AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for Jails, Prisons and
Detention Facilities
Clothing
A mentally disturbed
man arrested for assaulting an officer was forcibly dressed in pink underwear
at the county jail, and yelled out that he was being "raped"
(which was not the case). Following his release on bail, and hearing that
there was a warrant for his arrest for spitting on an officer during the
dress out, he ran away from his home, fearing another arrest. Running four
or five miles, he died the next day from acute cardiac arrhythmia. A federal
appeals court found that his estate validly stated a federal civil rights
claim, and that testimony was properly offered to show that the decedent
experienced a "sense of humiliation at being forced to wear pink."
With no explanation or defense offered for the practice of dressing detainees
in pink, the practice "appears to be punishment without legal justification."
The trial court acted properly, however, in excluding testimony by the
plaintiff's expert that the dress-out procedure was "probably"
the cause of his death. That testimony failed to take into account "generally
accepted facts" that cardiac arrhythmia occurred at a generally higher
rate among schizophrenics, and explain how that and the fact that stress
could render the condition fatal were enough to pinpoint the specific incident
that caused the death. Family members should not have been barred from
testifying about what the decedent told them about his experiences, for
the purpose of showing his state of mind in reaction to it. Wagner v. County
of Maricopa, #10-15501, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 4721 (9th Cir.).
A prison's denial
of an inmate's demand that he be allowed to wear his own shoes was justified
by legitimate penological objectives including security concerns over the
possibility of increased fighting among inmates and the possible appearance
of favoritism to particular individuals. Wolfenbarger v. Black, No. CIV
S-03-2417, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 71050 (E.D. Cal.).
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).