Part 2: case summaries by major topic section.

• Position: Table

Part 2: Case Summaries by Major Topic Section 1. ACCESS TO COURT U.S. District Court Beltran v. O'Mara. 405 F.Supp.2d 140 EXHAUSTION (D.N.H. 2005). A pretrial detainee brought PLRA- Prison Litigation a [section] 1983 action against Reform Act 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 mat 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) U.S. District Court Boomer v. Deperio. 405 F.Supp.2d 259 PLRA-Prison Litigation (W.D.N.Y. 20051. A state prison inmate Reform Act brought a [section] 1983 Eighth Amendment EXHAUSTION action against physicians employed by a state corrections department, alleging deliberate indifference to the prisoner's diabetes. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court held that the physicians were not deliberately indifferent, given evidence of prescribing insulin, adjustment of insulin levels, and supplying of self-monitoring instruments. The court noted that the inmate's failure to name all of the physicians involved in me alleged mistreatment in his administrative grievance did not automatically preclude naming previously unnamed physicians in his [section] 1983 suit. (Attica Correctional Facility, New York) U.S. Appeals Court Braham v. Clancy, 425 F.3d 177 (2nd Cir. PLRA- Prison Litigation 2005). A state prisoner brought a pro se Reform Act [section] 1983 action against correctional EXHAUSTION officials alleging that they failed to protect him from an assault by another inmate. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the officials and me prisoner appealed. The appeals court vacated and remanded. The court held mat remand to me district court was required to determine whether the prisoner's filing of three request forms for a change of cell, and his complaint about the prison officials' unresponsiveness to these forms, satisfied the exhaustion requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). (Corrigan Correctional Facility, Connecticut) U.S. Appeals Court Cannon v. Washington. 418 F.3d 714 (7th PLRA- Prison Litigation Cir. 2005). A state prisoner brought a Reform Act federal civil rights and state law action EXHAUSTION challenging two incidents involving strip searches and alleged beatings. Default judgment was entered for one defendant and the remaining defendants were granted summary judgment. The prisoner appealed. The appeals court vacated and remanded in part, and affirmed in part. The court held that the prisoner failed to exhaust administrative procedures for me purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) when he ignored me proper format for seeking reconsideration of denial of a late claim. The court found mat confiscation of the prisoner's legal papers did not excuse noncompliance with a grievance deadline. The court concluded that a grievance that was deposited in the prison mail system on the last day of the State's filing deadline, but which was returned for insufficient postage, was not timely filed under the prison mailbox rule because it was not re-mailed with sufficient postage until after me expiration of me filing period. (Centralia Correctional Center, Shawnee Correctional Center, Illinois) U.S. District Court Gabby v. Meyer, 390 F.SuDD.2d 801 (E.D.Wis. PLRA- Prison Litigation 2005). A state prisoner brought a [section] Reform Act 1983 action alleging that medical personnel EXHAUSTION violated his Eighth Amendment rights by providing him with inadequate medical care. The district court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment based on the prisoner's failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. The court held mat the prisoner had no available administrative remedies to exhaust, within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). Soon after the prisoner filed an inmate grievance complaining that prison medical personnel had failed to remove stitches in his throat and neck, a doctor and nurse provided the prisoner with me relief he requested by removing the stitches and ultimately arranging for the prisoner's transportation to a hospital. This relief was provided after the prisoner's artery burst. The court noted that complaining about medical personnel's failure to transfer him to a hospital would not have supplied relief to the prisoner, where he had already incurred the harm that he alleged resulted from the delay. The inmate alleged mat doctors and a prison nurse failed to arrange for him to be treated by specialists, and that he was eventually found to be suffering from throat cancer. (Dodge County Correctional Institution, Wisconsin) U.S. District Court Howard v. Snyder, 389 F.Supp.2d 589 (D.Del. LEGAL MATERIALS 2005). A state prison inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against corrections officials, alleging that legal papers were missing from a box of personal effects that were seized from his cell as contraband, when me box was returned. The inmate alleged that his access to court was hindered. The district court granted summary judgment to the officials, finding mat the "two box rule" under which the materials were confiscated, served legitimate penological interests. According to the court, the regulation promoted fire safety and limited the access to contraband. The court noted that the inmate had continual access to the prison's law library and that he could have obtained approval for an extra box. (Delaware Correctional Center) U.S. Appeals Court King v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 415 F.3d PLRA- Prison Litigation 634 (7th Cir. 2005). A federal prisoner Reform Act brought a Bivens action against the Bureau FRIVOLOUS SUITS of Prisons (BOP) and a warden claiming they had violated his rights by forbidding him from contacting his stockbroker and from buying a book on computer programming. The district court dismissed the case as frivolous and the prisoner appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The court held mat the prison did not violate the prisoner's First Amendment right of freedom of speech by preventing him from contacting his stockbroker because the order to sell was not the kind of verbal act mat the First Amendment protected. But the court found that the prisoner stated a due process claim by alleging mat officials arbitrarily prevented him from promptly contacting his stockbroker to sell stocks and that the claim was not frivolous for the purpose of the screening provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). According to the court, the prison could have deprived the prisoner of property by depriving him of the power to respond to changing market conditions, and forbidding the prisoner to sell his property eliminated liquidity which was "one of the most important sticks in [the] bundle of rights mat constituted ownership." (Federal Bureau of Prisons, Illinois) U.S. Appeals Court Lira v. Herrera. 427 F.3d 1164 (9th Cir. PLRA- Prison Litigation 2005). A state prison inmate brought Reform Act [section] 1983 action alleging that his EXHAUSTION administrative segregation and placement in a special housing unit violated his due process rights. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants based on the inmate's failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The inmate appealed. The appeals court reversed and remanded. The court held mat PLRA does not require dismissal of an entire action when a prisoner brings a [section] 1983 mixed action (one containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims.) (Deuel Vocational Institute and Pelican Bay Prison, California) U.S. District Court Lyons v. Trinity Services Group, Inc., 401 PLRA- Prison Litigation F.Supp.2d 1290 (S.D.Fla. 2005). A prisoner Reform Act brought a pro se civil rights action under EXHAUSTION [section] 1983 against the corporation that ran the food service department and kitchen at a state prison, alleging that he was illegally terminated from his kitchen assignment due to his race and that he suffered retaliation for his complaints. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that the prisoner failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), by failing to appeal his grievance to the highest level. (Everglades Correctional Institution, Florida) U.S. Appeals Court Marquard v. Secretary for Dept. of RESTRAINTS Corrections, 429 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2005). After his convictions for first-degree murder and armed robbery were affirmed and he was sentenced to death, a prisoner sought habeas corpus relief. The district court denied relief and me prisoner appealed. The appeals court affirmed. The court held that the prisoner's due process claim based on his shackling during the penalty phase of the capital murder trial was procedurally barred, and that the prisoner's attorney did not provide ineffective counsel by failing to object to the shackling. (U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida) U.S. District Court Neese v. Arpaio. 397 F.Supp.2d 1178 PLRA- Prison Litigation (D.Ariz. 2005). An inmate filed a [section] Reform Act 1983 action alleging that county jail EXHAUSTION officials violated...