Part 1: complete case summaries in alphabetical order.

Part 1 presents complete summaries for each of the 102 new cases. The major topic section and subtopics are identified before each case summary. Part 2 presents the summaries under each of the 50 major topic areas.

11. DISCIPLINE: Assistance, Witness, Evidence, Due Process

41. SEARCHES: Urine Test

    Alicea v. Howell, 387 F.Supp.2d 227 (W.D.N.Y. 2005). An inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against prison personnel, alleging constitutional violations in connection with a prison disciplinary proceeding. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court held that the inmate's limited due process right to legal assistance was not violated, where he was provided with the assistance of a prison teacher and stated at a disciplinary hearing that he was satisfied with the assistance that he had received from her. The court concluded that the hearing officer was not biased against the inmate, and that there was some evidence to support the hearing officer's determination that the inmate was guilty of using drugs. The inmate had tested positive on a urinalysis test and corrections officers testified that the inmate had been given a clean, freshly-packaged sample jar. The court held that the due process clause did not require the hearing officer to call a facility physician to testify about whether it would have been possible for the inmate to produce urine containing a powdery substance. According to the court, the inmate never requested that a physician be called as a witness, and the officer who conducted the urinalysis testified that he sometimes received urine samples that were cloudy, and that substances causing the cloudiness would generally settle out after a while. (Orleans County Correctional Facility, New York State Department of Correctional Services)

7. CIVIL RIGHTS: ADA- Americans with Disabilities Act

14. FAILURE TO PROTECT: Transportation, Failure to Protect

29. MEDICAL CARE: Deliberate Indifference, Wheelchair, Transportation, ADA- Americans with Disabilities Act

39. SAFETY AND SECURITY: Transportation, Wheelchair

    Allah v. Goord, 405 F.Supp.2d 265 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). A state inmate who used a wheelchair brought a pro se action alleging failure of corrections officials to safely transport him to and from outside medical providers. The district court granted the defendants' motions for dismissal in part, and denied in part. The court held that the inmate's allegations with respect to the state corrections department were sufficient to establish a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). According to the court, corrections officials were not entitled to qualified immunity from liability under

    [section] 1983 for injures sustained while being transported in an unsafe van, where their conduct amounted to more than an ordinary lack of due care for the prisoner's safety. The court held that their decision to place the inmate back in a wheelchair after he fell once demonstrated complete disregard for his safety. The inmate alleged that he suffered a "serious injury (to) his head, neck and back" when he fell to the floor of the van in question and suffered "unnecessary pain and discomfort, permanent disability and mental distress." The van driver allegedly speeded and then stopped short on more than one occasion, and other wheelchair-using inmates had been injured in the same manner during transport. (Green Haven Correctional Facility, New York)

18. FOOD: Medical Diet

29. MEDICAL CARE: Special Diets, Deliberate Indifference

    Baird v. Alameida, 407 F.Supp.2d 1134 (C.D.Cal. 2005). A insulin-dependent diabetic inmate brought a civil rights action against state prison officials claiming they acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs by requiring the prison to serve a "Heart Healthy" diet to all inmates and failing to make provisions for therapeutic outpatient diets. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the officials. The court held that the inmate was provided with a diet that was medically appropriate for diabetics and that the diet had not been shown to be the cause of the inmate's diabetic complications. (Wasco State Prison, California Men's Colony, and Avenal State Prison, California)

8. CLASSIFICATION & SEPARATION: Smoking

9. CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT: Smoke

10. CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT: Smoke, Medical Care

29. MEDICAL CARE: Deliberate Indifference, Smoke

38. RULES & REGULATIONS- PRISONER: Smoking

    Bartlett v. Pearson, 406 F.Supp.2d 626 (E.D.Va. 2005). A state prison inmate who was a non-smoker suffering from asthma, brought a [section] 1983 Eighth Amendment action against corrections officials alleging that being housed in a cell and housing unit with inmates who smoked endangered his health. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court held the officials were not deliberately indifferent to the inmate's request for non-smoking housing and they were not indifferent to the inmate's asthma. The court noted that an allegation that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) posed an unreasonable risk of serious damage to future health is cognizable under the Eighth Amendment. The prison had a policy aimed at limiting, when practicable, inmates' exposure to ETS, and they twice offered the inmate the option of residing in special or segregated housing. The inmate was moved to a non-smoking area after being housed with smokers for a total of 17 weeks, which the court found to be "not unreasonable" given the level of crowding at the prison and the fact that safety concerns took precedence over smoking preferences. (Sussex II State Prison, Virginia)

