Appendix A: List of Cases Issues, District Court Opinions & Court of Appeal Decisions.

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Appendix A: List of Cases Issues, District Court Opinions & Court of Appeal Decisions."


1 Appendix A: List of Cases Issues, District Court Opinions & Court of Appeal Decisions.

2 f.2d f.2d f.2d f.2d f.2d 474 Black Muslims allege they were isolated and deprived of constitutional and statutory rights due to religion. Filed forma pauperis case alleging that prisoner was serving a prison sentence, the length of which was based upon erroneous construction by the state court of the state statutes fixing the maximum sentence for the offenses which appellant was convicted. Plaintiff alleges that defendants acting in concert falsely arrested him and wrongfully committed him under MA General Laws, Chapter 123 Section 79 for 10 days to the state institution for mentally ill and they deprived him of the equal protection of the laws. Plaintiff alleges rule prohibiting prisoners from accumulating more than 15 personal letters in their cell violated his civil rights. Argues that actions should not have been dismissed under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because in acting on that motion, the district court didn t accept as true the factual allegations of the complaint but relied upon certain additional or conflicting information in the affidavits and exhibits filed in support of motion for summary judgment. Issues of question: (1) Muslim beliefs such that Black Muslims don t cooperate (2) whether allowing practice would be detrimental to the administration of the prison and would present a serious threat to the maintenance of order (3) whether it s Dismissed complaint because of lack of jurisdiction. Directed clerk to file complaint without fees but denied motion to proceed forma pauperis because action was frivolous. Granted defendants motions and dismissed plaintiff s complaint with costs. Dismissed Action. Motion for summary judgment denied due to issues of material fact. Motion to dismiss the action under Rule 12(b) granted on ground that the complaint failed to state a claim under which relief could be granted. Reversed: Civil Right Act 42 U.S.C applies to prisoners too and court must hear the case to determine if prisoners complaints constitute a ground for judicial relief. Affirmed: district court may commence civil action in forma pauperis and thereafter dismiss the case. Affirmed: *Private doctor is not a member of the class exposed to liability under 42 U.S.C 1983 actions. *Defendant mayor had nothing to do with events. *Defendant superintendent was in line of his official duty. *Defendant police officers were acting under the color of law. Affirmed: Except under exceptional circumstances, internal matters in state penitentiaries are sole concern of the states and federal courts will not inquire concerning them. Reversed: Can uphold dismissal because the complaint doesn t state a claim for which relief can be granted against state of CA. But against the personal defendants, the allegation of facts state a claim under which relief can be granted. (District court erred in granting Rule 12 (b)). Furthermore there are issues of fact which preclude entry of summary judgment.

3 more feasible to not allow rather than do a piecemeal investigation of each case f.2d f.2d f.2d f.2d 315 Plaintiff alleges: (1) defendants interfered with and obstructed his right of access to federal courts in that they didn t permit him to file legal documents (2) placed him in solitary confinement and subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment to coerce a guilty plea. Plaintiff alleged that the warden refused to allow him authorized medicine that he needed to prevent serious harm to his health. Appellants argue that there s an inconsistency between district court s decision that they d been denied 8 th Amendment rights for 2½ days and its refusal to award monetary damages. 1) whether complaint states a cause of action 2) whether district court properly refused to lend its assistance to plaintiff, a prison inmate, in obtaining affidavits in opposition to defendants motion for summary judgment. 3) whether court erred in refusing to grant plaintiff additional time which he required to obtain such affidavits before ruling on the motion. District court denied application to proceed in forma pauperis because a more detailed pleading is needed to show claim is not frivolous. Dismissed because plaintiff had failed to show medical care and treatment so claim was inadequate as to justify federal intervention. Ruled prison to allow collective religious services by an accredited Minster of the Black Muslim faith. Ruled against plaintiffs requesting literature of the faith be made available because could interfere with the operation of the institution by urging Black Muslim defiance against prison officials. Denied plaintiff s motion concerning affidavit forms (plaintiff asked for assistance to ensure forms are mailed to designated persons) stating it will not interfere with the administration of internal affairs of the prison. On the same day, the court granted defendants motion and dismissed the complaint. Granted request for permission to proceed in forma pauperis. Reversed: Allegation states a perfectly viable claim against appellees. Prison officials and medical officers have wide discretion in treating prisoners, and a simple claim of malpractice doesn t give rise to a claim under 1981 or However, failure to provide medical care may violate the 14 th Amendment. Court used its previous decision Gittlemacker v. Prasse (1970) to determine the rights that follow a prisoner into prison involve a balancing of interests. Affirmed district court decision to deny injunctive relief based on district court s determination that although plaintiffs had been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment the practice would not continue. 1 st and 3 rd contentions of plaintiff have merits. 2 nd contention is rejected. The court of appeals mentioned 2 precedent decisions: Cooper v. Pate (7 th Cir., 1967) deference to prisons in regulation of mail and Sigafus v. Brown (7 th Cir., 1969) prisoner s claim based on interference with his access to courts states a claim for relief under CRA 1. Reversed district court s refusal to grant a continuance f.2d 818 Plaintiffs alleged that (1) they were Ruled that neither of the plaintiffs had Affirmed: They went on to say, 1 Civil Rights Act.

