Part 1: complete case summaries in alphabetical order.

• Position: Case 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.

2. ADMINISTRATION: Policies/Procedures

10. CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT: Smoke-Free Environment

29. MEDICAL CARE: Deliberate Indifference, Smoke-Free Environment

38. RULES & REGULATIONS-PRISONER: Smoking

    Abdullah v. Washington, 530 F.Supp.2d 112 (D.D.C. 2008.) An inmate filed a [section] 1983 action seeking damages for violation of his Eighth Amendment rights stemming from his alleged exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke while confined at a District of Columbia detention facility. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court held that the plaintiff's expert's testimony failed to demonstrate a causal relationship between environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and the increased risk of harm to the inmate. The court noted that the expert was a biophysicist, not medical doctor, never went to the jail, and never examined the inmate or his medical records. The court held that the officials were not deliberately indifferent to the health risks caused by environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), even if the officials inadequately enforced no-smoking rules, where a nonsmoking policy was in existence during the inmate's incarceration, and the jail was undergoing extensive renovation to improve air quality, including the ventilation system. (District of Columbia Department of Corrections, Central Detention Facility)

2. ADMINISTRATION: Policies/Procedures

7. CIVIL RIGHTS: Civil Commitment, Due Process, Equal Protection

8. CLASSIFICATION & SEPARATION: Double Celling, Civil Commitment, Due Process, Equal Protection

9. CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT: Civil Commitment, Double Celling

   Alves v. Murphy, 530 F.Supp.2d 381 (D.Mass. 2008). A person who had been civilly committed as a sexually dangerous person (SDP) brought a civil rights action alleging that treatment center officials placed him at a risk of harm by not adhering to certain mandatory procedures prior to implementing a double-bunking policy. The plaintiff also alleged that the officials violated equal protection principles by granting privileges to certain residents at the center, but not to others. A magistrate judge dismissed the action. The judge held that failure of the state treatment center to follow its own procedures regarding double-bunking, standing alone, was not a sufficient basis for a [section] 1983 claim. The court noted that the First Circuit analyzes the constitutional claims of pretrial detainees, who, like civil committees, may not be punished, under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. But, according to the court, the court draws on Eighth Amendment jurisprudence and applies the "deliberate indifference" standard when analyzing a pretrial detainee's failure-to-protect claims. (Massachusetts Treatment Center)

17. FEMALE PRISONERS: Medical Care

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

30. MENTAL PROBLEMS (PRISONER): Deliberate Indifference, Failure to Provide Care, Psychotropic Drugs

32. PRETRIAL DETENTION: Medical Care, Mental Health

    Anderson ex rel. Cain v. Perkins, 532 F.Supp.2d 837 (S.D.Miss. 2007). A daughter, as next friend of a jail detainee who suffered second-degree burns on her ankles, thighs, and buttocks while awaiting mental health commitment, brought a civil rights suit against a sheriff and a county. The sheriff moved for summary judgment on claims brought against him in his individual capacity. The district court granted the motion. The court held that the sheriff did not violate the detainee's right to be protected from harm, absent evidence showing that restraints were likely used to subdue her. The court found that the sheriff was not deliberately indifferent to the detainee's medical needs in failing to administer her anti-psychotic medications, where the detainee's refusal to take her medications prior to being taken into custody, coupled with her violent and psychotic behavior as the result of the refusal, was the basis for her commitment. The court found that the sheriff was not deliberately indifferent in failing to discover second-degree burns of an unknown origin on the detainee's ankles, thighs, and buttocks because jailers regularly observed the detainee through a viewing window in her cell door, but did not actually enter the cell to visually inspect the detainee for signs of injury. (Amite County Jail, Mississippi)

