AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Racial/National Origin Discrimination
Monthly Law Journal Article: Racial Classifications and Inmate Housing Assignments, 2010 (1) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
prison's refusal to accommodate an Aryan Christian Odinist prisoner's request
that he be classified an ineligible to be housed with a cellmate of a different
race did not violate his religious free exercise rights under either the
First Amendment or the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq. Denying a religious exemption to
the prison's classification scheme was the least restrictive means of furthering
a compelling interest in complying with constitutional restrictions on
racial segregation. Walker v. Beard, #12-17460, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 10255
An African-American prisoner at a California-state prisoner sued following a lockdown imposed on African-American inmates, complaining, among other things, of injuries he suffered related to shower restrictions, and about the race-based classification of the lockdown. A federal appeals court found that the conditions imposed did not violate Eighth Amendment restrictions on cruel and unusual punishment, for which deliberate indifference had to be shown. That did not, however, bar an equal protection claim for race discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment. The trial court erred, on the equal protection claim, in allowing the jury to defer generally to officials rather than determining whether the challenged race-based actions were narrowly tailored. Harrington v. Scribner, #09-16951, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 7545 (9th Cir.).
A prison's modified policy of partial lockdown based on a prisoner's racial o ethnic classification was subject to strict scrutiny analysis and violated prisoners' rights since it was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Prisoners were classified as Black, White, Northern Hispanic, Southern Hispanic, or Other, and all members of those racial groups were subjected, sometimes for extended periods of time, to restrictions on movements and activities. This was done without any attempt to discover whether an individual was affiliated with a racial gang or to determine which inmates were responsible for incidents that triggered the lockdown. Additionally, some of the restrictions imposed, such as denial of visitation,. appeared to be punitive instead of being designed to maintain security, particularly when applied to a large group of prisoners based on race for an extended period of time. While avoiding gang violence was a compelling interest, the means chosen to accomplish this had to be focused on responding to the particular threat and not impose restrictions unnecessary to reducing the risk of violence. In re Morales, #A132816, 2013 Cal. App. Lexis 42.
A facially neutral job assignment policy that Black and Hispanic prisoners claimed resulted in racial discrimination against them could not be challenged as a violation of equal protection on the basis of its supposed "disparate impact." Individual state officials could not be sued for intentional racial discrimination on the basis of a "pattern-or-practice evidentiary framework," since that would not show which officials purportedly acted with a discriminatory purpose. Reynolds v. Barrett, #10-4208, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 14201 (2nd Cir.).
A man civilly committed in Illinois as a sexually dangerous person failed to show that facility staff members acted with reckless disregard to the danger of an attack on him by his cellmate or that they treated him, as a black man, differently than similarly situated white detainees. Young v. Monahan, #09-3401, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 4692 (7th Cir.).
A man civilly committed as a sexually violent person claimed that an employee at the facility where he is confined engaged in racial discrimination by refusing to serve him ice cream during an ice cream social. Evidence concerning the incident showed that the employee believed that the plaintiff's classification did not entitle him to participate in the event, and that nothing was said about race, nor was there any other evidence of racial animus. The plaintiff also claimed that administrators who resolved his grievance over the incident by determining that the employee simply made a mistake about his eligibility to participate acted with racial animus. Noting that this was one of five lawsuits filed by the plaintiff in the past year, "and by far the most frivolous," the appeals court upheld the lawsuit's dismissal. The complaint was "speculative and does not permit even a plausible inference that race motivated the employee's action. ... We have said in another context that 'the concept of equal protection is trivialized when it is used to subject every decision made by a state or local government to constitutional review by federal courts.'" Thomas v. Priebe, #10-2765, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 22465 (Unpub.7th Cir.).
