34. Programs-prisoner.

U.S. Appeals Court SEX OFFENDER RIGHT TO TREATMENT

Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532 (3rd Cir. 2002). A state prisoner filed a [section] 1983 action challenging his placement on a prison's restricted activities program (RAP). The district court dismissed the case and the prisoner appealed. The appeals court reversed and remanded, finding that the state's unique former statutory scheme for sex offenders, which predicated the term of sentence on a prisoner's response to treatment, created a liberty interest in treatment and a right to treatment for the purposes of both procedural and substantive due process analyses. (Adult Diagnostic Treatment Center, New Jersey)

U.S. Appeals Court INCENTIVES

Love v. McKune, 33 Fed.Appx. 369 (10th Cir. 2002). Four prison inmates brought a civil rights action challenging their forced participation in a prison incentive level system that tied inmate privileges to participation in programs and good behavior. The district court dismissed the action and the appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that forced participation did not violate the inmates' Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. The Internal Management Policy and Procedure (IMPP) system assigned inmates to one of four levels. Each level had a corresponding level of privileges, such as television ownership, handicrafts, participation in organizations, use of outside funds, canteen expenditures, incentive pay, and visitation. The system had been previously upheld by the state supreme court, which found that none of the restrictions denied to inmates on lower levels infringed on inmates' property or liberty interests and therefore did not implicate due process protection. The appeals court noted that denying an inmate the use of certain electronic equipment does not impose a significant hardship, nor do restrictions on canteen purchases or the types of purchases and personal property allowed. (Lansing Correctional Facility, Kansas)

U.S. Appeals Court DRUGS/ALCOHOL PLRA-Prison Litigation Reform Act

Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 2002). A state prisoner who had a history of substance abuse brought an action for prospective injunctive relief against state parole officials, alleging that the parole authority followed an unwritten policy of automatically denying parole to prisoners with substance abuse histories, in violation of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court dismissed the action; the appeals court reversed and remanded. On remand the district court dismissed the action and the prisoner appealed. The appeals court reversed and remanded, finding that a parole board may not categorically exclude a class of disabled people from consideration for parole because of their disabilities, under the provisions of ADA. The court found that while the term "qualified individual with a disability" under ADA does not include an individual who is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs, the ADA does protect individuals who have successfully completed, or are participating in, a supervised drug rehabilitation program and are no longer using illegal drugs. (California Youth and Corrections Agency, California Board of Prison Terms)