AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for
Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
First Amendment
A Delaware inmate
failed to show that he had been subjected to unlawful retaliation in violation
of his First Amendment rights by having a misconduct report filed against
him after he allegedly reported violations of prison rules in the kitchen
where he was assigned to work, and by being subsequently disciplined and
transferred following a finding of guilty on the charged infractions. The
inmate failed to show that he had been engaged in constitutionally protected
speech before he was fired from his kitchen job, since he only made informal
verbal complaints about kitchen incidents, and failed to file any formal
grievances or complaints. St. Louis v. Morris, Civ. No. 06-236, 2008 U.S.
Dist. Lexis 57203 (D. Del.).
A prisoner in a
private prison in Texas had a First Amendment right to write to the Wyoming
Department of Corrections Director asking to be returned to Wyoming and
complaining about the conditions of his confinement, and stated a valid
claim against seven prison employees contending that they retaliated against
him for doing so. He also asserted a valid claim for unconstitutional deprivation
of his funds by alleging that he was fined $50 because he testified in
another prisoner's disciplinary hearing. Pfeh v. Freudenthal, No. 07-10312,
2008 U.S. App. Lexis 12897 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
Trial court improperly failed to recognize
that a prisoner could have a First Amendment right to make "unflattering"
statements to prison staff members in outgoing mail to his parents. The
court should have analyzed whether the letters in question, which were
allegedly censored and/or seized, fell within any identifiable categories
of mail presented a threat to security and order. The court ordered further
proceedings on the prisoner's claims concerning his personal correspondence,
as well as on claims that he faced retaliation for statements made in the
letters. Berenguel v. Bell, No. 07-10066, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 13597 (Unpub.
5th Cir.).
A newspaper's refusal to accept a paid subscription
from a prisoner based on a corporation policy against supplying subscriptions
to prisoners did not violate his First Amendment rights, and the corporate
action was not compelled by a city resolution that "urged" the
corporation to adopt such a policy. Henderson v. Huibregtse, No. 07-2571,
2008 U.S. App. Lexis 12671 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
Removal of a prisoner from his misconduct
hearing by correctional officers and prison nurses did not violate his
First Amendment rights. His statement at the proceeding that the hearing
officer was a "foul and corrupted bitch" was not protected by
the First Amendment and constituted "insolence" in violation
of prison regulations, questioning the hearing officer's authority and
the proceeding's integrity. The court also found that the amount of force
used was minimal and reasonable under the circumstances. The prisoner also
failed to show deliberate indifference to his medical needs for his minor
cuts and lacerations. Lockett v. Suardini, No. 06-2392, 2008 U.S. App.
Lexis 10359 (6th Cir.).
Mississippi jailers claimed that, after they
witnessed a sergeant beating a prisoner, they were told to report the incident
to a supervisor, but were fired one day after they filed the report, purportedly
on unrelated charges of misconduct. Ordering further proceedings on the
fired jailers' First Amendment claims, an appeals court found that there
was a genuine issue of fact as to whether their action in filing the report
was part of their official job duties, and therefore not protected speech
under the First Amendment. The issue is whether or not language in a policy
manual stating that jailers should report certain kinds of incidents showed
that their actions in doing so was part of their job duties. The plaintiff
jailers argued that the manual did not create any such duty to report incidents
such as the beating. Williams v. Riley, No. 07-60252, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis
8990 (5th Cir.).
Prison officials were entitled to qualified
immunity in seizing, from a prisoner's cell, his written manuscripts, including
novels, short stories, and artwork. The prisoner himself agreed that the
officials had properly seized one of his stories as forbidden material
under prison regulations because of its sexually explicit nature. While
there were material issues of fact as to whether the defendants were justified
in seizing the remaining materials, or whether that seizure violated the
prisoner's First Amendment rights, since some of it was not sexually explicit,
this was not clear to the defendants at the time of the seizure. Their
actions, therefore, could constitute a reasonable mistake, which is inevitable
in the context of limited resources and serious security concerns. The
prisoner also could not have the appeals court address his complaint that
the defendants had not complied with a trial court injunction requiring
the return of his writings, when he failed to raise that issue with the
trial court. Lee v. Carlson, No. 07-4093, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 1572 (10th
Cir.).
Prisoner's placement in and retention in
administrative custody for eleven years did not violate his constitutional
rights. His status was reviewed every ninety days, and the committee reviewing
that status repeatedly recommended that he remain in administrative custody
status for security and safety reasons, based on his history of serious
misconduct, which included participation in a prison riot and multiple
assaults. The prisoner failed to show that his continued administrative
custody interfered with his First Amendment rights, since he failed to
identify a non-frivolous claim that his status prevented him from presenting.
He also claimed to show that the conditions of his confinement violated
his rights. Gans v. Rozum, No. 07-3750, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 4744 (3rd
Cir.).
Federal appeals court overturns trial court
decision upholding federal Bureau of Prisons policy preventing death row
inmates from engaging in face-to-face interviews with members of the media
or from discussing other inmates with the media. The appeals court found
that there were genuine material facts in dispute as to whether the policy
was based on security concerns or merely was a pretext for preventing death
row inmates from expressing their views to the public. Also at issue was
whether there was a legitimate reason for treating death row inmates different
from other inmates. Hammer v. Ashcroft, No. 06-1750, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis
808 (7th Cir.).
Prisoner's claim that he was improperly disciplined
for sending a copy of a letter to a prison internal affairs unit, in violation
of his First Amendment rights, is rejected by appeals court. The letter
sought information about how to pursue his claims in state court against
a prison official. The official considered the letter to be a threat because
he worked in the unit where the copy of the letter was sent. The appeals
court ruled that prison officials did not act unreasonably in viewing the
sending of the copy of the letter as a "veiled threat" against
the official, or in seizing the prisoner's legal papers after he filed
a prison grievance, which was an attempt to circulate a petition, in violation
of prison rules. May v. Libby, No. 05-1473, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 27796
(7th Cir.).
Discipline of correctional employees because
of their association with a motorcycle club did not violate their First
Amendment or due process rights to freedom of intimate association or expressive
association. The court found that the motorcycle club memberships were
not expressive association "on matters of public" concern, and
that those memberships also were not intimate relationships provided protection
under the constitution. Additionally, law enforcement agencies believed
that the motorcycle club in question engaged in criminal acts. Piscottano
v. Murphy, No. 05-3716, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 29541 (2nd Cir.).
Prison officials were not entitled to dismissal
of prisoner's claims that they violated his First Amendment rights to freedom
of religion and freedom of speech in refusing to mail 13 letters he tried
to send to Baptist churches and ministers to seek prayer partners and religious
pen pals. These actions were taken to enforce a rule barring correspondence
soliciting or advertising for "money, goods or services," including
seeking pen pals. Prison officials, in the trial court, failed to offer
any explanation of the reason for the rule or what governmental interest
it was advancing. While they might yet justify the rule and their actions,
they had failed, to date, to do so, as a result of which the dismissal
of the case was premature. Adamson v. McDonough, No. 06-12579, 2007 U.S.
App. Lexis 28969 (11th Cir.).
Court upholds Massachusetts state regulation
banning all sexually explicit publications and items from prisons. The
rule banned the receipt, possession, and display of almost all materials
with nude or semi-nude images or other sexually explicit content, except
in a medical, educational, or anthropological context. The court ruled
that there was a rational relationship between the rule and the legitimate
interest that correctional facilities had in safety and rehabilitation.
Under the rule, publications were individually reviewed to determine whether
their content fell within the scope of the ban. Moses v. Dennehy, No. 06-10164,
2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 85359 (D. Mass.).
Prisoner presented evidence from which
a reasonable jury could find that major misconduct charges were brought
against him in retaliation for his filing of prison grievances, in violation
of his First Amendment rights, so that the defendant prison employees and
officials were not entitled to qualified immunity. Scott v. Stone, No.
06-1622, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 26624 (6th Cir.).
Prisoner failed to provide any supporting
evidence for his allegation that he was served tainted food in retaliation
of his pursuit of prior litigation, or that his snack food was tampered
with. Ali v. Suchocki, No. 06-5160, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 26233 (3rd Cir.).
Prisoner who claimed that he was subjected
to an order to strip in a public hallway, a strip search, and a disciplinary
proceeding, all as part of a campaign of harassment in retaliation for
his exercise of his right of access to the courts could not recover compensatory
damages when he failed to allege a physical injury as required under 42
U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(e). His vague claim on appeal that he suffered a wrist
injury through unspecified events at some unspecified time was inadequate
to alter the result. Further, the prisoner failed to show a constitutional
violation as there were no facts showing an intent to retaliate for the
exercise of his First Amendment rights. Samford v. Staples, No. 06-20717,
2007 U.S. App. Lexis 26851 (5th Cir.).
Requiring an inmate to participate in a sex
offender treatment program, which required him to attend explicit group
discussions of a sexual nature and view certain images, did not violate
his First Amendment rights, based on the "vital" public and governmental
interest in rehabilitation of convicted sex offenders. Additionally, even
if an individualized sex offender treatment program existed which would
have met the plaintiff's objections, it would have "unduly depleted"
the prison's resources to provide it. The court failed to rule on the prisoner's
objection to participation in the program under the Religious Land Use
and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000cc et.
seq. on the basis of the defendants' claim that they had not had sufficient
opportunity to respond to that claim. Schnitzler v. Reisch, No. Civ. 06-4064,
2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 72938 (S.D.).
Bureau of Prisons regulation prohibiting
a prisoner from publishing an article under a byline, 28 C.F.R. Sec. 540.20(b)
violates the First Amendment, and was not essential for any particular
security objective. The regulation was overbroad in discouraging all outgoing
correspondence with the news media. Jordan v. Pugh, No. 02-cv-01239, 2007
U.S. Dist. Lexis 58231 (D. Co.).
There was a genuine issue of fact as to whether
a prison employee who moved an inmate from the first to the second floor
did so in retaliation for the prisoner having previously filed grievances
and a lawsuit, requiring further proceedings on his First Amendment claim.
Cross v. Dretke, No. 06-40513, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 17207 (5th Cir.).
Prisoner failed to show that he was subjected
to unlawful retaliation after he filed a grievance against an officer.
The officer filed a misconduct report against him, which provided information
concerning a fight between the inmate's children and the officer's children
at school. The prisoner failed to show that the subsequent proceedings,
which resulted in him being put into administrative custody and transferred,
constituted unlawful retaliation. First, there was evidence that the officer
had no involvement in what occurred after filing the report, and that institutional
stability and safety required the separation of the officer and prisoner
after the fight between their children occurred. Davis v. Pennsylvania
State, No. 06-5188, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 17819 (3rd Cir.).
