Rules and regulations- prisoner.

U.S. District Court

MEDIA ACCESS

Broulette v. Starns, 161 F.Supp.2d 1021 (D.Ariz. 2001). A state inmate brought a [section] 1983 action alleging that prison officials wrongfully withheld copies of an adult magazine to which he subscribed. The district court held that the magazines were not obscene, the prison officials were not entitled to qualified immunity from liability, and that punitive damages were not warranted. The court found the magazines, Hustler, were not obscene, even though the court noted that taken as a whole, the magazines clearly appealed to prurient interest and depicted or described sexual activity in a patently offensive way. But the magazines could not be withheld from the inmate as obscene because they appeared to "deliberately include content" that required anyone applying constitutional standard to conclude that it had some serious, literary, artistic, political or scientific value. The court denied qualified immunity to the prison officials because it concluded that no state prison official who objectively applied t he obscenity standard could have believed that the adult magazines did not comply with the standard. But the court held that an official's refusal to deliver copies of the magazines to the inmate was not in reckless or callous disregard of the inmate's First Amendment rights, but rather that the official suffered from a lack of training and understanding of the fact that pornography and obscenity were not the same thing. The court declined to subject the official to punitive damages. (Arizona Department of Corrections)

U.S. District Court

MEDIA ACCESS

Entertainment Network. Inc. v. Lappin 134 F.Supp.2d 1002 (S.D.Ind. 2001). An Internet content provider sued a penitentiary warden and other government officials seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The plaintiff wanted to broadcast the execution of the defendant who had been convicted of the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, live over the Internet. The district court entered judgment for the defendants. The court found that the challenged prison regulation was not subject to strict scrutiny and was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. The challenged regulation prohibited photographic, audio and visual recording devices at federal executions. The court noted that the First Amendment right of the press to gather news and information is not without limits, and that the press has no constitutional right of access to prisons or their inmates beyond that afforded to the general public. According to the court, the plaintiff was not being discriminated against because of the m edium or means by which it sought to broadcast the execution, although the regulation allowed written or verbal accounts of executions. (United States Penitentiary, Terre Haute, Indiana)

U.S. Appeals Court

ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION

Gerber v. Hickman. 264 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2001). A state prisoner brought a [ss] 1983 action and state law claims against a warden, alleging violation of his constitutional right to procreate by refusing to allow him to artificially inseminate his wife. The district court dismissed the complaint and the inmate appealed. The appeals court reversed, vacated and remanded. The appeals court held that as a matter of first impression, a prisoner's right to procreate survives incarceration but is subject to restriction based on legitimate penological interests. The court found that the policy of treating men and women inmates equally to the extent possible would not be implicated by allowing a male prisoner to provide semen to his spouse for artificial insemination, and that arguments that women prisoners would assert their Equal Protection rights did not justify denying the male prisoner his right to procreate. According to the court, it was impermissible to restrict the constitutional rights of one group because o f fear that another group would then assert its constitutionally protected rights. According to the court, "it is generally reprehensible to suggest that restricting protected fundamental constitutional rights is justified by fear of increasing another party's liability." (California Department of Corrections)

U.S. District Court

VISITS

Glaspy v. Malicoat 134 F.Supp.2d 890 (W.D.Mich. 2001). A prison visitor sued a corrections officer, alleging that the officer violated his constitutional rights when the officer refused the visitor's request to use the bathroom during a visit to an inmate. The district court held that the officer violated the visitor's substantive due process rights by refusing to permit him to use the restroom, and awarded $5,000 in compensatory damages and $5,000 in punitive damages. The 69-year-old visitor and the inmate he was visiting had informed the officer several times that the visitor was in pain and that he needed urgently to use the restroom. The officer, who laughed at the visitor's situation, was found to have been deliberately indifferent to the visitor's due process rights. The court noted that the visitor suffered pain and discomfort for a period of time, as well as extreme humiliation when he urinated in his pants in front of others, and inconvenience in having to deal with his wet pants at the facility and on the way home. (Newberry Correctional Facility, Michigan)

U.S. District Court

SMOKING

Reilly v. Grayson 157 F.Supp.2d 762 (E.D.Mich. 2001). A prisoner brought a [ss] 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 followed, t he 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)

U.S. District Court

PUBLICATIONS

Spellman v. Hopper, 142 F.Supp.2d 1323 (M.D.Ala. 2000). A prison inmate brought a suit challenging a corrections department regulation which limited access to subscription publications for prisoners in administrative segregation, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court held that the suhsequent amendment of the regulation, and the inmate's release from administrative segregation, did not render the case moot. The court entered declaratory judgment that the former absolute prohibition of receipt of subscription publications by inmates in segregation violated the First Amendment, and that the policy should not be implemented further. The court noted that the corrections department possessed the power to return the regulation to its original form. (Alabama Department of Corrections)