|
Resources
Cross_References
AELE Seminars:
Public Safety Discipline and
Internal Investigations
Sep. 30-Oct.
3, 2019– Orleans Hotel, Las Vegas
Jail and Prisoner Legal Issues
Jan. 13-16, 2020 -
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 Utah prisoner believed that state law
required correctional authorities to pay interest on prisoner’s fund
accounts. He further believed that a bank that contracted with the Utah
Department of Corrections to hold inmate funds was illegally retaining
interest earned by the funds rather than paying it to prisoners. His lawsuit
claimed that he was unlawfully retaliated against for investigating this by
seizing his legal papers and issuing a negative parole report that caused the
denial of parole despite him being a “model prisoner” similarly situated to
other prisoners granted parole.
Defendants in the lawsuit included
correctional officials, the bank, and bank employees. He asserted both takings
and due process violations for withholding interest on his funds and First
Amendment retaliation claims. The trial court dismissed all claims except the
retaliation claim and dismissed all defendants except five prison officials.
It then granted summary judgment on the retaliation claims to the remaining
defendants. In their motion to
dismiss, the Utah Department of Corrections (UDOC) and the prison-official
defendants in their official capacities claimed Eleventh Amendment immunity,
as an arm of the State of Utah, but this was not addressed by the trial
court. A federal appeals court ruled that the takings claim against the UDOC
defendants had to be dismissed based on Eleventh Amendment immunity. Williams
v. Utah Department of Corrections, #18-4058, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 20157, 2019 WL 2911061 (10th Cir.).
Medical Care: Dental
A pretrial
detainee who suffered from multiple cavities and tooth pain claimed that he
was deprived of adequate dental care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. A
federal appeals court found that the plaintiff failed to meet the substantial
evidentiary threshold required to show that the defendants were deliberately
indifferent to his serious dental medical needs. The defendants regularly
responded to his sick calls and followed institutional protocols. Any delay
in permanently filling his cavities did not show any “unnecessary and wanton
infliction of pain” that was sufficiently harmful to show deliberate
indifference. Johnson
v. Leonard, #18-1833, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 19942, 2019 WL 2864374 (8th Cir.).
|
|
|
Prison Litigation Reform Act: Exhaustion of Remedies
A former federal prisoner sued under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, #301, 403
U.S. 388 (1971), asserting that he was denied his due process rights
because he was quarantined without a hearing during a prison scabies
infestation. A federal appeals court upheld rulings that the PLRA
exhaustion requirement applied to May and that there was no genuine issue
of material fact as to whether administrative remedies were available to
the plaintiff, so that summary judgment for the prison camp administrator
was properly granted. May
v. Segovia, #17-1458, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 20694, 2019
WL 3048512 (10th Cir.).
An inmate claimed that prison
officials “arranged” for another prisoner to attack him and stood by while
he was severely injured. While the lawsuit was pending, the plaintiff was
released from prison. A federal appeals court vacated summary judgment for
the defendants and held that factual issues remain as to whether the
prescription period was suspended and, thus, as to whether the plaintiff’s
claims were timely. Because the court further held that the plaintiff
failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), the case was dismissed without prejudice, and
the plaintiff would be allowed to refile his claims if he wanted, now that
as a former prisoner he was no longer bound by the exhaustion requirements
of the PLRA. Bargher
v. White, #17-30455, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 19683, 2019 WL 2721229 (5th Cir.).
|
Prison Litigation Reform Act: “Three Strikes” Rule
The dismissal of one of a prisoner’s
prior lawsuits for lack of standing was a dismissal for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, which was not a ground enumerated in section 1915(g) of
the Prison Litigation Reform Act, barring a prisoner from proceeding as a
pauper after “three strikes.” The “three strikes” all must be dismissals
based on frivolous or abusive litigation or failure to state a claim. Without
the one “strike” at issue, the trial court erroneously dismissed the
prisoner’s federal civil rights lawsuit for failure to pay the required filing
fee as he was entitled to proceed as a pauper. Hoffmann
v. Pulido, #18-15661, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 20177,
2019 WL 2910812 (9th Cir.).
Prisoner Assault: By Inmates
A deputy warden was not liable for
failure to protect a prisoner from assault by other inmates. The evidence did
not establish that the deputy warden acted with deliberate indifference when the
prisoner’s statements to him were “speculative and non-specific.” They were
insufficient to show that the deputy warden knew of a specific risk to the
plaintiff if he returned to the general population. Blair
v. Terry, #18-1486, 2019
U.S. App. Lexis 20728, 2019 WL 3046826 (8th
Cir.).
|
Prisoner Restraint
A state
inmate who claimed that he was shackled without justification during his
three-day trial on his Eighth Amendment excessive force and deliberate
indifference to medical needs claims was entitled to a new trial. The trial
court abused its discretion in denying a new trial where the inmate’s
alleged dangerousness and flight risk were central issues at the trial.