A correctional regulation which prohibited
an inmate's use of "abusive, obscene, or inappropriate language"
did not violate a Pennsylvania prisoner's rights, and punishment of a prisoner
for using such language in a prison form and a letter to a prison employee
was proper, even if those documents allegedly were part of the prisoner's
attempts to redress prison staff "malfeasance." Corliss v. Varner,
No. 06-2328, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 22202 (3rd Cir.).
Prisoner's claim that he was subjected to
retaliation and a "fabricated" misconduct complaint for expressing
an opinion about which television channel inmates would watch was properly
dismissed as frivolous. A First Amendment retaliation claim could not be
based on this, as expressing such an opinion was not protected speech.
Wilson v. Budgeon, No. 07-1607, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 22086 (3rd Cir.).
Seizure without a hearing of prisoner's materials
concerning fantasy role-playing games, on the basis that materials of this
sort had the potential of promoting "gang mentality and an interest
in escape" did not violate either prisoner's due process of First
Amendment rights. Post-deprivation remedies available were adequate to
protect any possible due process rights, and the prison's policy was reasonably
related to curbing gang activity and protecting institutional safety and
security. Singer v. Frank, No. 05-C-1040, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 55663 (E.D.
Wis.).
While the working conditions in the prison
commissary were "perhaps uncomfortable," they did not violate
the plaintiff prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual
punishment. The prisoner also failed to show that he was improperly transferred
from his commissary job in retaliation for his grievances against his supervisors.
Toolasprashad v. Wright, No. 06-3784, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 19875 (3rd Cir.).
A Florida prisoner failed to show that prison
officials altered his work assignment in retaliation for his pursuit of
grievances, in violation of his First Amendment rights. Brown v. Mache,
No. 07-10034, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 12326 (11th Cir.).
Prisoner could proceed with his First Amendment
claim that a housing lieutenant falsely accused him of misconduct, causing
his placement in a special housing unit in retaliation for his having filed
a grievance against the lieutenant. Rivera v. Selsky, No. 9:05-CV-0967,
2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 23064 (N.D.N.Y.).
California prisoner stated a possible First
Amendment claim by alleging that correctional officers confined him to
his quarters and destroyed two of his "recycled art statutes"
in retaliation for his having filed a grievance against two other correctional
officers. The alleged conduct, however, did not violate his Eighth Amendment
rights, and also did not violate his due process rights since he did not
have a liberty interest in avoiding confinement to his quarters, and the
destruction of the statutes, allegedly his property, was not "authorized."
Davis v. Calif. Dept. of Corrections, No. 1:06-cv-01062, 2007 U.S. Dist.
Lexis 26507 (E.D. Cal.).
Prisoner allowed to amend his lawsuit to
further explain his claim that he was suspended from a softball league
and a hobby craft program in retaliation for having filed grievances, in
violation of his First Amendment rights. The court found that his lawsuit
did not adequately establish due process claims, because he had no protected
liberty interest in remaining in the recreational programs from which he
had been suspended. Bigbee v. Nalley, No. 07-C-71, 2007 U.S. Dist.
Lexis 25336 (W.D. Wis.).
Prisoner did not establish a First Amendment
claim when he failed to show a connection between the alleged retaliation
against him and the grievances he had previously filed. Bartelli v. Galabinski,
No. 06-1545, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 8853 (3rd Cir.).
Evidence supported a jury determination that
a prison supervisor fired inmate from his prison job and filed a false
disciplinary report against him for filing a grievance against him in violation
of his First Amendment rights. Appeals court upholds award of nominal damages
of $1 and punitive damages of $500 against the supervisor, but finds no
basis for liability against other defendants, including the prison warden,
administrative review board member, a grievance officer, and a prison counselor,
since there was no evidence that they were personally responsible for the
actions against the plaintiff. Henderson v. Johnson, No. 04-CV-3037, 2007
U.S. Dist. Lexis 17900 (C.D. Ill.).
Male prisoner failed to show a violation
of Fourth Amendment privacy rights or 8th Amendment rights based on female
correctional officers' alleged intentional observation of him in the shower
or in his housing unit nude or in various undressed states, but the court
ordered further proceedings on his claims that he was subsequently "ogled"
multiple times in retaliation for his pursuit of grievances over the observations.
The court dismissed claims based on a correctional officers alleged actions
in informing inmates and staff members that the plaintiff was a homosexual,
child molester, and/or rapist. Morris v. Newland, No. CIV S-00-2794, 2007
U.S. Dist. Lexis 15725 (E.D. Cal.).
In a prisoner's lawsuit claiming that correctional
officers made threats of physical violence against him, as well as threats
of disciplinary action, to deter him from filing grievances, an officer's
statement that "something drastic" would occur if the prisoner
continued filing grievances, and a second officer's statement that the
prisoner should "learn to play the game or have a boot put in your
ass" could be found by a reasonable jury to be threats of violence
aimed at retaliating against the prisoner for engaged in protected First
Amendment activity. Pittman v. Tucker, No. 06-11454, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis
381 (11th Cir.). [N/R]
Prisoner failed to show that retaliation
against him for testifying against an officer, in violation of his First
Amendment rights, was the reason he was placed in administrative detention
and then transferred to another facility. These events occurred after the
officer filed disciplinary charges against the inmate when he discovered
a diagram of the facility's kitchen in the prisoner's cell. Gay v. Shannon,
No. 06-1325, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 31742 (3rd Cir.). [N/R]
Even if a prisoner's letters to the governor
were constitutionally protected First Amendment activities, he failed to
show that he had been transferred in retaliation for writing them, when
his "poor behavior," including three acts of misconduct, provided
a sufficient basis for his transfer. Jerry v. Williamson, No. 06-1606,
2006 U.S. App. Lexis 31325 (3rd Cir.). [N/R]
A federal prisoner's First Amendment rights
were not violated by an increase in the long-distance telephone rates at
federal prisons. Prisoners had no right to any specific rate for their
phone services. Court also rejects equal protection claims since there
was no showing that the plaintiff was treated differently than other prisoners,
or that there was a discriminatory purpose for the difference in rates
between international and domestic long distance rates charged. Harrison
v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. 1:06cv1182, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 90646
(E.D. Va.). [N/R]
Prison officials failed to show a rational
relationship between rehabilitative goals for the plaintiff prisoner and
actions denying him access to eight specific publications withheld under
a federal statute and regulations, the Ensign Amendment, 28 U.S.C. Sec.
530C(b)(6) and 28 C.F.R. Sec. 540.72 prohibiting the use of prison funds
to distribute commercial materials featuring nudity or which were sexually
explicit. Prisoner could proceed with his lawsuit challenging the constitutionality
of the statute and regulations under the First Amendment. Jordan v. Sosa,
No. 05-CV-01283, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 82037 (D. Colo.). [N/R]
Evidence showed that prisoner's property
was not destroyed in retaliation for his filing of a grievance over it
being confiscation, but instead because prison officials believed it to
be contraband. Buehl v. Beard, No. 03-1313, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 68642
(W.D. Pa.). [N/R]
Publisher of periodical with articles about
prison legal issues, largely written by prisoners, failed to show that
it suffered a constitutional injury from a Florida Department of Corrections
regulation barring inmates from receiving pay for their writing to pursue
a federal civil rights claim under the First Amendment. It failed to show,
for instance, that the regulation had any impact on its ability to continue
to publish the periodical. Prison Legal News v. Decker, No. 05-14738, 2006
U.S. App. Lexis 25377 (11th Cir.). [N/R]
Prisoner stated a viable claim for violation
of his First Amendment rights in alleging that a correctional officer filed
a baseless disciplinary charge against him in retaliation for his having
supplied an affidavit supporting another inmate's grievance. The fact that
the disciplinary report against the plaintiff prisoner was ultimately withdrawn
merely showed that he was not subjected to greater harm, and did not eliminate
his claim against the officer for initially filing the charge and for refusing
to withdraw it. Zarska v. Higgins, No. 05-3204, 171 Fed. Appx. 255 (10th
Cir. 2006). [N/R]
Prison rule barring prisoners from talking
to each other while in the dining hall did not violate their rights to
free speech, due process of law, or constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
Hendrickson v. McCreanor, #05-4340, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 24906 (3rd Cir.).
[2006 JB Nov]
Prison officials were entitled to qualified
immunity in former prisoner's lawsuit claiming that they improperly restricted
his ability to subscribe to certain newspaper, magazine, and newsletter
publications based on his classification status, which was based on his
behavior, as their actions did not violate any clearly established right.
Calia v. Weholtz, No. 05-3201, 426 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (D. Kan. 2006). [N/R]
Prisoner stated a valid claim for retaliation
in violation of his First Amendment rights by alleging that he was intentionally
transferred to a facility lacking rehabilitation programs as punishment
for his having filed a lawsuit challenging the failure of correctional
officials to provide him with rehabilitation programs ordered by a court
for treatment of psychological and psychiatric problems. The claim did
not challenge the defendants' right, in general, to transfer the prisoner,
but rather asserted that they did so, in this instance, for an improper
motive. Price v. Wall, No. Civ. A. 05-3898, 428 F. Supp. 2d 52 (D.R.I.
2006). [N/R]
Prisoner's allegation that a federal correctional
officer retaliated against him for his intention to file a grievance against
him by taking actions leading to the prisoner's administrative segregation
stated a viable claim for violation of the First Amendment. Johnson v.
Sadzewicz, No. 05-71083, 426 F. Supp. 2d 635 (E.D. Mich. 2006). [N/R]
New Jersey failed to show that it had a reasonable
basis, related to prison safety and security, in opening prisoners' legal
mail outside of their presence. Inmates have a First Amendment interest
in being present when incoming legal mail is opened by prison employees.
Terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001, and incidents that fall of transmission
of anthrax through the mail were not sufficient, years later, to support
the continuation of a policy adopted as an emergency procedure. Jones v.