4 f.2d 1237 denied needed medical attention and treatment, (2) were denied awarded statutory good time or meritorious good time even though their idleness was due to illness. Appealed orders adverse to them. 1) Whether the district court was incorrect in finding on constitutional grounds that the officials were unjustified in withholding letters. 2) whether it was proper to require obedience to Administrative Regulation No. 20, which sets a standard for censorship of legal mail that is more lenient than constitutionally required. 3) whether the conditions which justify issuance of a preliminary injunction exist. sustained claim of lack of medical attention but held that forcing plaintiff to take medication in particular form that nauseated him was against 8 th Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Although they upheld loss of meritorious good time, they ruled unconstitutional the loss of statutory good time for missing work as a result of illness. District court held that prisoners must be allowed to receive letters from their lawyers containing legal advice about the formation of the union f.2d 760 Omitted this case: didn t understand decision Dismissed Alleges that plaintiff denied privileges to visit with a friend whom he sent required Dismissed in forma pauperis decision as frivolous f.2d 660 guest pass to. Alleges officials merely subjecting black inmate and family to harassment f.2d 516 Alleged that defendant deprived plaintiff of civil rights because they failed to prevent a fellow prisoner form attacking plaintiff. Dismissed complaint against all defendants. however, that the district court may have approached the outer limits of constitutional requirements in granting plaintiff the limited relief in the form of medication. Should not be unduly hospitable forums for the complaints of either state or federal convicts, it s not function of courts to run prisons. District court used the proper rule regarding mail from attorneys and applied it properly to the facts of this case. The court s characterization of legal aid letters as pure legal advice is open to question (this is noted despite their holding). Precedent Soster v. McGinnis. Affirmed but said district court went beyond standard set in Soster, so injunction may be modified to apply only to letters from legal aid. Vacated: A refusal to allow prisoner visitors because of race violates 14 th amendment and denying visitors privileges without justification might amount to cruel and unusual punishment. Vacated in part and affirmed in part: 1) third circuit precedent Howell v. Cataldi (1972). All that is required for CRA is to show that conduct was intentional. 2) Johnson v. Glick (2 nd circuit 1973)- plaintiff may prove a set of facts constituting a cause of action under 42 U.S.C based on violation of due process clause of the 14 th amendment upheld certain dismissals regarding defendants including against commonwealth of PN and Bureau of connection of PN because they are not persons under 42 U.S.C (Moor v. County of Alabama Supreme Court, 1973).

