Programs-prisoner.

• Position: Lile v. McKune - Little v. Terhune - Reed v. McKune

34. Programs-Prisoner U.S. Appeals Court Lile v. McKune, 299 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir. 2002). A state inmate brought a [section] 1983 claim SEX OFFENDER against prison officials, alleging that a sexual abuse treatment program and corresponding regulations and policies violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The district court granted summary judgment for the inmate and the appeals court affirmed. The United States Supreme Court (122 S.Ct. 2017) reversed and remanded, finding that alterations in the inmate's prison conditions resulting from his refusal to participate in a Sexual Abuse Treatment Program (SATP) were not so great as to constitute compulsion for the purposes of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The appeals court vacated its prior opinion and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. (Kansas Department of Corrections) U.S. District Court Little v. Terhune, 200 F.Supp.2d 445 (D.N.J. 2002). A prisoner housed in a maximum security EDUCATIONAL prison brought a civil rights suit against state prison officials for allegedly violating his EQUAL PROTECTION equal protection rights by failing to provide him with educational programming while he was ADMINISTRATIVE confined in an administrative segregation unit. SEGREGATION The district court held that the denial of educational programming to prisoners in administrative segregation did not violate equal protection on the basis that the programs were available to the general prison population, to younger inmates in administrative segregation, or to all inmates in segregation units at other institutions. The court noted that although inmates do not have a constitutional right to educational and work programs, once the state grants such rights to prisoners it may not invidiously discriminate against a class of inmates in connection with those programs unless the difference in treatment is rationally related to the legitimate governmental interest to justify the disparate treatment. The court found a legitimate connection, where prison officials' allocation priorities for the scarce resource of educational services responded to security concerns and budget restraints. The court also found that there was a legitimate government interest in promoting innovative prison programs that might be stymied by a requirement that there be system-wide uniformity. (New Jersey State Prison)...