Brown, No. 03-3823, 04-4426, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 21601 (3d Cir.).[2006
JP Oct]
Jail guard's speech on alleged abuse of inmates
was on a matter of public concern, protected by the First Amendment, and
there were factual issues as to whether he was subjected to harassment
in retaliation for exercising that First Amendment right. Fairley v. Andrews,
No. 03C5207, 430 F. Supp. 2d 786 (N.D. Ill. 2006). [N/R]
Muslim prisoner who claimed he suffered retaliation
from prison officials for complaining about alleged religious discrimination
failed to show that the alleged "retaliation" resulted in any
harm, barring his claim. Court further finds that the prisoner's employment
by the California Prison Industry Authority did not make him an "employee"
for purposes of a Title VII claim under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. Sec. 2000e. Wade v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections, No. 05-15653, 171
Fed. Appx. 601 (9th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
Pennsylvania prisoner failed to present evidence
from which a reasonable jury could conclude that he was fired from his
prison kitchen job in retaliation for having filed grievances against his
supervisor. The evidence showed that complaints about his work performance
were present before he filed any grievances. Williams v. Meyers, No. 03-3938,
165 Fed. Appx. 201 (3rd Cir. 2006). [N/R]
U.S. Supreme Court overturns an appeals court
decision that a prison policy forbidding certain very dangerous and "recalcitrant"
prisoners access to newspapers, magazines, and photographs violated the
First Amendment as a matter of law. Policy was justified by prison officials'
legitimate interest in providing such prisoners with incentives for improvement
of their behavior. Beard v. Banks, No. 04-1739 2006 U.S. Lexis 5176. [2006
JB Aug]
North Dakota state prison rules prohibiting
inmates from possessing property, such as religious magazines, received
from other prisoners, and classifying such "passed-on" property
as contraband, upheld as reasonable. Larson v. Schuetzle, No. 20050418,
712 N.W.2d 617 (N.D. 2006). [2006 JB Aug]
Prisoner claiming that he was improperly
retaliated against by being falsely disciplined for having written a letter
and filed a prior lawsuit against prison staff members was not required
to "establish" either the legal or factual elements of his claim
in his complaint, but merely say enough to provide the defendants with
adequate notice of his claim. Prisoner's federal civil rights lawsuit was
not barred by finding, by prison disciplinary board, that his statements
in his prior letter and lawsuit were false. Simpson v. Nickel, No. 05-4686,
450 F.3d 303 (7th Cir. 2006). [2006 JB Aug]
In a prisoner's lawsuit claiming that prison
officials violated his First Amendment rights by refusing to allow him
to organize an atheist study group, federal trial court finds that defendant
officials were entitled to qualified immunity from liability for damages
since it was not clearly established at the time of the denial, 2002, that
atheism was a "religion," and the prisoner did not tell the defendants
that he was a member of any non-theistic belief system, such as secular
humanism, which had previously been held to be protected by the First Amendment's
free exercise of religion clause. Kaufman v. McCaughtry, No. 03-C-027,
422 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (W.D. Wis. 2006). [N/R]
The decision by a prison nurse to place a
prisoner in four-point restraint was not shown to be retaliation for his
prior lawsuits against other prison personnel, when there was no evidence
that the nurse even knew of those lawsuits, and she was not named as a
defendant in a lawsuit until after the incident. Ziemba v. Clark, No. 05-1613,
167 Fed. Appx. 831 (2nd Cir. 2006). [N/R]
First Amendment challenge by a class of prisoners
to a federal Bureau of Prisons program statement and institutional policy
barring the showing of unedited R-rated movies to inmates rejected. The
prohibition was rationally related to legitimate governmental interests
in promoting the rehabilitation of prisoners. Prisoners had adequate alternative
means to exercise their First Amendment rights, including access to G,
PG, and PG-13 rated films, as well as R-rated films that had been edited
for television. Jewell v. Gonzales, No. 97-408, 420 F. Supp. 2d 406 (W.D.
Pa. 2006). [N/R]
Prisoner's allegation that he was transferred
to a less desirable job assignment in retaliation for filing grievances
was insufficient to show a violation of his First Amendment rights, but
his assertion, if true, that he was transferred to an inferior and more
dangerous prison for retaliatory reasons did state a claim. Morris v. Powell,
No. 05-40578, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 12033 (5th Cir.). [2006 JB Jul]
Prison officials, in preventing inmate from
mailing out a copy of an internal investigation report concerning his escape
attempt, violated his First Amendment rights, when the report had been
properly obtained through discovery in a criminal case, and was available
to the public in the court files of both the criminal prosecution and the
prisoner's civil rights lawsuit. Arnett v. Markel, No. 5-04-0082, 845 N.E.2d
752 (Ill. App. 2006). [2006 JB Jul]
Federal appeals court allows class action
challenging conditions of confinement for civilly committed "Violent
Predators" in California to proceed on most claims, including claims
involving procedural and substantive due process, privacy, excessive force,
access to courts, unlawful retaliation for grievances or lawsuits, and
forced medication in non-emergency situations. Hydrick v. Hunter, No. 03-56712,
2006 U.S. App. Lexis 13497 (9th Cir.). [2006 JB Jul]
Designation of prisoner as someone associated
with a gang, which kept him in a secure unit, did not violate his First
Amendment rights of freedom of association nor his procedural due process
rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Adequate due process was provided
by notice of his impending "gang validation," together with an
interview. Photographs of prisoner posing with other inmates, some of whom
were already validated gang associates and one of whom was a validated
gang member provided sufficient evidence for his designation. Stewart v.
Alameida, No. C-03-4021, 418 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (N.D. Cal. 2006). [N/R]
Prisoner failed to show that a search of
his cell and the confiscation of legal papers he possessed which belonged
to other prisoners was unlawful retaliation for his exercise of his First
Amendment rights in issuing a subpoena to the prison warden in a pending
case. Peterson v. Lucero, No. 04-2318, 165 Fed. Appx. 657 (10th Cir. 2006).
[N/R]
Prisoner failed to establish a valid claim
for racial discrimination. While he filed grievances stating that "racism
is prevailing" at the correctional facility, and accusing white employees
of being "racist" and "hateful," he failed to allege
that he had suffered any "specific hardships" as a result of
such racism. He also failed to show that he had been punished for prior
lawsuits and grievances or that an officer filed false disciplinary reports
against him, in violation of his First Amendment rights. Jackson v. Madery,
No. 04-1805, 158 Fed. Appx. 656 (6th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Requirement that prisoner's exhaust available
administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit over prison conditions
applies to a claim by a prisoner in a privately run prisoner over the alleged
confiscation of several magazines by a prison employee. Roles v. Maddox,
No. 04-35280, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 5037 (9th Cir.). [2006 JB Apr]
Wisconsin prison properly barred inmate from
possessing books he claimed were essential for the practice of his "Odinist"
religion, when they were found to advocate white supremacist violence.
Borzych v. Frank, No. 05-3907, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 5278 (7th Cir.). [2006
JB Apr]
First Amendment right of prisoners to receive gift
publications was not "clearly established" in the middle of 2000,
when a Kansas state prison rule barred such receipt, so that prison officials
were entitled to qualified immunity from damages in lawsuit filed by inmates
and the non-profit publisher of a periodical focusing on legal issues of
interest to prisoners. Prison Legal News, Inc. v. Simmons, No. 02-4054,
401 F. Supp. 1181 (D. Kan. 2005). [N/R]
Texas prisoner stated a viable claim of unlawful
retaliation against correctional officer who allegedly repeatedly harassed
and threatened him with physical abuse for refusal to work as a prison
informant, and for failing to supply the names of prison employees allegedly
involved in drug trafficking. David v. Hill, No. C.A.C-04-673, 401 F. Supp.
2d 749 (S.D. Tex. 2005). [N/R]
A prison's complete ban on all mail between
a prisoner and his attorney-friend, based on the prisoner being suspected
of engaging in a prohibited paralegal business with the friend was overbroad
and risked chilling the prisoner's access to the courts and counsel. A
preliminary injunction against the ban was therefore granted. Evans v.
Vare, No. 3:05-CV-3CR, 402 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (D. Nev. 2005). [N/R]
Censorship of a prisoner's outgoing mail
under a Wisconsin regulation on the basis that it was believed to contain
"encoded" references to gang activities did not violate his free
speech rights. Koutnik v. Brown, No. 04-C-911, 396 F. Supp. 2d 978 (W.D.
Wis. 2005). [N/R]
Male prisoner's claim that female guard made
him strip naked and masturbate for her enjoyment, if true, was a violation
of his privacy rights, but not "cruel and unusual punishment,"
since he only suffered minimal injury. Prisoner also claimed he was retaliated
against for complaining about this treatment, in violation of his First
Amendment rights. Boxer X v. Harris, No. 04-13083, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis
2008 (11th Cir.). [2006 JB Mar]
Correctional officer's alleged conduct of
repeatedly groping or caressing a prisoner's chest, genitals and buttocks
during a pat search, if true, constituted a sexual assault which would
violate the Eighth Amendment, so that he was not entitled to qualified
immunity. Further, the officer's alleged retaliation against the prisoner
for complaining by planting evidence against him and filing a misbehavior
report against him, if true, would violate the prisoner's First Amendment
rights. Rodriguez v. McClenning, No. 03 Civ. 5269, 399 F. Supp. 2d 228
(S.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner failed to show that he was reassigned
from a boiler-room job to a "hoe" squad and forced to work in
dirty clothes and in cold weather in retaliation for his filing of grievances
and complaints. The evidence showed, the court ruled, that he was actually
reassigned for legitimate reasons, including the prisoner's connections
to white supremacist groups and the risk of escape posed by his prior escape
from another facility. Breshears v. Brown, No. 04-41749 150 Fed. Appx.
323 (5th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
If, as former Illinois prison warden claimed, she
had no policymaking function and no discretionary authority, then her alleged
termination based on her Republican political affiliation would demonstrate
the violation of her clearly established First Amendment rights. Appeals
court rejects, however, plaintiff's due process claim as she had no constitutionally
protected property interest in continued employment as a state prison warden.
Kiddy-Brown v. Blagojevich, No. 04-2283, 408 F.3d 346 (7th Cir. 2005).
[N/R]
Pennsylvania Supreme Court upholds constitutionality
of regulations prohibiting prisoners from receiving incoming publications
found to be obscene, as well as of statute criminalizing the importation
of such publication into prisons or their possession by prisoners. Inmates'
lawsuit challenged the withholding of Penthouse magazine and several others
available to the general adult public. Payne v. Commonwealth Dept. of Corrections,
J-83-2004, 871 A.2d 795 (Pa. 2005). [2005 JB Dec]
Prisoner was properly excluded from attendance
at religious ceremony which was attended by Catholic Cardinal and the Governor
of New York, and placed in administrative segregation during the event.
