Access to court.

1. ACCESS TO COURT U.S. District Court Adams v. Bouchard, 591 F.Supp.2d 1191 PLRA-PRISON LITIGATION REFORM (W.D.Okla. 2008). A jail inmate brought ACT a [section] 1983 action against sheriff's deputies and a sheriff, alleging the deputies assaulted him, used excessive force, and that the sheriff failed to properly supervise the deputies. The defendants moved for summary judgment and qualified immunity. The district court granted the motion in part and denied in part. The court held that summary judgment was precluded by genuine issues of material fact as to whether the inmate properly exhausted administrative remedies prior to bringing the federal action. The court found that the inmate's efforts towards exhausting his [section] 1983 excessive force claim against sheriffs deputies were insufficient to satisfy the exhaustion requirement under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) as to his claim that the sheriff failed to supervise the deputies. The court held that summary judgment was precluded by genuine issues of material fact as to whether the force used by the sheriffs deputies against the inmate was necessary. According to the court, the sheriff's deputies were not entitled to qualified immunity from the inmate's Eighth Amendment excessive force claim because it was clearly established at the time of the alleged excessive force that prison officials could not maliciously and sadistically inflict injury for the very purpose of causing harm. (Oklahoma County Detention Center, Oklahoma) U.S. District Court SEARCHES Johnson v. Government of District of Columbia, 584 F.Supp.2d 83 (D.D.C. 2008). Female former arrestees filed a class action against the District of Columbia and a former United States Marshal for the Superior Court of District of Columbia, under [section] 1983, claiming violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The arrestees alleged that the marshal strip searched all females awaiting presentment to a superior court judge, without reasonable and particularized suspicion that any female was carrying contraband on her person and without strip searching any male arrestees. The District of Columbia moved for summary judgment and the district court granted the motion. The court held that the former United States Marshal for the Superior Court of the District of Columbia was a federal official who was not amenable to suit, under [section] 1983, as an employee, servant, agent, or actor under the control of the District of Columbia, precluding the female former arrestees' class action. The court noted that the marshal was empowered to act under the color of the federal Anti-Drug Abuse Act, and a District of Columbia law provided that the marshal acted under the supervision of the United States Attorney General. According to the court, the District of Columbia lacked authority to control the conduct of the former United States Marshal, precluding the female former arrestees' class action under [section] 1983. The arrestees were held for presentment for an offense that did not involve drugs or violence, but they were subjected to a blanket policy of a strip, visual body cavity search and/or squat search without any individualized finding of reasonable suspicion or probable cause that they were concealing drugs, weapons or other contraband. (District of Columbia, Superior Court Cellblock) U.S. District Court PLRA- Johnston v. Maha, 584 F.Supp.2d 612 PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT (W.D.N.Y. 2008). A pretrial detainee brought an action against employees of a county jail, alleging violations of his constitutional rights under [section] 1983 and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The defendants moved for summary judgment and the district court granted the motion. The court held that the inmate failed to exhaust administrative remedies for the purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) as to some of his [section] 1983 and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claims against employees of the county jail, where the inmate either did not pursue appeals at all, or did not pursue appeals to the final step. The court held that evidence was insufficient to show that medical staff at the county jail acted with deliberate indifferent to the inmate's medical needs as to requested dental care, as required to support his [section] 1983 claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court noted that although the inmate had to wait two months to see a dentist, the dentist filled the inmate's cavities and took x-rays related to that treatment. (Genesee County Jail, New York) U.S. District Court LAW Jones v. Lexington County Detention LIBRARY LEGAL MATERIAL RIGHT Center, 586 F.Supp.2d 444 (D.S.C. TO COUNSEL 2008). A pretrial detainee brought a pro se civil rights action against a county detention center and sheriff, alleging his inability to have access to legal research materials violated his constitutional rights. The district court dismissed the case. The