Seventh Circuit: Roy Sargeant v. Aracelie Barfield

 

Plaintiff's 8A claim appropriately preserved when 1A claim was screened out, as the screening operated as an interlocutory order, and the underlying facts of the claim established the 8A claim.

A Bivens remedy for not protecting a prisoner is unavailable, as the only Supreme Court precedent recognizing the claim was sub silento; it's therefore a novel claim, and the existing statutory and administrative scheme suffices to establish that Congress might think itself best placed to resolve the procedures. 

DISSENT:

Sub silento Supreme Court holding suffices, given the facts of the case and lower courts' recognition of it.  Even absent that, it's not a new context, and no special factors counsel against recognition of the judicial remedy.  Bivens grounded in constitutional necessity.

Roy Sargeant v. Aracelie Barfield

Sixth Circuit: Bretton Westmoreland v. Butler Cnty.

For pretrial detainees, a Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference claim requires something like objective reckless indifference rather than the subjective possession of sufficient knowledge to infer a risk of harm.

DISSENT:

Circuit precedent compels a subjective element; civil law negligence standard is categorically beneath the threshold of a constitutional due process claim; requiring an intentional action begs the question of sufficient knowledge; these facts would satisfy even the majority's novel test.

Bretton Westmoreland v. Butler Cnty.

Seventh Circuit: Blake Conyers v. City of Chicago

 

Claim arising from the destruction of arrestees' property after a set period sounds in 14A Due Process or 5A Takings, not under the Fourth Amendment.

While the property was taken under the police power rather than eminent domain, federal constitutional limits remain on the disposal of the items.  In this context, a thirty day holding period with adequate notice suffices for the purposes of the Fifth Amendment.

Screenshot with evidentiary foundation from the head of department suffices to establish that the website was functioning during the relevant period.

Plaintiffs' burden to prove that they lacked access to the internet in order to discover the relevant notice requires that they establish why the specific procedures of mediated inmate internet reference access were insufficient.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2021/D08-18/C:20-1934:J:Wood:aut:T:fnOp:N:2749668:S:0

Eighth Circuit: Ka'Torah Prowse v. Walter Washington

 

When an administrative appeal is filed under the statute, and the petitioner maintains that the papers were filed on certain dates and in a certain order, but this is contradicted by the receipt stamps on the documents, the issue presents a question for trial; the date stamps are not dispositive.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/21/08/201995P.pdf

Eight Circuit: Craig Shipp v. Kevin Murphy

 While state law generally governs witness competency in a civil case, federal law controls on questions relating to the qualification of expert witnesses; harmless, as the exclusion was correct under federal law and the testimony cumulative.

A finding of good cause for the substitution of an expert witness after discovery does not compel the admission of substantively different testimony form the second expert.

Referring state prison imate to medical services for special shoes was not deliberate indifference on the part of the warden.

Doctor's lack of recognition of the need for orthopedic shoes, an omission that eventually resulted in an amputaition, did not rise the level criminal recklessness needed to present an issue of deliberate indifference.  Other employees similarly would not have had the requisite disregard.

CONCURRENCE/DISSENT

Nurse's testimony on the negligence of the doctor was admissible expert testimony, given her credentials and the need for a flexible, fact-specific inquiry.  Given the warden's habitual follow-up inquiry with medical services, the warden had sufficient knowledge to present a genuine issue of deliberate indifference.  Physician's and administrator's conduct presented a genuine issue for trial. 

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/21/08/202703P.pdf

Seventh Circuit: USA v. Vickie Sanders

 

Court did not abuse its discretion in denying compassionate release petitioner a reply brief under Due Process after government brief with new medical evidence, since the motion was denied on other grounds.

Denial order did not need to recite basis for denial as to each medical susceptibility, or holding as to each sentencing and factual history element.

USA v.  Vickie Sanders

Seventh Circuit: Michael Thomas v. Aline Martija

 

State law provides the rule of decision on some S1983 substantive legal questions related to the defense raised, so the assertion of the state statutory evidentiary privilege defense, although defeated by the federal rule on the privilege in question, doesn't mean that all substantive defenses have been presently waived.

Lack of notes from a deceased physician and a delay in the referral to a specialist deft present an issue for trial, as they might show either not receiving a prisoner's claim or  a deliberate indifference to the claim.

An institution-level medical director within a larger corporation is not a unilateral setter of standards for purposes of Monell liability.

Michael Thomas v.   Aline Martija

Eighth Circuit: United States v. Nkajlo Vangh

 

As the motion for compassionate release arises from a statute that does not require an evidentiary hearing and is discretionary in nature, there is no possible showing of entitlement to relief that could require an evidentiary hearing on the question.

Court's evaluation of the current level of care accorded the prisoner was sufficient consideration of any extraordinary and compelling justification for release, as described in the statute.

United States  v.  Nkajlo Vangh

Seventh Circuit: Shawn Patterson v. Matt Baker

 

Treating nurse's opinion on re-cross about whether visible signs of the described prison beating would have been expected was, at worst, harmless error in allowing an expert conclusion; plaintiff had opened the door on cross by asking on redirect if painful injuries could be sustained without leaving a visible sign.

Shawn Patterson v.   Matt Baker

Eghth Circuit: Cameron Zahn v. Bonnie Nygaard

As the finding is not logically inconsistent, sufficient evidence for the finder of fact's credibility determination as to competing narratives at a bench trial; although the evidence to the contrary was not discussed in the opinion, it was raised as impeachment at trial.

