January 2019 Jail and Prisoner Law Bulletin

AELE Seminars:

Jail and Prisoner Legal Issues
Jan. 14-17, 2019 - Orleans Hotel, Las Vegas

Investigation, Management, and Use of Lethal and Less Lethal Force

May 6-9, 2019– 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: 2019 JB January
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

Medical Care (4 cases)

Prisoner Assault: By Officers

Prisoner Death/Injury

Prisoner Discipline

Sex Offenders

Telephone Access and Use

Resources

Cross_References

AELE Seminars:

Jail and Prisoner Legal Issues
Jan. 14-17, 2019 - Orleans Hotel, Las Vegas

Investigation, Management, and Use of Lethal and Less Lethal Force

May 6-9, 2019– 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.

Medical Care

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

A woman was arrested for failing to appear on a resisting-arrest charge was sent to jail. Her physical and mental health was deteriorating and she refused to eat and drink. Medical providers did little other than monitoring her, and she died. Her estate sued the county, jail officials, the jail’s contract medical provider, and its employees. A federal appeals court held that nothing in the record justified a finding of personal liability against the county defendants, who received assurances that the medical staff was regularly monitoring the detainee. Medical providers stated that the woman was stable and promised to send her to the hospital if necessary. The estate presented no evidence that some feature in the jail’s policy about hunger strikes or anything else caused her death. On claims against the medical providers, however, the record contained ample evidence from which a jury could infer that the doctors’ inaction, particularly delay in sending her to a hospital, diminished her chances of survival, so further proceedings were warranted.

In an important development, the appeals court used the case to replace the deliberate indifference standard used for inadequate medical care, when it comes to pretrial detainees, with a standard requiring a showing of a lack of objective reasonableness. The deliberate indifference standard remains applicable in the 7th Circuit to inadequate medical care claims involving convicted prisoners. Miranda v. County of Lake, #17-1603, 900 F.3d 335 (7th Cir. 2018).

The plaintiff prisoners asked for class action certification on claims that correctional officials violated the Eighth Amendment and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by inadequately providing medical screening and care for chronic Hepatitis C (HCV) viral infections. This, they alleged, exposed class members to a substantial risk of serious harm. A federal appeals court upheld class certification based on the evidence submitted. Postawko v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections, #17-3029, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 34399 (8th Cir.).

A federal appeals court upheld the denial of qualified immunity to a deputy when there was sufficient evidence to show that he was deliberately indifferent to a prisoner’s serious medical needs. The detainee came in highly intoxicated after being involved in a motor vehicle accident, did not seem to be doing well, and subsequently died in his cell. A jury could find that the prisoner was experiencing a medical need so obvious that a layperson would recognize the need for prompt medical attention, that the deputy did not perform the healthcare screening the jail policies required, and that it was clearly established at the time that booking him into jail would constitute deliberate indifference. The appeals court reversed, however, the denial of qualified immunity to the administrator of the jail and held that the administrator did not know that the deputy was inadequately trained or supervised. Barton v. Ledbetter, #17-2835, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 32200 (8th Cir.).

An inmate whose medical record indicated that he was being followed “for high suspicion of multiple sclerosis” claimed that state-contracted health care providers violated the Eighth Amendment when they stopped administering his multiple sclerosis medication. His records also indicated, however, had discontinued taking Avonex “on his own due to undesirable side effects.” A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the defendants, stating that while inmats have a right to adequate medical care, they have no right to receive a particular or requested course of treatment. The decision to halt his Avonex injections did not rise to a level akin to criminal recklessness and was probably not even negligent. Even if he did not refuse his injections, the defendants had good reason to end them. Since three different health care providers wrote in his medical record that he had complained to them about side effects; it was well within their independent medical judgment to stop administering Avonex. Additionally, the plaintiff did not allege that any harm occurred after the injections ended. After the injections were halted, the defendants continued to provide medical care—prescribing other medication, scheduling follow-ups, and requesting additional diagnostic tests. Accordingly, no rational trier of fact could find that the defendants were deliberately indifferent. Barr v. Pearson, #17-3786, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 33200 (8th Cir.).