Therefore, it was plain error to allow him to be visibly shackled without
any showing of a sufficient need for those restraints. On remand, a federal
appeals court stated, the trial court had the discretion to impose shackling
during the new trial only if it could do so after a full hearing at which
the officers showed a compelling need for security and the trial court
first considered less restrictive alternatives. Claiborne
v. Blauser, #16-16077, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 19477 (9th Cir.).
Privacy
****Editor's Case Alert****
A detainee was in jail awaiting trial
when an urgent medical condition required that he be taken to a hospital.
Six deputy sheriffs allegedly walked him through the public areas of the
hospital completely unclothed except for an orange pair of mittens. He
sued, claiming that this violated his constitutional rights. Upholding a
denial of qualified immunity, a federal appeals court held that the lawsuit
alleged facts supporting the inference that the public exposure of his
naked body was wholly unjustifiable and therefore sufficed to state a claim
under the Fourteenth Amendment. “Whether the evidence supports those
allegations is a question for further proceedings.” Colbruno
v. Kessler,
#18-1056, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 19768,
2019 WL 2751434 (10th Cir.).
Religion
A consent
decree entered into in 1977 exempted Muslim inmates in Texas from a
requirement that all religious gatherings and activities attended by more than
four inmates must be directly supervised by either prison staff or a
prison-approved outside volunteer. A federal appeals court has now
terminated the consent decree, finding that it does not remain necessary to
correct current and ongoing violations of the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act, the Free Exercise Clause, or the
Establishment Clause. It also overturned an award of attorneys’ fees as the
plaintiffs were not “prevailing parties.” Brown
v. Collier, #14-20249, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 19824,
2019 WL 2754965 (5th Cir.).
Sexual Assault
****Editor's Case Alert****
A female immigration
detainee at a county immigration family center claimed that a male employee
violated her Fourteenth Amendment right to bodily integrity after the two
had sex. The employee’s co-workers and supervisor were allegedly
deliberately indifferent to the violation and the county was accused of
failing to implement policies to prevent such conduct. A federal appeals
court upheld the denial of individual defendants’ motion for qualified
immunity.
It ruled that
immigration detainees are entitled to the same constitutional protections
afforded by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as pre-trial
detainees and that the plaintiff’s rights in this context were clearly
established. Enough evidence was found to support an inference that the defendants
knew of the risk facing the plaintiff and that their failure to take
additional steps to protect her, acting in their capacity as either a
co-worker or supervisor, could be viewed by a factfinder as the sort of
deliberate indifference to a detainee’s safety that is constitutionally
forbidden. E.D.
v. Sharkey, #18-1688, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 19686,
2019
WL 2723370 (3d Cir.).
•Return to
the Contents
•Report
non-working links here
Resources
Mass Incarceration: Everything You Don’t
Know About Mass Incarceration by Rafael A. Mangual,
City Journal, Manhattan Institute (Summer 2019).
Mass Incarceration: To
Safely Cut Incarceration, States Rethink Responses to Supervision
Violations, Issue Brief, Pew Public Safety Performance Project, July
16, 2019).
Prison Suicide: Preventing
Suicide and Self-Harm in Jail, Vera Institute of Justice (July 2019).
Statistics: Methodology:
Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016, by Lauren Glaze, Bureau of Justice
Statistics (July 18, 2019 NCJ 252210).
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
Public
Safety Discipline and Internal Investigations
Sep. 30-Oct. 3, 2019– Orleans Hotel, Las Vegas
Jail and Prisoner Legal Issues
Jan. 13-16, 2020
- Orleans Hotel, Las Vegas
Click here for further information
about all AELE Seminars.
|
Cross
References
First Amendment – See also, Inmate Funds
Foreign Prisoners and Immigrants – See also, Sexual Assault
Parole – See also, Inmate Funds
Retaliation – See also, Inmate Funds
•Return to the CONTENTS menu.
Return to the monthly publications menu
Access the multi-year Jail and
Prisoner Law Case Digest
List of links
to court websites
Report non-working links here.
© Copyright 2019 by AELE, Inc.
Contents may be downloaded, stored, printed or copied,
but may not be republished for commercial purposes.
|
|
|