Prisoners in a Delaware prison claimed that various prison officials discriminated against their chapter of the NAACP on the basis of race, discriminated against African-American inmates in job placement and various prison procedures, and mistreated disabled prisoners. Most of the claims were barred by the failure of the plaintiffs to exhaust available administrative remedies by filing and pursuing grievances over these issues. A grievance had, however, been filed concerning the alleged racial discrimination against the NAACP chapter. The complaint claimed that prison officials had closed the chapter's office, denied members access to the computer room, only allowed chapter meetings if prison security staff members were available, and prevented family and friends from attending such meetings. A federal appeals court found that these allegations, even if true, did not show that the NAACP chapter and its members had been treated differently than other prisoner groups on the basis of race. The record showed that all prison groups had been prevented from accessing the computer room in order to allow for more computer classes, that prison security staff were required to be present at all prison group meetings if a group does not have regular volunteers to run its meetings, and that family and friends are not allowed to attend any prison group's regular meetings. The NAACP chapter, the court concluded, still operates, and is treated no differently from any other prisoner group. Hubbard v. Danberg, #10-1886, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 21120 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
A California inmate sued prison officials who allegedly assigned him a cellmate based on race. At the time this occurred, however, the court ruled, it was not yet clearly established that a policy of considering race in making such cell assignments was a violation of equal protection. Instead, it was regarded as "undoubtedly a legitimate penological interest" related to prison security, a concept later overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in Johnson v. California, #03-636, 543 U.S. 499 (2005) (holding strict scrutiny should be applied to such racial classifications). Prison officials were therefore entitled to qualified immunity from liability. The court rejected the argument that various international treaties prohibiting racial segregation were enough so that prison officials should have known their policy was unlawful, noting that such treaties did not provide for an individual cause of action for violations. The prisoner was also not entitled to injunctive relief, as the prison has stopped using race as a factor in housing prisoners, and the plaintiff has been transferred to a dormitory facility. Mayweathers v. Woodford, #08-56835, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 17464 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
While the lockdowns that a prisoner was subjected to did not impose an extraordinary hardship on him as required for a due process claim, he could proceed with his racial discrimination claim. Prison officials failed to justify allegedly putting every African-American prisoner in a housing unit on lockdown in instances in which an assault was allegedly perpetrated or planned by one or a few African-American prisoners. Richardson v. Runnels, #07-16736, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 695 (9th Cir.).
By a 2-to-1 majority, a panel of a federal appeals court ruled that a Washington state law that automatically disenfranchises convicted felons results in denial of the right to vote on account of race in violation of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973, due to racial discrimination in the state's criminal justice system. A strong dissent noted that three other federal circuit courts of appeal have ruled that challenges to felon disenfranchisement laws cannot be brought under the Voting Rights Act. Farrakhan v. Gregoire. No. 06-35669, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 141 (9th Cir.).
An African-American prisoner claimed, among other things, that he had been denied a particular work assignment because of his race. He argued that he was similarly situated with medium security prisoners with a history of escape. However, while at that facility, he was a medium security prisoner serving a life sentence, and therefore was not similarly situated to the other prisoners he referred to. Additionally, he only made conclusory allegations of purposeful race discrimination, and, at most, showed only a discriminatory impact. His prior grievances had also failed to assert race discrimination claims, and instead argued that he was denied the work assignment at issue because of his life sentence. The defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit was granted. McKubbin v. Pettiford, #8:08-3248, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 91529 (D.S.C.).
An African-American motorist stopped for DUI was taken to a city jail based on a claim that there was a misdemeanor warrant for his arrest. He claimed that, at the jail, officers physically attacked him, causing him a spinal cord injury, and then dragged him into a cell where he was left until a civilian jail employee complained about his condition. A federal appeals court upheld the denial of summary judgment to the defendant officers on claims of race discrimination, excessive force, and delayed medical treatment, finding that a reasonable jury could conclude that the reason for the excessive use of force and delayed medical treatment was race. Harris v. City of Circleville, #08-3252, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 21641 (6th Cir.).