19. FREE SPEECH, EXPRESSION, ASSOCIATION: Visitation

38. RULES & REGULATIONS- PRISONER: Visits

49. VISITING: Restrictions

    Bazzetta v. McGinnis, 423 F.3d 557 (6th Cir. 2005). A class of state prisoners challenged restrictions on visitation. The district court entered judgment for the plaintiffs and the appeals court affirmed. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded. On remand, the district court declined to dissolve its injunctive order of compliance and the state corrections department appealed. The appeals court reversed and remanded, finding that the department regulation that restricted visitation did not, on its face, violate procedural due process. The court noted that prisoners do not have a protected liberty interest in visitation. The regulation indefinitely precluded visitation from persons other than attorneys or clergy for prisoner with two or more substance abuse violations. The appeals court opened its decision with by stating "This case marks another chapter in a ten-year controversy between incarcerated felons, their visitors, and the Michigan Department of Corrections." (Michigan Department of Corrections)

1. ACCESS TO COURTS: Exhaustion, PLRA- Prison Litigation Reform Act

23. HYGIENE- PRISONER, PERSONAL: Toilet Paper

32. PRETRIAL DETENTION: Use of Force, Restraints

48. USE OF FORCE: Restraining Chair

    Beltran v. O'Mara, 405 F.Supp.2d 140 (D.N.H. 2005). A pretrial detainee brought a [section] 1983 action against correctional officers, alleging civil rights violations. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the officers in part, and denied in part. The court held that the failure to exhaust some claims did not mandate dismissal of the entire complaint. The court found that fact issues precluded summary judgment regarding whether officers used excessive force in repeatedly placing the detainee in a restraint chair. The court held that the purported withholding of toilet paper from the detainee did not deny him a minimal measure of necessities required for civilized living, as required to establish a Fourteenth Amendment violation. The only evidence that supported the allegation consisted of a complaint that the detainee was regularly made to wait over one hour for toilet paper, and there was no evidence regarding the frequency of such events. (Hillsborough County Department of Corrections, New Hampshire)

27. LIABILITY: Supervisory Liability

29. MEDICAL CARE: Deliberate Indifference

45. SUPERVISION: Failure to Supervise

    Billops v. Sandoval, 401 F.Supp.2d 766 (S.D.Tex. 2005). A representative of a prisoner's estate brought a [section] 1983 action against prison doctors, alleging that by failing to adequately supervise their medical staff, they were deliberately indifferent to the prisoner's serious medical condition, resulting in the prisoner's death. The doctors moved to dismiss the action and the district court denied the motion. The court held that the representative stated a cause of action by alleging that the doctors were the persons who were ultimately responsible for the prisoner's treatment and that they had the legal authority and duty to supervise their nursing and physician's assistant staff. The representative alleged that the doctors, despite their duty, entirely failed to supervise staff's treatment of the prisoner, and were therefore deliberately indifferent to his care. According to the representative, the doctors' indifference for a period of two months caused the prisoner's death. (Clemons Unit, Texas Department of Criminal Justice)

32. PRETRIAL DETENTION: Privacy, Restraints, Use of Force

33. PRIVACY: Right to Privacy, Nudity

48. USE OF FORCE: Stun Gun, Restraining Chair

    Birdine v. Gray, 375 F.Supp.2d 874 (D.Neb. 2005). A pretrial detainee brought a [section] 1983 action against jail employees claiming violation of his right to be free of punishment and his right to privacy. The district court dismissed the complaint. The court held that the detainee did not have a privacy right that would allow him to cover the cell of his window with towels, noting that the cell contained a privacy wall which allowed for partial privacy while using the toilet. The court found that the inmate's privacy rights were not violated when he was moved from one cell to another, naked. The inmate had removed all of his clothes and refused to put them back, and...