Part 1: complete case summaries in alphabetical order.

PositionCase overview

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.

  1. ADMINISTRATION: Working Conditions

  2. PERSONNEL: Working Conditions

    Adair v. U.S., 497 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Current and former federal prison employees brought an action against the government for back pay, hazard pay, environmental hazard pay, and contributions to thrift savings accounts due to their exposure to second-hand cigarette smoke at their workplace. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims granted the government's motion to dismiss. The employees appealed. The appeals court affirmed on an alternative ground. The appeals court held that the employees' exposure to second-hand cigarette smoke was not an unusual physical hardship or unusual hazard, given that the exposure was an expected condition of employment usually involved in carrying out the duties of their positions, especially when those duties involved the caretaking or monitoring of inmates and second-hand smoke, as part of the ambient air, was commonly encountered indoors and outdoors where people worked or played. The court found that the employees' exposure to second-hand smoke was not an unusually severe working condition or an unusually severe hazard within the plain meaning of the statute mandating additional compensation for federal employees whose duties involved such severe conditions. The court held that at the time the statute was enacted, second-hand smoke was not considered unusually severe. (Federal Correctional Institution, Jesup, Georgia)

  3. FREE SPEECH, EXPRESSION AND ASSOCIATION: Language

  4. RULES AND REGULATIONS- PRISONER: Language, Work

  5. WORK- PRISONER: Discipline, Free Speech

    Allah v. Poole, 506 F.Supp.2d 174 (W.D.N.Y. 2007). A state inmate sued correctional officers under [section] 1983, alleging various violations of his constitutional rights. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion in part and denied in part. The court held that a commissary supervisor's directive to the inmate and other prisoners working at the commissary, that they speak to each other only in English, did not violate any constitutional right the inmate may have had to converse with fellow prisoners in Spanish. According to the court, the stated rationale for the directive, to ensure the supervisor's own safety, was indisputably legitimate and the restriction on the inmate's use of Spanish applied only while he was working in the commissary. (Five Points Correctional Facility, New York)

  6. ACCESS TO COURT: Recoupment

  7. ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: Recoupment

  8. RELIGION: Establishment Clause, Forced Exposure

    Americans United for Separation of Church and State v. Prison Fellowship Ministries, Inc., 509 F.3d 406 (8th Cir. 2007). A separation of church and state advocacy group, state prison inmates, and others, sued the State of Iowa and a Christian provider of rehabilitation services, claiming that funding of a contract with the Christian organization providing pre-release rehabilitation services to inmates violated the Establishment Clause. The district court granted declaratory and equitable relief in favor of advocacy group and the inmates. The provider and state corrections officials appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The appeals court held that the state funding constituted an endorsement of religion, but that the district court abused its discretion in awarding recoupment of state funds that had been paid to the provider. The court noted that even though the provider had the ability to repay the funds, the district court gave no weight to the fact that specific statutes authorized the funding, made no finding of bad faith by the state legislature and governor, and did not consider the testimony of state prison officials that the program was beneficial and that the state received much more value than it paid for. (Iowa Department of Corrections)

  9. ACCESS TO COURT: In Forma Pauperis, Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA)

  10. MEDICAL CARE: Contagious Diseases

    Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007). A prisoner filed a pro se action against prison officials, alleging that the threat he faced from contagious diseases violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The prisoner sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) but the district court denied the motion. The prisoner appealed. The appeals court reversed and remanded. The appeals court held that the prisoner's qualification for an imminent danger exception to the Prison Litigation Reform Act's (PLRA) three-strikes rule was determined at the time of filing of the complaint and that under the imminent danger exception the prisoner could file an entire complaint IFP. The prisoner alleged that he was at risk of contracting HIV and that he had already contracted hepatitis C, because of his exposure to other prisoners who had those contagious diseases due to prison officials' policy of not screening prisoners for such diseases. (California State Prison, Solano)

  11. CLASSIFICATION AND SEPARATION: Classification, Due Process, Custody Level

  12. SAFETY AND SECURITY: Supermax, Transfer

  13. TRANSFERS: Due Process

    Austin v. Wilkinson, 502 F.Supp.2d 675 (N.D.Ohio 2006). A state inmate filed a [section] 1983 action alleging that the procedure for transferring him to a super maximum security prison violated due process. The inmate moved to compel the state to reduce his security placement level. The district court granted the motion. The court held that the process used by the state to increase the inmate's security placement level after he killed his cellmate violated due process, even though the prison's rules infraction board found insufficient evidence that the inmate acted solely in self-defense, where the prison's classification committee recommended that the inmate's security placement remain unchanged, the inmate was not given notice of the warden's decision to override the committee's recommendation or opportunity to argue his position and submit evidence, the inmate was not given a hearing on administrative appeal, the board's finding was subject to review by the committee, and the inmate was transferred to a super maximum security prison before the review process was complete. According to the court, due process required that the warden and the state's administrative appeals board provide adequate reasoned statements to justify their decisions to override the prison's classification committee's recommendation that the inmate's security placement remain unchanged after he killed his cellmate. The court held that the state prison system was required to provide an individualized review of the security risk presented by an inmate following his transfer to a super maximum security prison, and thus the state's use of a boilerplate checklist violated the inmate's due process rights, where the inmate received no meaningful review of his situation or of the events leading to his transfer. (Ohio State Penitentiary)

  14. CLASSIFICATION AND SEPARATION: Classification Criteria, Due Process, Custody Level

  15. SAFETY AND SECURITY: Supermax, Transfer

  16. TRANSFERS: Due Process

    Austin v. Wilkinson, 502 F.Supp.2d 660 (N.D.Ohio 2006). State inmates in a super maximum security prison facility brought a class action against corrections officials under [section] 1983 alleging that procedures for transferring them to, and retaining them at, the prison violated due process. The district court ruled that the procedures denied due process and ordered modifications. Prison officials appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. Certiorari was granted. The United States Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. On remand, the inmates moved for an order extending the court's jurisdiction over due process issues for one year, and the officials' moved to terminate prospective relief. The district court granted the inmates' motion and denied the officials' motion. (Ohio State Penitentiary)

  17. CIVIL RIGHTS: Civil Commitment, Access to Court, Military Facility

    Bismullah v. Gates, 503 F.3d 137 (D.C. Cir. 2007). Eight foreign nationals detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba petitioned for review of the determination by the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) that they were enemy combatants. The detainees and government each proposed the entry of protective orders, the detainees moved to compel discovery, and the government moved to treat seven detainees who had filed a joint petition as though each had filed a separate petition. The appeals court ordered the government to provide the detainees' counsel access to classified information not presented during the determination process. The government moved for rehearing. The appeals court denied the motion, finding that the government was required to provide the court with all reasonably available relevant information in its possession, and that the detainees' counsel were entitled to access to classified information. (Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba)

  18. MEDICAL CARE: Dental Care, Deliberate Indifference

    Blackston v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc., 499 F.Supp.2d 601 (D.Dei. 2007). An inmate brought an action against a correctional medical services company, alleging Eighth Amendment violations due to inadequate dental care. The company moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion. The court held that the inmate failed to establish that the company exhibited deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs following tooth extractions. The inmate's medical records established that he had received dental examinations and treatments to resolve routine problems as well as emergency concerns. (Howard...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT