Part 2: case summaries by major topic.

• Position: Case overview

1. ACCESS TO COURT U.S. District Court Banks v. York, 515 F.Supp.2d 89 (D.D.C. 2007). LAW LIBRARY A detainee in a jail operated by the District LEGAL MAIL of Columbia Department of Corrections (DOC), TRANSFER and in a correctional treatment facility PLRA- Prison operated by the District's private contractor, Litigation Reform brought a [section] 1983 action against District employees and contractor's employees alleging negligent supervision under District of Columbia law, over-detention, deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, harsh living conditions in jail, and extradition to Virginia without a hearing. The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in part and denied in part. The court held that the provision of Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies before bringing a civil action against prison officials regarding prison conditions applied to the detainee who brought a [section] 1983 action before he was released from jail, even though the detainee had been released from jail by the time that the defendants brought their motion to dismiss. The court held that the detainee did not state a claim under [section] 1983 that inadequacies in the jail's law library violated his First Amendment right of access to the courts, even if he alleged that such inadequacies caused the filing of his appeals to be untimely, in the absence of an allegation that such untimeliness had an actual adverse impact on the appeals. The court held that the detainee's allegations that his legal mail was opened by officials at the jail outside of his presence on numerous occasions during a four-month period, and that such actions were intentional and pursuant to a policy or systemic practice, stated a claim under [section] 1983 for violation of First Amendment free speech rights. (Central Detention Facility. D.C. and Correctional Treatment Facility operated by the Corrections Corporation of America) U.S. Appeals Court Fields v. Oklahoma State Penitentiary, 511 PLRA- Prison F.3d 1109 (10th Cir. 2007). A state prisoner Litigation Reform [section] 1983 against the Oklahoma State Act Penitentiary (OSP) and nine OSP employees, EXHAUSTION alleging claims for violations of various constitutional rights and other federal-law and state-law claims. The district court dismissed all the federal-law claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and then exercised its discretion to dismiss the state-law claims. The prisoner appealed. The appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that the prisoner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) before bringing suit and that the district court was within its discretion in denying the prisoner's motions to amend his complaint The court noted that although the prisoner filed grievances with the Oklahoma Department of Correction (ODOC) he failed to comply with the required grievance procedures. (Oklahoma State Penitentiary) U.S. District Court Murray v. Prison Health Services, 513 PLRA- Prison F.Supp.2d 9 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). A pro se prisoner Litigation Reform brought a [section] 1983 action against prison Act health services, among others, alleging that a superintendent, nurse administrator and two nurses at the prison were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs and denied him daily medication for his HIV infection. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and the district court granted the motion. The court held that the prisoner's alleged actions, sending letters to the nurse administrator and superintendent, were not sufficient to satisfy the exhaustion requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). (Green Haven Correctional Facility, New York) U.S. District Court Thomas v. Sheahan, 514 F.Supp.2d 1083 EXPERT WITNESS (N.D.Ill. 2007). A special administrator filed a [section] 1983 suit against a county, sheriff, county board, correctional officers, supervisors and correctional medical technician on behalf of a pretrial detainee who died at a county jail from meningitis and pneumonia, alleging violations of constitutional rights and state law claims for wrongful death, survival action, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court held that the administrator's failure to produce documentary evidence of lost wages or child support payments did not preclude her from introducing evidence at trial. The court found that the physician was not qualified to testify as to the manifestations of meningitis absent evidence that the physician was an expert on meningitis or infectious diseases. According to the court, a jail operations expert's proposed testimony that the county did not meet minimum standards of the conduct for training of correctional staff was inadmissible. The court also found that evidence of jail conditions was relevant and thus admissible, where the administrator of the detainee's estate argued that county officials should have known the detainee was sick because he was throwing up in his cell and in a day room. (Cook County, Illinois) U.S. Appeals Court Al-Amin v. Smith, 511 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. LEGAL MAIL 2008). A state prison inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against state corrections officials, alleging that the officials repeatedly opened his privileged attorney mail outside of his presence in violation of his rights to access to the courts and free speech. The district court denied the officials' motion for summary judgment and the officials appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The appeals court held that the prisoner's constitutional right of access to the courts requires that incoming legal mail may be opened only in the inmate's presence and only to inspect for contraband. According to the curt, the inmate's right to have properly marked incoming attorney mail opened only in his presence was clearly established. The court found that the lack of showing of actual injury precluded recovery on the right-of-access claim. The court held that the inmate had a free speech right to communicate with his attorneys separate from his right of access to the courts and that the pattern and practice of opening the prisoner's attorney mail outside his presence impinges on his freedom of speech. The court noted that actual injury is not required for the prisoner to state a free speech claim arising from the opening of attorney mail and that the First Amendment prohibition against opening the inmate's attorney mail outside his presence was clearly established. (Georgia State Prison) U.S. Appeals Court Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298 (4th Cir. RECORDS 2008). A state prisoner brought a [section] FOIA- Freedom of 1983 action against the director of a state Information Act Department of Corrections challenging the constitutionality of the statutory exclusion of prisoners from making requests for public records under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (VFOIA). The district court dismissed the action and the prisoner appealed. The appeals court affirmed, finding that the allegations were insufficient to state a claim for facial violation of the equal protection clause and were insufficient to state a claim for an "as-applied" violation of the equal protection clause. According to the court, denial of the prisoner's request for records did not violate his right to access the courts. (Red Onion State Prison, Virginia) U.S. Appeals Court Hartsfield v. Nichols, 511 F.3d 826 (8th Cir. LAW LIBRARY 2008). A state prisoner brought a [section] LEGAL ASSISTANCE 1983 action against prison officials alleging RETALIATION denial of access to courts and retaliatory discipline. The district court dismissed his access to courts claim and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the retaliation claim. The prisoner appealed. The appeals court affirmed. The court held that some evidence supported the disciplinary actions taken against the prisoner and thus he failed to establish a [section] 1983 retaliatory discipline claim. The court noted that a corrections officer filed reports of disciplinary violations against the prisoner for disruptive conduct, verbal abuse, and making threats and an independent hearing officer found the prisoner guilty of the violations. The court found that the prisoner failed to establish an actual injury necessary for an access to courts claim. The prisoner alleged that officials intentionally denied him access to law books in the prison library and adequate legal assistance from a prison attorney. The court noted that the prisoner only roughly and generally alleged that he was prevented from filing. The prisoner alleged that he did not know what arguments to make not that he was actually prevented from filing a complaint or that a filed complaint was dismissed for lack of legal adequacy. The court found the prisoner's claim that any complaint he would have filed would have been insufficient was speculative. (Iowa State Penitentiary) US. Appeals Court McNairv. Allen, 515 F.3d 1168 (11m Cir. 2008). DUE PROCESS A death row inmate moved for a stay of his STATUTE OF execution, on the theory that the method of LIMITATIONS execution to which he was subject, death by lethal injection, violated his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment The district court granted the motion to allow the inmate to litigate his [section] 1983 claims and the defendants appealed. The appeals court vacated. The court held that the two-year statute of limitations on [section] 1983 claim brought by the inmate began to run when the inmate, after his death sentence had already become final, became subject to the new execution protocol when the inmate became subject to the new execution protocol not at the time of the inmate's execution or on the date that a federal habeas review was completed. (Holman Correctional Facility, Alabama) U.S. Appeals Court Pierce v. County of Orange, 519...