March 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

Public Safety Discipline and Internal Investigations

Sep. 30-Oct. 3, 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 March
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

Inmate Funds

Medical Care

Medical Care: Mental Health

Prison and Jail Conditions: General

Prisoner Discipline

Prisoner Suicide

Probation

Religion

Segregation: Disciplinary

Youthful Prisoners

Resources

Cross_References

AELE Seminars:

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

May 6-9, 2019– Orleans Hotel, Las Vegas

Public Safety Discipline and Internal Investigations

Sep. 30-Oct. 3, 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.

Inmate Funds

A man sentenced to prison for seven years was also assessed a fine that qualified for garnishment under a California statute. Released in 1999, he returned to prison in 2011 under a new sentence. Correctional authorities resumed deducting a portion of his prison wages based on the fine arising out of his earlier crime. The prisoner claimed that they lacked authority to do so because he was no longer in custody for the first crime. An intermediate state appeals court disagreed, finding that if he still owed a portion of a qualifying fine and was an inmate in a California prison, the prison could deduct a portion of his prison wages. California v. Ellis, #D074710, 2019 Cal. App. Lexis 90.

Medical Care

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

Prisoners who were exposed to a heightened risk of getting Valley Fever (coccidioidomycosis), a disease contracted by inhaling spores of a certain fungus, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against state officials for money damages, claiming that this exposure constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. African-American inmates also brought a claim under the Equal Protection Clause, claiming that African-American inmates were particularly likely to get Valley Fever and suffer serious injury. A federal appeals court ruled that several of the defendants could not be sued at all because they were not personally involved in any alleged violations. The court further held that the officials were entitled to qualified immunity against claims that they were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and also entitled to qualified immunity against claims that they racially discriminated against African-American inmates. In this case, the opinion stated, it would not have been “obvious” to any reasonable official that they had to segregate prisoners by race or do more than a federal receiver previously appointed told them to do. All the prisoners were treated the same, regardless of race. Hines v. Youseff, #15-16145, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 3312 (9th Cir.).

Medical Care: Mental Health

A prisoner suffering from schizoaffective disorder and made multiple suicide attempts filed a federal civil rights lawsuit pro se alleging that prison officials violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment by being deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, subjecting him to unconstitutional conditions of confinement, and failing to protect him from other inmates. A trial court granted the defendants summary judgment, ruling that the plaintiff could not establish the subjective elements of his claims because the defendants, who were all non-medical officials, appropriately relied on the judgment of medical professionals. A federal appeals court upheld this result. It found that the plaintiff could not show that the defendants possessed a sufficiently culpable state of mind. The record showed that he received regular medical attention from psychologists, psychiatrists, and mental health professionals, and that several of his grievances were subjected to emergency review. He had not presented evidence that his grievances were ignored or mishandled nor was there any indication from his medical records that he was not receiving adequate care. The non-medical officials relied on the medical professionals to provide proper treatment, and there was nothing to give notice to them of a need to intervene. Giles v. Godinez, #15-3077, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 2959, 2019 WL 349423 (7th Cir.).

Prison and Jail Conditions: General

A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for a sheriff in a lawsuit claiming that he violated a jail detainee’s Fourteenth Amendment rights by failing to provide him with a bed during his three-and-a-half day stay at an inmate reception center (IRC). The court found that exigent circumstances, specifically inmate disturbances and lockdowns justified denying the plaintiff a bed for his three-and-a-half day stay. Even if a Fourteenth Amendment violation did occur, the trial court correctly held that the sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity because the right asserted by the plaintiff—not being forced to sleep on the floor during a jail lockdown—was not clearly established at the time of the events. Olivier v. Baca, #13-56371, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 1019 (9th Cir.).

Prisoner Discipline

A disciplinary report was issued charging an Illinois prisoner with offenses stemming from a violent assault on fellow prisoners. He disputed the charges and asked to call a witness to testify at his Adjustment Committee hearing. The committee never called his witness. He was found guilty, and a punishment of one year of segregation, status and access restrictions, and revocation of three months of good-time credits was imposed. He filed a grievance and appealed its subsequent denial to an Administrative Review Board, which adjusted the revocation of good-time credits but rejected a due-process claim, concluding that his witness request did not comply with prison rules. Morgan sued three officers for damages. The officers cited the rule in Heck v. Humphrey, #93-6188, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Under that rule, when a prisoner seeks damages in a section 1983 suit, the trial court must consider whether a judgment in his favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence. “Where a favorable judgment would have that effect, no §1983 claim has accrued and the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.”

A federal appeals court affirmed that the due-process claim was not viable under section 1983. Prisoners cannot make an “end run” around Heck by filing an affidavit waiving challenges to the portion of their punishment that revokes good-time credits. Judgment in the plaintiff’s favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his prison discipline. The suit was premature, therefore, as his guilt of the offenses had not been overturned. Morgan v. Schott, #16-2384, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 3559 (7th Cir.).

Prisoner Suicide

A pretrial detainee attempted suicide while in police custody and claimed to have suffered permanent and severe brain damage as a result. He filed a federal civil rights lawsuit saying the defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to be safeguarded from injury, while also raising California state law claims about his right to medical care while in custody. Defendants included the city, the police department, and individual officers. A federal appeals court reversed the trial court’s denial of qualified immunity on the federal civil rights claim against one officer, because it was not clearly established at the time that a reasonable officer would perceive a substantial risk that the plaintiff would imminently attempt suicide.

