AELE Seminars:
Jail and Prisoner Legal Issues
Jan. 13-16, 2020 -
Orleans Hotel, Las Vegas
Investigation, Management, and Use
of Lethal and Less Lethal Force
May 4-7, 2020 - 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 October
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
Medical Care (2 cases)
Medical Care: Mental Health (2 cases)
Prison Litigation Reform Act: “Three Strikes” Rule
Prisoner Death/Injury
Religion (2 cases)
Sexual Assault
Strip Searches: Prisoners
|
AELE Seminars:
Jail and Prisoner Legal Issues Investigation, Management, and Use
of Lethal and Less Lethal Force May 4-7, 2020 - 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. · 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 A prisoner complained that he suffered
severe back pain whenever he stood for periods of 15-20 minutes or longer.
Because medical treatment he received did not alleviate the pain, he sued a
prison doctor and nurse for alleged deliberate indifference to his serious
medical needs, as well as the private company providing their services at the
facility. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the defendants.
The plaintiff failed to show any evidence that the defendants caused him any
harm, or what the “better” treatments were that supposedly would have been
effective in dealing with his pain. This would have left a jury to rely only
on their “imagination” as to what could have been done differently. Gabb v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., #18-2351, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 18097,
2019 WL
2498640 (7th
Cir.). An Illinois prisoner had only a “nub” of
a hand terminating at his left wrist with no functional fingers. At a prior
facility, he was issued a low bunk pass by the medical director due to
physical problems making it extremely difficult for him to use an upper bunk.
An employee at his present prison noted the missing hand while carrying out
routine intake screening but took no steps to ensure that he could use a
lower bunk. Two requests by the prisoner to see a doctor to get a low bunk
pass went unacknowledged. The prisoner then fell while trying to climb
down from an upper bunk bed, and suffered a severe injury when he landed on
his knee. He then finally was given a low bunk pass. He sued, claiming that
the prison employee had been deliberately indifferent to his serious medical
needs. A federal appeals court overturned summary judgment for the employee.
It found that the evidence was sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to
conclude that: the plaintiff suffered from an objectively serious medical
condition, that the employee knew of the heightened risk of harm if he used
an upper bunk bed, and that the employee deliberately failed to act to
address that risk. Palmer
v. Franz, #18-1384, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis
19100 (7th Cir.). Medical Care: Mental Health A prisoner with a long history of mental health issues was incarcerated
for 13 years for a home invasion. He began to improve while enrolled in a residential
treatment program (RTP). He was a Housing Unit Representative on a “Warden’s
Forum.” After he brought complaints, a doctor raised his “Global Assessment
Functioning score” so that he was now ineligible for the RTP. The prisoner
claimed that this action was retaliatory. When he was discharged from the
RTP, his condition deteriorated. His care was overseen by the unit chief of
the outpatient mental-health program, a psychologist with that program, and a
private doctor. The prisoner then had had homicidal
thoughts and engaged in self-injury, ultimately attempting suicide. He was
transferred to a Crisis Stabilization Program, with the doctors saying that
they could not transfer him to “Mars.” He sued the three doctors for
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. He claimed that, after
his suicide attempt, he was restrained, and a sergeant told him, in response
to a bathroom break, to “hold it,” and that he was going to “stay just like
that until [his] mental illness goes away.” He was allegedly left laying in
his own urine and feces for several hours. A federal appeals court upheld the
denial of qualified immunity to all the defendants. The plaintiff prisoner,
the court found, produced sufficient evidence to show violations of clearly
established constitutional rights. Berkshire
v. Dahl, #17-2039, 2019
U.S. App. Lexis 19482, 2019 Fed. App. 0139P (6th
Cir.).
Prison Litigation Reform Act: “Three Strikes” Rule An indigent South Carolina
prisoner filed three federal civil rights lawsuits against various employees of the state Department of
Corrections and a city. In an appeal of the dismissal of one of these
lawsuits, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, interpreting the
“three strikes” rule of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), joined the
Ninth and Tenth Circuits in ruling that a trial court’s dismissal of a
prisoner’s complaint does not, in an appeal of that dismissal, constitute a
“prior” dismissal. It therefore was not a “strike” for purposes of the “three
strikes” rule, and the plaintiff’s motion to proceed as a pauper in the
appeal was granted. Taylor
v. Grubbs, #17-6374, 930 F.3d 611 (4th Cir. 2019). Prisoner Death/Injury ****Editor's Case Alert**** In a lawsuit against Milwaukee County,
Wisconsin, the family of a detainee at the county jail alleged that he was
improperly denied water for six straight days until he died of dehydration.
