Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.
Showing posts with label Prisons. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Prisons. Show all posts
Fourth Circuit: Dewayne Cox v. Bradley Quinn
Prisons, S1983
Denial of qualified immunity upheld for responding to inmate report of robbery and assault by telling the alleged attackers that the inmate had reported the violence and receiving assurances that there would be no further trouble.
Dewayne Cox v. Bradley Quinn
Eighth Circuit: Patrick A. Dadd v. Anoka County
Prisons, S1983
Deliberate indifference suit states a claim where arresting officers and jail personnel were told of recent dental surgery but withheld pain relievers. There is no implicit passage-of-time requirment for deliberate indifference claims.
As the timing-based assertion of qualified immunity was nonfrivolous, the other arguments won't be sanctioned.
Patrick A. Dadd v. Anoka County
Seventh Circuit: Kenneth Ogurek v. Jeffrey Gabor
Prisons
Claim of retaliation after letter to warden was a violation of First Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances.
Claim of innocence was sufficient showing to require production of videotape. Summary judgment in favor of the party who had earlier refused to produce the tape was error.
Kenneth Ogurek v. Jeffrey Gabor
Claim of retaliation after letter to warden was a violation of First Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances.
Claim of innocence was sufficient showing to require production of videotape. Summary judgment in favor of the party who had earlier refused to produce the tape was error.
Kenneth Ogurek v. Jeffrey Gabor
Seventh Circuit: Marcos Gray v. Marcus Hardy
Prisons
Although individual claims of infestation are insufficient to present a genuine issue of fact, the claim must be assessed holistically.
Harms of infestation present an issue for the finder of fact. (1984 quote.)
Knowledge of conditions can be imputed to incoming warden (caption not changed).
Marcos Gray v. Marcus Hardy
Although individual claims of infestation are insufficient to present a genuine issue of fact, the claim must be assessed holistically.
Harms of infestation present an issue for the finder of fact. (1984 quote.)
Knowledge of conditions can be imputed to incoming warden (caption not changed).
Marcos Gray v. Marcus Hardy
Seventh Circuit: Michael Belleau v. Edward Wall
Release conditions - electronic monitoring
No Fourth Amendment violation for warrantless perpetual electronic monitoring, given the incremental loss of privacy and substantial social benefits.
Electronic monitoring isn't Ex post facto, as it's not a punishment.
Concurrence in J: Reasonable special needs search, but if tech was more ubiquitous, possibly a different calculus. Not punitive in purpose or effect.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-29/C:15-3225:J:Flaum:con:T:fnOp:N:1694901:S:0
No Fourth Amendment violation for warrantless perpetual electronic monitoring, given the incremental loss of privacy and substantial social benefits.
Electronic monitoring isn't Ex post facto, as it's not a punishment.
Concurrence in J: Reasonable special needs search, but if tech was more ubiquitous, possibly a different calculus. Not punitive in purpose or effect.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-29/C:15-3225:J:Flaum:con:T:fnOp:N:1694901:S:0
Second Circuit: Victory v. Pataki et al.
S1983 Due Process - Parole
Prison inmate with a parole release date has a cognizable liberty interest.
As challenge to tribunal's decision was only possible by contradicting prior unsworn testimony of its members, there was no impartial decisionmaker at the point of parole rescission.
Absolute immunity for quasijudicial officers of parole board does not extend to fabrication of evidence before the initiation of proceedings.
Genuine issues of material fact on merits - remand.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5402e8be-d735-46ae-b512-f956299ada45/1/doc/13-3592_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5402e8be-d735-46ae-b512-f956299ada45/1/hilite/
Prison inmate with a parole release date has a cognizable liberty interest.
As challenge to tribunal's decision was only possible by contradicting prior unsworn testimony of its members, there was no impartial decisionmaker at the point of parole rescission.
Absolute immunity for quasijudicial officers of parole board does not extend to fabrication of evidence before the initiation of proceedings.