5 f.2d f.2d f.2d f.2d f.2d f.2d 730 Alleges that paramedic on duty denied him medication for his condition Whether under the D.C. court reform and criminal procedure act of 1970, the U.S. district court for D.C. or the superior court of the District of Columbia has habeas corpus jurisdiction over an individual sentenced for local crimes by a district court, when the habeas petition challenges the constitutionality of a local prison s administrative decision to transfer the petitioner to maximum security confinement Whether defendants were violating prisoner s rights by prosecuting them, suppressing prosecution of correctional officers, who falsely accused prisoner Timmerman of being under the influence of alcohol and brutally assaulted the prisoner. Prisoner s wife bought case under 42 U.S.C alleging police illegally arrested plaintiff without a warrant. Furthermore, there was no basis by which probable cause could be determined because the defendants had not investigated the matter to see if an offense existed before arresting the plaintiff illegally. Plaintiff brought class action under 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1983, and 1985 alleging that detainment infringed upon his constitutional rights when arrested without a warrant and not given probable cause hearing in a timely fashion. Plaintiff says district court deprived him of a fair trial and his right to access courts and counsel by excluding him from the jury trial of his prison connected civil rights claim. Also, didn t allow as evidence the memorandum of a Views petition as frivolous Habeas corpus jurisdiction over such cases is exclusively vested in the district court. Granted motions to dismiss in favor of defendants ruling they were immune from suit because the actions complained of concerned their respective jobs. Dismissed case for failure to state a cause of action and denied motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis because person filing on behalf of prisoner is not an attorney and the case lacks merit March 28 th ordered the following: 1) formal probable cause hearing must be within 24 hrs 2) within 72 hrs the person must be charged or released. June 6, 1975 order was vacated because it was believed the law suit was moot, and can no longer be held as a class action suit. Decided that it would be unnecessary to bring plaintiff to court and instead took his deposition. Affirmed. Affirmed. Reversed and remanded: Held that defendants are immune form money damages but not immune from equitable and declaratory relief. Reverse and remand: this case does state a cause of action. Although they do not intimate any view on the ultimate merits of the prisoner s case, they do advise the court to be extremely tolerant of cares filed by prisoners and not quickly dismiss them. Reversed and Remanded: District court needed to hold a hearing to determine if they met the met the new procedures put in place at jail for probable cause hearing in Supreme Court s decision in Gerstein v. Pugh. Reversed and Remanded: Plaintiff is entitled to a new trial in which trial can be fairly presented. Not saying that plaintiff must be allowed to appear at trial, although it is probable that in this case consideration to decide upon court

6 f.2d f.2d f.2d f.2d 223 correctional counselor which corroborated plaintiff s claim that mace had been used and contradicted sworn testimony of defendants. Prisoner filed repetitive complaints which dealt with self-styled food complaint all accompanied by a motion to leave in forma pauperis. Prisoner appeals from conditioning of his right to file complaints. Prisoner was reported dead while at hospital and his personal property was distributed to other inmates. He brought a 42 U.S.C cause against authorities to recover his lost property and personal injury. Filed 1983 action to recover damages on account of assault and threats made against him by 2 guards at the prison, the loss of certain prison privileges, and good conduct time as a result of disciplinary proceeding associated with assault. Prisoner claims he was wrongfully transferred to the prison from the Indiana State Farm in March 1974 because of his attempts to help other prisoners with the preparation of legal documents, to have a law library established at State Farm and to create and inmate council at State Farm. In the 6 th complaint that was dismissed, the district court said that prisoner had abused the court process by filing frivolous complaints and his forma pauperis shall be denied except upon good cause shown. He may pay $15 for each complaint filed. Officers were not negligent. Some of plaintiff s property was returned and the small amount not returned wasn t a result of intent or negligence. Dismissed without requiring a response from defendants Said that there was no policy concerning prisoners helping each other on their own time, but a policy against helping inmates during a time they are supposed to be performing an assigned task. Prisoners have an authority to transfer inmates at their discretion. or jury, whether prisoner has any other witnesses to call and whether defendants will take the stand. Also, the memo is part of the regular course of prison business activity and is admissible as evidence. Affirmed: It is within court s discretion to impose costs and fees. Various federal circuit cases were cited as further evidence and support of district court s decision. Affirmed: the district court properly applied the law to the case before it. Affirmed: District court is not authorized to direct issuance of arrest warrants demanded and neither of the officers who allegedly assaulted plaintiff were mentioned as defendants. Reversed and Remanded: Evidence shows that transfer was based on writ writing at any time not just during work time. Johnson v. Avery (393 U.S. 488) prisoner s transfer violated other inmates right to access courts if they were left without an alternative means of access to courts. Bounds v. Smith (430 U.S. 817) adds that mere availability is not enough but reasonable opportunity to present claimed violation must be provided. Various cases cited to show plaintiff may not have a due process interest or expectation of remaining at the same institution but he does have a 1 st Amendment interest or expectation of not being punished for exercising a protected