The family settled the lawsuit against the county and the jail's health care
contractor for $6.75 million. Three former jail officers are currently
serving time for their roles in the death. The lawsuit
claimed that other inmates reported hearing the decedent beg for water before
his death in April 2016. The county sheriff allegedly “knowingly sanctioned”
the decision to cut off inmates’ water supplies as a form of punishment, and
the water to the decedent’s cell was shut off after he allegedly stuffed a
mattress in a toilet to flood the cell. His family claimed that he was having
a mental breakdown at the time he was arrested, about ten days before his
death. The county sheriff and the jail staff involved in the incident were
dismissed from the lawsuit, so the $6.75 million in damages will be split
between Milwaukee County ($5 million) and Armor Correctional Health Services
Inc., a private company ($1.75 million)
Estate
of Thomas
v. Milwaukee County, #2:17-cv-01128, reported in HuffPost (U.S. District Court, E.D.
Wis., May 28, 2019). Religion Ramadan is an annual Muslim religious month in which practitioners of
that religion are required to fast during the day
but can eat at night. Four Muslim prisoners in Michigan claimed that prison
officials disrupted their Ramadan observances by failing to provide them with
adequate evening meals to accommodate their daytime fasting. A jury awarded them a total of $900 in
damages, $150 for each Ramadan in which the deprivation occurred. A federal
appeals court upheld this award, rejecting the prisoners’ argument that the
jury failed to take into account the “spiritual harms” they suffered. The
jury listened to the plaintiffs’ testimony and examined their medical
records. It then considered all the evidence and concluded that each inmate
suffered $150 worth of harm for each Ramadan the prison officials disrupted.
The trial judge did not downplay the plaintiffs’ spiritual injuries nor
require that they submit medical records to substantiate them. The judge only mentioned that objective
evidence (such as medical records) might help the jury reach a higher damages
calculation. Without such concrete, objective evidence, the trial court had
no basis to disagree with the value that the jury assigned to the damages. Heard
v. Finco, #18-2371, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 20847, 2019 WL 3072151,
2019 Fed. App. 0158P (6th Cir.). State prisons in Michigan let Wiccan
prisoners engage in group worship services during eight major holidays (Sabbats). Wiccans also
celebrate other holidays (Esbats) 12-13 times a year. They are not permitted
to worship as a group on Esbats and re only allowed to use candles and
incense in the prison chapel. One Wiccan prisoner requested that he and other
Wiccans be allowed to celebrate Esbats through group services. When this
request was denied, he sued the state department of corrections, seeking
injunctive relief and damages under the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc-1(a). A federal appeals court upheld a grant
of qualified immunity to the prison chaplain. The trial court had also ruled
that the state corrections department was entitled to Eleventh Amendment
immunity from damage clams. But the appeals court vacated a denial of
injunctive relief under the RLUIPA, ordering a determination of whether the
Department’s policy survived scrutiny under RLUIPA, which requires a showing
of a compelling governmental objective and the use of the least restive means
to achieve that objective when it substantially burdens religious exercises.
A policy “substantially burdens” religious exercise when it bars an inmate
from worshiping with others and from using ritualistic items, the court stated.
Cavin
v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, #18-1346. 927 F.3d 455 (6th
Cir. 2019).
Strip Search: Prisoners A certified class action lawsuit
asserted that in 2011 female inmates at an Illinois prison were subjected to
strip searches during a training exercise for cadet guards. The women were
compelled to stand nude, almost shoulder to shoulder with other prisoners in
an area where they could be observed by others not conducting the searches,
including male officers. Inmates who were menstruating allegedly had to
remove their sanitary protection in front of others, were not given replacements,
and some got blood on their bodies, clothing, and the floor. The naked
inmates also were required to stand barefoot on a floor dirty with menstrual
blood and raise their breasts, lift their hair, turn around, bend over,
spread their buttocks and vaginas, and cough. The trial court granted summary judgment
to the defendants on Fourth Amendment claims because prior Seventh Circuit
precedent held that a visual inspection of a convicted prisoner is not
subject to analysis under that amendment. A jury returned a defense verdict
on an Eighth Amendment claim. Because the analysis under the Fourth Amendment
is objective, while a successful claim under the Eighth Amendment depends on
proof of a culpable state of mind, the plaintiffs argued on appeal that they
could succeed on a Fourth Amendment theory despite the jury’s verdict. A
federal appeals court affirmed, once again stating that the Fourth Amendment
does not apply to visual inspections of convicted prisoners. Their
convictions allow wardens to “control and monitor” prisoners’ lives,
eliminating the rights of secrecy and seclusion. Henry
v. Hulett,
#16-4234, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 21009 (7th Cir.). •Return to the Contents •Report non-working links here
Resources
Homosexual and Transgender Prisoners: LGBTQ
People Behind Bars: A Guide to Understanding the Issues Facing Transgender
Prisoners and Their Legal Rights by National Center for Transgender
Equality (2019). Religion: Fulfilling
the Promise of Free Exercise for All: Muslim Prisoner Accommodation in State
Prisons by Muslim Advocates (July 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
Jail and Prisoner Legal Issues Investigation, Management, and Use
of Lethal and Less Lethal Force May 4-7, 2020 - Orleans Hotel, Las Vegas
Click here for further information about all AELE Seminars.
|
|
|
|
|
|