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.

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

31. PERSONNEL: Supervision

48. USE OF FORCE: Excessive Force

    Adams v. Bouchard, 591 F.Supp.2d 1191 (W.D.Okla. 2008). A jail inmate brought 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 sheriff's 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 sheriff's 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)

11. DISCIPLINE: Evidence

14. FAILURE TO PROTECT: Officer on Prisoner Assault

    Adkins v. Wolever, 554 F.3d 650 (6th Cir. 2009). A prisoner brought a [section] 1983 action against a prison guard, alleging that the guard assaulted him in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. The district court denied the prisoner's motion for a jury instruction related to the alleged spoliation of film and photographic evidence of the alleged assault. The prisoner had asked the court to sanction the defendant for failing to produce stationary video footage that shows the prisoner being escorted back to his cell, a post-incident narrative video that contains interviews of staff members about the incident, and original photographs of the prisoner's injuries. The prisoner appealed. The appeals court remanded the action to determine whether the guard should be subject to any form of spoliation sanctions. (Ionia Maximum Security Facility, Michigan)

31. PERSONNEL: Due Process, Property Interest

    Akande v. Grounds, 555 F.3d 586 (7th Cir. 2009). A former employee of a state corrections agency brought an action against the agency and agency officials, alleging that they deprived him of a property interest in his employment in violation of the due process clause. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and the employee appealed. The appeals court affirmed. The court held that the employee of the Illinois Department of Corrections was not deprived of a due process property interest in his employment by a supervisor's decision to alter the employee's job duties. The court noted that the employee remained at the same position and received the same salary, and that the Illinois Personnel Code defined the employee's protected property right as the right not to be removed, discharged, demoted, or suspended for more than 30 days without cause, but none of those events occurred. (Illinois Department of Corrections, Robinson Correctional Center)

2. ADMINISTRATION: Records

26. JUVENILES: PLRA- Prison Litigation Reform Act, Programs

34. PROGRAMS-PRISONER: Juveniles, Treatment Programs

    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 under federal law. The parties filed a joint motion seeking court approval of a settlement. The court held that the limitations under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) on prospective relief concerning conditions had no application because the suit was not concerned with conditions of confinement or effects of actions by officials on confined juveniles. The court also found that the advocacy group was not subject to the limitations on prisoner suits under PLRA. The court held that the settlement of the suit was fair, adequate, reasonable and not illegal or against public policy, and thus warranted the requested court approval. According to the court, the agreement contained a detailed plan for facilitating access, a process for dispute resolution between the parties, and a provision for the court's retaining jurisdiction for one year for the limited purpose of enforcing compliance. (Alabama Department of Youth Services)

28. MAIL: Legal Mail, Rejecting Mail, Packages

38. RULES & REGULATIONS-PRISONER: Mail, Packages

    Bonner v. Outlaw, 552 F.3d 673 (8th Cir. 2009). An inmate filed a Bivens action against prison officials, alleging their handling of his incoming legal mail violated his constitutional rights. The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. The appeals court affirmed in part and remanded in part. On remand, the district court denied the warden's motion to dismiss and his motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The warden appealed. The appeals court held that the inmate's allegations were sufficient to state a procedural due process claim against the warden, and that the due process right to receive notice was clearly established. The court held that the Federal Bureau of Prison's (BOP) regulation governing an inmate's notification of rejected correspondence, which distinguished between letters and other correspondence by requiring notification for rejections of the former but not for the latter, was unreasonable under procedural due process principles. The court found that there was no governmental interest advanced by the regulation, that inmates did not have an alternative means of receiving notice, and that there was no additional burden placed on prison officials by having to give notice. According to the court, the inmate's allegations that the warden had responsibility for lack of notice as to the prison's rejection of packages containing legal mail were sufficient to state a procedural due process claim against the warden. The inmate had alleged that the warden was personally involved in creating, applying, or interpreting a policy that failed to adhere to notice requirements, and that even if the warden had no role in deciding what notice procedures to follow, the inmate alleged that the warden failed to train or supervise mail room employees to follow notice requirements. (Federal Correctional Institution, Waseca, Minnesota)

22. HABEAS CORPUS: Parole

36. RELEASE: Parole-Revocation

    Brown v. McNeil, 591 F.Supp.2d 1245 (M.D.Fla. 2008). An inmate of the Florida penal system whose conditional release supervision had been revoked, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court granted summary judgment. The court held that the state court's decision to uphold revocation for failure to make supervision payments was unreasonable, and the state court's decision to uphold revocation based on violation of curfew provisions was unreasonable given that the inmate violated curfew only one time, and had been given permission to violate curfew several times. According to the court, the state court's decision to uphold the parole commission's revocation of the inmate's conditional release supervision for failure to make $30.00 per month cost of supervision payments and being $312.41 in arrears, was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented, and an unreasonable application of clearly established federal due process principles. The court noted that the state court's finding that the failure to pay costs was willful, substantial, and material, was incorrect by clear and convincing evidence, where testimony and evidence of record revealed that inmate did not have the ability to remain current with his supervision payments given his other financial obligations at the time. (Florida Parole Commission)

2. ADMINISTRATION: Discrimination, Harassment

31. PERSONNEL: Free Speech, Harassment, Hostile Work Environment, Racial Discrimination

    Brown v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Services, 583 F.Supp.2d 404 (W.D.N.Y. 2008). A correctional officer brought an action against the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) and several other institutional and individual defendants, alleging race discrimination and harassment in violation of Title VII, [section] 1981, [section] 1983, and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants in part and denied in part. The court held that: (1) the officer satisfied the personal involvement requirement for stating a [section] 1981 hostile work environment claim against his co-workers; (2) the alleged harassment by his co-workers was not done under color of law for the purposes of a [section] 1983 claim; (3) the officer's complaints to supervisors about alleged discrimination and harassment based on his race did not constitute speech protected under [section] 1983 and did not relate to matters of public concern; (4) the officer's state law claims against individual state officials and employees were barred by the election-of-remedies provision in NYSHRL; (5) genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the actions and statements of his co-workers...