Part 2: Case Summaries by Major Topic.

PART 2: Case Summaries by Major Topic 1. ACCESS TO COURT U.S. District Court Bullock v. Sheahan, 519 F.Supp.2d 760 (N.D.Ill. EXPERT WITNESS 2007). Male former inmates of a county jail brought a class action against a county and a sheriff, alleging that the defendants had a policy and/or practice of subjecting male inmates to strip-searches prior to their release, and that such differing treatment of male inmates violated their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs' expert. The district court denied the motion, finding that the expert's testimony was admissible. According to the court, the expert testimony of a registered architect, who specialized in the design of prisons and jails, concerning whether there was adequate space in the jail for the construction of additional bullpens to hold male detainees was relevant and reliable. The court noted that while the expert did not review all of the written discovery in the case, the expert reached his opinions after a tour of the jail and after reviewing other expert reports, jail floor plans, a sheriff's status report and charts summarizing certain computer records on male detainees. (Cook County Department of Corrections, Illinois) U.S. District Court Gayton v. McCoy, 521 F.Supp.2d 841 (C.D.Ill. EXPERT WITNESS 2007). A wrongful death action was brought on behalf of an inmate who died in a county jail. The defendants moved to bar the testimony of the plaintiffs expert, a physician. The court granted the motion, finding that the physician was not qualified to render expert testimony, and that the physician's opinion as to the cause of the inmate's death was not reliable. According to the court, the physician was not qualified to render an expert opinion on the inmate's cause of death, which he opined was cardiac-related, because the physician was not a cardiologist and had no specialty training in cardiology. The court noted that the physician stated in his deposition that, if the inmate had been his patient, he would have referred her to a cardiologist, and he also testified that he did not have the expertise to opine on what was exactly the most likely terminal event. (Peoria County Jail, Illinois) U.S. District Court Kaufman v. Schneiter, 524 F.Supp.2d 1101 LAW LIBRARY (W.D.Wis. 2007). A former state inmate sued prison officials for declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief, alleging that he was subjected to retaliatory transfer and that his rights under the First and Eighth Amendments and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) were violated. The court granted the officials' motion for summary judgment. The court held that the warden was not involved in the inmate's transfer to a maximum security institution, precluding the warden's liability on the claim alleging that he transferred the inmate in retaliation for the inmate's filing of an earlier lawsuit against him. The court found that there was no evidence that any of the prison officials sued by the inmate were personally involved in denying delivery to the inmate of the letter underlying his free speech claim, and therefore the officials could not be held liable under [section] 1983. The court held that the former state inmate did not show that, while he was incarcerated at a maximum security facility, he ever chose to use out-of-cell time to visit the law library, as opposed to out-of-door exercise, and thus to show an injury-in-fact required for the former inmate to have standing to challenge the prison official's policy of requiring inmates to choose between out-of-cell exercise time and law library time under the Eighth Amendment. (Wisconsin Secure Program Facility) U.S. District Court Samonte v. Frank, 517 F.Supp.2d 1238 (D.Hawaii PLRA- Prison 2007). A prisoner, who had filed several civil Litigation Reform rights actions, moved to have funds withdrawn Act FILING FEES from his prison trust account sequentially, INDIGENT INMATES IN rather than simultaneously, to satisfy court FORMA PAUPERIS orders granting him in forma pauperis (IFP) status and directing collection and payment of filing fees. The district court denied the motion. The court held that indigent prisoners are required to pay filing fees on a per case basis, rather than per prisoner basis, and that per case payments did not burden the prisoner's constitutional right of meaningful access to the courts. The court noted that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) filing fee provision requiring indigent prisoners to make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month's income should be applied by simultaneously collecting fees for all of a prisoner's outstanding cases, as long as a minimum of $10 remains in the prisoner's account. (Hawaii) U.S. District Court Wesolowski v. Sullivan, 524 F.Supp.2d 251 PLRA- Prison (W.D.N.Y. 2007). An inmate in the custody of Litigation Reform the New York State Department of Correctional Act EXHAUSTION Services (DOCS) brought a [section] 1983 action against DOCS employees alleging his constitutional rights were violated while he was confined at a correctional facility when employees confiscated fundraising materials. The employees moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion. The court held that the inmate failed to comply with the Prison Litigation Reform Act's exhaustion requirement by never appealing the denial of a grievance filed with the Inmate Grievance Resolution Committee (IGRC) to Central Office Review Committee (CORC). The court found that the confiscation of materials describing how someone could conduct a political fundraising event to benefit Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM) did not violate the inmate's rights under the First Amendment, considering the possibilities for abuse that would have arisen if inmates were freely allowed to engage in fundraising from fellow inmates. According to the court, the restriction and regulation of such activities by prisoners was unquestionably a legitimate penological interest, and it was uncontroverted that the inmate did not follow established procedures for obtaining authorization to engage in such activities. The court noted that even assuming the employees' actions in confiscating the materials violated the inmate's First Amendment rights, the employees were entitled to qualified immunity, as no authority had clearly established the inmate's First Amendment right to possess the materials in question at the time of events giving rise to lawsuit. (New York State Department of Correctional Services) U.S. Appeals Court Bryant v. Rich, 530 F.3d 1368 (11th Cir. 2008). PLRA- Prison State inmates brought [section] 1983 suits Litigation Reform against prison officials, claiming that they Act EXHAUSTION had been beaten. The district court dismissed the complaints without prejudice. The inmates appealed. The appeals court affirmed. The court held that the district judge properly acted as a fact finder in resolving, on motions to dismiss, a factual dispute as to whether an inmate had exhausted administrative remedies as required by PLRA. The court found that in dismissing a state inmate's [section] 1983 suit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the district court did not clearly err in finding that the inmate's allegation that he was denied access to grievance forms at a prison was not credible, especially given the unrebutted evidence that he successfully filed a grievance there, although it was one for property loss. According to the court, a state inmate's untimely appeal of a warden's denial of his grievance did not satisfy the PLRA exhaustion requirement for him to pursue a [section] 1983 claim. The court found that, despite an inmate's contention that he failed to report an incident of prison abuse because he feared additional violent reprisals by prison officials, the inmate failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, as required by PLRA for him to pursue a [section] 1983 claim. The court noted that the inmate was later transferred to another prison where the threat of violence was removed and he could have filed an out-of-time grievance and then shown good cause for its untimeliness. (Rogers State Prison, Georgia) U.S. Appeals Court Hannah v. U.S., 523 F.3d 597 (5th Cir. 2008). A EXPERT WITNESS federal prisoner filed a pro se complaint under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) against the United States and others involved in the medical treatment that he received while suffering from Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureas (MRSA), a sinus infection. After the prisoner's untimely motion for appointment of an expert witness was denied, the United States moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the lawsuit. The prisoner appealed. The appeals court affirmed. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to appoint an expert witness, and that under Texas law, the prisoner was required to present expert testimony to establish the applicable standard of care with respect to the treatment of MRSA and to show how the care he received breached that standard. According to the court, his failure to designate or hire an expert to testify on his behalf entitled the United States to judgment as a matter of law. (Federal Medical Center, Fort Worth, Texas) U.S. Appeals Court Hannon v. Beard, 524 F.3d 275 (lst Cir. 2008). JAIL HOUSE LAWYERS A prisoner who was formerly incarcerated in LEGAL MATERIAL Pennsylvania and transferred to Massachusetts RETALIATION brought an action against the Secretary of the TRANSFER Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, alleging that he was transferred out-of-state in retaliation for prior lawsuits. The previous lawsuits were against a Pennsylvania prison librarian, who allegedly denied his requests for legal materials, and against numerous Massachusetts prison officials. The district court dismissed the action and the prisoner...