AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for Jails, Prisons and
Detention Facilities
Clothing
An Oregon prisoner
claimed that he was improperly placed in suicide watch status and then
deprived of clothing other than underwear, in violation of a state administrative
rule. The appeals court found that the trial court, in granting the defendant
correctional officers qualified immunity, failed to properly determine
that there was no constitutional violation, so that further proceedings
were required. Howard v. Klicka, No. 05-35795, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 14255
(9th Cir.). Editor's Note: In two prior decisions, the courts addressed
the issue of deprivation of clothing under the Oregon administrative rule.
The court ruled in LeMaire v. Maass, 745 F. Supp. 623, 639 (D. Or. 1990),
that deprivation of clothing and property is unconstitutional when misuse
does not present a serious risk to safety, and a federal appeals court
then ruled on appeal in LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444 (9th Cir. 1993),
that the state's rules are constitutional as written.
Prisoner's lawsuit
did not properly show an unconstitutional policy or practice relating to
how prison laundry was cleaned or exchanged, but rather only asserted "generic
complaints" about the handling of his clothing/laundry. He also failed
to show that he was caused to wear pants and shirts that aggravated a skin
condition, in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. Court grants him
permission, however, to file a further amended complaint to attempt to
make out a viable claim. Wilson v. Director of the Division of Adult Institutions,
No. CIV S-06-0791, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 32067 (E.D. Cal.).
Prisoners have a due process liberty
interest in choice of clothing, but prison restrictions on wearing of certain
civilian clothing did not violate due process; rule was designed to help
prevent escapes. In re Alcala, 271 Cal.Rptr. 674 (Cal.App. 1990).