7 f.2d f.2d f.2d f.2d 1141 Prisoner challenges constitutionality of that portion of the strip frisk requiring him to lift his testicles, bend over spread his buttocks to display his anus to the officer. Department of correctional services appeals the injunction. Prisoner alleges he has been denied essential medical treatment for a hip injury received before incarceration. Plaintiff alleges that he was beaten by the sheriff while in custody. Appeal says that district court erred in resolving disputed facts by resort to affidavits. Prison Legal Aid (PLA) project filed complaint alleging that officials at Menrad Connectional center had in their individual and official capacities denied meaningful access by PLA attorney and staff to their clients (1) by imposition of 48 hour notice for visits (2) by unduly delaying access once attorney were at prison (3) by failing to provide a sufficient number of private rooms where attorney-client interviews could be conducted. Issued preliminary injunction enjoying appellants from conducting visual searches of anal and genital areas of all convicted inmates of the state correctional system without probable cause to believe that contraband is present. Dismissed suit for want of persecution. Prisoner continually failed to cooperate with doctors and failed to make arrangements for the operation Dismissed as frivolous and without merit. Trial court after directing the 2 parties to file affidavits without proceedings entered findings of law holding that defendant had not beat the plaintiff. Entered an order granting PLA s motion for summary judgment, motion for class certification nunc pro runc, and motion to strike several of appellants exhibits. Denied Menrad s cross-motion for summary judgment. Bounds v. Smith opposition to communicate privately with an attorney of meaningful access. Bell v. Wolfish (411 U.S. 520) the institutional security needs of defendants require consideration. activity. On remand district court must decide if transfer was mainly for writ writing and whether the prohibition was warranted. If so he should not received any damages. Record supports the finding that prisoner was strip frisked without probable cause frequently, unnecessarily and abusively. Procunier v. Martinez (416 U.S. 396) Supreme Court has cautioned that we must pay particular deference to the exercise of informed judgment by prison officials in their administration of state penal institutions. Record indicates that these strip frisks for special housing unit inmates because of their restrictive nature of their excursions out of their cells but does not indicate that such searches are also unnecessary for general prison population. Restrict injunction to prisoner in this case. Affirmed: District court has the discretion to dismiss a case with prejudice on its own motion for failure to prosecute. Link V. Wabash RR Co. (370 U.S. 626) and did not abuse discretion. Reverse and remand: district court cannot determine a crucial disputed fact (whether plaintiff was beaten) solely on affidavits to establish facts that would entitle him to relief. Revered and remanded with instructions. Summary judgment cannot resolve actual factual situation. Delays caused as a result of institution is not always inappropriate. Wolf v. McDonnell (418 U.S. 539) There must be mutual accommodation between institutional needs and object and the provisions of the constitution that are of general application. Pell v. Procunier (417 U.S. 817) Prisoners challenges to institutional

