|
Resources
Cross_References
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.
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.
Clothing
A jail prisoner
sued the county and other defendants for negligence, claiming that a jail
official provided him with shoes too small for his feet and made him wear
them. This was alleged to cause a blister on a left toe, ultimately leading
to a severe Methicillin-Resistant
Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) infection, a super-strain of staph infection resistant to usual
penicillin-based medication. This in turn resulted in the need
for several corrective surgical procedures.
A
federal appeals court overturned summary judgment for the county, ruling that there
was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the county negligently
caused the claimed injury. The trial court’s finding that the infection was
not a foreseeable result of wearing shoes that were too small was erroneous,
and the proper question was whether some harm was forseeable,
rather than the specific type
of infection suffered. The evidence presented
at least a factual question as to whether the too-small shoes were a
substantial (even if not exclusive) factor in causing the inmate’s MRSA
infection. The appeals
court also held that the county was not entitled to vicarious official
immunity, as the duty of providing suitable shoes in a county jail setting is
“ministerial,” and largely dictated by shoe size, rather than discretionary. DeLuna v. Mower County, #18-1933, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 24890 (8th
Cir.).
First Amendment
An involuntarily
committed inmate at a for-profit facility that houses sex offenders
involuntarily committed under Florida's Involuntary Civil Commitment of
Sexually Violent Predators Act claimed that his
First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment right to expressive freedom were
violated through its policies banning a monthly newsletter he attempted to
publish and circulate. The publication was highly critical of the facility
and its policies, containing alleged stories of staff misconduct, and was
deemed a security risk, with its circulation and possession prohibited.
A
federal appeals court rejected these claims. Applying the four factor test in Turner
v. Safley, #85-1384, 482 U.S. 78
(1987), it found that the ban of the
newsletter was reasonably related to a substantial government interest of
security and safety unrelated to the suppression of expression. The three
other factors weighed in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff had alternative means of
exercising his asserted right, including being allowed to publish a successor
newsletter with less inflammatory material. Allowing residents to read the
first newsletter could increase tension and hostility, potentially leading to
inmate-on-staff violence. And the ban was not an exaggerated response to
stated security concerns.
The prisoner was allowed to publish and
make available the second newsletter with less inflammatory policy, but a
policy limited the number of sheets of paper that detainees could print out
on the facility’s printers. This policy also did not violate the plaintiff's
First Amendment rights, because it clearly related to a legitimate interest
in conserving resources. Pesci v. Budz, #18-10642, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 24911 (5th
Cir.).
Medical Care
****Editor's Case
Alert****
Shortly after a man was booked
into a county jail, he suffered a severe injury to his neck, causing lower
body paralysis. No one treated this injury, and despite his frequent
complaints of pain and paralysis, no one sent him to a hospital. Remaining
immobile for five days, lying on his back in various cells at the jail, he
died of complications from the injury. The administrator of his estate filed
a federal civil rights lawsuit claiming that detention officers and medical
providers at the jail violated the decedent’s Fourteenth Amendment rights by
acting with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. It also
alleged that the county sheriff was liable in his individual supervisory
capacity as well as in his official capacity for his subordinates’ violations
of the decedent’s rights.
During pretrial
litigation, the sheriff resigned and his successor was substituted as the
defendant on the official-capacity claim. By the time of trial, the two
sheriffs were the only remaining defendants. A jury awarded $10 million in
compensatory damages against the two sheriffs and $250,000 in punitive
damages against the first sheriff in his individual supervisory capacity. A
federal appeals court rejected the defendants’ challenges to the verdict, a
number of
evidentiary rulings, and several pre- and post-trial decisions
of the trial judge. It found that the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury
to conclude that at least three of the sheriff’s employees were deliberately
indifferent to the prisoner's serious medical needs, and that the sheriff
maintained a custom or practice of neglecting to remedy deficient medical
services at the jail.