Prisoner had expressed hostility towards the Cardinal, and announced his
intention of attending the ceremony despite his exclusion and "confronting"
the Cardinal for failing to assist him in challenging his conviction. Prison
officials' actions did not violate his First Amendment rights. Gonzalez
v. Narcato, No. 01CV6102, 363 F. Supp. 2d 486 (E.D.N.Y. 2005). [2005 JB
Dec]
Correctional officer was properly denied summary
judgment on prisoner's claim that he had him transferred to another facility
in retaliation for his complaint about the officer to his supervisors concerning
the officer's alleged refusal to authorize the payment of funds from the
prisoner's account to pay his lawyer for work in connection with his criminal
appeal. If true, this would be violative of his First Amendment right of
access to the courts. Siggers-El v. Barlow, No. 03-2291, 412 F.3d 693 (6th
Cir. 2005). [2005 JB Nov]
Plaintiff assistant wardens of Illinois state
prisons are policymaking officials and therefore can be fired by the governor
on the basis of their political affiliation. Riley v. Blagojevich, 04-3085,
2005 U.S. App. Lexis 20631 (7th Cir.). [2005 JB Nov]
Gang members had no First Amendment right
to belong to gangs, so their transfer to the "highest security"
prison in Illinois, even if in "retaliation" for gang activity,
was not improper. Federal appeals court reinstates, however, claims concerning
whether adequate due process was provided for prisoners transferred there,
and whether certain prisoners were transferred in retaliation for having
pursued grievances and/or litigation concerning their conditions of confinement.
Westefer v. Snyder, No. 03-3318, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 19217 (7th Cir.).
[2005 JB Oct]
Trial court improperly dismissed prisoner's
lawsuit against probation officer claiming that his placement in a detention
facility was a violation of his rights when there were court orders requiring
that he be placed in a halfway house for his alleged probation violation.
The lawsuit was not barred by the rule in Heck v. Humphrey, No. 93-6188,
512 U.S. 477 (1994) when it only challenged his confinement in one facility
instead of another, and did not challenge either the duration or fact of
his confinement. Taylor v. U.S. Probation Office, No. 03-5370, 409 F.3d
426 (D.C. Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Requiring prisoner who had filed numerous
frivolous grievances to have his grievances screened by a grievance coordinator
for frivolousness before allowing them to be filed did not violate his
First Amendment rights or deny him access to the courts. No constitutional
right to "unfettered access" to prison grievance process. Walker
v. Michigan Department of Corrections, #04-1347, 128 Fed. Appx. 441 (6th
Cir. 2005). [2005 JB Sep]
Prisoner's lawsuit against federal prison
warden reinstated on claims that his rights were violated by prohibition
on him calling his stockbroker to order that stock be sold if the price
started falling. Prisoner also stated a viable First Amendment claim based
on refusal to allow him to buy a book on computer programming. King v.
Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 03-2431, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 14092 (7th Cir.).
[2005 JB Sep]
Prisoner's claim for alleged mental anguish
and emotional distress arising out of a dispute with correctional officials
over the alleged retaliatory withholding of two pornographic magazines
by the prison mail personnel could not be pursued, in the absence of physical
injury under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(e).
He claimed that the retaliation occurred because he filed a previously
lawsuit against prison employees. Geiger v. Jowers, No. 04-10299, 404 F.3d
371 (5th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
California prison regulation barring inmates
from possessing sexually explicit materials does not violate either the
U.S. or California Constitutions or a state statute. Snow v. Woodford,
No. D043702, 2005 Cal. App. Lexis 565 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2005). [2005
JB Jun]
Prisoner's question to work supervisor concerning
pay for prisoners laid off from prison sewing shop was not speech on a
matter of public concern for which he had First Amendment protection against
retaliatory action. McElroy v. Lopac, No. 03-3257, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis
5611 (7th Cir.). [2005 JB Jun]
Prison policy that barred prisoners placed
in long term security unit based on their past behavior from possessing
any newspapers or magazines except for religious or legal publications,
and that further barred possession of family photos, was subject to First
Amendment challenge. Appeals court panel overturns trial court decision
upholding policy without trial. Banks v. Beard, No. 03-1245, 399 F.3d 134
(3d Cir. 2005) [2005 JB Jun]
Even if a letter from a legal advocacy group
(the "Innocence Project of Minnesota") to a prisoner was protected
as "legal mail," the alleged mistaken opening of the letter outside
of the presence of the prisoner was not a violation of his First Amendment
rights since it was an isolated incident and did not interfere with his
right of access to the courts. The prison employee opening it believed
that the group who sent the letter did not qualify as a legal advocacy
group. Additionally, correspondence from a city police department and the
North Dakota Department of Corrections was not constitutionally protected
legal mail. Moore v. Schuetzle, No. A4-01-038, 354 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (D.N.D.
2005). [N/R]
Prison officials could not punish an inmate
for writing a letter to a private company informing them of what he believed
to be an illegal program planned at the prison which would damage its business
as a supplier to the facility. The statements, while critical or unflattering,
did not damage institutional security, and punishing him for their content
would violate the First Amendment. Gandy v. Ortiz, No. 04-1225, 122 Fed.
Appx. 421 (10th Cir. 2005). [2005 JB May]
Prisoner's federal civil rights lawsuit challenging
his discipline as a violation of his First Amendment rights should not
have been dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies.
Federal appeals court rules that he did exhaust his administrative remedies
when his appeal of his denied grievance was rejected as untimely. The Prison
Litigation Reform Act's exhaustion requirement, the court holds, does not
bar consideration of a prisoner's claims when his administrative appeal
was denied on state law procedural grounds. Ngo v. Woodford, No. 03-16042,
2005 U.S. App. Lexis 4809 (9th Cir. 2005). [2005 JB May]
State prison's policy of opening and inspecting
prisoners' legal mail outside their presence in order to detect presence
of contraband, particularly anthrax, was a violation of their First Amendment
rights, but defendant officials were entitled to qualified immunity. Because
of the "uncertainties" created by terrorist attacks on September
11, 2001, reasonable prison officials could have been unclear about the
fact that their conduct violated the prisoners' rights. Allah v. Brown,
No. CIV. 02-5298, 351 F. Supp. 2d 278 (D.N.J. 2004).[N/R]
Ban on non-subscription bulk mail and catalogs
was not rationally related to a legitimate penological interest and therefore
violated the First Amendment, but correctional officials were entitled
to qualified immunity. Prison Legal News v. Lehman, No. 03-35608, 397 F.3d
692 (9th Cir. 2005) [2005 JB Apr]
California State Department of Corrections
administrative bulletin banning sexually explicit materials depicting frontal
nudity did not violate a prisoner's First Amendment rights. Correctional
officials properly sought to reduce sexual harassment of female guards
and prevent the development of a hostile work environment and also enhance
prison security. Further, depriving prisoners of such sexually explicit
materials did not impose an "atypical and significant hardship"
in relation to the "ordinary incidents of prison life," and was
therefore not a violation of due process. Additionally, the prisoner did
not successfully show a violation of equal protection rights, as he did
not claim that he was treated any differently than similarly situated prisoners
with respect to the possession of such materials. Munro v. Tristan, No.
03-16770, 116 Fed. Appx. 820 (9th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
New Jersey correctional officials could not
implement new regulations eliminating the requirement of the presence of
an emergency cart with medical equipment and supplies at the scene of executions--for
the purpose of reviving the inmate in the event of last minute stays--without
providing an explanation of its reasoning. Defendant officials were required
to present "strong" medical evidence that the effects of the
lethal injections used were irreversible. Officials would also be required
to show how new restrictions on media access to and filming of executions
were justified by legitimate penological, safety, and security concerns.
In Re. Readoption of N.J.A.C. 10A:23, 842 A.2d 207 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2004).
[N/R]
Prisoner's First Amendment rights were not
violated by denying him receipt and possession of a racist magazine, Pagan
Revival, which the inmate himself admitted contained "hatred."
Censoring such publications, a federal appeals court held, was reasonably
related to legitimate penological interests in institutional order and
security. Lindell v. McCaughtry, No. 03-4094, 115 Fed. Appx. 872 (7th Cir.
2004). [N/R]
Prison rule prohibiting the spreading of
"rumors" about prison staff members was unconstitutionally vague
and was improperly used to punish a prisoner for communicating the contents
of his grievance to his mother, who subsequently advertised its contents
on the Internet in order to seek legal counsel for him. Cassels v. Stalder,
No. CIV.A.03-0709-D-M2, 342 F. Supp. 2d 555 (M.D. La. 2004). [2005 JB Mar]
A prisoner's First Amendment claims are not
excluded from the requirement in the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 1997e(e) prohibiting claims for mental or emotional injury in the
absence of a showing of physical injury. That rule, however, while barring
the plaintiff's claims for emotion or mental injury from alleged retaliation
in violation of his First Amendment rights did not bar claims for nominal,
compensatory, and punitive damages for the violation of his rights. Meade
v. Plummer, No. 99-CV-10011, 344 F. Supp. 2d 569 (E.D. Mich. 2004). [N/R]
Notifying only the prisoner, and not the
publisher, when a periodical was not delivered to a prisoner, was inadequate
to protect the publisher's First Amendment rights. Federal appeals court
also orders further proceedings on constitutionality of policies limiting
inmates' monthly spending on publications to $30 and prohibiting gift subscriptions.
Jacklovich v. Simmons, #03-3227, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 26550 (10th Cir.
2004). [2005 JB Feb]
Iowa prisoner's claim that a correctional
officer wrote a false misconduct report concerning his behavior in retaliation
for his announced intention to file a grievance against him, and did so
for the purpose of preventing the processing of the grievance, stated a
claim for violation of First Amendment rights, so that dismissal of the
claim was not warranted under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(e)(2)(B). Hartsfield
v. Department of Corrections, No. 04-1311, 107 Fed. Appx. 695 (8th Cir.
2004). [N/R]
Factual issues existed as to whether prison
officials who transferred prisoner to administrative segregation after
a behavior modification unit program was discontinued were motivated by
a desire to retaliate against him for filing grievances, in violation of
his First Amendment rights. Summary judgment was therefore properly denied
to the defendants in the prisoner's lawsuit. Lodatao v. Ortiz, No. CIV.A.
02-2803, 314 F. Supp. 2d 379 (D.N.J. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner stated a viable First Amendment
claim when "New Afrikan" political literature confiscated from
him was not subjected to established procedures for individualized review
of reading materials, and he was instead punished on the basis that the
literature originated from a group not "approved" by correctional
officials. Shakur v. Selsky, No. 03-0050, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 24999 (2nd
Cir. 2004). [2005 JB Jan]
Indiana prisoner stated a possible claim
for violation of his First Amendment rights based on claimed confiscation
of anarchist pamphlets from him by correctional officers, but failed to
present a claim for a violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against
unreasonable searches and seizures or the Eighth Amendment prohibition
of cruel and unusual punishment. The prisoner also asserted a viable equal
protection claim on the basis of the alleged different treatment of other
prisoners with similar political materials in their possession. Smith v.
