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).