Part 2: Case Summaries by Major Topic.

Part 2: Case Summaries by Major Topic 1. ACCESS TO COURT U.S. Appeals Court Alberson v. Norris, 458 F.3d 762 (8th Cir. EXPERT WITNESS 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) U.S. District Court Barber v. U.S. Attorney General, 458 F.Supp.2d PRIVILEGED 1378 (S.D.Ga. 2006). An inmate filed a pro se CORRESPONDENCE action against the United States Attorney FRIVOLOUS SUITS 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) U.S. District Court Felton v. Lincoln, 429 F.Supp.2d 226 (D.Mass. LEGAL MATERIAL 2006). Federal prisoner a brought civil rights PRIVILEGED action under [section] 1983 against jail CORRESPONDENCE officials, in their individual and official capacities, asserting claims for violations of his constitutional rights. The prisoner alleged that jail personnel wrongfully reviewed and confiscated material which was part of the discovery in his underlying criminal case and which had been sent to him by counsel, that he was wrongfully disciplined for possessing such material, and that there was wrongful interference with other incoming and outgoing mail, in violation of various regulations. The district court held that: (1) the temporary confiscation of the prisoner's legal materials did not violate his rights to due process and to meaningful access to courts, where the prisoner's counsel engaged in extensive discussions with prison personnel to make sure that the material was available for the prisoner's review in preparation for his trial, and the prisoner's defense was in no way impaired as a result of having the material temporarily confiscated; (2) the alleged wrongful a disciplinary isolation imposed against the prisoner for possessing the legal material did not violate prisoner's right to due process; (3) officials' alleged failure to allow prisoner to be represented at disciplinary hearing did not amount to a violation of the prisoner's constitutional rights; (4) any wrongful interference with the prisoner's incoming and outgoing mail, in violation of various regulations, was de minimis, and did not rise to level of a constitutional violation; (5) the sheriff had qualified immunity where the prisoner failed to show that the sheriff actually participated in acts that allegedly deprived prisoner of his constitutional rights, formulated a policy of tolerating such violations, or was deliberately indifferent; but (6) a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether a prison director, captain, and deputy superintendent were personally involved in acts that allegedly deprived the prisoner of his constitutional rights, precluding summary judgment for those officials on basis of qualified immunity. (Plymouth County Correctional Facility, Massachusetts) U.S. District Court J.P. v. Taft, 439 F.Supp.2d 793 (S.D.Ohio ACCESS TO ATTORNEY 2006). A former juvenile corrections facility inmate sued the facility and individuals, claiming the lack of access to courts to pursue a claim of injury from being assaulted by an officer, and claims of substandard accommodations. The district court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court held that the inmate had standing to bring a claim that the facility interfered with his access to courts by not making adequate efforts to provide attorneys, and that the inmate stated a claim that the facility interfered with his right of access to court, by not providing an attorney to pursue a legitimate claim that officers unconstitutionally restricted his bathroom privileges. (Ohio Department of Youth Services, Marion Juvenile Correctional Facility) U.S. Appeals Court Jones v. Brown, 461 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2006). PRIVILEGED State prisoners brought an action against CORRESPONDENCE prison officials, claiming that a policy of opening and inspecting their legal mail outside of their presence violated their First Amendment rights. The district court granted judgment for the prisoners and the officials appealed. Another district court on similar claims granted judgment for the officials and the prisoners in that case also appealed. The cases were consolidated on appeal. The court entered judgment for the prisoner, finding that the policy of opening legal mail outside the presence of the addressee prisoner impinged upon the prisoner's right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment, and that the legal mail policy was not reasonably related to the prison's legitimate penological interest in protecting the health and safety of prisoners and staff. The court held that reasonable prison administrators would not have realized that they were violating the prisoners' First Amendment free speech rights by opening prisoners' legal mail outside of the prisoners' presence, entitling them to qualified immunity. The court noted that although the administrators maintained the policy after three relatively uneventful years had passed after the September 11 terrorist attacks and subsequent anthrax concerns, but the policy was reasonable when it was established. (New Jersey Department of Corrections) U.S. District Court Laird v. Mattox, 430 F.Supp.2d 636 (E.D.Tex. PLRA- Prisoner 2006) An inmate filed a [section] 1983 suit Litigation Reform complaining of alleged violations of his Act constitutional rights during his confinement. EXHAUSTION The district court dismissed the case in toto, finding that the inmate failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The court noted that completion of the exhaustion of administrative remedies process is a mandatory prerequisite for an inmate's filing of a [section] 1983 suit with respect to prison conditions, and that even complete exhaustion following the filing of the lawsuit is not sufficient. (Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Gib Lewis Unit) U.S. District Court Lonegan v. Hasty, 436 F.Supp.2d 419 (E.D.N.Y. PRIVILEGED 2006). Defense attorneys brought a Bivens CORRESPONDENCE action against officials of a federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facility, claiming that the statutory and constitutional rights of themselves and their inmate clients were violated through the practice of videotaping meetings. The district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss in part, and granted it in part. The court held that: (1) the statute of limitations had not run on the claim that the Wiretap Act was violated; (2) a claim was stated that conversations were actually recorded, as required under the Wiretap Act; (3) a claim was stated that the interception was intentional; (4) a claim was stated that "oral communications" were made with the expectation that they not be recorded; (5) there was no qualified immunity from the Wiretap Act claims; (6) a claim was stated under the Fourth Amendment; (7) there was no qualified immunity from the Fourth Amendment claim; (8) a claim of personal involvement by a warden was stated; and (9) the availability of Fourth Amendment relief precluded a claim under Fifth Amendment. The plaintiffs, attorneys employed by the Legal Aid Society of New York, claimed that, by secretly recording their conversations with certain detainees at the federal Bureau of Prisons' Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC"), located in Brooklyn, New York, the defendants violated Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended (the "Wiretap Act" or "Title III"), and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. BOP personnel told the attorneys that video cameras were not on during their meeting with their clients, but a subsequent BOP investigation concluded that visual and sound recordings existed for many of the attorney/client meetings. (Metropolitan Detention Center, Federal Bureau of Prisons, New York) U.S. District Court Murray v. Edwards County Sheriff's Dept., 453 LEGAL MATERIALS F.Supp.2d 1280 (D.Kan. 2006). A former pretrial LAW LIBRARY detainee at a county jail brought a [section] ACCESS TO COUNSEL 1983 action against a county sheriff's department, sheriff, undersheriff, and county attorney, alleging various constitutional violations. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court held that the inmate's alleged weight loss while he was a pretrial detainee at the county jail did not satisfy the section of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requiring a showing of physical injury in addition to mental or emotional injury in order to obtain compensatory damages. The court held that the detainee was not deprived of...