The use of race as a factor in assigning cellmates on the basis of concern about gang and racial violence was supported by legitimate safety and security interests. The plaintiff prisoner failed to show that prison employees should have known that their use of race in this manner was unlawful under international treaties or the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Mayweathers v. Hickman, Case No. 05cv0713, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 85154 (S.D. Ca.).
A black prisoner asserted an arguable race discrimination claim when he was denied a request to be reunited with his previous white cellmate after being released from segregated confinement. The trial court acted erroneously in dismissing this claim when the prisoner claimed, and prison officials admitted, that race was a factor in the denial of the prisoner's request. Brand v. Motley, No. 06-6362, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 11082 (6th Cir.).
Five of six plaintiff prisoners failed to produce any evidence that black prisoners were treated differently from similarly situated white inmates in security classifications, disciplinary actions, or job assignments. The remaining prisoner failed to present sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the defendants had engaged in intentional racial discrimination against him. Wilson v. Taylor, Civil Action No. 05-399, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 77435 (D. Del.).
When prison officials admitted that they might classify prisoners by race in responding to a disturbance in the facility, the policy was subject to "strict scrutiny." The plaintiff prisoner claimed that, in responding to assaults by African-American prisoners on correctional officers, the defendants made adverse disciplinary decisions against him based on his race rather than on an individual determination concerning his involvement. Prison officials, however, were entitled to qualified immunity because in 2003, when most of the incidents in the case had occurred, it was unclear how the general rule making race a "suspect classification" applied in the context of the need to maintain order in a maximum-security prison, like the one in which the plaintiff was incarcerated. The alleged actions, therefore, did not violate clearly established law. Watts v. Runnels, No. 2:03-cv-01928, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 723628 (E.D. Cal.).
A federal appeals court rejected claims by a jail inmate that "racial discrimination, segregation, and cruel and unusual punishment" accompanied a five-day lock down of the facility. Evidence indicated that any racial segregation was ordered because of an inmate's complaint of a fear of racial violence, and there was no evidence refuting that motivation for the segregation. Further, there was also evidence that the racial segregation ended immediately after it was determined that a threat of racial violence was no longer present. Allegations concerning overcrowding, sleeping, and shower conditions during the lock-down, including a denial of sheets and showers, were insufficient to show a constitutional violation. Fischer v. Captain Ellegood, No. 06-15167, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 13552 (11th Cir.)
A Mexican-American correctional officer failed to show that he had been subjected to national origin discrimination or that there was any connection between the allegedly discriminatory conduct of two employees of the Illinois Department of Corrections (such as discriminatory remarks) and his firing. He was fired after an investigation concerning the alleged smuggling of contraband cigars into a correctional facility. Jennings v. IL Dep't of Corr., No. 06-1637 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 18325 (7th Cir.).
African-American civil detainees at a treatment and detention facility for sexually violent persons failed to adequately show that they were treated unequally to similarly situated Caucasian detainees as to being returned to the Illinois Department of Corrections for criminal prosecution in connection with assaults that led to them being placed on a special/secure management status, or being referred to State Police for batteries committed against facility staff members. Webb v. Budz, No. 00C1230, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 21700 (N.D. Ill.).
Even if supervisor at prison factory did tell admittedly noisy African-American prisoners to "shut up" on one occasion, while failing to similarly admonish equally noisy inmates of another race to the same extent, this was insufficient to establish a claim for racial discrimination. The plaintiff prisoner also failed to show that his subsequent work assignments were retaliation for his having filed grievances. Lewis v. Jacks, No. 06-1995, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 11093 (8th Cir.)
