Programs-prisoner.

34. Programs-Prisoner

U.S. Appeals Court    Lile v. McKune, 299 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir. 2002).
                      A state inmate brought a [section] 1983 claim
  SEX OFFENDER        against prison officials, alleging that a sexual
                      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
  EDUCATIONAL         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
  ADMINISTRATIVE      confined in an administrative segregation unit.
  SEGREGATION         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. Appeals Court    Reed v. McKune, 298 F.3d 946 (10th Cir. 2002).
                      A state prison inmate brought a [section] 1983
  SEX OFFENDER        action against corrections officials, challenging
                      their policy regarding participation in a sexual
  EQUAL PROTECTION    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
  SEX OFFENDER        against prison officials, challenging reduction
                      of his privileges following his refusal to
                      participate 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 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)