Civil rights.

7. Civil Rights

U.S. Appeals Court    Blades v. Schuetzle, 302 F.3d 801 (8th Cir.
                      2002). A state prisoner brought a [section] 1983
  HARASSMENT          action against prison officials, alleging that
                      they failed to protect him from a fellow inmate,
  RACIAL              and that a correctional officer discriminated
  DISCRIMINATION      against him because of his race. The district
                      court granted summary judgment in favor of the
                      officials and the appeals court affirmed. The
                      appeals court held that the officials' decision
                      to release the inmate into the general prison
                      population did not rise to the level of
                      deliberate indifference, nor did their failure to
                      notify the prisoner that another inmate had
                      threatened him. The court noted that the
                      prisoner's own statements to officials, that the
                      inmate posed no risk of harm to him, barred his
                      failure-to-protect claim. The appeals court found
                      that the alleged offensive statements made by a
                      correctional officer, ridiculing the color
                      of the prisoner's palms and telling the prisoner
                      to smile so that he could be seen in the dark,
                      did not rise to an actionable level under the
                      Fourteenth Amendment, although the statements
                      were "thoroughly offensive and utterly
                      reprehensible." (North Dakota Department of
                      Corrections and Rehabilitation)

U.S. Appeals Court    Lile v. McKune, 299 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir. 2002).
                      A state inmate brought a [section] 1983 claim
  SELF                against prison officials, alleging that a sexual
  INCRIMINATION       abuse treatment program and corresponding
                      regulations and policies violated his Fifth
                      Amendment right against self-incrimination. The
                      district court granted summary judgment for the
                      inmate and the appeals court affirmed. The United
                      States Supreme Court (122 S.Ct. 2017) reversed
                      and remanded, finding that alterations in the
                      inmate's prison conditions resulting from his
                      refusal to participate in a Sexual Abuse
                      Treatment Program (SATP) were not so great as to
                      constitute compulsion for the purposes of the
                      Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The appeals court
                      vacated its prior opinion and remanded the case
                      to the district court with instructions to
                      dismiss the complaint in its entirety. (Kansas
                      Department of Corrections)

U.S. District Court   Little v. Terhune, 200 F.Supp.2d 445 (D.N.J.
                      2002). A prisoner housed in a maximum security
  PROGRAMS            prison brought a civil rights suit against state
                      prison officials for allegedly violating his
  EQUAL PROTECTION    equal protection rights by failing to provide him
                      with educational programming while he was
                      confined in an administrative segregation unit.
                      The district court held that the denial of
                      educational programming to prisoners in
                      administrative segregation did not violate equal
                      protection on the basis that the programs were
                      available to the general prison population, to
                      younger inmates in administrative segregation, or
                      to all inmates in segregation units at other
                      institutions. The court noted that although
                      inmates do not have a constitutional right to
                      educational and work programs, once the state
                      grants such rights to prisoners it may not
                      invidiously discriminate against a class of
                      inmates in connection with those programs unless
                      the difference in treatment is rationally related
                      to the legitimate governmental interest to
                      justify the disparate treatment. The court found
                      a legitimate connection, where prison officials'
                      allocation priorities for the scarce resource of
                      educational services responded to security
                      concerns and budget restraints. The court also
                      found that there was a legitimate government
                      interest in promoting innovative prison programs
                      that might be stymied by a requirement that there
                      be system-wide uniformity. (New Jersey State
                      Prison)

U.S. District Court   Murphy v. Carroll, 202 F.Supp.2d 421 (D.Md.
                      2002). A Jewish inmate brought a pro se [section]
  RELIGION            1983 action against prison officials asking for
                      injunctive relief and damages. The prisoner
                      alleged that the officials violated his First
                      Amendment right to the free exercise of religion
                      by refusing to accommodate his request for an
                      alternative cell cleanup day, other than
                      Saturday. The district court granted summary
                      judgment in favor of the officials, finding that
                      while the policy violated the inmate's First
                      Amendment right, this right was not clearly
                      established at the time of the violation and the
                      officials were entitled to qualified immunity.
                      The court found no rational relationship between
                      the Saturday-only cell cleaning policy that
                      outweighed the inmate's right to honor the Jewish
                      Sabbath by not working. The court was critical of
                      the officials', finding them entitled to
                      qualified immunity "despite the patent
                      unreasonableness of the defendants' refusal to
                      provide him with cleaning equipment on a day
                      other than his Sabbath."  (Maryland Correctional
                      Training Center)

U.S. Appeals Court    Reed v. McKune, 298 F.3d 946 (10th Cir. 2002). A
                      state prison inmate brought a [section] 1983
  SELF                action against corrections officials, challenging
  INCRIMINATION       their policy regarding participation in a sexual
                      abuse treatment program. The district court
                      granted summary judgment in favor of the
                      defendants and the appeals court affirmed. The
                      appeals court held that requiring the inmate to
                      suffer revocation of privileges and denial of
                      parole if he declined to participate in the
                      program, did not violate the Due Process or Ex
                      Post Facto clauses, nor did it violate the
                      inmate's rights against self-incrimination.
                      (Lansing Correctional Facility, Kansas)

U.S. Appeals Court    Searcy v. Simmons, 299 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir.
                      2002). An inmate brought a [section] 1983 action
  SELF                against prison officials, challenging reduction
  INCRIMINATION       of his privileges following his refusal to
                      participate in a sexual abuse treatment program.
  PROGRAMS            The district court granted summary judgment in
                      favor of the defendants and the appeals court
                      affirmed. The appeals court held that the adverse
                      consequences faced by the inmate for refusing to
                      make admissions required for participation in the
                      treatment program were not so severe as to amount
                      to compelled self-incrimination. The court noted
                      that the prisoner's loss of privileges and the
                      opportunity to earn future good time credits was
                      not punishment for his refusal to make the
                      admissions, but rather were consequences of his
                      inability to complete the program. The appeals
                      court also held that the state's act of sending
                      the inmate's property to his relatives without
                      his consent did not violate the inmate's due
                      process rights, although the inmate claimed that
                      his relatives were not likely to return his
                      property. The inmate had refused to indicate
                      where his property should go before the state
                      decided to send it to his relatives. The court
                      noted that there is a difference between the
                      right to own property, and the right to possess
                      property while in prison. (Hutchinson
                      Correctional Facility, Kansas)

U.S. Appeals Court    Whitmire v. Arizona, 298 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir.
                      2002). The homosexual partner of a state prisoner
  HOMOSEXUALS         brought an action against a state corrections
                      department, alleging that the department's
  VISITS              regulation prohibiting same-sex kissing and
                      hugging among non-family members during prison
                      visits violated the equal protection clause. The
                      district court dismissed the action, but the
                      appeals court reversed and remanded. The appeals
                      court held that dismissal on the pleadings was
                      not warranted absent corroborating evidence of a
                      rational connection between the regulation and an
                      asserted correctional safety interest. The
                      appeals court held that the partner had standing
                      to challenge the regulation. The court found no
                      common-sense connection between the regulation
                      and the asserted safety interest for prisoners
                      who were open about their homosexuality.
                      (Arizona Department of Corrections)

U.S. District Court   Williams v. Manternach, 192 F.Supp.2d 980
                      (N.D.Iowa 2002). An inmate brought a [section]
  EQUAL PROTECTION    1983 action against corrections officials
                      alleging due process and equal protection
  DISCRIMINATION      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)