court held that the detainee did not have a constitutional right of access to a law library while being temporarily held in a county detention facility awaiting trial on criminal charges, where the detainee did not allege that he had been incarcerated for too long and was not pursuing any speedy trial claims. The court noted that a state is only required to provide criminal defendants legal counsel, not legal research materials. According to the court, the detainee's lack of access to a law library while being temporarily held in a county detention facility was not an "actual injury," as required to confer standing for the detainee to allege a deprivation of a constitutional right of access to the courts. (Lexington County Detention Center, South Carolina) U.S. Appeals Court ACCESS TO Laurence v. Wall, 551 F.3d 92 (1st Cir. COURT DUE PROCESS STATUTE OF 2008). A pro se inmate brought a civil LIMITATIONS rights action against prison employees. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to effect timely service of process. The inmate appealed. The appeals court vacated and remanded. The court held that the inmate showed good cause for failure to timely serve the defendants, where the trial court failed to direct the United States Marshal to serve process for the inmate. (Adult Correctional Institution, Rhode Island) U.S. District Court Lunsford v. RBC Dain Rauscher, Inc., TELECONFERENCE 590 F.Supp.2d 1153 (D.Minn. 2008). Prisoners brought a pro se suit against a securities clearing house, brokerage firm, and brokerage firm employees, alleging a civil rights conspiracy, due process, contract, and securities law violations in closing of their brokerage accounts. Following arbitration of some prisoners' common law and securities law claims, the prisoners moved to vacate the award. The defendants moved to confirm the award and to dismiss the remaining claims. The district court granted the motion in part and denied in part. The court held that requiring the prisoners to testify telephonically did not merit vacation of the award. The court noted that prisoners were not a protected class and had no fundamental right to maintain securities brokerage accounts with private entities, as required to support claims for a Fifth Amendment due process violation, civil rights conspiracy, and neglect to prevent civil rights conspiracy. (RBC Dain Correspondent Services, Nations Financial Group, Inc., Federal Corr'l Institute, Edgeville, South Carolina) U.S. District Court LAW Shell v. Brun, 585 F.Supp.2d 465 LIBRARY (W.D.N.Y. 2008). An inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against the employees of the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS), alleging various constitutional violations. Following the dismissal of certain claims, the defendants moved for summary judgment on access to courts and failure-to-protect claims. The district court granted the motion. The court held that there was no evidence that a prison superintendent knew of the inmate's alleged problems with the law library that allegedly caused him difficulties in prosecuting a proceeding challenging a disciplinary report. According to the court, there was no evidence that any limitations on prison law library hours and book withdrawals were unreasonable, made it more difficult for the inmate to prosecute a state administrative proceeding challenging a misbehavior report, or that the outcome of the inmate's administrative proceeding would have been different but for those policies. The court noted that prison officials may place reasonable restrictions on inmates' use of facility law libraries, as long as those restrictions do not interfere with inmates' access to the courts. (Attica Corr'l Facility, New York) U.S. Appeals Court ACCESS TO U.S. v. Mikhel, 552 F.3d 961 (9th Cir. ATTORNEY RESTRICTIONS 2009). An alien inmate convicted of capital offenses moved to allow attorney-client access without special administrative measures (SAM) restrictions that allegedly violated the Due Process Clause and Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of appellate counsel. The appeals court held that modification of the SAM was warranted to permit the attorney to use a translator in a meeting with the inmate, and modification of the SAM was warranted to allow the attorney's investigators to disseminate the inmate's communications. The court also found that modification of the SAM was warranted to allow the attorney's investigator to meet with the inmate. The court found that the SAM was an exaggerated response to the prison's legitimate security interests and unacceptably burdened the inmate's due process and Sixth Amendment rights. (Central District, California) 2. ADMINISTRATION U.S. District Court RECORDS Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program v. Wood, 584 F.Supp.2d 1314 (M.D.Ala. 2008). A disabilities advocacy program brought a suit against the director of the Alabama Department of Youth Services (DYS) seeking access to residents, facilities, staff and records...