3. Administrative segregation.

U.S. Appeals Court

CONDITIONS MEDICAL TREATMENT

Jarriett v. Wilson, 414 F.3d 634 (6th Cir. 2005). A prisoner brought a civil rights action against prison officials under the Eighth Amendment, alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants and the prisoner appealed. The appeals court affirmed, finding that the prisoner only had an unrecoverable "de minimis injury" for the purposes of his civil rights claim, which was subject to the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The court found that the officials' refusal to give the prisoner medical treatment was not objectively unreasonable. The prisoner had been put in a small strip cage and held there for 12 hours. He experienced swelling, pain and cramps in his legs as a result, but these injuries were not serious enough to mention to medical staff on the day of his release from the strip cage, or two days later. When he mentioned them two weeks later there were no medical findings. Prison staff had checked on the prisoner's assertions when he told them that he had a leg injury, before they placed him in the strip cage. The prisoner had been placed in the prison's segregation unit for fighting with another inmate. While in segregation, he went on a hunger strike to protest various prison conditions. His cellmate was required to eat his meal in a strip cage in the segregation unit so he would not pass any food to the prisoner during the hunger strike. The strip cage is a mesh steel cage with a small hole through which clothes or other items can be passed. When they later suspected that the prisoner was hiding food in his cell, they placed him in another strip cage next to his cellmate and ordered him to strip. (Trumbull Correctional Institution, Ohio)

U.S. Appeals Court

PLACEMENT LENGTH DUE PROCESS

Peoples v. CCA Detention Centers, 422 F.3d 1090 (10th Cir. 2005). A pretrial detainee who was housed at a detention center operated by a private contractor under a contract with the United States Marshals Service brought actions against the contractor and its employees, alleging Fifth and Eighth Amendment violations. The district court dismissed the action and the inmate appealed. The appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that the employees did not punish the pretrial detainee in violation of his due process rights when they placed him in segregation upon his arrival at the center and kept him in...