dehydrated as a result.

Upholding summary judgment for the defendants, a federal appeals court pointed out that detainees were notified of the order and how to cope with it (by boiling water in their microwaves). The facility also ordered extra boiled water. The plaintiff did not report feeling dizzy and dehydrated during the boil order, only afterwards. There “can’t be deliberate indifference if the indifferent person did not know what harm he was being indifferent to.” Hayes v. Scott, #16-1262, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 1296 (7th Cir.).

Religion

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

A prisoner argued that Georgia prisons enforced a grooming policy that violated his rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq., by substantially burdening his exercise of a sincerely held religious belief that Islam requires him to grow an uncut beard. Overturning summary judgment for the defendants, a federal appeals court ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Holt v. Hobbs, #13-6827, 574 U.S. ——, 135 S. Ct. 853, 190 L. Ed. 2d 747 (2015) (holding that the Arkansas Department of Corrections grooming policy violated the RLUIPA insofar as it prevented a prisoner from growing a ½-inch beard in accordance with his religious beliefs), made the trial court’s analysis inadequate because it failed to analyze the substantial burden placed on the prisoner’s religious beliefs, whether correctional authorities had a compelling interest, or whether the least restrictive means of furthering that interest was utilized. The plaintiff argued that by allowing medical but not religious exemptions from the grooming policy, the defendants showed that they were not utilizing the least restrictive means of furthering their interests in security and hygiene. Smith v. Owens, #14-10981, (11th Cir.).

Segregation: Administrative

In a lawsuit seeking class action status by Massachusetts prisoners against correctional officials, the plaintiffs claimed that their placements in a "special management unit" (SMU) in nondisciplinary administrative segregation violated their due process rights as well as Department regulations. The highest court in Massachusetts held that the dismissal of the lawsuit as moot was erroneous even if the named inmates were no longer in administrative segregation. The court had a duty to decide the appeal on its merits notwithstanding the potential voluntary cessation of allegedly wrongful conduct by the defendants, as the alleged wrongs continued to affect those who remained confined to SMUs. Cantell v. Commissioner of Correction, #SJC-12015, 475 Mass. 745, 2016 Mass. Lexis 766, 60 N.E.3d 1149.

A Massachusetts prisoner was awarded $28,578.69 in attorney's fees and costs as a prevailing plaintiff under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988 after he sued claiming that prison officials violated his constitutional due process rights by holding him in essentially solitary confinement in a special management unit (SMU) for ten months, without a hearing, while waiting to transfer or reclassify him. That resulted in a decision in Massachusetts “for the first time that segregated confinement on awaiting action status for longer than ninety days gives rise to a liberty interest entitling an inmate to notice and a hearing,” and a written post-hearing decision. The highest court in Massachusetts upheld the attorneys’ fee award although the plaintiff was discharged from the SMU detention long before relief in his favor was granted, as he qualified as a "prevailing party” because the declaratory judgment granted was not moot when entered, as the deprivation of civil rights was capable of repetition against him, and the inmate directly benefited from the judgment when it was entered. LaChance v. Commissioner of Correction, #SJC-12016, 475 Mass. 757, 2016 Mass. Lexis 767, 60 N.E.3d 1157

•Return to the Contents

Report non-working links here

Resources

Federal Prison Policies: Physical and Medical Standards for Newly Hired Correctional Employees, Bureau of Prisons Program Statement 3906.24 (Feb. 24, 2017).

Federal Prison Policies: Work Programs for Inmates, FPI, Bureau of Prisons Program Statement 8120.03 (Feb. 23, 2017).

Private Prisons: On February 21, 2017, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a memo rescinding the August 18, 2016 memorandum from former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates directing the Bureau of Prisons to reduce and ultimately eliminate the use of privately operated prisons. In a memorandum to Acting Director Thomas Kane, AG Sessions indicated that the August 18 memorandum “changed long-standing policy and practice, and impaired the Bureau's ability to meet the future needs of the federal correctional system.” He further directed the Bureau to return “to its previous approach.”

Reference:

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

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