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.
A civil liability law publication for officers, jails, detention
centers and prisons
ISSN 0739-0998 - Cite this issue as: 2019 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
|
Diet Exercise Medical Care Parole Prisoner Assault: By Officer Religion (2 cases) Sexual Assault Telephone Use
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. Some of the case digests do not have a link to the full opinion.
Diet A Muslim prisoner wished to observe Islamic dietary restrictions forbidding the consumption of certain foods, such as pork, and requiring that other foods be prepared in accordance with Islamic law (halal). As there is a degree of overlap between halal and Jewish kosher requirements, some Muslims, including the plaintiff, find kosher food acceptable. Indiana correctional officials previously provided kosher meals with kosher meat to inmates requesting them. As the cost of doing so increased, however, such kosher meat meals were no longer offered and those inmates were instead put on a vegan diet. Inmates seeking kosher food successfully sued the state Department of Corrections (DOC) under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc. The DOC built kosher kitchens at some facilities and moved as many kosher inmates into those facilities as possible. Inmates who could not be moved continued to receive kosher trays. Inmates (including the plaintiff) in a facility with a kosher kitchen had to eat the food prepared there, which is vegetarian. While many Jewish and Muslim inmates found that diet acceptable, the plaintiff not. His Muslim sect believes that the Qur’an commands him to regularly eat meat regularly. The DOC refused his request for kosher trays with meat. A federal appeals court held that Indiana’s refusal to provide him with meat substantially burdens his exercise of religion under RLUIPA, rejecting the DOC’s argument that he could purchase halal meat at the prison commissary. The state cannot demand that the plaintiff, “uniquely among inmates,” empty his account and forgo purchasing hygiene products to avoid a diet that violates his religious beliefs. Jones v. Carter, #17-2836, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 4566 (7th Cir.). Exercise
During a two-year period, the Kankakee, Illinois Detention Center barred inmates from receiving any newspapers. One inmate’s family bought him a $279 subscription to the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, a lawyer’s newspaper, to help him with his pending case. Classifying the Law Bulletin as a newspaper, jail officials precluded the plaintiff from receiving it. He challenged the jail’s prohibition and confiscation of the publication and sought to recover the subscription fee. The trial court addressed the broader question of whether the jail’s ban on all newspapers offended the First Amendment, upheld the newspaper ban, and awarded the defendants summary judgment. A federal appeals court vacated, ruling that the trial judge erred in reaching and resolving such a broad constitutional question. The prisoner’s claim was that the Law Bulletin was a legal publication, not a newspaper, and the record was not fully developed as it pertained to the jail’s restriction on legal publications. The court noted that the jail had no law library, and while inmates had access to an electronic database with Illinois legal resources, there was a dearth of material on federal law in the jail. The court further noted that the district court had not addressed the plaintiff’s due process claim. Miller v. Downey, #17-1507, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 3994 (7th Cir.). A prisoner alleged federal civil rights claims against various medical personnel at the Health Center and Correctional Institution for failure to adequately treat his health condition of constipation which led to complications. A federal appeals court ruled that the amended complaint substantially complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 by adequately putting the defendants on notice of the claims specifically asserted against each of them, and with Rule 20 by including allegations arising from the alleged failure of the named defendants to adequately treat his condition before his first surgery. However, the court held that the complaint failed to state a claim of any wrongdoing against three defendants. Accordingly, the court held that dismissal of the lawsuit was improper except with respect to those three defendants. Harnage v. Lightner, #18-1559, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 4589, 2019 WL 637975 (2nd Cir.). Parole A convicted prisoner appealed a special condition of his anticipated release restricting his relationship with his family. The prisoner and his son had both been convicted and sentenced for defrauding the government through their business venture. The condition stated that the father was permitted to have contact with his son only for normal familial relations but was prohibited from