February 2019 Jail and Prisoner Law Bulletin

AELE Seminars:

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 February
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

Defenses: Statute of Limitations

Prisoner Assault: By Inmates (3 cases)

Prisoner Assault: By Officers)

Prisoner Discipline (2 cases)

Prisoner Suicide

Religion

Sexual Offenders

Resources

Cross_References

AELE Seminars:

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.

Defenses: Statute of Limitations

A federal appeals court overturned a ruling that a prisoner’s civil rights lawsuit was barred by a state statute of limitations. Since Congress did not provide fixed timing rules in either 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 or Sec. 1988, gaps in section 1983 should be filled by state law, as long as that law is not inconsistent with federal law. Because Virginia lacks a generally applicable statute that pauses limitations to accommodate administrative exhaustion requirements, the plaintiff sought to borrow a tolling provision in the Virginia Tort Claims Act (VTCA). The court held that the VTCA did not save plaintiff's claims because it operates on a tighter schedule than section 1983 and does not govern suits against state employees. Furthermore, the plaintiff could not invoke equitable estoppel under Virginia law. However, the court held that, with no Virginia rule available to toll the limitations period, refusal to do so during a prisoner's mandatory exhaustion period is inconsistent with federal law and the court could not apply it here. Therefore, the court applied federal equitable tolling principles and held that the plaintiff's section 1983 complaint was timely because it was filed within two years of the date he exhausted his administrative remedies required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Battle v. Ledford, #17-6287, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 528 (4th Cir.).

Prisoner Assault: By Inmates

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

Summary judgment was properly granted to a female correctional officer because, based on the evidence presented, no reasonable juror could find that she was deliberately indifferent to the health and safety of the plaintiff prisoner. The plaintiff was severely beaten by other inmates at a medium-security prison. He claimed that the defendant was deliberately indifferent while doing her round, resulting in a delay in medical treatment, which exacerbated her injuries. There was insufficient evidence that the defendant had the required culpable state of mind of deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s need for medical attention. Leite v. Goulet, #18-1682, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 35561 (1st Cir.).

An Indiana prisoner suffered injuries from two separate assaults by other prisoners. The facility was designed for 1,650 prisoners, but had an average daily population of 2,490 prisoners at the times of the assaults. While a number of defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on claims that they failed to prevent the assaults, the plaintiff adequately alleged that the unit manager had knowledge of the first assault from a conversation with the prisoner and a letter from him the next day further describing his concerns and relocation request, making it reasonable to infer that the unit manager had enough time before the second attack to respond to the plaintiff’s concerns. Sinn v. Lemmon, #18-1724, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 35202 (7th Cir.).

The plaintiff prisoner was beaten by other inmates at an Illinois prison and claims to still suffer from pain and brain trauma as a result of the incident. Before the attack, he received an anonymous letter stating that he would be “eradicated” for disrespecting a gang’s leader. In his lawsuit, he claimed that he gave a guard a letter describing the threat, that the guard promised to investigate yet did nothing, and that he sent a note to the then-warden asking for protection. Both defendants denied receiving the documents or having any reason to think that the plaintiff was in danger. The trial court found the guard not liable because, whether or not he received the letter, it did not establish a specific or substantial threat and found the ex-warden not liable because he did not receive the note. A federal appeals court vacated the rulings. The guard did not assert that he deemed the threat false or that the plaintiff had lost his credibility. The warden testified that, if he had received the letter or the note, he would have immediately put the plaintiff in protective custody. The plaintiff testified that he wrote a note to the warden, put his name on the envelope, and saw a guard collect the note. Placing the note in the prison mail system supported an inference of receipt. The factual disputes might be hard to resolve given the lapse of time and the plaintiff’s brain injury, but if his facts were accurate, neither defendant was entitled to immunity. Horshaw v. Casper, #16-3789, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 35217 (7th Cir.).

Prisoner Assault: By Officer

After a prisoner turned on a sink in a detox cell and let the water overflow, a jailor allegedly punched him, knocked him to the floor, and severely injured his jaw. While he was still curled up on the floor, the jailor and a co-worker allegedly kicked him, mocked him for soiling his pants, and stated, “We’re the law, dawg. We can do what we want.” They then threw him into a restraint chair, and the co-worker watched while the jailor allegedly punched his face. Bruises on his wrists indicated his attempts to free himself. The defendants allegedly then left him in the restraints, sitting in his own feces. He woke up on the floor and asked to see a doctor. The jailor testified that he and the co-worker took the prisoner to another room, where a “doctor” looked at him and that the “doctor” was actually the co-worker in disguise. When the prisoner filed a complaint, the jailor wrote a report stating that the prisoner was the aggressor. The co-worker signed the report and later wrote a corroborating report, claiming that the prisoner had slipped on the water and hit the wall. The co-worker was charged with depriving the prisoner of his civil rights, 18 U.S.C. 242, and falsifying a record to impede a federal investigation, 18 U.S.C. 1519.2. The court allowed the prosecution to introduce testimony that the co-worker had battered a different prisoner and concealed that crime over his objection and offer that if the jury believed that he committed the charged assault, he would admit intent. A federal appeals court vacated the ruling admitting the testimony. The charged conduct provided a sufficient basis for the jury to find intent. The prior-act evidence had only incremental probative value. Evidence of the co-worker’s guilt was not overwhelming. Absent the prior-act evidence, his arguments that the prisoner lied might have persuaded the jury. The prisoner testified that he could not remember much about the co-worker’s role. United States v. Asher, #17-6251, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 34947 (6th Cir.).

