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).