1. Access to courts.

U.S. Appeals Court FILING FEES PLRA-Prison Litigation Reform Act

Atchison v. Collins, 288 F.3d 177 (5th Cir.2002). An inmate filed a motion asking the federal court to compel a correction department to deduct no more than 20% of his monthly income to pay for filing fees incurred as the result of unsuccessful actions in federal court. The district court denied the motion and the appeals court affirmed. The department had been deducting 60 percent to pay for three filing fees on which the inmate owed money; the appeals court held that the twenty-percent-of-income payments provided for under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) must be calculated "per case" rather than "per prisoner." (Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Eastham Unit)

U.S. Appeals Court RETALIATION FOR LEGAL ACTION

Burke v. North Dakota Corrections and Rehabilit., 294 F.3d 1043 (8th Cir. 2002). An inmate brought a [section] 1983 action alleging that a corrections department and its medical service contractor denied him treatment for his hepatitis C. The district court dismissed the case. The appeals court affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in part. The appeals court held that the inmate's allegation that the correctional facility's medical director prevented him from being seen by doctors because of the inmate's prior lawsuit against the director, alleged more than a disagreement over the proper course of treatment, and the case should not have been dismissed. (North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Medcenter One)

U.S. Appeals Court RETALIATION FOR LEGAL ACTION JAILHOUSE LAWYERS

Carter v. McGrady, 292 F.3d 152 (3rd Cir. 2002). A state prison inmate brought a pro se [section] 1983 action against prison officials alleging he was unlawfully subjected to cell searches and disciplinary proceedings in retaliation for his jailhouse lawyering, in violation of the First Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the officials and the appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that the disciplinary action taken by prison officials was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests, precluding the retaliation claim. The disciplinary action was taken in response to findings that the inmate had engaged in overt misconduct, including unauthorized use of a credit card, theft by deception, receiving stolen property, writing letters to inmates at other prisons, and storing paperwork in his cell in amounts that exceeded safety regulations. The inmate had not been assigned to the law library to provide assistance to inmates, but was being paid by inmates for helping them. At one point the inmate produced documents that he alleged proved he had been appointed by the federal courts as a paralegal to assist other inmates. (State Correctional Institute at Mahoney, Pennsylvania)

U.S. Appeals Court LEGAL ASSISTANCE LAW BOOKS PHOTOCOPYING INDIGENT INMATES

Ferguson v. New Mexico Corrections Dept., 38 Fed.Appx. 561 (10th Cir. 2002). A state prison inmate challenged a new policy that allegedly restricted inmates' access to courts. The district court dismissed the action and the appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that the inmate's right of access to court was not violated and that the inmate did not have a Sixth Amendment right to self-representation. Prison authorities had cut off access to the complete United States Code, eliminated inmate legal assistants, and started to charge indigent inmates for copies of legal materials, notary services and legal telephones and mail. The prison provided only one hired legal aide for the entire prison instead of allowing inmate assistants. (New Mexico Department of Corrections)

U.S. Appeals Court LEGAL MATERIALS SEARCHES

Foster v. Lawson, 291 F.3d 1050 (8th Cir. 2002). A state prison inmate brought [section] 1983 action alleging that corrections officials violated his Fourth Amendment rights by searching his legal materials in his absence. The district court entered judgment for the officials and the appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that the officials' removal of a locker box containing both legal and non-legal materials, in order to separate the materials, outside of the presence of the inmate, did not violate a consent decree that allowed inmates to be present for searches of legal materials. (Iowa)

U.S. Appeals Court PLRA-Prison Litigation Reform Act ATTORNEY FEES INDIGENT INMATES

In re Alea, 286 F.3d 378 (6th Cir. 2002). A state inmate petitioned for a writ of prohibition to prevent the U.S. District Court from further collections of money from his prison account for payment of a filing fee in his dismissed civil rights action. The appeals court denied the petition, finding that the dismissal of the suit under the three-strikes provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) did not obviate the requirement that he pay the district court filing fee. The court noted that under PLRA, pauper status for inmates no longer exists and all prisoners must pay the required filing fees and costs and are not entitled to a waiver. (U.S. District Court, Kentucky)

