A prisoner claimed that her constitutional rights were violated when she was shackled to a bed while she was giving birth. A state corrections department director was entitled to qualified immunity from liability because he was not personally involved in the incident and had not established any policies to require or encourage the shackling of pregnant prisoners. A corrections officer directly involved in the shackling, however, was not entitled to qualified immunity, given that she stated that the prisoner, who was a non-violent offender, had not done or said anything to indicate that she was an escape risk or that she posed any other threat. There was evidence from which a fact finder could decide that the officer, in shackling the prisoner's ankles to opposite sides of a hospital bed during the final stages of labor, acted with deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs. She allegedly knew that the prisoner had severe pain, that the labor was risky, and that hospital personnel had requested that she be unshackled. The officer also allegedly failed to abide by administrative regulations requiring her to balance medical and security concerns in deciding whether to shackle the inmate. At the time of the incident, September of 2003, the prisoner's right to be free from unnecessary suffering was clearly established. Nelson v. Correctional Medical Services; #07-2481, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 21730 (8th Cir.).
     Programs that provide services to inmate mothers in California did not engage in unlawful sex discrimination under state law by failing to provide the same services and programs to male prisoners who are parents. One of the programs is the Pregnant and Parenting Women’s Alternative Sentencing Program Act, that funds community based facilities for programs designed to reduce drug use and recidivism, and allows at least one eligible child to reside with the mother at the facility if the mother has a history of substance abuse, the child is under six, and the sentence is less than three years. The second program "provides for a community treatment program for women inmates sentenced to state prison who have one or more children under the age of six. An incarcerated mother is eligible for the program if she has a probable release or parole date with a maximum period of confinement not exceeding six years; she was the primary caretaker of the infant prior to incarceration; she has not been found to be an unfit parent; and she does not pose an unreasonable risk to the public due to the nature of her crime, the risk of absconding, or probable adverse conduct." Male prisoners who are parents, the court found, were not shown to be similarly situated to inmate mothers. "Most female inmates were convicted of drug or property crimes, often victims of abuse, and more likely to be single parents. [...] There were only a small percentage of male primary caretakers." The court noted that,: "Government data showed these women prisoners were likely to have been the primary or single caretaker of their young children, who were likely to be displaced to other relatives or foster care. By contrast, children of incarcerated men were likely to continue living with their mothers." Woods v. Shewry, No. C056072, 2008 Cal. App. Lexis 1588; 167 Cal. App. 4th 658; 84 Cal. Rptr. 3d 332 (3rd Dist. Cal. App.).
     Female juvenile adjudicated delinquent did not show that her federal constitutional or statutory rights were violated by the fact that a community corrections facility near her home did not accept females, resulting in her having to serve 11 months in a juvenile correctional facility and a drug rehabilitation center that were further away. Her constitutional rights were not violated because she was provided with opportunities comparable to those provided for male inmates. The decision made by her family members not to drive to the facility where she was incarcerated for attendance at family therapy sessions did not alter the fact that family therapy was offered. Additionally for purposes of federal civil rights statutes prohibiting sex discrimination in a governmental "program or activity," the "program or activity" at issue was the entire system of juvenile institutions operated by the State of Ohio, rather than a particular juvenile facility. Lothes v. Butler County Juvenile Rehabilitation Center, No. 06-3389, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 16559 (6th Cir.).
     Co. jail facility for women was O.K. except for sanitation needs of females caused by overcrowding. Fischer v. Winter, 564 F.Supp. 281 (N.D. Cal. 1983).
     Female inmates win cause on prison conditions and get attorney fees. Glover v. Johnson, 531 F.Supp. 1036 (E.D. Mich. 1982).
     Kentucky correctional institution for women found in violation of equal protection clause by denying privileges and job opportunities to female inmates that male inmates in area prisons receive. Canterino v. Wilson, 546 F.Supp. 174 (W.D. Ky. 1982).
     State correctional officials cannot close women's prison without legislative act. DeVault v. Nicholson, 296 S.E.2d 682 (W. Va. 1982).
     California court upholds majority of policies at women's jail; orders due process rights to be accorded prior to administrative segregation; awards $105,760 in attorney's fees. Inmates of Sybil Brand Inst. v. City of Los Angeles, 181 Cal.Rptr. 599 (App. 1982).
     Louisiana court holds that prison personnel did not violate female inmate's constitutional rights by failing to provide her with medical care; rules that such failure did not cause woman to spontaneously abort child. Williams v. Delcambre, 413 So.2d 324 (La. App. 1982).
     Appeals court works out compromise between female inmates' right to privacy and male guards employment rights at New York prison. Forts v. Ward, 621 F.2d 1210 (2nd Cir. 1980).
     Under the California Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, female inmates are entitled to the same jail assignment opportunities as male inmates. Molar v. Gates, 159 Cal.Rptr. 239 (App. 1979).