The court also ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of summary judgment on the federal civil rights claims against the municipal defendants, because the governmental liability claim was not “inextricably intertwined” with a properly immediately reviewable collateral appeal, as the court’s resolution of the officer’s appeal from the denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity did not “necessarily” resolve the plaintiff’s governmental liability claim. Finally, the court upheld the denial of summary judgment on the state law claims, because a reasonable jury could conclude that the same defendant officer had reason to know that the plaintiff had a serious medical condition and required immediate medical care and that he failed to summon such care in a timely manner. Horton v. City of Santa Maria, #15-56339, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 3313, 2019 WL 405559 (9th Cir.).

Probation

A juvenile defendant involved in a fight appealed an order declaring him a ward of the juvenile court and placing him on probation after the trial court sustained a petition for battery with serious bodily injury. An intermediate California state appeals court upheld a probation condition prohibiting the defendant from discussing his case on social media, ruling that the condition was neither overbroad nor in violation of the defendant’s First Amendment rights. In this case, the defendant posted on social media “bragging” about being a 16-year-old felon. The appeals court held that the juvenile court had broad discretion in imposing probation conditions and that the restriction on social media postings was precise, narrow, and reasonably tailored to address the defendant’s posting conduct and rehabilitation. In re A.A., #B289821, 30 Cal. App. 5th 596, 2018 Cal. App. Lexis 1186, 2018 WL 6695839.

Religion

A federal appeals court ruled that the seizure of an inmate’s religious materials burdened a sincere religious practice and that a defendant officer failed to put forward any legitimate government interest justifying the seizure. While the prisoner did not specify that he was a Christian, the religious material confiscated included copies of the Bible and religious books by Max Lucado, Charles Swindoll, and Joel Osteen, Christian authors. He asserted that the taking of those books had placed a substantial burden on his practice of reading religious literature. His decision to seek damages rather than the return of his books “does not indicate that his religious belief is disingenuous.” In fact, given that the books were allegedly destroyed, they could not be returned. Accordingly, the prisoner could proceed with his exercise of religion claim against the officer. However, the trial court properly dismissed the plaintiff’s free exercise claim against a disciplinary captain and a former director of the state department of criminal justice, as they were not alleged to have been personally involved in the confiscation or to have somehow caused it to take place. DeMarco v. Davis, #17-11230, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 2806, 2019 WL 336916 (5th Cir.).

Segregation: Disciplinary

A lawsuit claimed that correctional officials violated a pretrial detainee’s Fourteenth Amendment rights by keeping him in solitary confinement for three-and-a-half years. He was arrested for murder and allegedly made violent threats against correctional officers and was “combative.” Determining that it had jurisdiction over the appeal and that the due process claims were not moot, a federal appeals court held that two defendants were entitled to summary judgment because they lacked sufficient personal involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivations. The court held, however, that a corrections department director and a sheriff were not entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiff’s substantive and procedural due process claims arising from plaintiff's solitary confinement. Because the trial court did not properly apply the legal principles that control substantive and procedural due process claims being pursued by a pretrial detainee, the appeals court held that the trial court erred in awarding summary judgment to these two defendants on these claims. There was a triable issue concerning the purpose of the detainee’s solitary confinement and the level of process he was due. Williamson v. Stirling, #17-6922, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 36102 (4th Cir.).

Youthful Prisoners

A federal appeals court upheld a judgment in an action under a federal statute, 34 U.S.C. 12601(a), the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. That statute makes it unlawful for “any governmental authority, or any agent thereof, or any person acting on behalf of a governmental authority, to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers or by officials or employees of any governmental agency with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice or the incarceration of juveniles that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” When there are violations, the U.S. Attorney General can file a civil suit to “obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice.”

The action, filed by the federal government, claimed that a county and its two Youth Court judges operated a “school-to-prison pipeline” and, through their administration of the juvenile justice process, were engaged in patterns or practices that denied juveniles their constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The court held that the trial court did not err in dismissing the lawsuit against the judges on the basis that they are outside the scope of Section 12601, and because the government has affirmatively waived any other argument for continuing the lawsuit against the County. The phrase “officials or employees of any governmental agency with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice,” as it is used in the statute does not include the judges of a county youth court. The youth court was not an “agency,” which was what the statute applied to. Congress knew how to deviate from the ordinary usage of “agency” by expressly defining the term to include courts, but did not do so. United States v. Lauderdale County, #17-60805, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 3344,2019 WL 406878 (5th Cir.).

•Return to the Contents

•Report non-working links here

Resources

Federal Prison Policies: Compassionate Release/Reduction in Sentence: Procedures for Implementation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 3582 and 4205(g), Program Statement #5050.50, Federal Bureau of Prisons (January 17, 2019).

Federal Prisoners: Revocations Among Federal Offenders, United States Sentencing Commission (January 31, 2019).

Probation and Parole: The Wisconsin Community Corrections Story, by Jarred Williams, Vincent Schiraldi, and Kendra Bradner, Columbia University Justice Lab (January 2019).

Websites: Caselaw Access Project API, also known as CAPAPI, is a website offered by Harvard University Law School which provides free access to all official U.S. court cases published in books from 1658 to 2018 in multiple text formats. While occasional use requires no registration, free registration may be required for regular heavy use.

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

Public Safety Discipline and Internal Investigations

Sep. 30-Oct. 3, 2019– Orleans Hotel, Las Vegas

Click here for further information about all AELE Seminars.

Cross References

Computers, E-Mail, & Internet Issues – See also, Probation

First Amendment – See also, Probation