7. Civil rights.

U.S. District Court CLASSIFICATION CONDITIONS DUE PROCESS

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 in 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 to appear at his reclassification hearing and present evidence, including witnesses and documents; and (3) a requirement that the reclassification committee issue a written statement specifically describing evidence relied on and reasons for its recommendation.

"Having found that the defendants violated, and will continue to violate, the plaintiffs' constitutionally liberty interest," the court ordered the parties to file proposed injunctive orders to correct the violations. (Ohio State Penitentiary)

U.S. District Court ALIENS ACTA-Alien Tort Claims Act 

Bao Ge v. Li Peng, 201 F.Supp.2d 14 (D.D.C. 2000). Chinese citizens who were allegedly forced to perform slave labor in prison camps brought a proposed class action suit against Chinese government entities and individuals, the Bank of China, and a private corporation (Adidas) whose soccer balls were allegedly assembled by the workers. The district court dismissed the case, finding that it lacked jurisdiction. (U.S. District Court, District of Columbia)

U.S. Appeals Court VISITS FREE SPEECH

Bazzetta v. McGinnis, 286 F.3d 311 (6th Cir. 2002). [Reversed by U.S. Supreme Court on June 16, 2003, in a unanimous decision.] A class of state prisoners and their prospective visitors brought a [section] 1983 action against a state corrections department, alleging that restrictions on prison visitation violated their First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and the appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that prisoners have no freedom of association rights to contact visits, but that a close analysis of prison regulations is especially appropriate when the challenged restrictions interfere with family relationships, including the parent-child bond. The court held that a prison regulation that prohibited non-contact visits from inmates' minor siblings, nieces, and nephews, violated the First Amendment. The court also found a violation in the regulation that prohibited non-contact visits from an inmate's natural child if the parental rights of the inmate to the child had been terminated. Similar violations were found by the court for regulations that banned visits from a former prisoner, probationer or a parolee (other than a prisoner's immediate family), required children to be accompanied by an immediate family member or legal guardian, and a permanent ban on all visitation (other than attorney or clergy) for prisoners with two or more major misconduct charges for substance abuse. (Michigan Department of Corrections)

U.S. District Court CONDITIONS

Caldwell v. District of Columbia, 201 F.Supp.2d 27 (D.D.C. 2001). An inmate filed a [section] 1983 action against the District of Columbia and several employees of its corrections department, alleging unconstitutional conditions of confinement and denial of medical care. A jury entered a verdict in favor of the inmate, on all claims, and awarded $174,178. The appeals court granted judgment for the defendants as a matter of law, in part, denied judgment for the defendants in part, and did not reduce the damage award. The court found that statements by the inmate's attorney during his closing argument, suggesting specific dollar amounts to be considered by the jury, did not warrant a new trial. The appeals court held that findings that conditions were unconstitutional were supported by evidence, as were findings that officials were deliberately indifferent to the inmate's serious medical needs.

The appeals court held that the Prison Litigation Reform At (PLRA) does not require a prisoner to allege or prove serious, permanent physical injury in order to bring an action for violation of his constitutional rights.

The appeals court held that the prisoner sufficiently alleged a "physical injury" for the purposes of PLRA, with allegations that excessive heat in his cell made him dizzy, dehydrated, and disoriented, gave him a severe rash, and that smoke from rolled toilet paper "wicks" and frequent use of mace gave him bronchial irritation and a runny nose. The inmate also alleged that the small bunk aggravated his arthritis.

According to the court, the inmate did not have to allege that excessive noise in the cell block caused him hearing loss, where his contention was that the noise levels contributed a deprivation of sleep.

The appeals court held that the inmate's exposure to feces in his cell, foul water, filth, excessive heat, smoke, and mace, and the lack of outdoor exercise, resulted in a substantial risk of serious harm.

The appeals court upheld the inmate's deliberate indifference claim, noting that it was supported by evidence that treatment for the inmate's glaucoma and skin cancer was delayed for substantial periods. (Maximum Security Facility, Lorton Correctional Complex, District of Columbia)

U.S. Appeals Court EQUAL PROTECTION

Gerber v. Hickman, 291 F.3d 617 (9th Cir. 2002). A state prisoner brought a [section] 1983 action and state law claims against a warden, alleging violation of his constitutional right to procreate by the warden's refusal to allow the prisoner to artificially inseminate his wife. The district court dismissed the case; the appeals court reversed, vacated and remanded. On rehearing en banc, the appeals court affirmed the district court decision, finding that while the basic right to marry survives imprisonment, most of the attributes of marriage, including cohabitation, physical intimacy, sexual intercourse, and bearing and raising children, do not. The court noted that prisoners have no due process or Eighth Amendment right to contact visits or conjugal visits. The court found that a prisoner's right to marry while in prison does not include a right to consummate the marriage or to enjoy the "other tangible aspects of marital intimacy." According to the court, the prisoner's equal protection right to be free of forced surgical sterilization did not give the prisoner the right to exercise his ability to procreate while in prison. The court also found that the prisoner's equal protection rights were not violated because some prisoners were allowed to have conjugal visits, because these prisoners would eventually be released into the community, while the plaintiff would never be eligible for release. (Mule Creek State Prison, California)

U.S. Appeals Court PROGRAMS CLASSIFICATION

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. District Court RELIGION

Murphy v. Carroll, 202 F.Supp.2d 421 (D.Md. 2002). A Jewish inmate brought a pro se [section] 1983 action against prison officials, seeking injunctive relief and damages resulting from their refusal to accommodate his request for an alternative cell cleanup day other than Saturday. The district court held that the officials' designation of Saturday as cell cleanup day violated the inmate's First Amendment right to practice his religion, but that the policy did not violate a clearly established right at the time, entitling officials to qualified immunity. The court found no rational connection between the prison policy of Saturday-only-cell-cleaning and the prison's interest in efficiency, safety and security. According to the court, at the time of the violation there was "virtually no guidance in case law regarding observance of Jewish sabbath in [the] context of prison work." (Maryland Correctional Training Center)

U.S. Appeals Court CONDITIONS FAILURE TO PROTECT PRETRIAL DETAINEES

Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623 (9th Cir. 2002). A pretrial detainee brought a [section] 1983 action against a county sheriff and two jail employees, alleging confinement in unconstitutional conditions. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and the detainee appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The appeals court held that the detainee did not suffer more than a de minimis physical injury from his jail confinement and therefore could not make the required showing for the purpose of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). But the appeals court held that the detainee was entitled to seek nominal and punitive damages under the Fourteenth Amendment. The detainee had admitted during a deposition that the back and leg pain he allegedly suffered from sitting and sleeping on benches and the floor of a temporary cell was not serious. The detainee had been temporarily confined on three separate occasions. In one instance he was confined in a temporary holding cell equipped with benches, toilets and sinks. Inmates eat three meals per day in the cell, and are not provided with cots, blankets or pillows. At one time the detainee was housed for 51 hours with approximately 50 other men in a cell measuring 404 square feet. He was transferred to another cell where he spent another 74 hours confined with an average of 18 prisoners in a cell that measured 174 square feet. The detainee described conditions in the cells as "a human carpet." (Clark County Detention Center, Nevada)

U.S. Appeals Court ADA-Americans with Disabilities Act PAROLE

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)

U.S. Appeals Court HOMOSEXUALS

Veney v. Wyche, 293 F.3d 726 (4th Cir. 2002). An inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against prison officials, alleging they treated him differently from other inmates because of his gender and sexual preference, in violation of his right to equal protection. The district court dismissed the claim and the appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that the prison practice of segregating homosexual male inmates was based on legitimate penological interests, and that the gender-related disparate treatment in the housing of homosexuals was rationally calibrated to address legitimate concerns. According to the court, institutions for females are much less violent than those for males, and male inmates were more likely than females to have homophobic attitudes. The court noted that prison officials had an absence of ready alternatives available. (Riverside Regional Jail, Virginia)