It
ordered, however, further consideration of the defendants’ denied motion for
a set off of the $10 million compensatory damages award by a prison healthcare
contractor’s settlement payment. It ruled that the trial court abused its
discretion because it held that Oklahoma set off law was inconsistent with federal civil rights law’s deterrence goal, without knowing the terms or
amount of the estate’s settlement with the
contractor. Burke
v. Regalado, #18-5042, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 24806 (10th Cir.).
|
|
|
Prison and Jail Conditions: General: Water
****Editor's Case Alert****
Jail officials at a
county adult correctional facility allegedly shut off all water for about
three days, apparently in order to replace a water pump. As there was no running water, the plaintiff detainees were provided with
five bottles of water each for their personal and sanitation uses and with
a communal barrel of water for each jail pod. They claimed that this caused
them to become ill and that feces built up and festered in the toilets,
attracting many insects. When they asked for more water, they stated, they
were locked down in their cells as punishment. Their proposed class action
lawsuit asserted claims for violations of their Fourteenth Amendment due
process rights.
A federal appeals court
upheld the denial of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity
for the defendants. The right to be furnished with enough water for
drinking and sanitation, and not to be forced to live surrounded
by their own and others’ excrement was “clearly established.” No matter
what the legitimacy of the jail’s stated objective, if the conditions
described in the complaint were true, with prisoners exposed to hundreds of
unflushable toilets, with plausible inferences,
the conditions of confinement were “objectively unreasonable” and excessive
in relation to any legitimate non-punitive purpose. Hardeman v. Curran, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis
23963, 2019 WL 3774128 (7th Cir.).
Prison Litigation Reform Act: Exhaustion of Remedies
A prisoner suffered a broken jaw after
he was attacked by other inmates. While he underwent surgery for his
injuries, it went badly, and caused him intense pain for most of a year. In
a lawsuit, he asserted that he was provided with inadequate pain medication
and that different medical providers gave him “the run-around” in response
to his complaints, with each one arguing that it was somebody else’s
responsibility. He further argued that over eight months later he had still
not been given fully adequate corrective surgery.
A federal
appeals court overturned the dismissal of the lawsuit for failure to
exhaust available administrative remedies as required by the Prison
Litigation Reform Act of 1996, 42 U.S.C. 1997e. It instructed the trial
court to appoint a lawyer and to allow the filing of an amended complaint.
A prisoner exhausts his administrative remedies, the court held, as soon as
a prison fails to respond to a properly submitted grievance in a timely
fashion. In this case, the plaintiff exhausted his remedies and obtained
the right to file his lawsuit when the prison did not decide the initial
appeal of his grievances within the time limits the grievance policy
specified. Shifflett v. Korszniak, #17-2676, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 23966 (3rd Cir.).
Prison Litigation Reform Act: “Three
Strikes” Rule
A state prisoner improperly had his ability to proceed as a pauper in
his federal civil rights lawsuit revoked on the basis of three prior
“strikes” under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). His prior
cases were not dismissed on grounds enumerated under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g) and
therefore did not qualify as “strikes.” A federal appeals court ruled that
a dismissal based on a trial court’s decision not to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction is not an enumerated ground. It held that dismissal due to a
failure to serve defendants plainly was not a dismissal on the ground that
the suit was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim. In one of
the cases, the trial court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim
and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state
claims. Another case was dismissed because plaintiff failed to serve a
defendant and others enjoyed quasi-judicial immunity. Harris
v. Harris, #16-55083, 2019
U.S. App. Lexis 24903 (9th Cir.).
Religion
|
A Muslim inmate sought injunctive relief
against prison officials under the
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), as
well as the First and Fourteenth Amendments for allegedly denying him a
daily serving of “halal” meat as his personal
religious beliefs required. A federal appeals court overturned the
issuing of the requested injunction by the trial court, finding that the
plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required
by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). He was required to exhaust the
facility’s grievance procedures regardless of the forms of relief
potentially available under the Religious Diet Policy, as he was able to
specifically raise the issue of halal meat. The
court also rejected the argument that the Religious Diet Policy was, in
and of itself, a proper and complete grievance procedure. Muhammad v. Mayfield, #18-2396, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 24056, 2019 WL 3783106 (8th Cir.).
|
Segregation: Administrative
An inmate visited the medical ward when
he felt ill after eating. A staff assistant there checked his blood sugar
level and instructed him to return the next day after eating. This
continued for several days, as the inmate continued to feel ill after
meals. The physician assistant referred him to the facility’s psychologist,
who could not determine the cause of the discomfort. A medical assistant
stated that she would not re-admit him to the medical ward, despite having
never examined him. He was nevertheless escorted back there. After his blood
pressure was taken, the medical assistant accused him of “harassment,
stalking, and interference with the performance of duties.” He was
transferred to administrative segregation. He then refused his assigned
segregation cell and was placed in the “Yellow Room,:
which he claimed amounted to “mental and physical abuse.” In there, he was
stripped of his clothing and given only “paper-like.” coverings. His
lawsuit complained that the room had a “bright light” 24 hours a day, and
lacked bedding or toilet paper. When he continued to feel ill, his requests
for medical treatment were allegedly ignored. He remained there for four
days.