White male correctional employee failed to show that his firing for having brought prohibited alcoholic drinks onto prison property on several occasions constituted racial discrimination. Another employee who was not fired for possession of alcohol on prison property was not similarly situated since there was no showing of multiple incidents over a period of time, as there was with the plaintiff. Veazey v. Ark. Dept. of Corrections, No. 5:05CV080, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 73430 (E.D. Ark. 2006). [N/R]
Prisoner failed to establish a valid claim for racial discrimination. While he filed grievances stating that "racism is prevailing" at the correctional facility, and accusing white employees of being "racist" and "hateful," he failed to allege that he had suffered any "specific hardships" as a result of such racism. He also failed to show that he had been punished for prior lawsuits and grievances or that an officer filed false disciplinary reports against him, in violation of his First Amendment rights. Jackson v. Madery, No. 04-1805, 158 Fed. Appx. 656 (6th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Black federal prison inmate failed to show that a delay in his promotion to the highest pay grade in his prison factory work assignment was due to racial discrimination. The evidence showed that the delay was actually caused by shortcomings in his work. Hill v. Thalacker, No. 04-C-732, 399 F. Supp. 2d 925 (W.D. Wis. 2005). [N/R]
New York prison regulations prohibiting a prisoner from wearing "corn row" braids if the hair went below the "natural hairline" did not violate his free speech or his equal protection rights as an African-American, but were justified by valid penological interests in security, including preventing prisoners from quickly changing their appearance after an escape and facilitating searches of hair for contraband. Towles v. Eagen, 799 N.Y.S.2d 715 (Sup. 2005). [N/R]
Jury instructions by trial court properly excluded prisoner's requested instructions that "malicious" use of force, regardless of amount of force, is always "per se" a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Trial judge also properly dismissed prisoner's racial and religious discrimination claims. Baskerville v. Mulvaney, No. 03-0348, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 10190 (2nd Cir.). [2005 JB Jul]
Shiite Muslim prisoner of Iraqi descent failed to show that he was fired from his prison job with private manufacturer on the basis of his sex, race, religion or national origin, when, in fact, at the time of his discharge, he was not able to work at all because he had been placed in segregation. Alleged discriminatory remarks by supervisor were not sufficiently pervasive to create a hostile work environment. Al-Zubaidy v. Tek Indus., No. 03-3457, 406 F.3d 1030 (8th Cir. 2005). [2005 JB Jul]
Prisoner failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies, as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e, on his claim that a correctional officer was engaged in racial discrimination in seizing his property purchased in the prison commissary. While the prisoner prepared a number of statements about the incident he circulated to prison officials, they were never property submitted to the warden or other officials as required by regulations. Additionally, the statements circulated merely summarized the incident without making any claim of racial discrimination. The prisoner's lawsuit was therefore properly dismissed. Smith v. Rudicel, No. 04-3462, 123 Fed. Appx. 906 (10th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
U.S. Supreme Court, by 5-3, rules that prisons cannot segregate prisoners by race even temporarily except under extraordinary circumstances where there is a compelling interest in doing so. Johnson v. California, No. 03-636, 2005 U.S. Lexis 2007. Supervisor of prison transportation work crew did not violate an inmate's Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment by allegedly using a racial epithet against him. While the use of the term, if true, was "inexcusable and offensive," it did not, without more, constitute a violation of constitutional rights. Moore v. Morris, No. 04-6140, 116 Fed. Appx. 203 (10th Cir. 2004). [2005 JB Apr]
White detainee's assertions that prison guards improperly failed to protect him against an assault by a black prisoner with a known propensity for attacking whites by allowing him unsupervised access to a dayroom occupied by him were sufficient to state federal civil rights claims. Trial court improperly dismissed detainee's lawsuit. Brown v. Budz, No. 03-1997, 2005 U.S.App. Lexis 2646 (7th Cir. 2005) [2005 JB Apr]