Carrasco, No. 3:04-CV-0010 AS, 334 F. Supp. 2d 1094 (N.D. Ind. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner's allegations that officers confiscated
and destroyed his property, threatened to transfer him, and assaulted him
in retaliation for his filing of grievances were sufficient to state a
claim for violation of his First Amendment rights. Appeals court rejects
the "Catch 22" argument that no claim was stated because the
prisoner was undeterred by these actions from continuing to assert his
First Amendment rights. Rhodes v. Robinson, No. 03-15335 380 F.3d 1123
(9th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Dec]
Appeals court orders further proceedings
on prisoner's claim that he was falsely charged and disciplined for misconduct
in retaliation for prior grievances and lawsuits against a correctional
officer. Summary judgment for defendant officer was improper without considering
another inmate's affidavit concerning officer's alleged retaliatory intent,
and the issue of proximity in time between prisoner's exercise of his First
Amendment rights and the alleged retaliatory action. Muhammed v. Close,
#02-1043, 379 F.3d 413 (6th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Dec]
Prisoner failed to show that his placement
in administrative segregation after he finished a period of disciplinary
segregation was in retaliation for his exercise of his First Amendment
rights in complaining of prison officials' alleged racism. The stated reasons
for placing the prisoner, who had previously been convicted of drug trafficking
activities within the prison, in administrative segregation were within
the scope of established policy. Hall-Bey v. Hanks, No. 02-4050, 93 Fed.
Appx. 977 (7th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Federal appeals court orders further proceedings
on prisoner's claim that the confiscation of his word processor and radio,
after he submitted letters critical of the prison for mailing, were retaliatory
for his exercise of his First Amendment rights. Confiscation, since it
was carried out under the authority of a prison administrative directive,
was not a random, unauthorized action for which the availability of adequate
post-deprivation state remedies would bar a federal due process claim.
Allen v. Thomas, No. 03-21208, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 20953 (5th Cir. 2004).
[2004 JB Nov]
Regulations banning gift subscriptions of
publications to prisoners and limiting their own purchase of such subscriptions
was rationally related to legitimate interests in rehabilitation and institutional
security. Rice v. State of Kansas, No. 89,759, 95 P.3d 994 (Kan. 2004).
[2004 JB Nov]
While prisoner successfully proved that prison
security director improperly put him in segregation in retaliation for
filing "too many" complaints and grievances, in violation of
his First Amendment rights, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, he
was not entitled to an award of compensatory damages in the absence of
physical injury, but only $1 in nominal damages. Appeals court also upholds
the decision not to award punitive damages, since the defendant acted out
of "frustration," rather than with an "evil motive,"
and upholds application of PLRA section to limit attorneys' fee award in
the case to $1.50. Royal v. Kautzky, No. 02-3446, 375 F.3d 720 (8th Cir.
2004). [2004 JB Oct]
Federal appeals court rules that trial judge
lacked an adequate factual basis to find that a ban by Congress on the
use of federal funds to distribute sexually explicit publications to prisoners
was "reasonably related" to a legitimate governmental interest
in rehabilitation. Ramirez v. Pugh, No. 02-2101, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 16619
(3d Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Oct]
Alabama prisoner could not pursue declaratory
judgment action for the purpose of obtaining a determination that a program
allowing inmates to view movie videos they were allowed to borrow from
a correctional facility library as an incentive for good behavior does
not violate federal copyright law. The correctional facility discontinued
the program because of a concern that it might violate copyright law. The
court found that the prisoner suffered no "injury" from the suspension
of the program giving him standing to pursue the claim, and the possibility
that the program violated copyright laws did not subject the prisoner himself
to any possible litigation, nor did he himself have any interest in the
copyrights of the movies in question. Lane v. Sticker, No. 2011161, 876
So. 2d 469 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003). [N/R]
Prison guard was not entitled to qualified
immunity on the claim that he filed a false misconduct ticket against a
prisoner in retaliation for his "jailhouse lawyering" activity.
Law prohibiting such retaliation for exercise of First Amendment rights
was clearly established. Scott v. Churchill, No. 03-2427, 2004 U.S. App.
Lexis 15269 (6th Cir.). [2004 JB Sep]
Federal appeals court overturns dismissal
of prisoner's claim that confiscation of picture postcards from his cell
might be violative of his First Amendment rights, in light of lack of evidence
of the purported justification for the action. Injunction against policy
preventing prisoner from receiving clippings from periodical from a correspondent
upheld, but modified to clarify that the facility could still impose reasonable
restrictions on the form and number of such clippings. Lindell v. Litscher,
No. 03-2651, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 14833 (7th Cir.). [2004 JB Sep]
Correctional policy denying a sex-offender
contact visits with minors, including family members, did not violate his
First Amendment right to freedom of association, and was rationally related
to legitimate interests in promoting institutional security and the safety
of children. Garber v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Secretary,
851 A.2d 222 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). [2004 JB Sep]
State correctional officers were not entitled
to a preliminary injunction against discipline of them for associating
with Outlaws Motorcycle Club, a group alleged to be a criminal gang. The
directive prohibiting officers from conduct constituting or giving rise
to the appearance of conflict of interest, engaging in unprofessional or
illegal behavior that could reflect negatively on the Department, and acting
in ways jeopardizing institutional security or the health, safety, or welfare
of the staff or inmates, which was the basis for the discipline, was not
overbroad under the First Amendment. Piscottano v. Murphy, 317 F. Supp.
2d 97 (D. Conn. 2004). [N/R]
New York prisoner's claim that correctional
employees deliberated tampered with his mail, including both incoming and
outgoing legal, personal, and political mail, without cause or justification,
adequately asserted a claim for violation of his First Amendment rights.
Nash v. McGinnis, 315 F. Supp. 2d 318 (W.D.N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner in psychiatric housing unit asserted
a valid claim for unlawful retaliation against him for reporting that a
correctional officer exposed his penis to him and made vulgar remarks,
and then falsely accused him of misconduct after he refused to refrain
from reporting the incident. Austin v. Terhune, #02-16546, 367 F.3d 1167
(9th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Aug]
Former prisoner could pursue claims for nominal
damages for alleged violations of his First Amendment rights while incarcerated
despite provision in Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(e)
preventing him from pursing claims for compensatory damages in the absence
of physical injury. Further, the fact that the prisoner had been released
did not make his claim moot, as nominal damages are past damages. McDaniels
v. McKinna, #03-1231, 96 Fed. Appx. 575 (10th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner's inclusion of a false and irrelevant
"rumor" concerning the sexual conduct of a female guard in a
grievance he filed against her for allegedly failing to inform him that
it was time to eat was not protected speech under the First Amendment.
Hale v. Scott, #03-1949, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 11581 (7th Cir. 2004).[2004
JB Jul]
Correctional officers were not entitled to
qualified immunity from excessive force claim by previously brain-damaged
pre-trial detainee who they allegedly caused severe facial and head injuries
in the course of a struggle to apply restraints to his wrists after he
refused to get on the water-covered floor of his cell. Detainee's behavior
of banging on cell walls and doors and tossing toilet water around his
cell to "protest" not being allowed out of his cell, however,
was not "protected speech," so that detainee's First Amendment
retaliation claim was dismissed. Simms v. Hardesty, 303 F. Supp. 2d 656
(D.Md. 2003). [N/R]
California prison ban on mail containing
printed-out downloads from the Internet violated the First Amendment. Clement
v. California Department of Corrections, #03-15006, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis
7576 (9th Cir.). [2004 JB Jun]
Texas prisoners, members of the Church of
Christ, did not show that Texas correctional officials violated their rights
to religious freedom by providing a chaplain who they had doctrinal differences
with. Prisoner who allegedly caused a disturbance and walkout by 50 prisoners
at services by reading a statement denouncing the chaplain did not show
that he was unlawfully transferred in retaliation for exercising his First
Amendment rights. Freeman v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, #03-10443,
2004 U.S. App. 8998 (5th Cir). [2004 JB Jun]
Prisoner's claim that he was charged with
a disciplinary violation in retaliation for leading a religious group meeting
which discussed whether the group should file a grievance against a prison
employee adequately stated a claim for unlawful retaliation. Samuels v.
Hammond, #03-30589, 78 Fed. Appx. 314 (5th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Federal court properly rejected prisoner's
federal civil rights claim since the First Amendment rights of inmates
to receive commercial bulk mail was not "clearly established"
when he was refused receipt of a "Green Lantern" comic book,
so that prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity. Court upholds
rejection of other magazines with sexual ads or "role-playing content."
Further proceedings ordered, however, on state law free speech claims.
Bahrampour v. Lamper, #02-3519, 356 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB May]
Pennsylvania prisoner was not entitled to
a judicial order requiring the state Board of Probation and Parole to grant
him parole. Despite his claim that a sentencing judge and prosecutor sent
unfavorable recommendations to the Board in retaliation for his filing
of a successful federal habeas petition, the Board followed established
procedures in denying parole, and the denial was justified by the reasons
given. Burkett v. Frank, 841 A.2d 646 (Pa. Cmwth. 2004). [N/R]
Federal appeals court reinstates prisoner's
claim that he was determined to be a prison gang member in retaliation
for his jailhouse lawyering activity in pursuing grievances on behalf of
himself and other inmates, in violation of his First Amendment rights.
Evidence used had been found insufficient during two prior investigations
of suspected gang affiliation. Bruce v. Ylst, #01-17527, 351 F.3d 1283
(9th Cir. 2003). [2004 JB Mar]
Federal appeals court rules that prison's
requirement that books received from vendors have special shipping labels
attached or else not be delivered to prisoners unduly burdened inmates'
First Amendment rights. Policy was unreasonable and arbitrary, as it was
applied to packages of books and other publications but not to other packages
that could just as easily contain contraband. Ashker v. California Department
of Corrections, #02-17077, 350 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2003). [2004 JB Mar]
Wisconsin prisoner failed to show that transfer
to another facility was a violation of his First Amendment rights and retaliatory
for his participation in prior lawsuits against prison employees, as there
was no evidence that those who authorized the transfer knew of these prior
lawsuits. Johnson v. Kingston, 292 F. Supp. 2d 1146 (W.D. Wis. 2003). [N/R]
Prison security and rehabilitation goals
were not sufficient to justify a complete ban on gifts of periodicals to
prisoners. Rice v. State of Kansas, No, 89,759, 76 P.3d 1048 (Kan. App.
2003). [2004 JB Feb]
Trial court improperly dismissed prisoner's
lawsuit claiming that prison officials violated his First Amendment and
due process rights by transferring him to administrative segregation in
a special housing unit after his appeal of his rule violation resulted
in an order for a new hearing. Jackson v. Carey, No. 01-17126, 2003 U.S.
App. LEXIS 26264, (9th Cir. 2003).[2004 JB Feb]
Barring prisoners from making phone calls
in languages other than English without prior authorization is not a violation
of First Amendment rights. Boriboune v. Litscher, No. 03-1747 , 2003 U.S.