Genuine issues of material fact on merits - remand.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5402e8be-d735-46ae-b512-f956299ada45/1/doc/13-3592_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5402e8be-d735-46ae-b512-f956299ada45/1/hilite/
Eighth Circuit: James Saylor v. Randy Kohl, M.D
S1983, Prisons
Qualified immunity for physicians treating inmate with PTSD, given lack of deliberate indifference.
No 1A, 14A retaliation claims based on ending of medication and transfer, as there were legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for both.
Dissent: Genuine dispute.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143889P.pdf
Qualified immunity for physicians treating inmate with PTSD, given lack of deliberate indifference.
No 1A, 14A retaliation claims based on ending of medication and transfer, as there were legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for both.
Dissent: Genuine dispute.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143889P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Brent Ballinger v. Cedar County, MO
S1983
Since the state rule keeping prisoners in custody during the pendency of a state appeal while not staying the judicial order ordering their release does not apply to the procedural (direct, apparently) challenge on which the deft prevailed, he did not revert to the status of a pretrial detainee when he prevailed on appeal, and there is no constitutional harm in his being kept in solitary confinement during the state's appeal.
No per se constitutional harm in solitary confinement.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143576P.pdf
Since the state rule keeping prisoners in custody during the pendency of a state appeal while not staying the judicial order ordering their release does not apply to the procedural (direct, apparently) challenge on which the deft prevailed, he did not revert to the status of a pretrial detainee when he prevailed on appeal, and there is no constitutional harm in his being kept in solitary confinement during the state's appeal.
No per se constitutional harm in solitary confinement.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143576P.pdf
Ninth Circuit: David Reyes v. Christopher Smith
PLRA / Administrative
The exhaustion requirements are met under the PLRA where prison officials issue a decision on the merits while disregarding procedural flaws in the appeal.
As the complaint put the prison officials on notice of the full dimensions of the claim, it sufficed to exhaust administrative remedies.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/01/12/13-17119.pdf
The exhaustion requirements are met under the PLRA where prison officials issue a decision on the merits while disregarding procedural flaws in the appeal.
As the complaint put the prison officials on notice of the full dimensions of the claim, it sufficed to exhaust administrative remedies.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/01/12/13-17119.pdf
Seventh Circuit: Delbert Heard v. Andrew Tilden
FRCP
Prior settlement agreement is not a basis for issue preclusion of subsequent claim.
Prior broad release of claim did not indemnify physicians against delay in in treatment for subsequent recurrence of chronic condition.
Where a physician is both the decisionmaker and the author of guidelines for treatment of prisoner medical conditions, an allegation against him in the former capacity states a claim.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-11/C:15-1732:J:PerCuriam:aut:T:fnOp:N:1685055:S:0
Prior settlement agreement is not a basis for issue preclusion of subsequent claim.
Prior broad release of claim did not indemnify physicians against delay in in treatment for subsequent recurrence of chronic condition.
Where a physician is both the decisionmaker and the author of guidelines for treatment of prisoner medical conditions, an allegation against him in the former capacity states a claim.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-11/C:15-1732:J:PerCuriam:aut:T:fnOp:N:1685055:S:0
Seventh Circuit: Michael Thompson v. William Holm
S1983 - prison food/religion.
Denial of substitute meals during periods of fast substantially burdens Free Exercise of Religion.
No qualified immunity for denial of food.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-04/C:15-1928:J:Rovner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1681174:S:0
Denial of substitute meals during periods of fast substantially burdens Free Exercise of Religion.
No qualified immunity for denial of food.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-04/C:15-1928:J:Rovner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1681174:S:0
Fourth Circuit: Joshua Rich v. US
Prisons, FTCA.
As the decision to separate certain prisoners from each other is discretionary, yet implicates considerations of public policy, suit against officials is barred under FTCA.
Claims of inadequate or omitted searches of assailants should be remanded for discovery, as they implicate claims outside of the discretionary exception.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/147204.P.pdf
As the decision to separate certain prisoners from each other is discretionary, yet implicates considerations of public policy, suit against officials is barred under FTCA.
Claims of inadequate or omitted searches of assailants should be remanded for discovery, as they implicate claims outside of the discretionary exception.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/147204.P.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)