Prison guard's action of showing a "racially insensitive" drawing to an African-American prisoner, while "offensive, degrading, and reprehensible," was not "pervasive" or "severe" enough to be racial discrimination in violation of the prisoner's constitutional rights. The picture consisted a circle containing three pie pieces that were purported to represent the heads of three hooded figures, and the guard allegedly told the prisoner that it was "the last thing a black person see[s] when they fall down a well," the "KKK" looking down a well. Graves v. North Dakota State Penitentiary, 325 F. Supp. 2d 1009 (D.N.D. 2004). [N/R]
African-American inmate did not show that he had been subjected to racial discrimination in work assignments. Prisoner's "rambling" statement concerning what occurred demonstrated, "at most," that there may have been a "personality clash" between the prisoner and some officers. Additionally, the prisoner had no property right to his job or to working any particular number of hours, so his claim that he was given fewer hours of work than some other inmates was not relevant. Miles v. Wiser, 847 A.2d 237 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). [N/R]
If race was the only criteria used to exclude black inmates from a critical worker list of those allowed to return to their prison jobs during three lockdowns, then plaintiff prisoner was not required to prove discriminatory intent in his racial discrimination lawsuit. Walker v. Gomez, #99-55265, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 11157 (9th Cir.). [2004 JB Jul]
African-American prisoner's "conclusory allegations" that he was singled out for "being an inmate of the black race" and denied "the same rights enjoyed by white inmates" on numerous occasions, including in connection with medical care and transfer to administrative segregation were frivolous. He failed to point to any similarly situated white prisoners who received preferential treatment. Lawsuit was therefore properly dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915A. Gadlin v. Watkins, #03-1313, 93 Fed. Appx. 204 (10th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Federal appeals court rejects Voting Rights Act challenge to New York's felon disenfranchisement statute, removing the right to vote from currently incarcerated felons and parolees, rejecting argument that it infringes on the right to vote on the basis of race. Three-judge panel, however, unanimously suggests resolution of the issue by the United States Supreme Court. Muntaqim v. Coombe, #01-7260, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 8077 (2nd Cir). [2004 JB Jun]
Editor's Note: Additionally, in Farrakhan v. Washington, No. 01-35032, 338 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2003), rehearing en banc denied 359 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 2004), a panel of the Ninth Circuit held that a claim of vote denial based on Washington State's felon disenfranchisement scheme could be pursued under the Voting Rights Act. [N/R]
U.S. Supreme Court to review issue of whether California prison practice of routinely segregating prisoners by race during initial period of incarceration is permissible for purposes of preventing racial violence, as federal appeals court ruled, or unconstitutional discrimination in violation of the right to equal protection. Johnson v. California, #03-636, 72 U.S. Law Week 3551 (March 1, 2004). [2004 JB Apr]
Federal appeals court orders hearing in lawsuit challenging Florida's ban on felons voting. Plaintiffs claim that imposition of ban was motivated by intent to discriminate against African-Americans. Johnson v. Governor of the State of Florida, #02-14469, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 25859 (11th Cir. 2003).[2004 JB Feb]
African-American prisoner's claim that parole board chairman improperly made threats against him in violation of his First Amendment rights and constituting racial discrimination seven years before his parole was revoked was untimely and barred by the statute of limitations. Norwood v. Michigan Department of Corrections, No. 02-1779, 67 Fed. Appx. 286 (6th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner assaulted by gang members, and attacked yet again when he was moved to a new housing assignment after identifying his assailants, did not show that jail officials were responsible for the second assault. Prisoner failed to provide evidence of his claim that the jail had policies of segregating prisoners by race, and putting predominantly black prisoners in "gladiator cell blocks" in which staff members failed to intervene when fighting erupted. Palmer v. Marion County, #02-2267, 327 F.3d 588 (7th Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Aug]
Admitted policy of using race as a factor--even the dominant factor--in assigning new inmates with their initial cell mate for a 60 day period did not constitute racial discrimination in violation of the right to equal protection. Johnson v. State of California, No. 01-56436, 321 F.3d 791 (9th Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Jun]