any contact, discussion, or communication concerning financial or investment matters except matters limited to the defendant’s own support. A federal appeals court reversed in part and held that the condition was unconstitutionally vague and struck the offending words “only for normal familial relations” from the condition. The court ruled that the phrase was susceptible to many different interpretations and that the trial court could have, instead, specifically said that the defendant and his son were prohibited from participating in any illegal activities together. U.S. v. Hall, #17-10422, 912 F.3d 1224 (9th Cir. 2019). Prisoner Assault: By Officer A state prisoner claimed that he was assaulted by a prison corrections officer, naming “John Doe” as the officer who allegedly assaulted him but also describing and naming that officer as “Officer Deagan.” After the statute of limitations had expired, he amended his complaint to correctly name “C.O. Deagan” as “Officer Joseph Deacon.” The trial court dismissed on the ground that an amended complaint identifying a defendant to replace a “John Doe” placeholder does not relate back to the original complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1)(C). A federal appeals court vacated and remanded. The complaint was not a true John Doe complaint, and his amendment to correct a misspelling related back under 15 Rule 15(c)(1)(C). Ceara v. Deacon, #17-569, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 4987, 2019 WL 758287 (7th Cir.). Religion
Sexual Assault ****Editor's Case Alert**** A male corrections officer regularly patrolled a pod at a county jail where a female inmate was incarcerated with another female inmate. Three or four times, the first female inmate claimed, she had complied with the officer’s demand that she expose her breasts to him. She additionally claimed that she “once or twice” masturbated in his presence because he asked her to do so. She did not claim that the officer ever touched her or explicitly threatened her. She was, however, deeply disturbed by the officer’s demands, and claimed that, as a result of his abuse, her post-traumatic stress disorder worsened and her night terrors and flashbacks increased in severity. She stated that she never reported the officer to the jail administration because she felt intimidated. The inmate and her cellmate sued the officer for Fourth and Eighth Amendment violations, and county officials for municipal liability. The trial court granted the defendants summary judgment on every claim except the first inmate’s Eighth Amendment claim against the officer, finding that he was not entitled to qualified immunity. A federal appeals court affirmed, finding that the plaintiff satisfied the subjective component of her Eighth Amendment claim. A jury could conclude that the officer acted with deliberate indifference or acted maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of causing her harm. When he allegedly sexually abused her, it was clearly established that such abuse could violate the objective prong of the Eighth Amendment. Rafferty v. Trumbull Cty., #17-4223, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 35394, 2018 Fed. App. 625N, 2018 WL 664955 (Unpub. 6th Cir.). Telephone Use The highest court in New York ruled that a correctional facility’s release to prosecutors or law enforcement agencies of recordings of non-privileged telephone calls made by pretrial detainees, who are notified that their calls will be monitored and recorded, does not violate the Fourth Amendment. In this case, a detainee was charged with multiple offenses and committed to the custody of the New York City Department of Correction (DOC). At trial, the prosecution sought to introduce excerpts of four phone calls he made from prison recorded by the DOC containing incriminating statements. The trial court admitted the recordings into evidence and an intermediate appeals court affirmed, concluding that the DOC’s failure to notify Defendant that the recordings of his calls may be turned over to prosecutors did not render the calls inadmissible. The NY high court also affirmed, ruling that detainees, who are informed of the monitoring and recording of their calls, have no objectively reasonable constitutional expectation of privacy in the content of those calls, and therefore, a correctional facility does not violate the Fourth Amendment when it records and monitors detainees’ calls and then shares the recordings with law enforcement officials and prosecutors. While the ruling came in the context of a criminal prosecution, the reasoning would also apply in a civil lawsuit. People v. Diaz, 2019 NY Slip Op 01260, 2019 N.Y. Lexis 266, 2019 WL 722345.
•Return to the Contents
•Report non-working links here Resources Female Prisoners: Bloody Hell: How Insufficient Access to Menstrual Hygiene Products Creates Inhumane Conditions For Incarcerated Women by Lauren Shaw, 9 Texas A&M University Law Review No. 2 (2019). 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|