Cameron Zahn  v.  Bonnie Nygaard 

Fourth Circuit: Vernon Earle v. Shreves

 

Bivvens remedy not available for a prisoner's grievance retaliation claim under the First Amendment.

Vernon Earle v. Shreves

Second Circuit: Reynolds v. Quiros, et al.

 

Actual conditions of prisoner's solitary confinement present a genuine issue of material fact for trial.

State statute imposing conditions for the incarceration of prisoners whose death sentences have been commuted, passed after the legislative elimination of the death penalty and prior to the judicial determination that those already sentenced to death should have their sentences commuted, was an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder, imposing specific punishments on implicitly designated specific persons without the benefit of trial.

Classification of prisoner as a higher security threat than others similarly situated had no rational basis, and violated Equal Protection.

Concurrence:

Eighth Amendment claims of mistreatment of prisoners require an element of subjective intent.

Reynolds v. Quiros, et al.

Sixth Circuit: United States v. John Tomes, Jr.

 

Although the denial of compassionate release during the pandemic looked to commentary in the guidelines that applies only to motions by the government, it also individually considered the other appropriate factors, and the denial can be upheld on those grounds.

United States v. John Tomes, Jr.

Eleventh Circuit: Denzil Earl McKathan v. USA

 

Former prisoner on federal supervised release might have reasonably believed that he was compelled by the terms of the supervised release to unlock his phone and answer the questions truthfully, so while the information can be used to revoke the supervised release, the 5A right to silence was invoked by operation of law, meaning that the information cannot be used in a subsequent prosecution.

Remand for consideration of inevitable discovery exception. 

Dissent:

Deft's invocation wasn't automatic, since his subjective belief wasn't reasonable in light of the prevailing law.

Denzil Earl McKathan v. USA

Sixth Circuit: Zackery Beck v. Hamblen Cty., Tenn.

 

Sheriff entitled to qualified immunity as to S1983 claim arising from jail violence and overcrowding, as there was no personal knowledge of the specific circumstances that caused the particular harm, the claim does not establish that the Sheriff would be incompetent in thinking that the responses to the situation met constitutional muster, and there is no specific precedent indicating otherwise.

Zackery Beck v. Hamblen Cty., Tenn. 

Tenth Circuit: Contreras v. Dona Ana County Board

(Per Curiam summary)

CJ, concurring: 

Insufficient 8A deliberate indifference claim where prison guards didn't have subjective knowledge of risk to detainee posed by leaving the cell door controls unlocked.

The situation doesn't correspond to a clearly established right -- negligence, perhaps.

Concur in part, concurring in the judgment:

Supervisor's knowledge of the risk can't be imputed to the guards.

Not a clearly established right, so no need to reach the deliberate indifference calculus, given qualified immunity.

Although there's no qualified immunity for Monell claims, the right has to be established in order to show the need to train employees.

Concurring in part, dissenting in part:

Claims against supervisor and municipality presented genuine issue for trial on deliberate indifference.

Central question on the deliberate indifference claim is whether it was reasonable to keep the controls unlocked.

Contreras v. Dona Ana County Board

Seventh Circuit: Elijah Manuel v. Nick Nalley

Retaliation claim arising from prison administrator's search of inmate's cell nine minutes after he mentioned the possibility of filing a complaint against the administrator does not present a genuine issue of material fact for trial, as there had been a report two weeks previous indicating contraband in the cell.

Elijah Manuel v. Nick Nalley

Fourth Circuit: Douglas Fauconier v. Harold Clarke

Prisoner ADA complaint appropriately equitably tolled during exhaustion of administrative remedies required by federal statute.

Prison officials' reliance on a medical classification in the stated denial of all prospects of work states a claim under the ADA.

Prisoner pro se complaint asserting unequal treatment of comparators and lack of administrative explanation for informal denying the chance to work based on a medical classification states an Equal Protection claim.

Eleventh Amendment bars Equal Protection action for damages against prison administrators, but not the ADA action for damages, as an actual violation of the 14th amendment is alleged.

Claims against individuals barred under Qualified Immunity, since a clearly established right would be plain to every reasonable official, and such is not the case here.

Inmate transfer moots all claims for equitable relief except those against Director of agency.

Douglas Fauconier v. Harold Clarke 

Second Circuit: Williams v. Korines

Prison regulation of gang insignia and materials clearly prohibited possession of photographs of people in the gang's colors and making hand-signs associated with the gang; no reasonable guard would be unaware that there materials were encompassed by the regulation.

Where a previous penalty proceeding is vacated upon review, and in the subsequent penalty, credit is given for the time served of the earlier penalty, the first proceeding is not a basis for a due process liberty claim.

Although the second proceeding was reversed by the Director, the state's deprivation of due process standard merely requires sufficient information to constitute substantial evidence, so the expert opinions offered in the proceeding sufficed.

Circles added to photographs examined during the proceeding were harmless, as the expert earlier reviewed the photos without the circles.

Talking over the presiding officer and waving his finger at her was sufficient basis to remove the prisoner form the proceeding.

Williams v. Korines

Sixth Circuit: Eric Dotson v. Gregory Kizziah

Where the Federal court sentence is silent as to whether it is concurrent or consecutive with state imprisonment terms imposed in the future, the Bureau of Prisons placement in a state or federal facility controls whether the Federal sentence is consecutive or concurrent with those future terms.

Eric Dotson v. Gregory Kizziah