Prisoner's placement in segregation for three days after being found guilty of a disciplinary charge of making threatening statements did not implicate a protected liberty interest, since it was not an "atypical and significant hardship." No basis found for prisoner's race discrimination claim. Adams v. Jones, No. 02-5472, 52 Fed. Appx. 744 (6th Cir. 2002). [2003 JB May]
Black prison inmate's equal protection claim, arguing that his rights were violated when he was not returned to an area of the prison after completion of an investigation into an escape attempt, while white prisoners were returned there, was frivolous. The plaintiff prisoner himself admitted that he "did not want to be returned" there after the investigation was completed. Williamson v. Campbell, #02-5104, 44 Fed. Appx. 693 (6th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Correctional officer's use of racial slur to prisoners was insufficient to support a federal civil rights claim for racial discrimination. His alleged comment that "all you black prisoners do is sit around trying to get out of prison," while not "polite," was not accompanied by "brutal or cruel acts that would have caused" the prisoners "legitimate concern for their personal safety or well-being," and therefore, while not condoned, failed to rise to the level of a constitutional claim. Pendelton v. Mills, 73 S.W.3d 115 (Tenn. App. 2001), permission to appeal denied by Tenn. Supreme Court, Feb. 11, 2002. [N/R]
New Jersey state prison inmates who alleged racial discrimination and conspiracy to violate their rights on the basis of race following the fatal stabbing of a correctional officer by a inmate could pursue their federal civil rights lawsuit without pursuing supposed remedies described in state prison's inmate handbook. Court finds that grievance procedures described were not sufficiently clear and that therefore no available administrative remedies existed for inmates to exhaust before filing suit. In Re Bayside Prison Litigation, No. 97-5127, 190 F. Supp. 22d 755 (D.N.J. 2002). [2002 JB Jul]
Prisoner's claim that he was restrained with 5-point restraint for 48 hours because of his race and prior complaints about expressions of racism -- and that he was shown a drawing of a person in a noose -- state a claim for denial of equal protection. Use of restraints for such an extended time period could also constitute excessive use of force. Davis v. Lester, 156 F. Supp. 2d 588 (W.D. Va. 2001). [2002 JB Jan]
294:83 Incident in which a white female correctional officer was not disciplined for allegedly kissing an inmate did not show that firing an African-American male officer for allegedly having sex several times with a female prisoner was a "pretext" for racial discrimination. English v. Colorado Dept. of Corrections, No. 99-1452, 248 F.3d 1002 (10th Cir. 2001).
294:84 Warden was entitled to qualified immunity for using race as a criteria to deny a white correctional officer promotion to one of three lieutenant positions; appeals court rules that it was not clearly established in 1992 that this could violate the plaintiff's rights. Elwell v. Dobucki, No. 98-1920, 224 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2000).
289:14 Prisoner could pursue federal civil rights lawsuit over loss of his prison job which allegedly resulted from officers pursuing false disciplinary charges against him after he filed a complaint against an officer; despite the lack of a property or liberty interest in his job assignment, prisoner's equal protection (racial discrimination) and retaliation claims were not barred. DeWalt v. Carter, No. 98-2415, 224 F.3d 607 (7th Cir. 2000).
283:109 African-American prisoner's claim that he was racially segregated by only being placed in two-person cells with other African-American inmates, and that this was done deliberately as a policy by California state correctional authorities, stated a claim for violation of equal protection. Johnson v. State of California, #98-55302, 207 F.3d 650 (9th Cir. 2000).
277:8 Prisoner's claim that correctional officer used excessive force by shooting him in the leg during prison fight was not barred by disciplinary determination of prisoner's participation in incident, since excessive force could be found without implying invalidity of disciplinary conviction; evidence contradicting findings of disciplinary hearing could be presented. Marquez v. Guttierez, 51 F. Supp. 2d 1020 (E.D. Cal. 1999).
278:27 Officer's use of a racial epithet, standing alone, did not constitute a violation of the equal protection rights of the person so addressed. Williams v. Bramer, #98- 10254, 180 F.3d 699 (5th Cir. 1999).
