Legal Issues in Jail

							Legal Issues in Jail

           ISSDA Jail School
           Des Moines, Iowa
          September 19, 2006



David Vestal
ISAC General Counsel
dvestal@iowacounties.org
(515) 244-7181
Disciplinary Segregation

• Putting a prisoner in
  segregation, even without
  cause, is not a constitutional
  violation.
Right to Marry

• The Supreme Court has
  concluded that prisoners have
  a constitutionally protected
  right to marry.
  Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78,
  96, (1987)
Right to Outdoor Exercise

• There is no right to outdoor
  exercise.
  Campbell v. Cauthron, 623 F.2d
  503, 507 (8th Cir.1980)
Right to Exercise Equipment

• The lack of exercise equipment
  does not constitute cruel and
  unusual punishment.
  Rhodes, v. Chapman, 452 U.S.
  337, 69 L. Ed. 2d 59, 101 S. Ct.
  2392 (1981)
Visitation

• “Visitation is a privilege and
  within the correctional facility's
  province to administer as it
  sees fit.”
  Burke v. Rudnick, 2000 WL
  33339652 (D.N.D. 2000)
Commissary
• "Because the county provided
  for the plaintiff's basic
  necessities (food, shelter,
  clothing, medical care, etc.), he
  had no protected property or
  liberty interest in commissary
  privileges."
  Poole v. Stubblefield, 2005 WL
  2290450 (E.D.Mo. 2005)
Smoking

• “Plaintiff complains that
  defendants will not allow him
  to smoke. There is no
  constitutional right to smoke in
  prison."
  Grass v. Sargent, 903 F.2d 1206,
  1206 (8th Cir. 1990)
Food

• Jail officials must provide a
  nutritionally adequate diet for
  prisoners.
  Divers v. Dep't of Corrections,
  921 F.2d 191, 194 (8th Cir. 1990)
Food Cont.

• The denial of food violates the
  constitutional rights of
  prisoners.
  Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
  825, 832, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 128 L.
  Ed. 2d 811 (1994)
Food Cont.
• Jails have a duty to provide their
  prisoners with nutritionally
  adequate food. But assuming that
  this is done, jail officials have the
  discretion to control its contents.
  Divers v. Department of Corr., 921
  F.2d 191, 194 (8th Cir. 1990)
Charging for Medical Care

• You can charge for medical
  care.
• You cannot refuse medical care
  because someone is unwilling
  or unable to pay for it.
  Taylor v Greenwell, D. Mo. 2005,
  Lexis 22373
Religious Services

• The state cannot compel or
  even encourage prisoners'
  attendance at religious
  services.
  Montano v. Hedgepeth, 120 F.3d
  844, 850 n. 10 (8th Cir. 1997)
Religious Services Cont.

• A jail cannot require prisoners
  to attend church services or
  participate in God-related
  programs like AA or NA
  Munson v Norris 8th Cir
  January 2006
Religious Services Cont.

• "A prisoner need not be
  afforded his preferred means
  of practicing his religion as
  long as he is afforded sufficient
  means to do so.“
  Murphy v Missouri Dept. of
  Corrections, 372 F.3d 979, 983
  (8th Cir. 2004)
Religious Services Cont.

• A prisoner is not entitled to “a
  religious advisor whose beliefs
  are completely congruent with
  his own.”
  Weir v. Nix, 114 F.3d 817, 820
  (8th Cir. 1997)
Threatening Language By Jail Staff

    • Threatening words of jail staff,
      without more, do not invade a
      federally protected right.
      McDowell v. Jones, 990 F.2d 433,
      434 (8th Cir. 1993)
Use of Force

• An 'actual injury' must be
  shown to support an excessive
  force claim under the Fourth
  Amendment.
  Hanig v. Lee, 415 F.3d 822, 824
  (8th Cir. 2005)
Use of Force Cont.

• “The basic question in use of
  force cases is "whether force
  was applied in a good faith
  effort to maintain or restore
  discipline or maliciously and
  sadistically to cause harm."
  Jones v. Shields, 207 F.3d 491,
  495 (8th Cir. 2000)
Use of Force Cont.
  Factors to be considered by a court in
  making the “use of force” determination
  include
• the need for the application of physical
  force;
• the relationship between the need for
  physical force and the amount of force
  applied; and
• the extent of the injury suffered by the
  prisoner.
  Jones v. Shields, 207 F.3d 491, 495 (8th Cir.
  2000)
Use of Force Cont.

• “Limited use of the restraint
  board is not unreasonable, as
  long as it is only used for the
  amount of time necessary to
  restore order.”
  Sanders v Zeller, U.S. Dist. Ct
  (N.D. Ia 2006)
Use of Force Cont.

