Part 1: complete case summaries in alphabetical order Part 1 presents complete summaries for each case, alphabetically by year published. The major topic section and subtopics are identified before each case summary. This format makes it easier for the reader to review every case. Part 2 presents the summaries under each of the 50 major topic areas.

• Position: Case overview

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

21. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES, PRISONER: PLRA- Prison Litigation Reform Act

    Abdul-Muhammad v. Kempker, 450 F.3d 350 (8th Cir. 2006). State prisoners brought a civil rights action under [section] 1983 against prison officials, challenging certain prison policies, and alleging that the defendants retaliated against them for filing an earlier lawsuit. The district court dismissed the case and the prisoners appealed. The appeals court affirmed, finding that the prisoners failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, as required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). According to the court, the notice the prison officials received during the prison grievance process, "by virtue of their employment and association with the Department of Corrections," was insufficient to satisfy the requirement under PLRA that prisoners exhaust their administrative remedies prior to bringing suit for damages against the officials. The court noted that the prisoners did not name during the grievance process each official that the prisoners later sued. Under PLRA, a prisoner who files a complaint in federal court asserting multiple claims against multiple prison officials based on multiple prison grievances must have exhausted each claim against each defendant in at least one of the grievances. (Potosi Correctional Center, Missouri)

29. MEDICAL CARE: Deliberate Indifference, Failure to Provide Care

    Alberson v. Morris, 458 F.3d 762 (8th Cir. 2006). A state prisoner's mother, on the prisoner's behalf and as a special administrator of his estate, brought a [section] 1983 action against prison officials alleging deliberate indifference with respect to the medical treatment of the prisoner who died from complications arising from Goodpasture Syndrome. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. The plaintiff appealed. The appeals court affirmed, finding that the prisoner's medical condition was a sophisticated medical condition, and thus, the estate, which was alleging inadequate medical treatment, was required to present expert testimony proving causation. According to the court, state prison officials did not deliberately disregard the prisoner's suffering. After the prisoner complained of earaches and other afflictions, he received extensive medical treatment, including treatment from a physician on six separate dates in a period of about two months, followed shortly thereafter by admission to the infirmary ward. (Wrightsville Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction)

10. CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT: Injury, Work, Safety

39. SAFETY AND SECURITY: Safety

50. WORK- PRISONER: Safety, Injury

    Ambrose v. Young, 474 F.3d 1070 (8th Cir. 2007). The personal representative for the estate of a state prisoner who was electrocuted while on a prison work detail brought a [section] 1983 action against state corrections officials. The district court denied the officials' motion for summary judgment and they appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court held that: (1) the deliberate indifference standard applied; (2) the corrections officer in charge of the prisoner's work crew was deliberately indifferent to the serious risk of the prisoner's electrocution; (3) the corrections officer was not entitled to qualified immunity; (4) the supervisory official for the DOC was not deliberately indifferent; and (5) the warden was not deliberately indifferent to the lack of training of the corrections officer in charge of the work crew. The court noted that the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment applies to the conditions of confinement, and that prison work assignments fall under the ambit of conditions of confinement. According to the court, the Eighth Amendment forbids knowingly compelling an inmate to perform labor that is beyond an inmate's strength, dangerous to his or her life or health, or unduly painful, and requires supervisors to supervise and train subordinates to prevent the deprivation of the inmate's constitutional rights.

    The prisoner was on an Emergency Response Team (ERT) when he was killed. ERTs are comprised of minimum-security inmates from South Dakota's four state penitentiaries. The ERTs are dispatched to natural disaster clean-up sites, where they assist in removing downed trees and other debris. The inmates are required to comply with correctional officers' orders and conduct themselves appropriately. The only training the inmate received was watching a chainsaw safety training video.

    The court held that qualified immunity will be defeated in a [section] 1983 claim if a government official knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within his sphere of official responsibility would violate the constitutional rights of the plaintiff, or if he took the action with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or other injury. It is enough that the official acted or failed to act despite his knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm.

