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.
-
USE OF FORCE: Excessive Force
Allaway v. McGinnis, 473 F.Supp.2d 378 (W.D.N.Y. 2007). A state inmate brought a pro se [section] 1983 action against employees of the New York Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) alleging inadequate medical care and use of excessive force. The employees moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion. The court held that the inmate's refusal to come out of his exercise pen necessitated the use of some force, the force was used only when the inmate ignored repeated pleas to come out, and when the door was opened he not only resisted the officers but charged toward them, and the four punches delivered by an officer did not rise to level of unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. (Southport Correctional Facility, New York)
-
ACCESS TO COURT: PLRA- Prison Litigation Reform Act, Exhaustion
-
MEDICAL CARE: Medication, Dental Care, Deliberate Indifference
-
MENTAL PROBLEMS, PRISONER: Failure to Provide Care, Medication
Baylis v. Taylor, 475 F.Supp.2d 484 (D.Del. 2007). An inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against various defendants, alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The defendants moved for dismissal. The district court granted the motion in part and denied in part. The court held that the inmate's administrative remedies with respect to his claim that prison personnel were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs were presumed to have been exhausted, for the purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act's requirement that administrative remedies be exhausted before a [section] 1983 action could be brought, since no further remedies were available to the inmate.
The court held that the inmate failed to state a [section] 1983 claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs against a prison doctor. The inmate alleged in his complaint that the doctor stopped prescribing a particular medication that the inmate deemed appropriate for treatment of his attention deficit disorder, but the court held that this indicated merely a difference of opinion as to treatment that did not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation.
According to the court, the inmate stated a [section] 1983 claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against a prison psychologist by alleging that, despite his promises, the psychologist failed to provide the inmate with therapy for his attention deficit disorder, and failed to have the inmate revisit a psychiatrist.
The court also found that the inmate stated a [section] 1983 claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against a prison employee, with his complaint that alleged that the inmate had no teeth, that he presented himself for dental care, and that the employee refused to let the dental work go forward. (Delaware Correctional Center)
-
MEDICAL CARE: Failure to Provide Care, Deliberate Indifference, Medication
-
PRETRIAL DETENTION: Medical Care, Use of Force
-
USE OF FORCE: Excessive Force
Clarke v. Blais, 473 F.Supp.2d 124 (D.Me. 2007). A pretrial detainee brought a [section] 1983 action against jail officers, alleging they subjected him to excessive force, and against a physician's assistant for allegedly failing to give him proper treatment for his physical and mental health issues. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion in part and denied in part. The court held that questions as to whether jail officers used excessive force in restraining the detainee and whether qualified immunity was available as a defense precluded summary judgment in the detainee's [section] 1983 action. The court found that the physician's assistant was not deliberately indifferent to the detainee's serious medical needs, by not embarking upon anti-viral therapy for the detainee's hepatitis C because, as a pretrial detainee, he was subject to further movement among facilities, and in not prescribing Seroquel, an anti-psychotic drug, as recommended by a counselor/social worker at an outside clinic. The court noted that the physician's assistant consulted an outside gastroenterologist, the detainee's liver function was monitored, and the counselor did not renew the Seroquel recommendation at a subsequent clinic evaluation. (Knox County Jail, Maine)
-
DISCIPLINE: Investigation, Criminal Charges
Clemmons v. Armontrout, 477 F.3d 962 (8th Cir. 2007). A state prison inmate brought a [section] 1983 Fourteenth Amendment action against corrections officials, alleging Brady violations and reckless or intentional failure to investigate exculpatory leads with regard to a fatal prison stabbing, leading to the inmate's wrongful conviction for murder which was later negated by the Court of Appeals on his petition for habeas corpus. The district court denied, in part, the defendants' summary judgment motion, ruling that a penitentiary investigator was not entitled to qualified immunity. The inmate and the investigator's estate appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court held that the state prison investigator enjoyed qualified immunity in the inmate's [section] 1983 due process action alleging that the investigator had committed a Brady violation by withholding exculpatory evidence in his investigation of a fatal prison stabbing, and allegedly failing to investigate a lead provided by a fellow inmate. According to the court, there was no evidence that the investigator had acted intentionally or recklessly, as opposed to negligently, given his conclusion that the fellow inmate was not credible, the fact that a corrections officer supplied an eyewitness statement implicating the inmate, and the lack of evidence of conscious suppression. The court found that the corrections officer who had conducted a brief initial investigation into a fatal prison stabbing had insufficient personal involvement to be potentially liable in the prisoner's [section] 1983 due process action, where the officer's work had been brief and limited, and the officer had handed over information he had obtained during his investigation to the investigator, who took over and conducted a full inquiry. (Missouri State Penitentiary)
-
FEMALE PRISONERS: Sexual Assault, Failure to Protect
-
FAILURE TO PROTECT: Officer on Prisoner Assault, Sexual Assault
-
LIABILITY: Failure to Protect, FTCA- Federal Tort Claims Act
Davis v. U.S., 474 F.Supp.2d 829 (N.D.Tex. 2007). An inmate who was raped by a prison officer in a federal medical center brought a Federal Tort Claims Act action against the United States, alleging negligence on the part of other prison officers. The district court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court found that summary judgment was precluded by genuine issues of material fact as to whether the prison officers were working within the scope of their employment when they led the inmate to another officer who raped her, whether the officers violated a duty to protect the inmate from harm, and whether their violations proximately caused the inmate's injury. (Federal Medical Center-Carswell, Texas)
-
CIVIL RIGHTS: Sex Offender
-
EX-OFFENDERS: Sex Offenders
-
RELEASE: Sex Offenders
Doe v. Schwarzenegger, 476 F.Supp.2d 1178 (E.D.Cal. 2007). Registered sex offenders brought an action challenging the constitutionality of California's Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act (SPPCA), which imposed residency restrictions and global positioning system (GPS) monitoring requirements on registered sex offenders. The offenders moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin enforcement of the SPPCA's residency and GPS monitoring provisions. The district court denied the motion. The court held that SPPCA did not apply retroactively to offenders who were convicted, paroled, or otherwise released from incarceration prior to the effective date of the statute. The court noted that the SPPCA was a voter initiative that was silent on the issue of retroactivity, and extrinsic sources did not show that voters intended for it to apply retroactively. (California Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act)
-
ACCESS TO COURT: PLRA- Prison Litigation Reform Act, Exhaustion
Freeman v. Watkins, 479 F.3d 1257 (10th Cir. 2007). A state prisoner brought a pro se civil rights complaint attacking various prison conditions as well as the process afforded him in disciplinary proceedings. The district court dismissed the suit for failure to totally exhaust administrative remedies, and the prisoner appealed. The court of appeals vacated and remanded. The court held that under an intervening precedent, the prisoner was not required to plead exhaustion of administrative remedies. According to the court, failure to exhaust was an affirmative defense, and the prisoner did not have a duty under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) to plead or to demonstrate exhaustion of administrative remedies on his civil rights claims, and thus the district court could not require an affirmative showing of exhaustion upon its preliminary screening of the case. (Fremont Correctional Facility and Colorado State Penitentiary)
-
MEDICAL CARE: Delay in Care, Deliberate Indifference
-
MENTAL PROBLEMS, PRISONER: Failure to Provide Care, Deliberate Indifference
-
RELEASE: Graduated Released, Medical Care
Giddings v. Joseph Coleman Center, 473 F.Supp.2d 617 (E.D.Pa. 2007). A parolee brought a civil rights action against a parole officer and warrant officers who transported him back to prison from a halfway house, alleging that they were deliberately indifferent to his serious physical and mental health needs in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The...
