Part 1 presents complete summaries for each case, alphabetically by year published. The major topic section and subtopics are identified before each case summary. This format makes it easier for the reader to review every case. Part 2 presents the summaries under each of the 50 major topic areas.
-
CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT: Smoke
-
CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT: Smoke
-
LIABILITY: Qualified Immunity
-
MEDICAL CARE: Smoke-Free Environment
Abdullah v. Washington, 437 F.Supp.2d 137 (D.D.C. 2006). An inmate brought a pro se civil rights action under [section] 1983 against the District of Columbia and certain jail officials, in their individual and official capacities, seeking damages related to his alleged exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke while confined at a jail. The district court granted the officials' motion to dismiss in part, and denied in part. The court held that the inmate's allegations that he was subjected to an intolerable level of second-hand tobacco smoke while confined at the jail, and that jail officials were deliberately indifferent to his condition because they did not resolve the numerous grievances he filed on the issue, were sufficient to support an Eighth Amendment claim based on exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). The court found that the inmate's Eighth Amendment right to be free from levels of second-hand smoke that posed an unreasonable risk of serious damage to the inmate's future health was clearly established, and thus, the officials were not entitled to qualified immunity. (District of Columbia Department of Connections, Central Detention Facility)
-
ACCESS TO COURTS: Expert Witness
-
FAILURE TO PROTECT: Medical Care
-
MEDICAL CARE: Deliberate Indifference, Failure to Provide Care
Alberson v. Norris, 458 F.3d 762 (8th Cir. 2006). A state prisoner's mother, on the prisoner's behalf and as the special administrator of his estate, brought a [section] 1983 action against prison officials, alleging deliberate indifference with respect to the medical treatment of the prisoner, who died from complications arising from Goodpasture Syndrome. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants and the mother appealed. The appeals court affirmed, finding that Goodpasture Syndrome was a sophisticated medical condition, and thus, the estate, which was alleging inadequate medical treatment, was required to present expert testimony proving causation. The court noted that after the prisoner complained of earaches and other afflictions, he received extensive medical treatment, including treatment from a physician on six separate dates in a period of about two months, followed shortly thereafter by admission to the infirmary ward. (Wrightsville Unit, Arkansas Department of Corrections)
-
FREE SPEECH, EXPRESSION AND ASSOCIATION: Religion
-
LIABILITY: Sanctions, Injunctive Relief
-
PROGRAMS- PRISONER: Release, Religious
-
RELIGION: Establishment Clause, Forced Exposure
Americans United For Separation of Church and State v. Prison Fellowship Ministries, 432 F.Supp.2d 862 (S.D.Iowa 2006). A separation of church and state advocacy group, and affected state prison inmates, sued the State of Iowa, claiming that funding of a contract under which an organization providing pre-release rehabilitation services to inmates through a program based on Evangelical Christianity violated the Establishment Clause. The plaintiffs moved for declarative and injunctive relief. The district court held that: (1) the service provider was operating under color of state law, for purposes of a suit under [section] 1983; (2) the program was pervasively sectarian; (3) the program did not involve payments made at the direction of inmates, which would not violate Establishment Clause; (4) the program fostered excessive entanglement of government with religion; (5) the contract violated the Establishment Clause. The service provider was enjoined from further contract performance, would not be paid amounts due under its contract, and would be forced to return all payments received. The court noted that the plaintiffs had standing to sue the State of Iowa and corrections officials and the prison ministries organization, even though they were not Iowa taxpayers, because the inmate plaintiffs had made contributions to the telephone fund, designed to finance telephone use by inmates, from which withdrawals had been allegedly made to pay for the prison ministry in question. The court noted that if secular activities of a pervasively sectarian organization may be separated from sectarian activities, the secular activities may be funded by the government without violating the Establishment Clause. The court found that all instruction, regardless of subject, with exception of computer science, was presented as an aspect of Evangelical Christianity, and participants were required to participate in single and group devotional activities. According to the court, state prison inmates were not given true freedom of choice, there was no secular alternative to participation in the program, which offered superior living quarters and some relaxation of prison rules. The program provider was required to return the $1,529,182 paid by the state. (Iowa Department of Corrections and InnerChange Freedom Initiative, Newton Correctional Facility)
