April 2018 Jail and Prisoner Law Bulletin

AELE Seminars:

Apr. 30-May 3, 2018– Orleans Hotel, Las Vegas

Public Safety Discipline and Internal Investigations

Oct. 29-Nov. 1, 2018– Orleans Hotel, Las Vegas

Click here for further information about all AELE Seminars.

Jail and Prisoner Law Bulletin
A civil liability law publication for officers, jails, detention centers and prisons
ISSN 0739-0998 - Cite this issue as: 2018 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
Bail

Defenses: Statute of Limitations

Immigration Detainees (2 cases)

Medical Care

Medical Care: Dental

Medical Care: Mental Health

Prison and Jail Conditions: General

Prison Litigation Reform Act: Attorneys’ Fees

Prisoner Death/Injury

Resources

Cross_References

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

Apr. 30-May 3, 2018– Orleans Hotel, Las Vegas

Public Safety Discipline and Internal Investigations

Oct. 29-Nov. 1, 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.

Bail

A class action claimed that a county’s system for setting bail for indigent misdemeanor arrestees violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as Texas constitutional and statutory law. A federal appeals court upheld the denial of summary judgment to the county, and the conclusion that the plaintiff established a likelihood of success on the merits of claims that the county's policies violated procedural due process and equal protection. However, the appeals court held that the trial court's definition of the plaintiffs’ liberty interest under due process was too broad, and the procedures it required in its preliminary injunction to protect that interest were too onerous. It also erred by concluding that the county sheriff could be sued under section 1983, and the injunction was overbroad. Therefore, the appeals court dismissed the sheriff from the suit, vacated the injunction, and ordered the district court to modify its terms. O’Donnell v. Harris County, Texas, #17-20333, 882 F.3d 528 (5th Cir. 2018).

Defenses: Statute of Limitations

In a federal civil rights lawsuit asserting excessive force and sexual assault claims against ten Arizona Department of Corrections officers, a federal appeals court held that the plaintiff’s claims accrued when the alleged assault occurred in 2010 because he knew of his injuries at that time. Equitable tolling of the statute of limitations was not applicable in this case where neither his 2014 complaint allegations, his sworn affidavits, nor the letters and grievances he wrote from 2010 to 2014, provided competent summary judgment evidence that he took any steps to inquire into the delay in hearing from the Criminal Investigation Unit for nearly four years, and therefore his claims were time-barred. Soto v. Sweetman, #16-15497, 882 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 2018).

Immigration Detainees

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

A Mexican citizen who was also a lawful U.S. permanent resident was detained while the federal government sought his removal from the U.S. because of a criminal conviction. He sought habeas relief, claiming that he was entitled to a bond hearing to determine whether his continued detention was justified, alleging that 8 U.S.C. 1225(b), 1226(a), and 1226(c) do not authorize “prolonged” detention without an individualized bond hearing at which the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that detention remains justified. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed a ruling in his favor. The statutory sections do not give detained aliens the right to periodic bond hearings. “Read most naturally,” sections 1225(b)(1) and (b)(2) mandate detention of applicants for admission until immigration officers have finished considering the asylum application or until removal proceedings have concluded, without imposing a time limit or reference to bond hearings. There is a specific provision authorizing temporary parole “for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit,” implying that there are no other circumstances under which section 1225(b) detainees may be released. Section 1226(c)’s language allows aliens to be released “only if” the Attorney General decides that certain conditions are met. Nothing in the section supports the imposition of periodic bond hearings nor does it hint that the length of detention before the bond hearing must be considered in determining whether an alien should be released. Jennings v. Rodriguez, #15-1204, 2018 U.S. Lexis 1516.

A trial court certified class action claims on behalf of immigration detainees housed in a private contractor detention facility. Claims were asserted under (1) 18 U.S.C. 1589, a provision of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (the “TVPA”) that prohibits forced labor; and (2) Colorado unjust enrichment law. While at the facility, the detainees rendered mandatory and voluntary services to the private contractor, cleaning their housing units’ common areas and performed various jobs through a voluntary work program, which paid them $1 a day. Upholding class certification, a federal appeals court rejected the contractor’s arguments that the trial court abused its discretion in certifying each class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It primarily contended that the claims both required predominantly individualized determinations, making class treatment inappropriate. Menocal v. The GEO Group, #17-1125, 882 F.3d 905 (10th Cir. 2018).

