Part 2: case summaries by major topic.

PART 2: Case Summaries by Major Topic 1. ACCESS TO COURT U.S. District Court Cameron v. Allen, 525 F.Supp.2d 1302 EXHAUSTION (M.D.Ala. 2007). A state inmate filed a PLRA-Prison Litigation [section] 1983 action against the Reform Act commissioner of a state department of corrections, a contract medical care provider, and a prison physician challenging the constitutionality of medical treatment provided to him. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion. The court held that the commissioner was not subject to liability under [section] 1983 for the prison medical staffs alleged deliberate indifference to the inmate's serious medical needs, where the commissioner did not personally participate in, or have any direct involvement with, the inmate's medical treatment, medical personnel made all decisions relative to the course of treatment provided to the inmate, and such treatment did not result from a policy instituted by the commissioner. The court found that the inmate's failure to properly exhaust the prison's grievance procedure barred his [section] 1983 action. According to the court, even though the inmate filed grievance forms addressing his medical treatment, the treatment that was the subject of the forms was wholly unrelated to the medical treatment about which he complained in his [section] 1983 action. (Bullock County Correctional Facility, Alabama) U.S. District Court Estate of Hill v. Richards, 525 F.Supp.2d EXPERT WITNESS 1076 (W.D.Wis. 2007. The estate of a county jail inmate who committed suicide sued the social worker who interviewed the inmate shortly before her suicide, claiming deliberate indifference to the inmate's suicidal mental condition, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The social worker moved for summary judgment. The court held that summary judgment was precluded by fact issues as to whether the worker was aware of a suicide risk, as the result of a statement by the inmate that she had poked herself with a thumbtack, and as to the adequacy of the worker's response to the inmate's statement. The court noted that expert testimony was not required to establish that the social worker violated the Eighth Amendment by being deliberately indifferent to the health and safety of the jail inmate; under those circumstances a jury of laypersons could conclude that there was a duty to protect the inmate. The social worker knew, from her experiences with the inmate, that the inmate had a history of depression, that she had been prescribed multiple medications for depression and that she previously had expressed a desire to die. The social worker also knew that the inmate had not been taking her medication for several weeks and that she was being housed in segregation at the jail, where neither other prisoners nor staff could easily monitor her. (Dane County Jail, Wisconsin) U.S. District Court Lee v. Corrections Corp. of America, 525 OTHER STATE F.Supp.2d 1238 (D.Hawai'i 2007). A Hawai'i prisoner, who was incarcerated in a Mississippi prison pursuant to a contract between Hawai'i and the private corporation that operated the prison, brought a [section] 1983 action against the corporation, the Hawai'i Department of Public Safety, and prison officials, arising from an incident in which the prisoner was allegedly beaten by other inmates. The defendants moved to transfer venue. The district court granted the motion, changing the venue to Mississippi. According to the court, the proper venue was Mississippi because the alleged beating, as well as the allegedly negligent monitoring, supervision, training, and hiring by the corporation and prison officials, all occurred in Mississippi. The court noted that convenience factors also supported the transfer of the action to Mississippi because all of the parties except for the Hawai'i Department of Public Safety were on the mainland, the majority of witnesses resided in Mississippi or on the mainland, and there was a local interest in having the controversy decided in Mississippi. The plaintiff alleged that he had been attacked by inmates confined with him in the Special Housing Incentive Program ("SHIP") unit when the cell doors in the segregation unit were inadvertently unlocked, which allowed the inmates to exit their cells. (Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility, Tutwiler, Mississippi. Operated by Corrections Corporation of America) U.S. Appeals Court Briscoe v. Klaus, 538 F.3d 252 (3rd Cir. ATTENDANCE-COURT 2008). A state prison inmate brought a [section] 1983 Eighth Amendment action against corrections officers and a prison nurse, alleging the use of excessive force and failure to provide needed medical treatment. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants as to some claims, and subsequently dismissed the remaining claims for failure to prosecute, following the inmate's failure to appear at a final pretrial conference. The inmate appealed. The appeals court vacated and remanded, finding that there was insufficient evidence to support the district court's finding that the inmate had refused to attend the pretrial conference, its finding of prejudice from the inmate's failure to appear, and the finding of willfulness or bad faith. The appeals court ruled that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the action without affording the inmate the opportunity to be heard. The appeals court criticized the district court for assuming the truth of prison officials' assertion that the prisoner had refused to attend the pretrial conference, without hearing from the prisoner or seeking his explanation. (State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) U.S. Appeals Court Douglas v. Yates, 535 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. PLRA-Prison Litigation 2008). A prisoner brought a [section] 1983 Reform Act action against prison officials alleging his Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated. The district court dismissed the complaint and the prisoner appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The appeals court held that the district court had the authority under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) to dismiss without prejudice the prisoner's [section] 1983 complaint against prison officials requesting damages for emotional injury, where the complaint disclosed that the prisoner was requesting damages for emotional injury without a prior showing of a physical injury. The court found that the prisoner's allegations that his family had informed a prison supervisor of ongoing misconduct by the supervisor's subordinates, and that the supervisor failed to stop the misconduct, supported the prisoner's [section] 1983 claim of retaliation against the supervisor. According to the court, the allegations allowed a reasonable inference that the supervisor knew that the subordinates would continue to engage in the unconstitutional misconduct but failed to stop them from doing so. (Bay Correctional Facility, Florida) U.S. Appeals Court Fegans v. Norris, 537 F.3d 897 (8th Cir. EXPERT WITNESS 2008). A state inmate sued prison officials, alleging that they violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), as well as his free exercise and equal protection rights, by enforcing a grooming policy and denying him Kosher meals. The district court entered judgment for the inmate with respect to the Kosher meals, but entered judgment for the prison officials with respect to the grooming policy. The inmate appealed. The appeals court affirmed. The court noted that the district court's finding that the corrections department director's expert testimony that male inmates presented greater security risks than female inmates was credible, and was not clearly erroneous. (East Arkansas Regional Unit of the Arkansas Department of Corrections) U.S. Appeals Court Ford v. County of Grand Traverse, 535 F.3d EXPERT WITNESS 483 (6th Cir. 2008). A state inmate brought a[section] 1983 action against jail officials and the county claiming, among other things, that the county's policy or custom regarding the provision of medical care at the jail on weekends reflected deliberate indifference to her medical needs and caused injuries resulting from a fall from the top bunk in her cell when she had a seizure. After a jury found against the county, the district court denied the county's motions for judgment as a matter of law. The county appealed. The appeals court affirmed, finding that sufficient evidence existed for reasonable minds to find a direct causal link between county's policy of permitting jail officials to "contact" medical staff simply by leaving a medical form in the nurse's inbox, even though a nurse might not see the notice for 48 hours, and the alleged denial of the inmate's right to adequate medical care, allegedly leading to the inmate suffering a seizure and falling from a top bunk. According to the court, the deposition testimony of a doctor provided a basis for finding that the inmate would not have suffered a seizure had she been given medication within a few hours of her arrival at the jail. The inmate, a self-described recovering alcoholic who also suffers from epilepsy, was arrested on a probation violation and taken to the jail. That afternoon, she had a seizure, fell from the top bunk of a bed in her cell, and sustained significant injuries to her right hip and right clavicle. Her case proceeded to trial and the jury found that none of the jail officials were deliberately indifferent to her serious medical needs, but determined that the county's policy regarding weekend medical care exhibited deliberate indifference to, and was the proximate cause of, her injuries. The jury awarded her $214,000 in damages. (Grand Traverse County Jail, Michigan) U.S. Appeals Court Grinter v. Knight, 532 F.3d 567 (6th Cir. EXHAUSTION 2008). A state prisoner, proceeding pro se, PLRA-Prison...