Civil rights.

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

PAROLE

Armstrong v. Davis 275 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2001). Disabled prisoners and parolees brought a class action against a governor, corrections secretary, and board of prison terms, alleging that policies and practices for parole and parole revocation proceedings violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. The district court found that the defendants engaged in discrimination and entered a system-wide injunction requiring modification of policies and practices. The defendants appealed and the appeals court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded in part. The appeals court held that the department's use of notification forms that were inadequate for prisoners and parolees who were visually impaired, deaf, illiterate, learning disabled, or retarded, and the reliance on untrained employees to determine which prisoners and parolees were disabled and what accommodations were reasonable, violated the plaintiffs' constitutional rights. The appeals court held that a system-wide inju nction against the board of prison terms was warranted because the board failed to provide effective communications during notification, hearings and appeals, failed to select facilities accessible to mobility-impaired persons, and failed to provide reasonable accommodations. The court noted that the board failed to offer any justification for its failures at trial. (California Youth and Adult Corrections Authority, California Department of Corrections, California Board of Prison Terms)

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

HANDICAP

Chisolm v. McManimon. 275 F.3d 315 (3rd Cir. 2001)-A hearing-impaired detainee brought a suit against the warden of a pretrial detainment facility and county court system, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Rehabilitation Act, ?? 1983 and a state discrimination law, for failing to provide an interpreter and other services. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants and the detainee appealed. The appeals court reversed and remanded, finding that the county court system was not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity during an ongoing merger with the state court system. The appeals court held that summary judgment was precluded by genuine issues of material fact as to: (1) the effectiveness of alternate aids or services provided to the detainee when the jail failed to provide a sign language interpreter during the intake process, activate closed captioning capabilities on a prison television, (2) provide a text device for transcribing telephone calls; and whethe r pencil and paper were effective auxiliary aids in place of a sign language interpreter; and (3) whether exceptions to institutional rules on telephone calls were an effective alternative to providing special telephones. The court held that extradition was a "program" within the meaning of ADA and the Rehabilitation Act such that the court was required to ensure the ability of the detainee to participate in the hearing. When the detainee arrived at the detention facility on a Saturday, he was locked down in his cell to keep him apart from the general population until Monday when facility classification staff arrived. This practice was applied to all detainees admitted when classification staff members were not working at the facility. Such unclassified detainees consumed meals in their cells and did not have television or telephone privileges. When the detainee was not provided with an interpreter at intake he became upset and was eventually interviewed by a nurse, who concluded that he was a suicide risk. H e was kept in solitary lockup from Saturday until Tuesday. On Monday he was taken to meet with a classification staff member, where he was interviewed and was given a medium security classification. But the staff member had described the detainee as a "vagrant" in spite of the fact that he bad worked for the U. S. Postal Service for 13 years and had lived at the same address for three years. This error added two points to his classification score, moving him from "minimum" security to "medium." (Mercer County Detention Center, New Jersey)

U.S. Appeals Court

DISCRIMINATION

Driver v. Groose 273 F.3d 811. (8th Cir. 2001). A state prison inmate sued to recover for the alleged violation of her constitutional rights in connection with prison officials' censorship of a musiccassette tape that she bad ordered through the mail. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants and the appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that the inmate, who was a member of a racial minority, could not recover on an equal protection theory, given the complete lack of evidence that she had been treated differently from similarly situated white inmates who had attempted to receive through the mail and uncensored, the same explicitlyric tape that she had ordered. (Missouri)

U.S. District Court ADA- Americans with Disabilities Act

HANDICAP

Kruger v. Jenne 164 F.Supp.2d 1330 (S.D.Fla. 2000). A blind county jail inmate brought a [section] 1983 and Americans with Disability Act (ADA) suit against a sheriff and a private medical care company that contracted to provide medical care to inmates, alleging deprivation of necessary accommodations and failure to treat his medical needs. The district court held that the inmate stated a [section] 1983 Eighth Amendment claim against the company and an ADA claim against the sheriff in his official capacity, and allowed the inmate to maintain simultaneous ADA and [section] 1983 claims against the sheriff. The private medical company allegedly failed to accommodate the inmate's blindness with a cane or otherwise, despite advance notice of the need for one, and allegedly deliberately delayed or withheld needed treatment for injuries sustained in several falls, based on cost-savings policies, leading to unnecessary suffering. The sheriff allegedly failed to have the inmate's cell fitted with hand rails or provide him with a cane, leading directly to the inmate's injuries when he suffered several falls. The inmate alleged that the sheriff carried out a policy of denying or delaying needed medical care for cost-savings reasons. (North Broward Detention Center, Florida, and EMSA Correctional Care)

U.S. District Court ADA- Americans with Disabilities Act

FAILURE TO TRAIN FALSE ARREST HANDICAP

McCray v. City of Dothan 169 F.Supp.2d 1260 (M.D.Ala. 2001). A deaf African-American plaintiff brought a civil rights action against police officers and a city. The district court declined to enter summary judgment in favor of the defendants on assault and false imprisonment claims. The court held that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the city was guilty of failure to take disciplinary action against police officers for constitutional violations, such that its inaction amounted to the type of informal policy or custom that was actionable under [section] 1983. According to the court, the frequency of constitutional violations may, in itself, provide sufficient circumstantial evidence that a municipality has chosen to allow its officers to act without adequate training. The court held that officers did not act with deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's medical needs even though they delayed treatment. The court held that summary judgment for the defendants was precluded by a genuine i ssue of material fact as to whether the officers acted in bad faith, with malice or willfulness, in unlawfully stepping and arresting the plaintiff and by misstating that he resisted arrest and assaulted them. (City of Dothan, Alabama)

U.S. District Court ADA- Americans with Disabilities Act

Navedo v. Maloney, 172 F. Supp.2d 276 (D.Mass. 2001). A state inmate brought [section] 1983 and Americans with Disabilities (ADA) actions against a state, a private medical care provider, and medical employees, alleging that their refusal to allow him access to a wheelchair and to disabled-accessible facilities violated his civil rights and caused severe and irreparable damage to his leg. The district court denied summary judgment for the defendants, in part, finding that fact issues remained as to the extent of the inmate's injuries, and denied qualified immunity to the state corrections commissioner. The commissioner had rejected the medical staff's recommendation that the inmate be transferred to another facility with appropriate accommodations and allegedly failed to maintain prisons in compliance with federal standards of accessibility. (Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Norfolk and Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Shirley)