App. Lexis 26540 (7th Cir.). [2004 JB Feb]
Prisoner could not assert a claim for denial
of access to the courts based on refusal to allow him to visit the law
library, in the absence of a showing of actual injury in a pending case.
He could still pursue, however, his claim that he was denied access to
legal materials in retaliation for filing grievances, since he had alleged
a "chronology of events from which retaliation may plausibly be inferred."
Westbrook v. Treon, #03-10004, 78 Fed. Appx. 970 (5th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Prison officials actions in preventing
an inmate from corresponding with a former prisoner with whom he had formed
a romantic attachment did not violate his rights. Nasir v. Morgan, #01-2519
, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 24013, 350 F.3d 366 (3rd Cir.) [2004 JB Jan]
Correctional rule barring prison employees
from non-work-related contact with prisoners, parolees, probationers, and
their relatives and visitors did not violate employees' rights. Akers v.
McGinnis, #01-18, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 24155, 352 F.3d 1031 (6th Cir.).
[2004 JB Jan]
Trial court improperly granted defendant
correctional officials' motion for summary judgment on prisoner's claim
that they retaliated against him for having successfully settled a prior
lawsuit against correctional officers by transferring him to a maximum
security facility and imposing discipline upon him. There was a genuine
issue of material fact as to whether such retaliation was a "substantial
factor" in the actions taken. Bennett v. Goord, No. 01-0184, 343 F.3d
133 (2nd Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner's failure to exhaust available administrative
remedies for the alleged confiscation of his property required the dismissal
without prejudice of his federal civil rights claim alleging that the seizure
of his sexually explicit materials violated his First Amendment rights.
McMillian v. Litscher, No. 99-3029, 72 Fed. Appx. 438 (7th Cir. 2003).
[N/R]
Correctional officers accused of retaliation
against prisoner for supporting another inmate's excessive force claim
by pursuing disciplinary charges against prisoner would not be liable for
violation of his First Amendment rights if they could demonstrate "dual
motivation," showing that even without their "improper"
motivation, the prisoner would have been subjected to the same actions.
Scott v. Coughlin, #99-0365, 344 F.3d 282 (2nd Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Dec]
Refusal of West Virginia prison officials
to allow prisoner to receive or possess certain books found to be obscene
did not violate his First Amendment or due process rights. Policy applied
advanced legitimate penological interests in security and rehabilitation.
Cline v. Fox, 266 F. Supp. 2d 489 (N.D.W. Va. 2003). [2003 JB Nov]
Federal court strikes down as unconstitutional
Arizona statute prohibiting prisoners from communicating with Internet
websites through the mails or otherwise or receiving mail from them. Court
finds that prohibition is not reasonably related to a legitimate penological
purpose and that other statutes and policies already prohibit communication
involving fraud, harassment of victims, communication with minors, and
other purported purposes of the ban on communication with Internet service
providers. Canadian Coalition Against the Death Penalty v. Ryan, 269 F.
Supp. 2d 1199 (D. Ariz. 2003). [2003 JB Nov]
African-American prisoner's claim that parole
board chairman improperly made threats against him in violation of his
First Amendment rights and constituting racial discrimination seven years
before his parole was revoked was untimely and barred by the statute of
limitations. Norwood v. Michigan Department of Corrections, No. 02-1779,
67 Fed. Appx. 286 (6th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner could pursue claims against some
nurses for alleged inadequate medical care and retaliation against him
for filing of an earlier lawsuit, but not against one nurse against whom
he had failed to exhaust available administrative remedies concerning retaliation
claim. The prisoner's grievance only had to allege misconduct by the nurses
and did not need to plead all the elements of a particular legal theory.
Burton v. Jones, No. 01-1078, 321 F.3d 569 (6th Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Oct]
Prisoner could state a claim for retaliatory
transfer for having filed a grievance against an officer based on a sequence
of events from which a retaliatory motive could be inferred, without proving
motivation in the complaint. Illinois prisoner had a protected liberty
interest in continued participation in work release program which could
not be ended without due process. Segreti v. Gillen, 259 F. Supp. 2d 733
(N.D. Ill. 2003). [2003 JB Oct]
Prison policies prohibiting the receipt of
free or gift subscriptions to publications, preventing some inmates in
a lower offender classification from purchasing publications, and limiting
other inmates to spending no more than $30 per month to purchase publications
did not violate prisoners' First Amendment or due process rights and were
rationally related to legitimate interests in controlling, managing, and
tracking property in order to identify prohibited activities, promote institutional
order through privileges and incentives, and making sure there were sufficient
assets to collect inmates' other financial obligations, such as restitution
and child support. Failure to notify publishers when prisoners were denied
receipt of mailed publications did not violate the publishers' constitutional
due process rights. Zimmerman v. Simmons, 260 F. Supp. 2d 1077 (D. Kan.
2003). [N/R]
Prisoner's discipline for stating in a filed
grievance that a female correctional officer was rumored to be having sex
with male correctional officers did not violate his First Amendment rights.
The manner in which the statement was made insinuated that the statement
was true and the prisoner had no actual evidence as to the truth of the
rumor. Hale v. Scott, 252 F. Supp. 2d 728 (C.D. Ill. 2003). [2003 JB Aug]
U.S. Supreme Court upholds Michigan prison
rules limiting visits by children, non-family members, former prisoners,
or for prisoners who commit two violations of substance abuse rules. Legitimate
penological interests override any First Amendment right to association
claim. Overton, Director, Michigan Department of Corrections v. Bazzetta,
#02-94, 123 S. Ct. 2162 (2003).
Recipients of collect calls from Ohio inmates
could pursue their claim against counties and telecommunications providers
that rates were so unreasonably high as to violate their equal protection
right to fundamental freedom of speech and association. Claims against
the State of Ohio were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, and anti-trust
and telecommunications statute claims were not viable. McGuire v. Ameritech
Services, Inc., 253 F. Supp. 2d 988 (S.D. Ohio 2003).
A prison librarian's alleged filing of an
"erroneous" evaluation of a prisoner's performance in his work
assignment after the prisoner filed a grievance over an earlier evaluation
was not unlawful retaliation in violation of the prisoner's First Amendment
rights. The librarian had submitted other negative evaluations of the prisoner's
work performance before he ever filed a grievance. Keenan v. Daniel, #02-2059,
63 Fed. Appx. 180 (6th Cir. 2003).[N/R]
Prisoner's claim that an officer intentionally
deprived him of one issue of a magazine to which he subscribed because
the officer disliked the magazine's views, and lied about doing so, was
sufficient to state a First Amendment free speech claim. Prisoner did not,
however, state a valid claim for violation of his right to religious freedom,
since, while the Pagan Revival magazine purported to have a religious theme,
he did not claim that the magazine had anything to do with his religious
practices or that his failure to receive it interfered with the exercise
of his religion. Lindell v. Doe, #01-2527, 58 Fed. Appx. 638 (7th Cir.
2003). [N/R]
Correctional officer allegedly forced to
quit after he reported a co-worker's misconduct in playing cards with a
group of inmates stated a possible claim for violation of his First Amendment
rights based on tolerance of supervisors of harassment of him for making
the report, since tolerance of such conduct was a "matter of public
concern." Baron v. Hickey, 242 F. Supp. 2d 66 (D. Mass. 2003). [N/R]
Jail officials did not violate prisoner's
First Amendment rights by disciplining him for the use of insolent and
threatening language in grievances that he filed. "True threats"
are not protected at all under the First Amendment, and the purpose of
the grievance procedure was to bring issues to the attention of jail authorities,
not to provide a forum to make "disparaging, degrading" or abusive
comments about jail staff members. In Re Parmelee, No. 47231-3-I, 63 P.3d
800 (Wash. App. 2003). [2003 JB Jun]
Prisoner's removal from supervised release
program for activities advocating the legalization of marijuana enjoined
by federal trial court. Court finds that activities, including speaking
to the press, passing out literature outside a courthouse, running a website,
and running television commercials were all lawful actions protected by
the First Amendment. Forchion v. Intensive Supervised Parole, 240 F. Supp.
2d 302 (D.N.J. 2003). [2003 JB Jun]
Ban on possession of electric or electronic
instruments in federal prisons (except for use in religious activities)
did not violate prisoners' First Amendment rights. Bureau of Prisons acted
reasonably in interpreting a statute barring the use of appropriated federal
funds "for use or possession" of such instruments as allowing
a prohibition on the possession of the items. Kimberline v. U.S. Department
of Justice, No. 01-5387, 318 F.3d 228 (D.C. Cir. 2003). [2003 JB May]
Pennsylvania State Department of Corrections
policy which barred inmate receipt of incoming publications found by a
committee of employees to contain obscene materials did not violate prisoners'
rights under free speech guarantees of the Pennsylvania state Constitution,
Article 1, sec. 7, since there is no constitutional protection for obscene
materials. Payne v. Com. Dept. of Corrections, 813 A.2d 918 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2002). [N/R]
Prison officials failed to meet their burden
of showing that they would have imposed the same punishment on a prisoner
regardless of their alleged retaliation against him for exercising his
constitutionally protected right to use the prison grievance system to
complain about alleged staff racism. Gayle v. Gonyea, No. 01-0218, 313
F.3d 677 (2nd Cir. 2002). [2003 JB Apr]
Prison's requirement that books received
from vendors have special shipping labels attached or else not be delivered
to prisoners found to unduly burden inmates' First Amendment rights. Federal
court finds policy was arbitrary and unreasonable and that legitimate security
interests in preventing introduction of contraband were adequately protected
by other existing policies. Ashker v. California Department of Corrections,
224 F. Supp. 2d 1253 (N.D. Cal. 2002). [2003 JB Feb.]
Federal death row inmate could pursue civil
rights action concerning whether prison officials violated his First Amendment
rights by restricting his access to the press. The case presented genuine
issues of whether the restrictions were based on his death-row status and
a desire to suppress his views, rather than to serve legitimate penological
interests, and whether prison officials imposed the restrictions in a content
neutral fashion. Hammer v. Ashcroft, #01-2898, 42 Fed. Appx. 861 (7th Cir.
2002). [N/R]
Virginia correctional policy limiting prisoner's
incoming general purpose mail to one ounce per envelope did not violate
prisoners' First Amendment rights and served legitimate penological interests
in reducing avenues for smuggling contraband into the prisons. Policy did
not apply to legal, special purpose, educational correspondence, or mail
from vendors or governmental agencies. Hall v. Johnson, 224 F. Supp. 2d
1058 (E.D. Va. 2002). [2003 JB Feb.]
