July 2017 Jail and Prisoner Law Bulletin

AELE Seminars:

Public Safety Discipline and Internal Investigations

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

Jail and Prisoner Legal Issues

Jan. 22-25, 2018 - Orleans Hotel, Las Vegas

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

Apr. 30-May 3, 2018– 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 July
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

Access to Courts/Legal Info

False Imprisonment

Mail

Medical Care

Prison and Jail Conditions: General

Prison Litigation Reform Act: “Three Strikes” Rule

Prisoner Injury/Death

Religion

Retaliation

Segregation: Administrative

Resources

Cross_References

AELE Seminars:

Public Safety Discipline and Internal Investigations

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

Jail and Prisoner Legal Issues

Jan. 22-25, 2018 - Orleans Hotel, Las Vegas

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

Apr. 30-May 3, 2018– 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.

Access to Courts/Legal Info

The trial court denied an inmate’s motion for appointed counsel on his excessive force claim against a guard, ruling that he had failed to show that he had made a reasonable attempt to obtain a lawyer. He failed to respond to interrogatories and repeatedly renewed his request for a lawyer, and ultimately the case was dismissed. A federal appeals court recruited a lawyer for him and reversed. It held that the interrogatories that he failed to respond to were above his comprehension, that he did not have a fair opportunity to pursue his potentially meritorious case, given his “severe” intellectual handicaps and his apparently diligent efforts to obtain a lawyer, evidenced by the record of his mail to and from law firms seeking assistance. The guard was entitled to argue a defense of failure to exhaust available administrative remedies, but insisting on a response from the inmate when the inmate had no lawyer amounted to cruel harassment of a mental defective. Davis v. Moroney, #16-2471, 2017 U.S.App. Lexis 8903 (7th Cir.).

False Imprisonment

Prison officials were entitled to summary judgment on inmates’ lawsuit claiming that they were deliberately indifferent to unreasonable delays in releasing them from confinement when the record showed that they made a variety of efforts to improve the central offender records division an address the over-detention problem. While the investigation into the issue was “slow,” the defendant officials could safely conclude that once it was completed that they would have done all that they could to address the issue. Further, to survive summary judgment on an allegation of deliberate indifference, the plaintiffs needed more than speculation connecting any increase in over-detentions with the policies they deemed ineffective. Wharton v. Danberg, #16-1988, 854 F.3d 234 (3rd Cir. 2017).

Mail

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

A death row inmate appealed the dismissal of his claim that the correctional policy and practice of inspecting inmates’ outgoing legal mail violated his Sixth and First Amendment rights. The federal appeals court reversed, finding that the current inspection policy did not satisfy previously adopted legal standards. The policy called for an improper page-by-page content review of inmates; confidential outgoing legal mail. The policy also does not satisfy the four-part test identified in Turner v. Safley, #85-1384, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), because the defendants did not produce evidence of a threat to prison security sufficient to justify the policy, and because feasible, readily available alternatives were apparent. Nordstrom v. Ryan, #16-15277, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 8716 (9th Cir.).

Medical Care

While a pretrial detainee in a county jail, the plaintiff was diagnosed with meningitis, and then suffered multiple strokes, resulting in permanent injuries. He sued, claiming inadequate medical care. Rejecting this claim, a federal appeals court found that all of the health care providers at the jail acted within the course and scope of their discretionary authority in providing the plaintiff with care. They were entitled to qualified immunity as they did not act with deliberate indifference. Since there was no constitutional violation, there was also no basis for supervisory liability on the part of the sheriff. Nam Dang v. Sheriff, Seminole County, Florida, #15-14842, 856 F.3d 842 (11th Cir. 2017).

Prison and Jail Conditions: General

A man civilly committed as a sexually dangerous person sued federal prison employees, challenging various conditions of his confinement. A federal appeals court ruled that the trial court correctly dismissed claims over the Bureau of Prisons policy regarding the double-bunking of civil detainees, forcing the plaintiff to wear the same uniform as a prisoner, and limiting his purchases at the commissary and his television options to those of a prisoner. It also rejected his Fair Labor Standards Act claim, since he did not qualify as an employee. Summary judgment was also upheld on strip search and mass shakedown claims since those practices were justified by security concerns, and claims regarding the alleged inadequacy of available educational and vocational programs. Matherly v. Andrews, #16-6473, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 10200 (4th Cir.).

Prison Litigation Reform Act: “Three Strikes” Rule

A prisoner did not suffer a “strike” for purposes of the “three strikes” rule of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. 1915(g) when some but not all of his claims in the lawsuit were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. In this case, some claims were adequately pleaded but failed at the summary judgment stage. A third strike bars a prisoner from proceeding in forma pauperis unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Brown v. Megg, #15-60706, 857 F.3d 287 (5th Cir. 2017).

Prisoner Injury/Death

Police officers arrested a bipolar delusional man who had not taken his medication and took him to a jail where he died of a heart attack after he attacked a corrections officer and was restrained. The officers were entitled to qualified immunity, as there was no clearly established constitutional requirement that they take him to a hospital rather than a jail. Corrections officers at the jail were also entitled to qualified immunity even if they had reason to know the detainee was bipolar, as no prior case clearly established that the detainee’s medical instability required immediate medical attention. Failure to train claims against the city failed. The city could not be found to be deliberately indifferent to a constitutional right that was not clearly established. The officers were also entitled to immunity under Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2744.03(A)(6)(b) as to state law claims because no reasonable jury could have found recklessness. Arrington-Bey v. City of Bedford Heights, #16-3317, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 9207, 2017 Fed. App. 112P (6th Cir.)

Religion

A state trial court ruled that the prohibition on the use of straight tobacco during prisoners’ Native American religious ceremonies violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) and it ordered the California Department of Corrections to "formulate and implement policies permitting and reasonably regulating the possession and use of straight tobacco" during those ceremonies. An intermediate California appeals court found that the order was improperly granted without holding an evidentiary hearing and reversed, ordering that such a hearing be conducted. The hearing will consider the disputed factual issue of whether the prisoner’s religious exercise is substantially burdened by the policy. If the prisoner meets his burden of proof on that issue, the court will then consider the factual issue of whether the policy against the use of straight tobacco constitutes the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. In re Rhoades, #D070488, 10 Cal. App. 5th 896 (2017).