U.S. Appeals Court PLRA-Prison Litigation Reform Act

Mitchell v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 294 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2002). A federal prisoner brought an action against cigarette manufacturers, alleging deceptive advertising, misrepresentation and strict liability under a state tort law. The district court dismissed the case as frivolous and the prisoner appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part and vacated in part. The appeals court held that allegations satisfied the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction, and that the section of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PRLA) that prohibited action for mental or emotional suffering while in custody did not apply to the prisoner's action against the manufacturers. (Wisconsin)

U.S. Appeals Court EXPERT WITNESS LEGAL ASSISTANCE

Montgomery v. Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492 (3rd Cir. 2002). A prison inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against prison officials, a physician and a corporate medical care provider, alleging that they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and the inmate appealed. The appeals court vacated and remanded, finding that the district court had abused its discretion in refusing to appoint counsel for the inmate. The court noted that numerous technical rulings against the inmate clearly indicated that the inmate was experiencing difficulty in proving the elements of his legal claim, and that his case was compromised because he lacked legal representation. According to the court, the inmate would have especially benefited from expert testimony because the inmate lacked the medical records that might otherwise have been used to demonstrate his alleged injury to a jury. The court held that the mere loss of the inmate's medical records by the officials, physician and medical provider did not rise to the requisite level of deliberate indifference. The inmate alleged that officials and providers refused to provide him with antiviral medications, x-rays, laboratory and blood work, and prescription medication refills--all of which they had determined were necessary for his treatment before his medical records were lost. (Riverfront State Prison, New Jersey)

U.S. Appeals Court RESTRAINTS STUN BELT

U.S. v. Durham, 287 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir. 2002). A defendant challenged the use of an electric "stun belt" on him during his trial; his motion was denied by the district court. The defendant was subsequently convicted and appealed. The appeals court vacated and remanded, finding that the district court had abused its discretion by failing to make findings sufficient to justify the use of the stun belt during the trial. According to the court, physical restraints upon a criminal defendant at trial should be used as rarely as possible because their use tends to erode the presumption of innocence that is an integral part of a fair trial. The court held that use of the belt may have had an adverse impact on the defendant's ability to follow the proceedings and to take an active interest in the presentation of his case. The appeals court held that the novelty of the technology employed in the stun belt will likely cause the need for factual findings about the operation of the device, addressing issues such as the criteria for triggering the belt and potential for accidental discharge, to assess the need for its use as compared to less restrictive methods of restraint. The appeals court noted that the district court did not, on the record, consider any less restrictive alternatives to prevent escape and to ensure courtroom safety. The defendant had attempted to escape from a jail and had managed to slip out of a set of leg irons using a key he had concealed on his person. The defendant's attorney argued that the defendant would be "more concerned about receiving such a jolt than he is about thinking about the testimony and giving me aid and assistance in the defense of this case." The court suggested that a stun belt poses "a far more substantial risk of interfering with a defendant's Sixth amendment right to confer with counsel than do leg shackles. The fear of receiving a painful and humiliating shock for any gesture that could be perceived as threatening likely chills a defendant's inclination to make any movements during the trial--including those movements necessary for effective communication with counsel." The appeals court also found that "stun belts have the potential to be highly detrimental to the dignified administration of criminal justice ... If activated, the device poses a serious threat to the dignity and decorum of the courtroom." (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida)

U.S. Appeals Court RETALIATION FOR LEGAL ACTION

Walker v. Thompson, 288 F.3d 1005 (7th Cir. 2002). A state prisoner brought a [section] 1983 action against a former state governor and other officials. The district court dismissed the action and the prisoner appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The appeals court held that the claim that the defendants conspired against him and other prisoners to keep them in prison beyond their mandatory release dates was properly asserted under the federal habeas corpus statute, but that the prisoner sufficiently stated a [section] 1983 claim with his allegations that the defendants retaliated against him for using the prison law library by refusing to let him exercise outside of his cell. (Wisconsin)