Access to court.

1. Access to Court

U.S. Appeals Court    Alkire v. Irving, 305 F.3d 456 (6th Cir. 2002).
                      An arrestee brought a [section] 1983 action
  INITIAL             against a sheriff, county, and county judge,
  APPEARANCE          alleging violation of his Fourth, Thirteenth and
                      Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court
                      denied the arrestee's motion for class
                      certification and granted summary judgment for
                      the defendants on the remaining issues. The
                      appeals court affirmed in part, and reversed and
                      remanded in part. The appeals court held that the
                      Sheriff's policy of detaining persons in the
                      county jail until their initial appearance was
                      the type of "policy or custom" under which the
                      county could be held liable under [section] 1983.
                      As the result of the policy, persons arrested
                      without warrants from late Friday afternoon
                      through Sunday morning would not likely appear in
                      court before Tuesday morning, in violation of a
                      requirement that a probable cause hearing be
                      held within 48 hours of a warrantless arrest. The
                      appeals court held that the county, sheriff and
                      county clerk's office had quasi-judicial immunity
                      and qualified immunity from [section] 1983
                      liability for failing to allow credit toward
                      fines and costs for time served. (Holmes County
                      Jail, Ohio)

U.S. Appeals Court    Bear v. Kautzky, 305 F.3d 802 (8th Cir. 2002).
                      State prisoners brought a [section] 1983 action
  JAILHOUSE LAWYERS   against prison officials, challenging a prison
                      policy that prohibits prisoners from
  LEGAL ASSISTANCE    communicating with other prisoners who serve as
                      jailhouse lawyers. The district court entered a
  LAW LIBRARY         preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the
                      policy. The appeals court affirmed, finding that
                      the prisoners demonstrated that they had suffered
                      actual injury for the purpose of a right-of-
                      access to court claim. The prisoners had
                      testified that they had pending post-conviction
                      proceedings and they did not have the knowledge
                      or skill to pursue those claims without legal
                      assistance, and that they were receiving or had
                      sought such assistance from jailhouse lawyers.
                      According to the court, a prison system may
                      experiment with prison libraries, jailhouse
                      lawyers, private lawyers on contract with the
                      prison, or some combination of these and other
                      devices, as long as there is no actual harm to
                      the constitutional access rights of particular
                      inmates to the courts. (Iowa State Penitentiary)

U.S. District Court   Cox v. Malone, 199 F.Supp.2d 135 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).
                      A state prisoner filed a [section] 1983 action
  PLRA--Prison        against prison officials, alleging excessive use
  Litigation          of force during a pat down frisk search, and due
  Reform Act          process violations in connection with a
                      disciplinary hearing. The district court granted
                      summary judgment in favor of the officials,
                      finding that the physical injury requirement of
                      the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) applied
                      after the prisoner was paroled, and that the
                      scratch on the prisoner's hand allegedly
                      resulting from a pat frisk was not sufficiently
                      serious to warrant Eighth Amendment protection.
                      (Mid-Orange Correctional Facility, New York)

U.S. District Court   Marria v. Broaddus, 200 F.Supp.2d 280 (S.D.N.Y.
                      2002). A state prisoner brought a [section] 1983
  EXPERT WITNESS      action against prison officials alleging
                      violation of the First Amendment, the Religious
                      Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
                      (RLUIPA), and the Due Process Clause. The
                      prisoner challenged the confiscation of certain
                      religious materials. The district court denied
                      summary judgment on the First Amendment and
                      RLUIPA claims, but granted qualified immunity to
                      the defendants on the due process claims. The
                      court held that an expert report submitted by the
                      prisoners was admissible, while the expert report
                      submitted by prison officials was not admissible.
                      The officials' report had been prepared by an
                      expert with 40 years experience in criminal
                      justice, but the court found it to be
                      "misleading" and "based on unreliable
                      methodology." The court discounted the expert's
                      conclusions which were, according to the court,
                      based on statistics from a questionnaire he sent
                      to prison officials, in which he asked for help
                      in defending the lawsuit. The court agreed with
                      the plaintiffs' characterization of the expert's
                      report as being "subjective and biased, and the
                      results therefore do not bear the indicia of
                      trustworthiness required to admit a survey into
                      evidence." The court concluded that "because the
                      Camp Report is misleading, unhelpful to the trier
                      of fact, and founded on biased and therefore
                      unreliable evidence, Camp's testimony is
                      inadmissible." (Green Haven Correctional
                      Facility, New York)