-
HABEAS CORPUS: Parole
-
RELEASE: Parole-Revocation, Parole-Due Process
Ash v. Reilly, 433 F.Supp.2d 37 (D.D.C. 2006). A District of Columbia prisoner petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging his detention on the ground that his rights were violated at his parole revocation hearing. The district court granted relief and subsequently denied reconsideration. On appeal, the decision was vacated and remanded. On remand, the district court granted the prisoner's petition, finding that: (1) unsworn verbal allegations of four or five unidentified individuals who purportedly identified the parolee as the attacker in an assault were not reliable hearsay statements; (2) refusal to allow the parolee to exercise his confrontation rights violated due process; and (3) the parolee did not waive his right to confrontation. The court noted that when hearsay is used to support a decision to revoke parole, there must be some independent basis for believing the hearsay to be true. (United States Parole Commission)
-
CIVIL RIGHTS: False Imprisonment
-
EX-OFFENDERS: Claims
-
FALSE IMPRISONMENT/ARREST: False Imprisonment
-
INTAKE AND ADMISSIONS: Identification
Atkins v. City of Chicago, 441 F.Supp.2d 921 (N.D.Ill. 2006). A former inmate sued the Illinois Department of Corrections and state officials under [section] 1983, charging them with having violated his constitutional rights by his wrongful month-long detention at a correctional center. The district court held that the officials to whom the arrestee protested that he had been misidentified were not entitled to qualified immunity, where the inmate claimed that his constantly reasserted claims of misidentification were never investigated. The court noted that his date of birth, physical appearance and Social Security number differed from that of the wanted suspect, and the officials had ready access to both parties' fingerprints, such that it would have been easy to confirm that he was not the man named in a warrant. (Stateville Correctional Center, Illinois)
-
ACCESS TO COURTS: Privileged Correspondences, Frivolous Suits
-
MAIL: Privileged Correspondence, Outgoing Mail
Barber v. U.S. Attorney General, 458 F.Supp.2d 1378 (STJ.Ga. 2006). An inmate filed a pro se action against the United States Attorney General. The district court held that the inmate's repeated filing of frivolous pro se actions in district courts warranted imposition of a sanction permitting the warden to open and inspect each outgoing envelope from the inmate addressed to a court, to withhold postage from any document that was not a notice of appeal (NOA) from the sanction order, and to block all of the inmate's mail to court if he used his own resources to pay postage. The court opened its opinion by stating "inmate-plaintiff Edward Barber's recreational-litigation days have come to an end." (Georgia)
-
PERSONNEL: Free Speech, Retaliation, Property Interest
Barry v. Luzerne County, 447 F.Supp.2d 438 (M.D.Pa. 2006). A county correctional officer brought an action against a county and officials, stemming from his suspension and demotion after publication of articles about a county prison escape. The officer had spoken with a newspaper about the escapes. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants in part, and denied it in part. The court held that summary judgment was precluded by fact issues as to whether the officer engaged in protected speech, whether the officials were entitled to qualified immunity, and whether the officer suffered an adverse action. The court found that the county was subject to municipal liability, where the prison board was the authorized policymaker of the county for purposes of making policy decisions regarding the county prison, and the board had the authority to bind the county to its decision regarding the officer's employment. The court held that the officer lacked a protected interest in his employment. (Luzerne County Correctional Facility, Pennsylvania)
-
RELIGION: Opportunity to Practice Restrictions
-
RULES AND REGULATIONS- PRISONER: Religion
Beasley v. Konteh, 433 F.Supp.2d 874 (N.D.Ohio 2006). A state prisoner brought a civil rights action against prison officials, alleging violation of his First Amendment right to practice his religion. The prisoner moved for an order to require officials to transport him to an orthodox Jewish synagogue for conversion to Judaism. The district court held that the prisoner was not entitled to a court order requiring officials to transport him to the synagogue, even if failure to transport the prisoner would frustrate his ability to convert to Judaism, where the officials claimed...
