Part 2: case summaries by major topic Part 1.

• Position: Case overview

1. ACCESS TO COURT U.S. Appeals Court Americans United for Separation of Church RECOUPMENT 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) U.S. Appeals Court Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047 (9th IN FORMA PAUPERIS Cir. 2007). A prisoner filed a pro se PLRA- Prison Litigation action against prison officials, alleging Reform Act 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 HTV 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) U.S. District Court Brown v. Beard, 492 F.Supp.2d 474 PLRA- Prison Litigation (E.D.Pa. 2007). A prisoner brought a Reform Act civil rights suit alleging that medical IN FORMA PAUPERIS personal were intentionally not providing adequate medical care to combat his risk factors for heart disease. Prison officials moved to vacate an order allowing the prisoner to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). The district court granted the motion. The court held that the prisoner was not in imminent danger of serious physical injury, as required to proceed IFP under the Prison Litigation Reform Act after having three or more prior IFP actions dismissed as frivolous. The court noted that the prisoner did not dispute that he was receiving medical attention for high blood pressure, low blood sugar, and high cholesterol, but merely disputed the findings and quality of treatment he was receiving. (SCI Graterford, Pennsylvania) U.S. Appeals Court Carbe v. Lappin, 492 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. PLRA- Prison Litigation 2007). A federal prisoner filed a Bivens Reform Act action against federal prison officials, EXHAUSTION alleging that he was subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement when officials ignored a mandatory evacuation order for a hurricane and abandoned him and other prisoners without adequate food, water, and ventilation. The district court dismissed the action and the prisoner appealed. The appeals court vacated and remanded. The court held that the dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) was not proper, as the lack of exhaustion was an affirmative defense, the complaint was silent as to exhaustion, and the defendants had not yet filed a responsive pleading. (Federal Correctional Complex, Beaumont, Texas) U.S. District Court Daker v. Ferrero, 506 F.Supp.2d 1295 RETALIATION FOR LEGAL (N.D.Ga. 2007). A former prison inmate ACTION brought a [section] 1983 action against corrections officials, challenging alleged denials of publications and mail, as well as alleged retaliatory acts by officials. The district court granted summary judgment as to certain claims and the officials moved for reconsideration as to a portion of that order and for summary judgment, and the inmate moved for summary judgment. The district court held that reconsideration of summary judgment was warranted by genuine issues of fact that existed as to whether prison officials violated the inmate's First Amendment rights by retaliating against him after he brought numerous grievances and a civil rights action. The court found that the officials were entitled to qualified immunity as to books containing sexually explicit materials, instructions on fighting techniques and military procedures and materials, criminal investigatory techniques, and instructions on building electronic devices, but issues of fact existed as to whether prison officials denied a book about revolution and four legal books based on their content. (Georgia Department of Corrections) U.S. District Court Estrada v. Reed, 508 F.Supp.2d 699 IN FORMA PAUPERIS (W.D.Wis. 2007). An allegedly indigent federal prisoner brought a proposed Bivens action against a warden, prison doctor, two prison health services administrators, and a captain on the prison's medical staff, alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The district court granted the prisoner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, in part, finding that the prisoner alleged potentially serious medical needs and allowed an inference of deliberate indifference on the part of several of the defendants. The prisoner alleged that prison medical staff failed to monitor his blood pressure consistently after doctors recommended such monitoring, and that a serious stroke left him with limited ability to use much of his left side and with difficulty speaking, so that he required consistent therapy to regain his motor skills. (Federal Correctional Institution, Oxford, Wisconsin) U.S. Appeals Court Finch v. Miller, 491 F.3d 424 (8th Cir. LAW LIBRARY 2007). A prisoner convicted in state LEGAL ASSISTANCE court of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison filed a second petition for habeas relief, which the district court dismissed. The prisoner appealed and the appeals court affirmed. The court held that the prisoner failed to establish that his lack of access to a state prison law library or legal assistance presented a sufficient impediment to toll the statutory period for filing a habeas petition. (Iowa) U.S. District Court Koerschner v. Warden, 508 F.Supp.2d 849 APPOINTED ATTORNEY (D.Nev. 2007). A state prisoner brought a LEGAL MATERIAL motion for appointment of counsel for a federal habeas proceeding. The district court granted the motion. The court held that appointment of counsel was warranted in light of the serious, and potentially constitutionally suspect, limitations placed by the state prison on the due process right of access to courts by segregation-unit inmates. The court noted that access to court for inmates in segregation consisted of a new "paging system," under which inmates can request a maximum of five specified legal materials at a time, and the assistance of essentially untrained inmate legal assistants. (Lovelock Correctional Center, Nevada) LEGAL ASSISTANCE U.S. Appeals Court Macias v. Zenk, 495 F.3d 37 (2nd Cir. EXHAUSTION 2007). A federal prisoner brought a pro PLRA- Prison Litigation se suit against prison officials, Reform Act alleging Bivens claims for indifference to his serious medical needs and tort claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The district court dismissed the Bivens claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and dismissed the tort claims without prejudice. The prisoner appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part and vacated in part. The court held that the unavailability of monetary damages in the prison grievance system did not excuse noncompliance with PLRA, and that the prisoner did not procedurally exhaust his remedies by bringing administrative tort claims and making informal complaints. But the court found that the alleged threats directed at the prisoner may have rendered administrative procedures unavailable, preventing the officials from raising non-exhaustion as defense. (Metropolitan Detention Center, Federal Bureau of Prisons, New York City) U.S. Appeals Court Maness v. District Court of Logan IN FORMA PAUPERIS County-Northern Div., 495 F.3d 943 (8th Cir. 2007). After a state court clerk refused his repeated requests to present his application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), the federal district court dismissed a prisoner's [section] 1983 action arising from his state court conviction. The appeals court affirmed, finding that the judge and prosecutor enjoyed absolute immunity, and the district court clerk's ministerial decision to not present the prisoner's IFP application to the Arkansas state court did not violate the prisoner's right of access to the court. The appeals court noted that the clerk who allegedly refused to present the criminal prisoner's IFP application to a circuit judge was not shielded by absolute quasi-judicial immunity in the prisoner's subsequent civil rights action. (Logan County District Court, Arkansas) U.S. District Court Maraglia v. Moloney, 499 F.Supp.2d 93 EXHAUSTION (D.Mass. 2007). A state prisoner brought PLRA- Prison Litigation a civil rights suit against several Reform Act Massachusetts...