A
disciplinary hearing board found that there was “no basis” for the medical
assistant’s report. The inmate stayed in administrative segregation for
four months after leaving the Yellow Room. A federal appeals court
overturned the dismissal of his Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual
punishment claim. He had adequately alleged a sufficiently serious
deprivation from a prolonged denial of warmth and the ability to sleep
rather than merely “uncomfortable” conditions, so he could proceed with his
lawsuit. Mammana v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, #18-2937, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 24179, 2019 WL 3808506 (3rd Cir.).
Transsexual Prisoners
A prisoner serving a 34-year sentence
for child sex abuse suffered from gender dysphoria. Biologically male, they identify as female.
Correctional medical staff members treated the prisoner’s condition with
hormone therapy. While the prisoner repeatedly requested sex-reassignment
surgery, national standards of care recommend that patients undertake one
year of “real life” experience as a person of their self-identified gender
before resorting to irreversible surgery. That presented challenges in a
sex-segregated prison. Correctional officials consulted with an outside
expert, who determined that the prisoner was a potential surgical candidate
if officials developed a safe, workable solution to the
real-life-experience problem.
Citing these concerns and department
policy, correctional officials denied the surgery request. The prisoner
sued for alleged deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs. A
federal appeals court found that the defendants were entitled to qualified
immunity. Such immunity protects officials from lawsuits for damages unless
prior case law clearly puts them on notice that an action is unconstitutional.
The Eighth Amendment requires correctional healthcare professionals to
exercise medical judgment when making decisions about a prisoner’s
treatment, and they cannot completely deny care for a serious medical
condition. Those broad principles, the appeals court found, could not have
warned these defendants that treating gender dysphoria
with hormone therapy and deferring consideration of sex-reassignment
surgery violates the Constitution. As they followed accepted medical
standards, they were immune from damages liability. Campbell
v. Kallas, #18-2075, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 24655, 2019 WL
3886912 (7th Cir.).
A federal appeals court upheld a
permanent injunction based on the trial court’s conclusion that gender
confirmation surgery (GCS) was medically necessary for the plaintiff, a
male-to-female transgender prisoner in the custody of the Idaho Department
of Correction, serving a sentence for the sexual abuse of a 15-year-old
male at a house party. The injunction ordered the state to provide the
surgery. The record showed that the plaintiff has a serious medical need, that the appropriate medical treatment is GCS, and
that prison authorities have not provided that treatment despite their
knowledge of the plaintiff's ongoing and extreme suffering and medical
needs. Such a denial violates the Eighth Amendment. The court rejected the
defendants’ depiction of a “reasoned disagreement” between qualified
medical professionals. The court emphasized that its analysis was
individual to the plaintiff and based on the record. The court did,
however, vacate the injunction to the extent that it applied to the named
defendants in their individual, as opposed to official, capacities. According to news reports after the ruling, Idaho’s governor stated
that he would seek review of the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. Edmo v. Corizon, Inc.,
#19-35017, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 25330, 2019 WL 3978329 (9th Cir.).
•Return to
the Contents
•Report
non-working links here
Resources
Foreign Prisoners and
Immigrants: Immigration,
Citizenship, and the Federal Justice System, 1998-2018, by Mark Motivans, Bureau
of Justice Statistics (August 22, 2019 NCJ 253116).
Incarceration Costs: Prison
Crime and the Economics of Incarceration, by
Ben Gifford, 71 Stanford Law Review 71
(January 2019).
Prison Strikes: Note, Striking
the Right Balance: Toward a Better Understanding of Prison Strikes, 132
Harvard Law Review 1490 (March 8, 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
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.
|
Cross
References
Diet – See also, Religion
Medical Care – See also, Clothing
Prison and Jail Conditions: Sleep and Cold –
See also, Segregation: Administrative
Prison Litigation Reform Act: Exhaustion of
Remedies – See also, Religion
Prisoner Death/Injury – See also, Clothing
Prisoner Death/Injury – See also, Medical Care
•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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