    The court found that the corrections officer had the opportunity to deliberate and think before the electrocution incident occurred. The prisoner was electrocuted by a downed power line and the officer knew that the dangling, live power line created a substantial risk of harm, and despite the risk, the officer told the prisoner and other inmates to stomp out a non-threatening fire within arms reach of the line. The court held that the corrections officer was not entitled to qualified immunity for his deliberately indifferent conduct, in ordering the prisoner and other inmates to stomp out a fire near a dangling live power line, where the Saw was clearly established at the time of the electrocution incident that knowingly compelling a prisoner to perform labor that was dangerous to his life or health violated the Eighth Amendment.

    Although a supervisory official knew about the downed power line, and allegedly failed to call 911 emergency services and did not tell the prisoners to stay away from it, any failure to call 911 did not contribute to the electrocution incident. Everyone present knew that the power line was dangerous, and the official was not near the power Sine when another supervisory official ordered the prisoner and other inmates to stomp out a fire that was near the line.

    According to the court, a state prison warden was not deliberately indifferent to an alleged lack of training of the corrections officers because previous accidents involving the prison work crew resulted in only minor injuries, it was not the prison's policy to have prisoners go near live power lines, and there was no showing that the corrections officer in charge would not have ordered prisoner and other inmates to put out the fire near the downed power line if he had any additional training. (South Dakota Department of Corrections)

1. ACCESS TO COURT: Retaliation for Legal Action

29. MEDICAL CARE: Transportation, Transfer

39. SAFETY AND SECURITY: Transportation, Restraints

47. TRANSFERS: Restraints, Transportation, Cruel and Unusual Punishment, Retaliation

48. USE OF FORCE: Restraints

    Anderson-Bey v. District of Columbia, 466 F.Supp.2d 51 (D.D.C. 2006). Prisoners transported between out-of-state correctional facilities brought a civil rights action against the District of Columbia and corrections officers, alleging common law torts and violation of their constitutional rights under First and Eighth Amendments. The prisoners had been transported in two groups, with trips lasting between 10 and 15 hours. The defendants brought motions to dismiss or for summary judgment which the court denied with regard to the District of Columbia. The court held that: (1) a fact issue existed as to whether the restraints used on prisoners during the prolonged transport caused greater pain than was necessary to ensure they were securely restrained; (2) a fact issue existed as to whether the officers acted with deliberate indifference to the prisoners' health or safety in the transport of the prisoners; (3) a causal nexus existed between the protected speech of the prisoners in bringing the civil lawsuit against the corrections officers and subsequent alleged retaliation by the officers during the transport of prisoners; (4) a fact issue existed as to whether the officers attempted to chill the prisoners' participation in the pending civil lawsuit against the officers; and (5) a fact issue existed as to whether conditions imposed on the prisoners during the transport were justified by valid penological needs. The court found that the denial of food during a bus ride that lasted between 10 and 15 hours was insufficiently serious to state a stand-alone cruel and unusual punishment civil rights claim under the Eighth Amendment. The court also found that the denial of bathroom breaks during the 10 to 15 hour bus trip, did not, without more, constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The court stated that the extremely uncomfortable and painful shackles applied for the numerous hours during transports, exacerbated by taunting, threats, and denial of food, water, medicine, and toilets, was outrageous conduct under District of Columbia law, precluding summary judgment on the prisoners' intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against the corrections officers. (District of Columbia)

18. FOOD: Religious Diet

37. RELIGION; Diet, Opportunity to Practice, Services, Equal Protection, Free Exercise, RLUIPA- Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act

    Baranowski v. Hart, 486 F.3d 112 (5th Cir. 2007). A Jewish inmate incarcerated in a Texas prison brought a cause of action under [section] 1983, challenging prison policies that affected his ability to participate in Sabbath and Jewish holiday services and to eat a kosher diet. He alleged that these policies violated his free exercise and equal protection rights, as well as rights accorded to...