Prisoner Discipline

A federal appeals court affirmed the denial of three petitions for habeas relief arising from disciplinary proceedings in which he was sanctioned for sending threatening letters from prison. The court ruled that the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Prohibited Acts Code 203, which prohibits inmates from threatening another person with bodily harm or any other offense, addressed legitimate penological concerns in a manner that was sufficiently narrow to satisfy any constitutional concerns. The court also held that the BOP's disciplinary actions were supported by sufficient evidence. Lane v. Salazar, #17-35868, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 35861 (9th Cir.).

A federal appeals court upheld the denial of three petitions for habeas relief challenging the revocation of good time credits. The prisoner was disciplined under the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Prohibited Acts Code 203, which prohibits threatening another person with bodily harm or any other offense. The court held that when read reasonably in the context of the prison setting, and limiting the phrase “any other offense” to criminal offenses or violations of BOP rules, Code 203 is sufficiently narrow and clear to protect inmates’ First Amendment rights. Lane v. Swain, #17-55578, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 35855 (9th Cir.).

Prisoner Suicide

An 18-year-old man was arrested for a misdemeanor and taken to a city lockup. During their rounds, officers in the lockup asked him screening questions. The arrestee displayed no signs of pain, injury, or infection, did not appear to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol, showed no signs of withdrawal, and did not seem irrational or despondent. He had not been carrying medication. He refused food. On the afternoon of his second day in the lockup, an officer looked at the video monitor and saw the arrestee hanging from a horizontal bar in his cell. Guards immediately went to the cell, approximately 15 feet away, where the arrestee had used his jeans to hang himself. He was taken to a hospital where he died the next day. His mother sued the city for failing to prevent her son’s death. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment in favor of the city, noting the lack of evidence that the city was deliberately indifferent to the risk of suicide for detainees held in lockups or that the city’s policies and practices were the cause of the arrestee’s death. Illinois Lockup Standards were in effect at the time of the death. The plaintiff estate focused on the narrow circumstances of the arrestee’s death rather than on official policies or unofficial but wide-spread practices or customs and thus the claims against the city were not adequate for liability Lapre v. City of Chicago, #17-3024, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 35296 (7th Cir.).

Religion

An Indiana prisoner claimed that a prison and state Department of Corrections officials unlawfully prevented him from fully participating in Moorish Science Temple of America services held at the prison, in violation of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. The trial court in screening the complaint, dismissed claims against two defendants on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds and against an officer who had not participated personally in any of the cited actions; and allowed damages claims against the remaining defendants to proceed. After discovery, the court granted the remaining defendants summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. A federal appeals court affirmed in part, concluding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on First Amendment claims for damages. The court remanded in part, ruling that the district court misread the complaint, which clearly seeks injunctive relief as well as damages. The court should have read the inmate’s pro se free exercise claim as seeking injunctive relief under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000cc. On remand, the court first must determine whether the free exercise claim and RLUIPA claims are moot, then consider whether injunctive relief is warranted. There was, however, no basis for injunctive relief on the establishment clause claim. Neely--Bey Tarik-El v. Conley, #17-2980, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 12 (7th Cir.).

Sexual Offenders

A woman pled guilty to unlawful sexual conduct with a minor. An Ohio state law required the determination of whether a person convicted of a sexually oriented offense is a “sexual predator,” “likely to engage in the future" in "sexually oriented offenses.” Her classification as a sexual predator was affirmed on appeal, which required her to register with the sheriff for the rest of her life and provide detailed personal information. She must provide written notice of any changes, and verify, in person, the current address of her residence, school, and place of employment every 90 days. Failure to comply is a felony. Her registration information is publicly disseminated through an Internet sex-offender database, and she may not reside within 1,000 feet of any school and is barred from living in federally subsidized housing. The law provides that “[i]n no case shall the lifetime duty to comply . . . terminated.” She sought a declaration that the statute is unconstitutional in preventing her from obtaining a hearing to demonstrate that she is no longer “likely to reoffend.” A federal appeals court upheld the statute, first holding that named state officials did not enjoy Eleventh Amendment immunity and that the plaintiff had standing. Her classification was based on her likelihood of reoffending as of the time of the classification hearing, and the restrictions stemmed not from her current dangerousness, but from that assessment. Due process does not require the opportunity to prove a fact that is not material to the statutory scheme. Doe v. DeWine, #17-3857, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 34774, 2018 Fed. App. 0265P (6th Cir.).

•Return to the Contents

•Report non-working links here

Resources

Federal Prison Policies: Juvenile Delinquents, Program Statement #5216.05 CN-1, Federal Bureau of Prison (December 12, 2018).

Statistics: Time Served in State Prison, 2016, by Danielle Kaeble, Bureau of Justice Statistics (November 29, 2018 NCJ 252205).

Reference:

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

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

AELE Seminars

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.