Prisoner Assault: By Officers

A prisoner formerly confined at a correctional facility claimed that prison guards there used excessive force in attacking him and that the beating and subsequently disciplinary proceedings occurred in retaliation for lawsuits and grievances that he had filed. At trial, the judge entered judgment as a matter of law for the defendants on all claims except those asserting excessive force by two officers. The jury decided those claims against the plaintiff. A federal appeals court reversed in part. Because the plaintiff’s trial testimony allowed for a permissible inference of retaliation, the judge should not have taken the retaliation claims from the jury. Thomas v. Anderson, #15-2830, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 32249 (7th Cir.).

Prisoner Death/Injury

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

A man suffered severe burns while trying to commit a residential arson. He spent three weeks in a hospital before being released to police custody. He allegedly died of a doctor’s overdose of methadone while awaiting trial at a county correctional center. A lawsuit by his estate claimed deliberate indifference to his severe burn wounds and other medical needs. Claims against the treating physician and his private employer were settled. Summary judgment was entered against the remaining defendants, after a finding that the evidence was insufficient to show that any individual among them had acted with deliberate indifference.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit subsequently replaced the deliberate indifference standard with a standard requiring a showing of a lack of objective reasonableness for a claim challenging the medical care provided to a pretrial detainee such as the plaintiff, while retaining the deliberate indifference standard for inadequate medical care claims brought by convicted prisoners. See Miranda v. County of Lake, #17-1603, 900 F.3d 335 (7th Cir. 2018) (reported on elsewhere in this issue under Medical Care).

Measuring the evidence in the record under this new standard, the appeals court upheld the award of summary judgment to the individual defendants and a determination that the evidence did not support a claim for municipal liability against the County, McCann v. Ogle County, #17-3139, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 33646 (7th Cir.).

Prisoner Discipline

An inmate filed a complaint seeking review of an inmate disciplinary report against him. At issue was the denial of his motion to amend the complaint. A single justice of the highest court in Massachusetts denied a petition seeking interlocutory review of the trial court judge’s denial of the motion. The inmate then filed a petition in the county court seeking relief from the superior court’s order. The underlying disciplinary report was dismissed and the guilty finding was expunged from the inmate’s administrative record. The Massachusetts high court dismissed as moot the inmate’s appeal from the judgment of the single justice because the relief he sought - leave to amend his complaint - could no longer be granted. Hudson v. Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Institution, Concord, #SJC-12285, , 480 Mass. 1038, 2018 Mass. Lexis 715.

Sex Offenders

The N.Y. Board of Parole imposed a special condition on a convicted sex offender’s release requiring him to propose an appropriate Sexual Assault Reform Act (SARA)-compliant residence to be investigated and approved by the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS). Because he was unable to identify a suitable residence by his maximum expiration date, the Board of Parole imposed the condition that he be transferred to a residential treatment facility (RTF). The highest court in New York overturned a ruling that the DOCCS had an obligation to provide sex offenders residing in a residential treatment facility (RTF) with substantial assistance in identifying appropriate housing. It held that the agency met its statutory obligation to assist the plaintiff in this case. Gonzalez v. Annucci, 2018 N.Y. Lexis 3266, 2018 NY Slip Op 08057.

Telephone Access and Use

Indiana inmates confined at the Westville Correctional Facility claimed that in applying the Telephone Privileges Policy there the facility effectively bars offenders from receiving non-fee telephone calls from privately retained lawyers even though offenders with appointed or pro bono counsel may receive such non-fee attorney-client phone calls, in violation of their rights to equal protection and access to the courts. There was testimony that the purpose for refusing to allow offenders to receive such telephone calls is that “verifying the identity of incoming callers is not practicable, and unmonitored calls may be used to further illicit or illegal activity" and that facilitating such incoming calls would strain the facility’s resources. Since the plaintiffs provided no evidence to refute this testimony, the court concluded that the policy was used to ensure institutional security and order while also deterring further crime. The equal protection claim therefore was rejected. Hines v. Carter, #3:17-CV-388, 2018 U.S. Dist. Lexis 181256 (N.D. Ind.).