Medical Care

A Colorado inmate claimed that correctional medical providers were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment by delaying his treatment for the hepatitis C virus (“HCV”), resulting in his suffering life-threatening permanent liver damage. A federal appeals court upheld the trial court’s decision to grant the defendants summary judgment, concluding that the claims against four defendants were time-barred, and the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that a fifth defendant acted with deliberate indifference. The appeals court also vacated an injunction requiring the correctional department to test the plaintiff’s liver function every three months. Vasquez v. Davis, #17-1026, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 4347 (10th Cir.).

Medical Care: Dental

A federal prisoner claimed that correctional employees were deliberately indifferent to his serious dental medical needs. A federal appeals court found that the plaintiff's allegations of severe physical pain and denial of recommended dental treatment were sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief, vacated the trial court's awarding of plaintiff a strike under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), and affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim that the defendants violated the Due Process Clause where the Eighth Amendment was relevant to claims of the denial of medical care. Carlucci v. Chapa, #17-50025, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 5948 (5th Cir.).

Medical Care: Mental Health

A prisoner claimed that prison officials denied him medical treatment for serious mental and physical health needs, in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. A federal appeals court applied the continuing violation doctrine and held that the plaintiff's claims were therefore not time-barred. It also found that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged deliberate indifference by certain defendants to his serious mental health needs, but that he had not adequately alleged deliberate indifference to his physical health needs. DePaola v. Clarke, #16-7360, 708 Fed. Appx. 792, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 733 (4th Cir.).

Prison and Jail Conditions: General

A federal appeals court ruled that Younger v. Harris, #2, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) holding that federal courts were required to abstain from hearing any civil rights tort claims brought by a person who is currently being prosecuted for a matter arising from that claim, did not require the trial court to abstain from hearing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the conditions of pretrial detention in state court. It held that the state had acted in good faith throughout this litigation with respect to the substantive merits of the claims. The petitioner’s case fell within the “irreparable harm” exception to Younger when he had been incarcerated for over six months without a constitutionally adequate bail hearing, and he had properly exhausted his state remedies as to his bail hearing. The trial court was ordered to grant a conditional writ of habeas corpus, providing that the writ issue unless the California Superior Court conducted a new constitutionally compliant bail hearing within fourteen days. Arevalo v. Hennessy, #17-17545, 882 F.3d 763 (9th Cir.).

Prison Litigation Reform Act: Attorneys’ Fees

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

A prisoner was awarded a judgment in his federal civil rights suit against two prison guards, including an award of attorney’s fees. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. 1997e(d)(2) provides that in such cases “a portion of the [prisoner’s] judgment (not to exceed 25 percent) shall be applied to satisfy the amount of attorney’s fees awarded against the defendant.” The trial court ordered the plaintiff to pay 10% of his judgment toward the fee award, leaving the defendants responsible for the remainder.

A federal appeals court reversed, holding that section 1997e(d)(2) required the district court to exhaust 25% of the prisoner’s judgment before demanding payment from the defendants. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed. The mandatory phrase “shall be applied” suggests that the district court has some nondiscretionary duty to perform. The infinitival phrase “to satisfy the amount of attorney’s fees awarded” specifies the purpose of the preceding verb’s nondiscretionary duty and “to satisfy” an obligation, especially a financial obligation, usually means to discharge the obligation in full. The trial court did not have wide discretion to pick any “portion” that does not exceed the 25% cap. This conclusion is reinforced by section 1997e(d)’s surrounding provisions, which also limit the trial court’s pre-existing discretion under U.S.C. section 1988(b). Murphy v. Smith, #16-1067, 200 L. Ed. 2d 75, 2018 U.S. Lexis 1379.

Prisoner Death/Injury

The estate of a deceased prisoner sued the Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Behavioral Health & Developmental Services, the agency responsible for overseeing state mental health hospitals and 49 other defendants, claiming that the prisoner died from severe malnutrition in a regional jail while awaiting a bed in a hospital. A federal appeals court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the trial court's denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss the state law claims and remanded those claims to the trial court.