• Incidents of property
  destruction are constitutionally
  valid reasons for restraining
  prisoners for short periods to
  prevent further damage.
  Hanks v Prachar, 8th Cir.,
  August 2006
Jail Jobs

• Prisoners do not have a
  constitutional right to a
  particular jail job.
  Lomholt v. Holder, 287 F.3d
  683, 684 (8th Cir. 2002)
Grievance Procedures
• “No action shall be brought
  with respect to prison
  conditions under section 1983
  by a prisoner confined in any
  jail, prison, or other
  correctional facility until such
  administrative remedies as are
  available are exhausted.”
  42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)
Grievance Procedures Cont.
• It is well-settled that a prisoner has
  no constitutional right to an intra-
  prison grievance system and that
  the failure to investigate or respond
  to a prisoner's grievances is not
  actionable under 42 U.S.C §1983.
  Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495
  (8th Cir. 1993)
Grievance Procedures Cont.

• Only grievance procedures
  which are in reality available to
  a prisoner must be exhausted.
  Lyon v. Vande Krol, 305 F.3d
  806, 808-09 (8th Cir. 2002)
Prisoner Mail

• Jail officials do not commit
  constitutional violations by
  reading prisoners' outgoing
  non-privileged mail.
  Gassler v. Wood, 14 F.3d 406,
  408 n.5 (8th Cir. 1994)
Prisoner Mail Cont.
• An isolated, inadvertent instance of
  opening incoming confidential legal
  mail will not support a §1983
  damage action. An isolated incident,
  without any evidence of improper
  motive or resulting interference
  with a prisoner’s right to counsel
  does not give rise to a constitutional
  violation.
  Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 431
  (8th Cir. 1997)
Personal Care Products
• The failure to regularly provide
  prisoners with toilet articles
  including soap, razors, combs,
  toothpaste, toilet paper, access to a
  mirror and sanitary napkins for
  female prisoners constitutes a denial
  of personal hygiene and sanitary
  living conditions.
  Atkins v. County of Orange, 372
  F.Supp.2d 377 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)
Cell Searches
• A single search, even if legal
  papers were mistakenly
  misappropriated, does not
  constitute the kind of unnecessary
  and wanton infliction of pain
  which can violate the Eighth
  Amendment.
  Scher v. Engelke, 943 F.2d 921 (8th
  Cir. 1991)
Prisoner-On-Prisoner Violence

 • The test in a prisoner-on-
   prisoner violence case is
   whether the jail staff was
   deliberately indifferent to "a
   known, excessive risk of
   serious harm" to the victim.
   Pagels v. Morrison, 335 F.3d
   736, 740 (8th Cir. 2003)
Personal Items

• Rules related to personal
  property of prisoners will be
  upheld unless prisoners can
  show that the rules are not
  reasonably related to a
  legitimate penological interest.
  McClinton v. ADC (8th Circuit
  Court of Appeals, Feb. 9, 2006)
Right to Sue
• Prisoner claims for injunctive
  relief to improve prison
  conditions are moot when the
  prisoner is transferred to
  another facility and is no
  longer subject to those
  conditions.
  Smith v. Hundley, 190 F.3d
  852, 855 (8th Cir. 1999)
Retaliation

• Jail staff cannot retaliate
  against a prisoner for his use of
  the jail grievance system.
  Pool v. Sebastian County, 418
  F.3d 934, 942 (8th Cir. 2005)
Retaliation Cont.

• A jail can successfully defend a
  retaliatory discipline claim by
  showing "some evidence" that
  the prisoner actually
  committed a rule violation.
  Goff v. Burton, 7 F.3d 734, 739
  (8th Cir. 1993)
Deliberate Indifference
• For the prisoner to succeed in his
  claim that defendants were
  deliberately indifferent, he "must
  evidence (1) he suffered from a
  serious medical condition, (2)
  defendants knew of the condition,
  and (3) defendants deliberately
  disregarded the condition.“
  Kitchen v. Miller, 343 F.Supp.2d 820,
  823 (E.D. Mo. 2004)
Deliberate Indifference Cont.

• To show deliberate indifference, a
  prisoner must demonstrate that he
  suffered objectively serious
  medical needs, and the officials
  actually knew of but deliberately
  disregarded those needs.
  Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234,
  1239 (8th Cir. 1997)
Delays In Medication
• “Deliberate indifference”
  includes intentional
  interference with a prisoner’s
  prescribed treatment.
  Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,
  104-05, 97 S. Ct. 285, 50 L. Ed.
  2d 251 (1976)
Delays In Medication Cont.
  • The knowing failure to
    administer prescribed
    medicine can itself constitute
    deliberate indifference.
    Phillips v. Jasper County, 8th
    Circuit, February 2006
Delays In Medication Cont.
  • To prevail on deliberate-
    indifference claim, a prisoner
    must show he suffered from
    serious medical need that the
    jail staff knew of but ignored.
    Roberson v. Bradshaw, 198
    F.3d 645, 647 (8th Cir. 1999)
For Copy of Power Point
www.iowacounties.org
Legal Issues in Jail