38. Rules & regulations-prisoner.

U.S. District Court DRUG TESTING

Alexander v. Gilmore, 202 F.Supp.2d 478 (E.D.Va. 2002). Two prisoners, one a current prisoner and one a former prisoner, sued a prison and officials. The district court found that a prisoner's placement in segregated housing following an institutional conviction for being under the influence of drugs, even though a confirmatory urine test was not conducted, was not sufficiently severe to support an Eighth Amendment claim. The court also held that the prisoners did not state a claim under the False Claims Act (FCA) by alleging that the prison had obtained federal funding for drug testing by falsely certifying that the requirements for testing and disposal of samples were being followed. According to the court, the prison, and employees who were acting in their official capacities, were exempt from the FCA and there was no showing that the employees were acting in their individual capacities. (Virginia Department of Corrections)

U.S. District Court CUSTODY LEVEL

Austin v. Wilkinson, 189 F.Supp.2d 719 (N.D.Ohio 2002). A class of current and former prisoners at a high maximum security prison brought a [section] 1983 action seeking injunctive relief, alleging denial of due process in their placement and retention at the facility. The district court held that: (1) the inmates had a liberty interest ill their conditions of confinement; (2) the inmates were entitled to due process protection in decisions to send them and retain them at the facility; (3) the inmates were denied due process in the decisions to send them to, and retain them at, the facility; and (4) new corrections policies failed to provide adequate due process safeguards. The court held that the combination of conditions faced by inmates at the high maximum security prison imposed an atypical and significant hardship, giving the inmates a liberty interested protected by due process. The court noted that inmates in the prison were subjected to lengthy stays of indefinite duration, had extremely limited contact with other individuals, were never allowed outdoor recreation, were subject to extremely intrusive restrictions when they were allowed out of their cells, and were denied parole eligibility.

The court held that inmates sent to the prison were entitled to minimal due process consisting of: (1) twenty-four hour advance notice of all specific evidence relied upon to support reasons for reclassification; (2) a requirement that an inmate be allowed...