Administration.

2. Administration

U.S. District Court   Bozeman v. Orum, 199 F.Supp.2d 1216 (M.D.Ala.
                      2002). The representative of the estate of a
  POLICIES/           pretrial detainee brought a [section] 1983 action
  PROCEDURES          against a sheriff and officials at a county
                      detention facility, alleging that the detainee's
                      death was the result constitutional violations.
                      The district court held that detention officers'
                      use of force to restrain the detainee did not
                      violate his Fourteenth Amendment right against
                      the use of excessive force, even though the
                      officers threatened to "kick" the detainee's
                      "ass." The officers apparently punched or slapped
                      the detainee, and the detainee died as the result
                      of the officers' actions, but the court found
                      that some level of force was necessary to restore
                      order where the detainee was apparently
                      undergoing a mental breakdown in his cell. The
                      court held that nurses at the detention facility
                      were not deliberately indifferent to the serious
                      medical needs of the detainee when they failed to
                      obtain treatment and medication upon learning
                      that the detainee had been evaluated for mental
                      health problems and prescribed medication in the
                      past. The court noted that the nurses had no
                      knowledge during intake beyond a "slight flag" of
                      past evaluations for mental illness and that the
                      detainee had medication to help him "rest." The
                      court also found that the failure of the
                      detention facility to implement a policy
                      requiring staff to follow up on inmates who had
                      acknowledged past mental health problems or
                      evaluations for mental health problems, did not
                      violate the detainee's Fourteenth Amendment right
                      to adequate medical care. (Montgomery County
                      Detention Facility, Alabama)

U.S. District Court   Citizens Advy. Comm. on Priv. Pris. v. U.S.
                      D.O.J., 197 F.Supp.2d 226 (W.D.Pa. 2001). A
  CONTRACT SERVICES   citizens' committee sued the U.S. Department of
                      Justice and the Federal Bureau of Prisons,
                      alleging that the defendants failed to comply
                      with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
                      when they awarded a contract to build and operate
                      a new prison to a private company. The district
                      court held that the committee had standing to
                      bring the action and that the Bureau was required
                      to prepare a final environmental assessment.
                      According to the court, the Bureau "basically
                      admitting that it had violated NEPA" ordered a
                      halt to work on the facility and re-examined the
                      environmental impact. The court held that the
                      Bureau violated the provisions of NEPA when it
                      initially awarded the contract. But the court
                      found that the Bureau had cured its initial NEPA
                      violations and was not required to file an
                      Environmental Impact Statement, and allowed the
                      project to proceed. (Cornell Corrections, Inc.,
                      Federal Bureau of Prisons, Clearfield County,
                      Pennsylvania)

U.S. Appeals Court    Floyd v. Ortiz, 300 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir. 2002).
                      An inmate filed a petition to enforce the terms
  COMMISSARY          of a prior settlement agreement and to obtain
                      contempt citations against a state director of
  INMATE FUNDS        corrections. The district court denied the
                      petition and the inmate appealed. The appeals
                      court reversed, finding that the district court
                      abused its discretion by denying the inmate's
                      request for a rehearing. The appeals court noted
                      that the inmate, who benefited from the
                      settlement agreement, could invoke the district
                      court's continuing jurisdiction over the matter
                      even though he was not a party to the original
                      settlement agreement. The settlement addressed
                      procedures for handling income from the inmate
                      canteen program and interest on individual inmate
                      accounts. The inmates alleged that income from
                      the operation of the inmate canteen program was
                      being deposited in the state treasury and not
                      properly accounted for. (Colorado Department of
                      Corrections)

U.S. Appeals Court    Hunt v. State of Missouri, Dept. of Corrections,
                      297 F.3d 735 (8th Cir. 2002). Female nurses who
  CONTRACT SERVICES   had been assigned by a temporary staffing agency
                      to provide nursing services to state prisons,
                      brought claims against the corrections department
                      under Title VII. The district court entered
                      judgment in favor of the nurses on the
                      retaliation claims and awarded them attorney
                      fees. The nurses appealed and the appeals court
                      affirmed the district court decision. The appeals
                      court held that the nurses were employees of the
                      department, not independent contractors, and thus
                      had standing to sue under Title VII, noting that
                      the existence of a contract referring to a party
                      as an independent contractor does not end the
                      inquiry into whether the individual employee is
                      protected by Title VII. According to the court, a
                      person may have two or more employers for the
                      same work, for the purposes of conferring
                      standing to sue under Title VII. The court noted
                      that the nurses did not work independently and
                      were constantly under the supervision and
                      scrutiny of corrections officials and employees,
                      and although they were paid directly by the
                      temporary staffing agencies, the nurses did no
                      other work for the agency other than the prison
                      work. The appeals court found that the nurses
                      were constructively discharged, where their
                      complaints about their treatment on the job were
                      answered with threats to their well-being,
                      threats of termination, efforts to obstruct their
                      work, additional unnecessary and unreasonable job
                      requirements, and general harassment. The court
                      held that the award of $136,967 in attorney fees
                      was warranted, even though the nurses did not
                      prevail on their sexual harassment claims.
                      (Jefferson City Correctional Center, Missouri)

U.S. Appeals Court    Morris v. Crawford County, 299 F.3d 919 (8th Cir.
                      2002). A county detention center detainee brought
  EMPLOYEE            [section] 1983 and state law battery claims
  QUALIFICATIONS      against a sheriff, county, and deputies. The
                      district court granted summary judgment for the
                      defendants, in part, and the remaining claims
                      were voluntarily dismissed. The appeals court
                      affirmed, finding that there was not a strong
                      causal connection between a deputy sheriff's
                      background and the specific constitutional
                      violation alleged by the detainee. The detainee
                      had been arrested and charged with driving while
                      intoxicated and disorderly conduct. After
                      arriving at a county detention center, he refused
                      to take a breathalyzer test and began to yell and
                      bang on his cell door. Four deputies responded,
                      and according to the detainee, they repeatedly
                      assaulted him as they dragged him to another
                      cell. One deputy allegedly used excessive force
                      on the detainee by utilizing a "knee drop" on
                      him, which severed the detainee's intestine. The
                      court noted that the only violent act in the
                      deputy's record was an incident in which he
                      slapped an inmate, although ex parte protective
                      orders were obtained against the deputy by both
                      his ex-wife and girlfriend. The appeals court
                      held that the sheriff and the county were not
                      liable under [section] 1983 on the theory of
                      deliberate indifference in hiring the deputy.
                      (Crawford County Detention Center, Arkansas)

U.S. Appeals Court    Thompson v. Gibson, 289 F.3d 1218 (10th Cir.
                      2002). A state inmate brought a [section] 1983
  COMMISSARY          action against prison officials, seeking monetary
                      damages and injunctive relief for alleged Eighth
                      and Fourteenth Amendment violations. The district
                      court dismissed the action as frivolous. The
                      appeals court dismissed the appeal, finding that
                      the inmate's claim that prison officials were
                      deliberately indifferent to his serious medical
                      need for adequate portions of food was not
                      actionable under the Eighth Amendment. The court
                      noted that the record established that the prison
                      was providing the inmate with a nutritionally
                      adequate diet and doctors disagreed as to whether
                      the inmate should receive double food portions.
                      The appeals court found no equal protection
                      violation, as alleged by the inmate, because
                      inmates with funds were able to supplement their
                      diet with purchases from the prison commissary,
                      while indigent inmates were not. (Oklahoma State
                      Penitentiary)