Part 2: Case Summaries by Major Topic: 23. Hygiene-Prisoner Personal.

Part 2: Case Summaries by Major Topic 23. HYGIENE-PRISONER PERSONAL U.S. District Court J.P. v. Taft, 439 F.Supp.2d 793 (S.D.Ohio 2006). HYGIENE ITEMS A former juvenile corrections facility inmate HYGIENE ITEMS sued the facility and individuals, claiming the TOILETS 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. According to the court, the inmate did not state a claim that conditions of confinement violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment when he alleged that showers were cold, worms were coming in through a drain, and his personal hygiene materials had been lost during a move from one cell to another. The court found that these problems were insufficiently serious. The court held that the inmate stated claim that conditions of confinement violated his rights under Eighth Amendment, when he alleged that officers frequently denied inmates the opportunity to use a rest room, as a disciplinary measure, forcing them to urinate into objects including latex gloves. (Ohio Department of Youth Services, Marion Juvenile Correctional Facility) 24. IMMUNITY U.S. District Court Felton v. Lincoln, 429 F.Supp.2d 226 (D.Mass. QUALIFIED 2006). Federal prisoner a brought civil rights IMMUNITY action under [section] 1983 against jail 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 Price v. Caruso, 451 F.Supp.2d 889 (E.D.Mich. OFFICIAL CAPACITY 2006). A state prison inmate brought a pro se SOVEREIGN suit against the director of the state IMMUNITY corrections department, claiming that failure to provide transportation to another facility in order to permit his minimum attendance requirement for Jewish services to be satisfied, was a violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The court found material issues of fact, as to whether there were sufficient Jewish inmates in the prison to conduct services, precluded summary judgment. The court found that the inmate's claim for damages, arising from the refusal of authorities to transport him to another facility, was not rendered moot when he was transferred to another facility where need for transportation no longer existed. According to the court, the inmate could pursue his damages claim against the director in her official capacity, claiming that his rights under the RLUIPA were violated because it was not clear whether, in accepting federal funding, the state had waived sovereign immunity, and with it the director's official capacity immunity. (Southern Michigan Correctional Facility) U.S. District Court Ziemba v. Armstrong, 433 F.Supp.2d 248 (D.Conn. QUALIFIED 2006). A prison inmate sued a correctional IMMUNITY officer under [section] 1983, seeking actual damages of $100,000 and punitive damages of $150,000, for injuries incurred when excessive force was used to place the inmate in a four-point restraint. A jury returned a verdict against one officer, who moved for judgment as latter of law and a new trial. The district court denied the motions, finding that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity and that the jury could find that the officer had the requisite state of mind when he attacked the inmate. The court found that compensatory damages did not shock the conscience and that punitive damages of $150,000 were warranted. The jury found that the officer hit the inmate in the face, knelt on him and otherwise inflicted pain in the course of securing the inmate in a four-point restraint, where he remained for 22 hours. The court noted that the officer engaged in reprehensible conduct by hitting the inmate after the inmate was secured, and that punitive damages were only 50% higher than compensatory damages. (Connecticut Department of Corrections) 25. INTAKE AND ADMISSIONS U.S. District Court Atkins v. City of Chicago, 441 F.Supp.2d 921 IDENTIFICATION (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) U.S. District Court Carroll v. City of Quincy, 441 F.Supp.2d 215 PROCEDURES (D.Mass. 2006). A pretrial detainee who was SCREENING injured when he fell in a cell after being left with his hands handcuffed behind his back, sued a city and city police officers, alleging negligence and violations of his federal and state civil rights. The detainee fell as he attempted to exit the cell when he was still handcuffed. It was later determined at the hospital that the detainee had a blood alcohol content of 0.37. The detainee allegedly sustained serious injuries including a subdural hematoma, traumatic brain injury, depressive illness and seizure disorder. The district court held that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether city police officers had subjective knowledge the detainee's highly intoxicated state, and whether they acted with deliberate indifference when they left him with his hands handcuffed behind his back. The court found that the officers' conduct in leaving the highly intoxicated pretrial detainee in a cell was not undertaken pursuant to any city policy or custom, as required for the imposition of municipal liability, where the city had rather detailed written policies restricting the use of handcuffs. The court noted that an officer testified that if an arrestee was too intoxicated to be booked, it was the usual practice to put the arrestee in a cell until he/she sobered up and, during that period, the handcuffs would be removed unless the detainee was acting violently. According to the court, the officers' conduct in leaving the detainee alone with his hands handcuffed behind his back was not caused by deliberately indifferent policies of the city, where the city's policies clearly delineated the proper procedures for the use of restraints on intoxicated detainees and the handling of such detainees. (City of Quincy Police Station, Massachusetts) U.S. District Court Posey v. Southwestern Bell Telephone L.P., 430 SCREENING F.Supp.2d 616 (N.D.Tex. 2006). The family of SUICIDE deceased county jail detainee sued a county and the company that provided telephone services to a jail, after the detainee hanged himself using the cord from defective telephone in his cell. The county moved for summary judgment. The district court dismissed the federal claims against all defendants. The court held that jail employees did not violate the due process rights of the detainee by displaying deliberate indifference to his condition while he was being booked and placed in a cell, when they left him alone in the cell, with a broken telephone that had an exposed cord, where there was no showing that the employees knew the detainee was a suicide risk, and any shortcomings in following the county's...