Magazines sent to prisoner through the mails
were obscene despite not showing sexual penetration when they did depict
simulated sexual activity and discharged sexual fluids, but factual issues
remained as to whether prison mail room employees improperly censored or
returned to sender non-obscene letters and photographs sent to inmate by
individual female correspondent and whether some materials sent to him
were improperly "converted" for their "own personal use."
Elliott v. Cummings, #01-3317, 49 Fed. Appx. 220 (10th Cir. 2002). [2003
JB Feb.]
State prisoner could pursue First Amendment
claim asserting that he was subjected to a transfer to a facility farther
from his home in retaliation for writing letters to newspapers which were
critical of the prison system. State sovereign immunity under Pennsylvania
law was no defense to his federal civil rights lawsuit. Owens v. Shannon,
808 A.2d 607 (Pa. Cmwlth 2002).[N/R]
Prisoner could pursue his claim that correctional
officials retaliated against him for his participation in African/African
American Cultural Coalition and his pursuit of grievances and lawsuits,
even if he had no independent constitutional right relating to the complained
of specific deprivations. Prisoner failed, however, to show that defendants'
motives were retaliatory or used excessive force against him. Cunningham
v. O'Leary, #00-3729, 40 Fed. Appx. 232 (7th Cir. 2002). [2003 JB Jan]
Prisoner stated a claim for unlawful retaliation
in violation of his First Amendment rights by asserting that he was told
that he was removed from the prison laundry because he wrote to his congressional
representative. He also stated a possible equal protection claim by asserting
that he had received more severe discipline for a sexual incident because
of his sexual orientation. Federal appeals court orders further proceedings
as to whether plaintiff prisoner exhausted available administrative remedies
on those claims. Feaster v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, No. 00-0118, 37 Fed.
Appx. 15 (2nd Cir. 2002). [N/R]
New York prisoner stated a claim for impermissible
retaliation against him for protected First Amendment activity by alleging
that he was disciplined because he circulated a petition requesting an
investigation of a correctional officer's alleged "abusive conduct."
Farid v. Goord, 200 F. Supp. 2d 220 (W.D.N.Y. 2002). [2002 JB Oct]
Federal appeals court orders further proceedings
on prisoners' challenge to policy preventing them from viewing movies rated
R or NC-17. Trial court, in rejecting prisoners' First Amendment claim,
could not just rely on "common sense," but instead needed to
do a "thorough analysis" of the relevant penological interest
and the prohibition's relationship to it. Wolf v. Ashcroft, #01-1869, 2002
U.S. App. Lexis 14852 (3rd Cir. 2002). [2002 JB Sep]
California prisoner's role as chairman of
an Inmate Advisory Council established by state regulations was a First
Amendment protected activity; appeals court overturns summary judgment
for officers accused of issuing false administrative warnings against prisoner
in retaliation for his activities. Summary judgment upheld, however, for
officers who filed disciplinary charges against prisoner and hearing officer
who convicted prisoner, even though particular disciplinary finding was
subsequently overturned by the warden. McQuillion v. McKenzie, #00-15505,
35 Fed. Appx. 547 (9th Cir. 2002).[2002 JB Sep]
Prison policy prohibiting prisoners from
receiving publications, such as books and magazines, as gifts, violated
their First Amendment rights, but federal appeals court rules that the
law on this subject was not "clearly established" until it had
upheld a similar ruling in another case on appeal, entitling defendant
prison officials to qualified immunity from liability. Sorrels v. McKee,
#01-35222, 287 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2002). [2002 JB Aug]
Federal prisoner stated a possible claim
against the Bureau of Prisons for violation of federal Privacy Act based
on a claim that he was transferred and reclassified as a "special
offender" based on false accusations of misconduct against him in
alleged retaliation for his exercise of his First Amendment rights. Toolasprashad
v. Bureau of Prisons, #00-5424, 286 F.3d 576 (D.C. Cir. 2002). [2002 JB Jul]
Prison's maintenance of different policies
on conditions of confinement of death row prisoners and prisoners serving
non-capital sentences did not constitute First Amendment retaliation against
death row prisoners where the differing policies and treatment did not
depend on whether the prisoner facing death had appealed their sentence.
Further, while this difference in treatment may have made life "more
unpleasant" for those on death row, the conditions were not so different
from those faced by other inmates as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment
or serve as a deterrent against filing law suits. Apanovitch v. Wilkinson,
#01-3558, 32 Fed. Appx. 704 (6th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
299:165 Federal prison rule banning
possession of electronic instruments did not violate prisoners' First Amendment
rights, but court orders further proceedings on claim that the Bureau of
Prisons improperly allowed a "religious-use" exception to the
rule, discriminating in favor of religion. Kimberlin v. U.S. Dept. of Justice,
150 F. Supp. 2d 36 (D.D.C. 2001).
298:149 Officer was not entitled to qualified
immunity on prisoner's claim that he retaliated against him for complaining
about his threats to harm him by telling gun tower to shoot prisoner if
he moved and then subjected prisoner to discipline for not returning to
his cell. Johnson v. Freeburn, 144 F. Supp. 2d 817 (E.D. Mich. 2001).
297:133 Michigan prison officials had discretion
to deny television network's request for an on-camera interview with prisoner
Dr. Jack Kevorkian, assisted suicide advocate. American Broadcasting Companies,
Inc. v. Mich. Dept. of Corrections, No. 228757, unpublished, (Mich. App.
June 1, 2001).
297:133 Reporter could not be barred from
access to county jail based on the critical content of a prior article
she wrote. The Chicago Reader v. Sheahan, 141 F. Supp. 2d 1142 (N.D. Ill.
2001).
297:131 Corrections officers subject to discipline
for "inattentiveness" during training on "gays and lesbians"
in the workplace were improperly punished for silently reading bibles,
when other officers, inattentive or reading non-religious materials, were
not similarly punished. Altman v. Minn. Dept. of Corrections, #00-1168
and 00-1489, 251 F.3d 1199 (8th Cir. 2001).
295:100 Correctional officers' alleged statements
labeling a prisoner a "rat" and an "informant," based
on his complaints that an officer was allegedly seeking to incite another
prisoner to attack him in retaliation for successfully appealing a disciplinary
order did not suffice to constitute unconstitutional retaliation for his
exercise of his First Amendment rights. Dawes v. Walker, No. 99-252, 239
F.3d 489 (2nd Cir. 2001).
294:88 Prisoner did not need to exhaust administrative
remedies before pursuing federal civil rights lawsuit for particular, individualized
instance of alleged retaliation by correctional officer; inmate claimed
officer filed disciplinary charges against him because of his complaints
to prison authorities about the officer's alleged misconduct. Lawrence
v. Goord, No. 99-0202, 238 F.3d 182 (2nd Cir. 2001).
294:83 U.S. Supreme Court rules that prisoners
do not have a special First Amendment right to provide legal assistance
to fellow inmates. Shaw v. Murphy, No. 99-1613, 121 S. Ct. 1475 (2001).
293:73 Washington state prison officials
were entitled to qualified immunity from money damages for barring receipt
of newsletter containing the names of current
prison employees out of concern for employees'
safety; qualified immunity, however, did not properly bar claims for declaratory
and injunctive relief. Prison Legal News v. Washington State Dept. of Corrections,
#00-35095, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 5165.
293:72 Oregon prison rule prohibiting prisoners
from receiving non-profit organization's newsletter about "prison
legal news" because it was sent as bulk "standard rate"
mail violated the First Amendment rights of both prisoners and the publisher
of the newsletter. Prison Legal News v. Cook, No. 99-36084, 238 F.3d 1145
(9th Cir. 2001).
293:67 California prison rule prohibiting
the receipt, through U.S. mail, of Internet generated material, including
e-mail, was rationally related to prison's legitimate security concerns;
appeals court overturns order allowing prisoner to receive printouts of
e-mails sent to his internet web page, created via an arrangement with
an outside company. Collins, In Re, 86 Cal. App. 4th 1176, 104 Cal. Rptr.
2d 108 (2001).
292:56 UPDATE: Prison officials adequately
showed that there were legitimate security concerns about a prisoner's
attempt to form an inmate "legal defense center"; no injunction
requiring permitting the group on First Amendment grounds was justified.
Nicholas v. Miller, 109 F. Supp. 2d 152 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
293:72 N.Y. prisoner awarded $25,000 in compensatory
damages and $20,000 in punitive damages against correctional officer who
allegedly found him guilty of a disciplinary infraction in retaliation
for his participation in an inmate grievance resolution committee. Maurer
v. Patterson, 197 F.R.D. 244 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
289:14 Prisoner could pursue federal civil
rights lawsuit over loss of his prison job which allegedly resulted from
officers pursuing false disciplinary charges against him after he filed
a complaint against an officer; despite the lack of a property or liberty
interest in his job assignment, prisoner's equal protection (racial discrimination)
and retaliation claims were not barred. DeWalt v. Carter, No. 98-2415,
224 F.3d 607 (7th Cir. 2000).
287:163 Even if prisoners' lawsuit was the
"catalyst" causing New Jersey to alter the application of a statute
denying prisoners access to pornographic materials, they were not entitled
to an award of attorneys' fees once an appeals court ruled that the statute
did not violate their rights; court finds an attorneys' fee award on a
"catalyst" theory would violate the Prison Litigation Reform
Act. Waterman v. Farmer, 84 F. Supp. 2d 579 (D.N.J. 2000).
277:11 Correctional officer violated prisoner's
First Amendment rights by placing him in administrative segregation for
three days in retaliation for filing grievances against him; appeals court
rules that nominal damage award of $1 was inadequate, and that trial court
should increase this and also consider awarding punitive damages against
officer. Trobaugh v. Hall, #98-4031, 176 F.3d 1087 (8th Cir. 1999).
279:40 UPDATE: Federal appeals court rules
that Arizona county jail system's policy prohibiting the possession of
all material depicting nudity, including such magazines as Playboy was
reasonably related to legitimate penological interests in protecting employees
and inmates against sexual harassment or assault. Mauro v. Arpaio, No.
97-16021, 188 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 1999).
280:51 Disciplining inmate law clerk for
writing letter to another prisoner containing legal advice violated law
clerk's First Amendment rights. Murphy v. Shaw, No. 97- 35989, 195 F.3d
1121 (9th Cir. 1999).
281:67 Prisoner is awarded $4,221.40 against
two officers on his claim that they imposed disciplinary sanctions on him,
removed him from his job in the mess hall, and transferred him to another
facility in retaliation for his complaints about prisoner work schedules
which arguably violated state law limiting work hours. Gaston v. Coughlin,
81 F. Supp. 2d 381 (N.D.N.Y. 1999).
283:102 Prisoner's First Amendment right
of association created an arguable claim to form a prisoners' "legal
defense center," and trial court should not have granted prison officials
who denied this request summary judgment without engaging in a detailed
analysis of the functions that this group would have.Nicholas v. Miller,
#98-2768, 189 F.3d 191 (2nd Cir. 1999).
