39. Safety and security.

U.S. District Court

SAFETY

Littlejohn v. Moody, 381 F.Supp.2d 507 (E.D.Va. 2005). A federal prisoner brought a pro se action against prison officials, seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages. The inmate alleged violation of his constitutional rights when he was shocked by an electrical surge because a buffing machine that he was using did not have a ground-prong in its plug. The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court held that one official did not know of a substantial risk of harm at the time the prisoner was shocked because he had sent the buffer to be repaired when it had shocked prisoners in the past, and he reasonably assumed that the machine was safe when it returned. Although the court found that allegations supported a deliberate indifference claim against a prison safety manager and electrical shop foreman, the court granted them qualified immunity because the right to be protected from a significant risk of injury was not clearly established at the time of the incident. (Federal Bureau of Prisons, Virginia)

U.S. Appeals Court

BOOKS FIRE SAFETY

Neal v. Lewis, 414 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 2005). A Shiite Muslim prisoner filed a pro se action seeking injunctive relief and damages under [section] 1983, alleging that prison officials violated his civil rights by interfering with his religious observance. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and the prisoner appealed. The appeals court affirmed. The court held that the officials did not violate the prisoner's First Amendment rights by enforcing a prison regulation that limited the number of books that could be kept in a cell. The court also found no violation of the prisoner's due process or equal protection rights. The regulation limited prisoners to the possession of twelve books, plus one dictionary, one thesaurus, and the primary religious text for their declared religion. The court noted that nothing prevented the prisoner from stocking his cell with twelve religious texts. According to the court, the regulation was applied equally to all inmates, and it promoted legitimate administrative and penological objectives including fire safety, institutional security, control of the source and flow of property in prison, and the effective establishment of a behavior-incentive program. The court noted that the prisoner failed to choose any of the options available to him. (El Dorado Correctional Facility, Kansas)

U.S...