Classification and separation.

U.S. District Court

CELL ASSIGNMENT

Dobbin v. Artuz, 143 F.Supp.2d 292 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). A state inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against prison officials and medical staff, arising from a fall down stairs at the prison. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding they were not deliberately indifferent to the medical needs of the inmate. The inmate bad requested to be moved to a cell on the ground floor on several occasions but he had failed to demonstrate any medical need for such a move. The court noted that the inmate regularly received sick calls and medication upon request, including consultations with outside specialists in connection with his back condition. (Green Haven Correctional Facility, New York)

U.S. District Court

SEX OFFENDER 

DUE PROCESS

Jones v. Puckett, 160 F.Supp.2d 1016 (W.D.Wis. 2001). A prisoner brought a [section] 1983 action against two corrections officials for violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights in labeling him as a sex offender without due process. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court held that the prisoner did not have a liberty interest in not being identified as a sex offender in prison records, noting that evaluation of the needs of prisoners was a normal prison procedure and such evaluations were not made a matter of public knowledge in such a way that would constitute a stigma. The court also found that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time of the prisoner's evaluation, no law held that an inmate had a Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest in not being so classified. (Oshkosh Correctional Institution, Wisconsin)

U.S. District Court

CUSTODY LEVEL

DUE PROCESS

Lile v. Simmons, 143 F.Supp.2d 1267 (D.Kan. 2001). An inmate brought a [section] 1983 action, individually and on behalf of others who are similarly situated, against state corrections officials. The inmate alleged he was denied due process with respect to determining his custody classification. The court denied the inmate's motion to certify a class action and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court found that the inmate had no protected liberty interest in a correct risk level classification, and that even if he had such an interest, his due process rights were not violated by his current "medium" classification. The court noted that a liberty interest in a particular custody classification may arise only if state law or prison regulations create such a right. (Lansing Correctional Facility, Kansas)

U.S. Appeals Court

GANGS

Mayoral v. Sheahan, 245 F.3d 934 (7th Cir. 2001). A pretrial detainee who was severely injured in a gang-instigated jailhouse riot brought a civil rights suit against a county sheriff and jail officers, alleging they were deliberately indifferent to his safety. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants and the detainee appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. The appeals court held that the failure of the jail to segregate inmates by gang affiliation was not a constitutional violation, given the high number of gang members housed in the jail and the burden that would be placed on administrators by such a policy. The court found that summary judgment was precluded by fact issues as to whether the detainee had asked an officer for protective custody and was ignored, and whether an officer delayed in summoning help when fighting broke out. (Cook County Jail, Illinois)

U.S. District Court

SMOKING

Reilly v. Grayson, 157 F.Supp.2d 762 (E.D.Mich. 2001). A prisoner brought a [section] 1983 action against a warden, deputy warden, and Michigan Department of Corrections physicians, alleging violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. After a bench trial, the district court ruled that the warden and deputy wardens were deliberately indifferent to the prisoner's serious medical need to be placed in a smoke-free environment, supporting the prisoner's cruel and unusual punishment claims. The court found that the wardens were reckless in their disregard of the prisoner's rights, and awarded the prisoner $18,250 in punitive damages and $36,500 in compensatory damages for the five years of inaction by the wardens. The prisoner had two Individual Management Plans (IMP) which required that he be placed in a smoke-free environment, but the non-smoking regulations in the prisoner's cell block were consistently violated and the wardens were aware of the violations. After receiving notice that the IMPs were not being follo wed, the wardens continued to do nothing to remedy the situation. The court concluded that the three wardens "...each clearly ignored his supervisory obligations and, as a consequence, should suffer the opprobrium of punitive damages, not so much to deter each of them in the future, but to deter other officials in like positions of ignoring their responsibility." (Trustee Division, State Prison of Southern Michigan)