284:120 Female prisoner and her husband,
who was allowed to attend the birth of their child after filing a federal
civil rights lawsuit, were prevailing parties entitled to $5,743.67 in
attorneys' fees and costs; hourly fee limits of Prison Litigation Reform
Act did not apply since the husband was not a prisoner; lawsuit claimed
denial was based on prisoner giving newspaper interview regarding prison
conditions. Turner v. Wilkinson, 92 F. Supp. 2d 697 (S.D. Ohio 1999).
285:135 Wisconsin appeals court rules that
a state notice of claim statute was not an "administrative remedy"
that a plaintiff prisoner was required to "exhaust" before proceeding
with his federal civil rights lawsuit, filed in state court, challenging
the exclusion of all material containing nudity or pornography from state
prisons. Ledford, State Ex Rel., v. Cir Ct. for Dane County, No. 99-0939-W,
599 N.W.2d 45 (Wis. App. 1999).
277:11 Correctional officer violated prisoner's
First Amendment rights by placing him in administrative segregation for
three days in retaliation for filing grievances against him; appeals court
rules that nominal damage award of $1 was inadequate, and that trial court
should increase this and also consider awarding punitive damages against
officer. Trobaugh v. Hall, #98-4031, 176 F.3d 1087 (8th Cir. 1999).
[N/R] Trial court should have considered
whether correctional officers would have taken the same actions against
prisoner in the absence of a retaliatory motive when considering prisoner's
First Amendment claim. Davidson v. Chestnut, No. 98-2853(L), 193 F.3d 144
(2nd Cir. 1999).
271:100 Prison policy banning inmate possession
of music tapes with "parental warning" label concerning explicit
lyrics did not violate prisoners' First Amendment rights. Herlein v. Higgins,
No. 98-2271, 172 F.3d 1089 (8th Cir. 1999).
274:147 Correctional officer who flew Nazi
flag at his home off-duty was properly reinstated in job when no actual
harm was shown in his workplace and his evaluations were outstanding. Arbitration
bet. N.Y. St. Law Enf. Off. Union and New York, #82571, 694 N.Y.S.2d 170
(A.D. 1999).
266:28 Transfer of prisoner to another facility
in retaliation for his correspondence with newspaper reporter, participation
in pre-authorized newspaper interview, and activities as president of authorized
advocacy group for lifer prisoners was improper; prisoner entitled to damages.
Castle v. Clymer, 15 F.Supp.2d 640 (E.D. Pa. 1998).
267:37 Prison chaplain's conversations with
prison official outside his chain of command concerning decision to have
someone else, rather than him, tutor an illiterate prisoner was not protected
First Amendment speech. Button v. Kibby-Brown, #97-2832, 146 F.3d 526 (7th
Cir. 1998).
267:37 Federal appeals court rules that prisoner
on death row, convicted of murdering police officer, was entitled to injunction
against enforcement of rule prohibiting him from carrying on "business
or profession" of writing articles and books; prison allowed another
inmate to publish and promote a novel, and did not show that plaintiff
prisoner's writings burdened prison resources or threatened security; special
scrutiny to prisoner's legal correspondence was improper. Abu-Jamal v.
Price, # 96-3756, 154 F.3d 128 (3rd Cir. 1998).
267:44 Update: appeals court, acting en banc,
overturns panel decision that rule prohibiting prisoners from threatening
prison employees with legal redress during confrontations was facially
invalid under the First Amendment; prisoner could not facially challenge
rule when his disciplinary conviction for violation of the rule had not
been set aside. Clarke v. Stalder, #96-30313, 154 F.3d 186 (5th Cir. 1998).
270:84 Prison employee's demands for a personal
security guard to protect him did not involve a matter of public concern
entitling him to protection, under the First Amendment, from firing in
alleged retaliation for raising the issue. Kohl v. Smythe, 25 F.Supp.2d
1124 (D. Hawaii 1998).
270:84 Correctional officer's criticism,
to inmate, of other officer's conduct was proper grounds for his termination;
any First Amendment interest of officer was outweighed by strong interest
of correctional department in safe and efficient running of prison. Dept.
of Corrections v. Derry, 510 S.E.2d 832 (Ga. App. 1998).
[N/R] Warden's statements about corruption
and security problems in prison were protected speech under the First Amendment.
Campbell v. Arkansas Dept. of Correction, #98-1161, 155 F.3d 950 (8th Cir.
1998).
259:104 Rule prohibiting prisoners from threatening
prison employees with legal redress during confrontational situations was
facially invalid under the First Amendment, federal appeals court panel
rules; rehearing by full appeals court granted. Clarke v. Stalder, 121
F.3d 222 (5th Cir.), rehearing en banc granted, 133 F.3d 940 (5th Cir.
1997).
260:118 Federal appeals court rules that
two jail employees were legitimately discharged by incoming sheriff based
on job performance and "public perception" of job performance,
rather than racial discrimination; one employee's comments to federal trial
court concerning jail conditions were not protected speech under the First
Amendment, since they were not made as a "concerned citizen"
but based on orders from his superior. Day v. Johnson, 119 F.3d 650 (8th
Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 707 (1998).
249:134 Disciplining inmate for publishing
newspaper article which could be read as advocating violence against prison
employees did not violate his First Amendment rights; article was published
in external newspaper with intention that it be circulated to inmate subscribers
within correctional facility. Lomax v. Fiedler, 554 N.W.2d 841 (Wis. App.
1996).
251:167 Missouri prison's stay on face to
face media video interviews of prisoners did not violate First Amendment;
media did not have a constitutional right of access to the prison superior
to that of the general public. Sidebottom v. Schiriro, 927 F.Supp. 1221
(E.D. Mo. 1996).
231:46 Update: Federal appeals court overturns
injunction against transfer and double celling of former "Black Panther
Party" leader; trial court erred in determining that prison officials'
actions were in retaliation for his media interviews when transfer decision
was made prior to date television interview took place, and transfer was
justified by prisoner's own prior requests to be closer to his family.
Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 1995).
231:43 Two federal courts uphold actions
of prison officials in withholding access to literature of "Church
of Jesus Christ, Christian," religious arm of the Aryan Nation, a
white supremacist group. Van Dyke v. Washington, 896 F.Supp. 183 (C.D.
Ill. 1995); George v. Sullivan, 896 F.Supp. 895 (W.D. Wis. 1995).
230:20 Prohibiting prisoner from corresponding
with relatives in Spanish and Apache languages did not violate his constitutional
rights; English-only rule was based on legitimate security concerns and
hiring interpreters to translate mail would have been unduly burdensome;
prison officials were, however, liable for retaliatory transfer of prisoner
for filing grievances and lawsuits concerning the policy. Sisneros v. Nix,
884 F.Supp. 1313 (S.D. Iowa 1995).219:38 Prohibiting a prisoner enrolled
in a therapeutic sexual offender treatment program from retaining sexually
explicit fiction which he wrote did not violate his First Amendment rights,
but rather was based on a legitimate goal of rehabilitation. Frink v. Arnold,
842 F.Supp. 1184 (S.D. Iowa 1994).
220:62 Federal court enjoins transfer of
former "Black Panther Party" leader and placing him in double,
instead of single cell; court finds probable retaliatory motive when transfer
took place right after prisoner agreed to media interview and when prisoner's
allegedly medical need for single cell had previously been accommodated.
Pratt v. Rowland, 856 F.Supp. 565 (N.D. Cal. 1994).
222:83 Update: U.S. Supreme Court to review
case granting qualified immunity to prison officials in suit inmate brought
claiming that his First Amendment rights were violated when he was placed
in administrative detention after he told the press he had allegedly sold
marijuana to a Vice Presidential candidate. Kimberlin v. Quinlan, 6 F.3d
789 (D.C. Cir. 1993), rehearing denied, 17 F.3d 1525 (D.C. Cir. 1994),
cert. granted, 115 S.Ct. 929 (1995).
222:86 Prison inmate could not bring suit
challenging prison policy prohibiting correctional officers from writing
to the parole board on a prisoner's behalf. Harris v. Evans, 20 F.3d 1118
(11th Cir. 1994).
222:91 Prohibition on possession of gang-related
materials, including newspaper articles, did not violate prisoner's constitutional
rights. Bryson v. Iowa District Court, 515 N.W.2d 10 (Iowa 1994).
225:142 Transfer of prisoner seeking nomination
as member of Prisoner Advisory Council did not violate his First Amendment
rights or consent decree when there was evidence that prisoner was legitimately
transferred for being "troublesome" and "manipulative."
Hazen v. Reagen, 16 F.3d 921 (8th Cir. 1994).
226:150 Update: U.S. Supreme Court vacates
grant of qualified immunity to prison officials in suit brought by inmate
challenging his placement in administrative detention after he told the
press he sold drugs to Vice Presidential candidate; Court orders reconsideration
in light of Johnson v. Jones, reported above. Kimberlin v. Quinlan, 6 F.3d
789 (D.C. Cir. 1993), rehearing denied, 17 F.3d 1525 (D.C. Cir. 1994),
cert. granted, 115 S.Ct. 929 (1995), vacated, 115 S.Ct. 2552 (1995).
[N/R] Prisoner's complaint adequately stated
claim for retaliation against him for filing prior grievances. Black v.
Lane, 22 F.3d 1395 (7th Cir. 1994).
[N/R] Prisoner's claim that correctional
employees threatened him with retaliation for using prison grievance procedures
was a sufficient injury to constitute an alleged First Amendment violation.
Burgess v. Moore, 39 F.3d 216 (8th Cir. 1994).
Arbitrary restriction of reading materials
to one bible without showing a need for such a restriction based on prison
security is an unacceptable infringement on the prisoners' First Amendment
rights. Pembroke v. Wood Co., Tex., 981 F.2d 225 (5th Cir. 1993).
Federal prison officials were entitled to
qualified immunity in suit inmate brought claiming that his First Amendment
rights were violated and that he was retaliated against by being placed
in administrative detention after he told the press he had allegedly sold
marijuana to a Vice Presidential candidate. Kimberlin v. Quinlan, 6 F.3d
789 (D.C. Cir. 1993).
Regulations allowing inmates access to sexually
explicit materials only in a special "reading room" was not unconstitutional.
Dawson v. Scurr, 986 F.2d 257 (8th Cir. 1993).
Disciplining inmate for using the word "shit"
in expressing anger toward corrections officer did not violate the First
Amendment; regulation prohibiting verbal harassment of prison employees
was valid. Harry v. Smith, 561 N.Y.S.2d 374 (Sup. 1990).