280:56 Black prisoner's claim that he was denied an extra mattress and blanket while his white cellmate was given one stated an equal protection claim, as did his assertion that he was placed in solitary confinement for racially discriminatory reasons. Powells v. Minnehaha County Sheriff Dept., No. 99-2029, 198 F.3d 711 (8th Cir. 1999).
265:15 Prohibition on voting for incarcerated felons did not violate 15th Amendment; fact that many incarcerated felons were members of minority races did not prove discrimination. Jones v. Edgar, 3 F.Supp.2d 979 (C.D. Ill. 1998).
274:156 Prison superintendent allegedly fired because he refused to stop dating an African-American woman should be treated as a member of a "protected group" under New Jersey employment discrimination statute. O'Lone v. N.J. Dept. of Corrections, 712 A.2d 1177 (N.J. Super. A.D. 1998).
262:155 African-American inmate stated claim for violation of equal protection based on assertion that white inmates were allowed to order electronic equipment from outside sources, while his repeated requests to do so were all denied. Foster v. Delo, 130 F.3d 307 (8th Cir. 1997).
243:39 Federal appeals court found that correctional officials did not violate constitutional right of equal protection by giving preference, for appointment to position of lieutenant in "boot camp" for "shock incarceration" of young prisoners, to black male applicant over white applicants who scored higher on promotion test; preference was justified by penological interest in success of program, given that 68% of camp prisoners were black. Wittmer v. Peters, 87 F.3d 916 (7th Cir. 1996).
234:91 African-American prisoner's general assertion that he was subjected to racial discrimination when kept in extended lockdown was insufficient when he presented no evidence of racial motive; prison officials showed that treatment of him was based on serious nature of his offenses. Woods v. Edwards, 51 F.3d 577 (5th Cir. 1995).
Prisoners failed to show racial discrimination in assignment of inmates to various housing units; racial composition of units in question was consistent with that of overall inmate population. Arney v. Thornburgh, 817 F.Supp. 83 (D. Kan. 1993).
Former Louisiana correctional officials liable for $4,000 in punitive damages for general policy of racially segregating two- man cells at state penitentiary. Sockwell v. Phelps, 20 F.3d 187 (5th Cir. 1994).
Even if discipline of black inmate for playing a radio too loud was "dispensed arbitrarily," this did not prove that it was done for racially discriminatory purposes. Giles v. Henry, 841 F.Supp. 270 (S.D. Iowa 1993).
Prisoner's rights were not violated by state's failure to invest inmate funds in minority owned banks or by alleged racial discrimination in correctional department hiring. Martin v. Lane, 766 F.Supp. 641 (N.D. Ill. 1991).
Black inmate's allegation that white inmates were given work assignments without completing any training while he was required to take 90-days of training for electrician assignment, despite the fact that he was an electrician by trade, stated a claim for racial discrimination. LaBounty v. Adler, 933 F.2d 121 (2nd Cir. 1991).
Black prisoner's allegation that white inmates, unlike black inmates, were allowed to possess photos of nude white women stated a triable claim of race discrimination. Johnson v. Daniels, 769 F.Supp. 230 (E.D. Mich. 1991).
Correctional officer's alleged verbal reprimand of black prisoner in the presence of four white inmates was not race discrimination or cruel and unusual punishment. Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 746 F.Supp. 662 (E.D. Mich. 1990).
Prison officials' refusal to change inmate's records to reflect race classification of "African American" instead of "black" did not violate any federal constitutional right. Moore v. U.S. Attorney General, 737 F.Supp. 1186 (D. Kan. 1990).
White inmate's claim of racial discrimination in disciplinary process settled for $2,000 in damages, $33,500 in attorneys' fees. Propst v. Leapley, 886 F.2d 1068 (8th Cir. 1989).
Finding of no racial discrimination against white inmates in prison disciplinary process was "clearly erroneous." Propst v. Leapley, 886 F.2d 1068 (8th Cir. 1989).
Back to list of subjects Back
to Legal Publications Menu