2. ADMINISTRATION: Employee Discipline, Harassment

31. PERSONNEL: Due Process, Retaliation, Sexual Harassment, Termination

    Argyropoulos v. City of Alton, 539 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2008). A former city employee who had worked as a jailer brought a Title VII action against the city and former coworkers alleging sexual harassment and retaliation, and brought a [section] 1983 claim alleging that the city's failure to provide a pre-termination hearing denied her of due process. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants and the employee appealed. The appeals court affirmed. The court held that the city's admission that the employee's surreptitious recording of a meeting was a significant factor in her dismissal did not amount to direct evidence of retaliation. The court found that a seven week interval between the employee's sexual harassment complaint and her subsequent arrest and termination, without more, did not amount to direct evidence of retaliation. According to the court, the employee did not show that she was performing her duties satisfactorily. The court's opinion began with the assertion that the employee's "turbulent tenure as a jailor ... lasted just ten months ..." (Alton Police Department, Illinois)

34. PROGRAMS-PRISONER: Participation, Rehabilitation, Religion

37. RELIGION: Establishment Clause, Forced Exposure

    Bader v. Wren, 532 F.Supp.2d 308, (D.N.H. 2008). A state prisoner brought a [section] 1983 action against the commissioner of a Department of Corrections, alleging that a prison rehabilitation program violated the Establishment Clause by improperly endorsing religion as part of the rehabilitative process. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The court held that the rehabilitation program, Alternatives to Violence," was not religious. According to the court, the state prison's recommendation that the prisoner participate in a violence rehabilitation program did not constitute coercive pressure advancing a religion, or excessive governmental entanglement in religion, as required to support a finding that primary effect of recommendation was to advance religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. The court noted that although the program was rooted in the non-violent philosophy of a certain religion, the program was secular, not religious, given that nothing about the program promoted, advanced, or even subtly endorsed that religion. The court found that program guides did not allude to, invoke, or call upon any religious books, scriptures, passages or moral code, the program did not implement any cognizable religious practice or methodology, and, notwithstanding the program's identification of a "Transforming Power," the program was explicitly individualistic, relying primarily on the participant's ability to change himself. (New Hampshire State Prison)

8. CLASSIFICATION & SEPARATION: Classification Criteria, Pretrial Detainees

22. HABEAS CORPUS: Due Process, Pretrial Detainee, Segregation

32. PRETRIAL DETENTION: Due Process, Segregation, Classification

39. SAFETY AND SECURITY: Classification, Safety, Segregation

    Basciano v. Lindsay, 530 F.Supp.2d 435 (E.D.N.Y. 2008). A pretrial detainee petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus seeking an order lifting special administrative measures governing his confinement and releasing him from a special housing unit back into the general prison population. The district court denied the petition. The court held that the restrictive conditions of pretrial confinement which removed the detainee from the general prison population, did not amount to punishment without due process. The court noted that there was substantial evidence of the detainee's dangerousness, a rational connection between the conditions and a legitimate purpose of protecting potential victims, and the existence of an alternative means for the detainee to exercise his right to communicate with others and with counsel. (Metropolitan Detention Center, Brooklyn, New York)

1. ACCESS TO COURT: Attendance-Court

   Briscoe v. Klaus, 538 F.3d 252 (3rd Cir. 2008). A state prison inmate brought a [section] 1983 Eighth Amendment action against corrections officers and a prison nurse, alleging the use of excessive force and failure to provide needed medical treatment. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants as to some claims, and subsequently dismissed the remaining claims for failure to prosecute, following the inmate's failure to appear at a final pretrial conference. The inmate appealed. The appeals court vacated and remanded, finding that there was insufficient evidence to support the district court's finding that the inmate had refused to attend the pretrial conference, its finding of prejudice from the inmate's failure to appear, and the finding of willfulness or bad faith. The appeals court ruled that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the action without affording the inmate the opportunity to be heard. The appeals court criticized the district court for assuming the truth of prison officials' assertion that the prisoner had refused to attend the pretrial conference, without hearing from the prisoner or seeking his explanation. (State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, State Correctional Institution...