U.S. District Court   Moore v. Gardner, 199 F.Supp.2d 17 (W.D.N.Y.
                      2002). An inmate brought a pro se action against
  PRIVILEGED          prison officials under [section] 1983 and
  CORRESPONDENCE      [section] 1985, alleging mail tampering and
                      unconstitutional conditions of confinement. The
                      district granted summary judgment, in part, to
                      the defendants, finding that the alleged mail
                      tampering did not result in an actual injury to
                      the inmate. The court denied summary judgment for
                      the defendants on the issue of whether
                      corrections officials improperly tampered with
                      the inmate's legal mail when they opened the
                      inmate's letter to an FBI agent and returned it
                      to the inmate, and whether the officials opened
                      the inmate's letter to his attorney and removed
                      several hundred pages of documents. (Southport
                      Correctional Facility, New York)

U.S. Appeals Court    Troville v. Venz, 303 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2002).
                      A civilly committed detainee filed a [section]
  PLRA--Prison        1983 action challenging his conditions of
  Litigation          confinement. The district court dismissed the
  Reform Act          case for failure to state a claim and the
                      detainee appealed. The appeals court reversed and
                      remanded, finding that the civil detainee is not
                      a "prisoner" for purposes of the Prison
                      Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and therefore the
                      PLRA provision requiring full payment of the
                      filing fee on appeal did not apply. The appeals
                      court held that the district court should have
                      permitted the detainee to amend his complaint.
                      According to the court, the definition of
                      "prisoner" in the in forma pauperis statute
                      applies only to persons incarcerated as
                      punishment for a criminal conviction, and a civil
                      detainee is not a "prisoner." (South Bay Detainee
                      Unit, South Bay Correctional Facility, Florida)

U.S. Appeals Court    U.S. v. Torres-Palma, 290 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir.
                      2002). An offender convicted in federal court
  VIDEO               appealed his conviction. The appeals court
  COMMUNICATION       remanded the case for resentencing. The appeals
                      court held that the use of video conferencing for
                      sentencing violated a rule that required that the
                      defendant be present at his sentencing. The judge
                      who had tried the case outside his district as a
                      volunteer, returned to his home district prior to
                      sentencing and used video conferencing for the
                      sentencing proceeding. The court noted that
                      certain exceptions to the provisions of
                      Fed.R.Crim.P. 43 are provided in 43(b), but that
                      none of them explicitly permits the use of video
                      conferencing. The court concluded that "although
                      convinced of the need for and the benefits of
                      technology to facilitate expeditious disposition
                      of the ever-growing caseloads in federal courts,"
                      it had to find the use of video conferencing to
                      be a violation of current regulations. The
                      appeals court cited another appeals case (United
                      States v. Lawrence, 248 F.3d 300), that found
                      that Rule 43 "reflects a firm judgment, however,
                      that virtual reality is rarely a substitute for
                      actual presence and that, even in an age of
                      advancing technology, watching an event on the
                      screen remains less than the complete equivalent
                      of actually attending it." (United States
                      District Court, District of New Mexico)

U.S. District Court   Williams v. Manternach, 192 F.Supp.2d 980
                      (N.D.Iowa 2002). An inmate brought a [section]
  JAILHOUSE LAWYERS   1983 action against corrections officials
  RETALIATION         alleging due process and equal protection
                      violations arising out of prison disciplinary
                      reports. The district court held that the inmate
                      sufficiently presented a retaliation and
                      conspiracy claim that officials retaliated
                      against him with disciplinary actions him for
                      "jailhouse lawyering." The disciplinary actions
                      resulted in disciplinary detention, loss of
                      privileges and his "level V status," and loss of
                      his prison job. The court also found that the
                      inmate asserted equal protection claims with his
                      allegations that inmates serving life sentences
                      received disparate treatment as to prison jobs
                      and level advancements, and quotas imposed on
                      "lifers." (Anamosa State Penitentiary, Iowa)