Safety and security.

U.S. Appeals Court

PRETRIAL DETAINEES

RESTRAINTS

Benjamin v. Fraser 264 F.3d 175 (2nd Cir. 2001). A city corrections department moved for immediate termination of consent decrees requiring judicial supervision over restrictive housing, inmate correspondence, and law libraries at city jails, pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The district court vacated the decrees and pretrial detainees appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. On remand the district court granted the motion in part and denied it in part and the city appealed. The appeals affirmed. The appeals court held that the detainees were not required to show actual injury when they challenged regulations which allegedly adversely affected their Sixth Amendment right to counsel by impeding attorney visitation.

The appeals court concluded that there was a continuing need for prospective relief with respect to the detainees' right to counsel, and the relief granted by the district court satisfied the requirements of PLRA. The court found that detainees were experiencing unjustified delays during attorney visitation. The district court required procedures to be established to ensure that attorney visits commenced within a specified time period following arrival at the jail, and the city was instructed to ensure the availability of an adequate number of visiting rooms that provide the requisite degree of privacy.

The appeals court held that the restraints used when moving certain detainees within, or outside, the jail, had a "severe and deleterious effect" on the detainees given that such restraints were often painful and could result in injury. The appeals court agreed with the district court that detainees were entitled to reasonable after-the-fact procedural protections to ensure that such restrictions were terminated reasonably soon if they were not justified. These procedures include a hearing, written decision, timely review of appeal from placement in special restraint status, and the opportunity to seek further review based on good cause. (New York City Department of Correction)

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 medium 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. District Court

VISITS

Glaspy v. Malicoat. 134 F.Supp.2d 890 (WD.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 bad 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. 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. Appeals Court

SECURITY RESTRICTIONS

SEPARATION

Yousefv. Reno,. 254 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2001). An inmate who had been convicted of conspiracy to blow up aircraft and for participation in the World Trade Center bombing, was placed under "special administrative measures" (SAM) by the federal Bureau of Prisons to protect himself and prison personnel. Under these measures his access to mail, telephone calls, and visitors was limited, as were his privileges to carry of religious materials, and for recreation and exercise time. The inmate brought a Bivens action challenging his conditions of confinement. The district court dismissed the claims and the inmate appealed. The appeals court affirmed and remanded, finding that the Bureau of Prisons had the discretionary power to implement the measures against the inmate. (F.C.I. Administrative Maximum. Florence. Colorado)