8 f.2d f.2d f.2d f.2d 466 Issues of Appeal: (1) did district court act properly granting PLA s motion for summary judgment (2) relief fashioned properly under the circumstances. Plaintiff alleges that he was not afforded a fair trial before an impartial jury as a result of the conspiratorial activities of the Sheriff and the 4 th Circuit court s court bailiff. He claims that the defendants allowed him to be photographed while being transferred from the courthouse to the county jail and the adverse news coverage rendered it impossible for him to obtain a fair trial. Class action declaratory and injunctive relief for the unlawful practice of police in arresting and holding individuals in access of 24 hours without felony charges or producing them before magistrate for probable cause determination to hold them contrary to Indiana law. Appeal before court is only as it pertains to defendant Jack H. Crawford, prosecuting attorney. Prisoner who appeared pro se appeals for attorney s fees under 42 U.S.C Issue: did congress intend the provisions of Civil Rights Attorney s Fees Award Act of 1976, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1988, to enable successful pro se litigants to recover an equivalent of attorney s fees. Prisoner alleged that officials made him take a laxative at the infirmary because of suspicions that he was bringing drugs into the prison on his return home from an authorized home furlough. Also claimed that the disciplinary hearing Case was prematurely filed. Dismissed without prejudice. Granted to relief sought in form of a declaratory judgment and mandatory injunction. The injunction required the defendants as a group to bring arrests for an initial appearance before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, except in certain circumstances. Denied motion for attorney s fees. Expressed reservations about the adequacy of written statement given prisoner but decided that when read with staff s version of events, it was adequate to meet Wolff. Jury trial on other issues. regulation must be reviewed in light of legitimate penal object that a court must access Procunier v. Martinez (416 U.S. 396) When state penal institutional is involved, federal court have a further reasons for deference to appropriate prison authorities. Affirmed: the case was filed prior to his criminal trial, so he could present no set of facts to show his injury. Plaintiff may reassert his civil rights claim now that his trial has resulted in a conviction. Crawford in his capacity as a prosecutor has no authority under Indiana law to order city police to detain arrests past the statutory limits, so the complaint fails to state a cause of action against him. Complete relief was accorded to the class when injunction was entered requiring police to bring class members before court or release them. District court decision reversed as it pertains to Crawford. Affirmed: pro se litigant is not entitled to attorney s fees under Addresses only the first question because the district court did err in other contentions. Vacate summary judgment for plaintiff on due process claims and remand for further proceeding. It was a violation of plaintiff s rights to

9 f.2d f.2d f.2d 1002 where he was found guilty of possession of contraband (red balloon) violated his due process rights. Disciplinary committee failed to give him written notice of evidence and reasons for action taken as required by Wolff v. McDonnell (418 U.S. 539) Plaintiff contends: 1) district court erred in denying summary judgment on due process claims and granting summary judgment to defendants 2) submitting good faith defense to jury 3) in admitting certain evidence to jury Appeals for an appointment of counsel for a 42 U.S.C case Case alleged unsanitary conditions, inadequate medical treatment and facilities at jail. 1) violation of visitation rights with minor children 2) subjection to a strip and body cavity search in violation to be free from unreasonable searches 3) an infringement of his right of freedom of speech by reason of the opening of his mail by jail personnel, all while confined at the Cumberland County jail * court of appeals only looking at number one in terms of injunctive relief because a pretrial detainees visitation rights were not established as a conditional right at time of his incarceration. Alleges that officials conspired against him as a result of litigation and race. Summary judgment in favor of defendants. Dismissed case with prejudice because plaintiff didn t show up at trial. In response to plaintiff s motion for reconsideration because no court order had issued for him to be transported from prison to court. The court ruled that prisoner should like other litigants attend to his duties or have someone other than court to do so. And denied him appointed counsel because the cause has already been acted upon by state court, which has the same responsibility for protecting the constitutional rights of all litigants. 2) Dismissed under Bell v. Wolfish Dismissed all actions and granted summary judgment in favor of defendant. ` Dismissed as frivolous. make an unidentifiable substance found in feces the foundation of guilt. Dismissal reversed because district court did not evaluate plaintiff s request that writes of habeas corpus ad testificadum issue for the witnesses in Parchman. Trial court is not required to appoint counsel for 42 U.S.C cases unless it s an exceptional circumstance but district court should exercise its judicial discretion to determine if this is an exceptional case. 2) Affirmed 3) Isolated instances that were against jail policy, so not of constitutional magnitude. In terms of injunctive relief, district court decision is affirmed because plaintiff is no longer at the specific jail, so the case is moot. Reverse and remanded: Some of his allegations may present valid civil rights

10 f.2d f.2d 525 Objective to retaliate against him for bringing forth case. Alleges he was discriminated against at his parole hearings because of his race. Plaintiff alleges defendant violated his rights by : 1) excessive use of force without just cause 2) denial of medical treatment 3) deprivation of his procedural due process right to an impartial disciplinary committee Defendant appeals judgment on #3 (several prisoners at Iowa State) Plaintiff allege: district court erred (1) in finding that they were not denied equal protection with respect to female and general population inmates. (2) in holding that they were not deprived of property without due process (3) in holding that plaintiff had not shown that destruction of a painting possessed by him was without due process (4) determining that uncorroborated testimony of appellant Padgett was insufficient to find a denial of his access to courts Allege rules pertaining to possession of property are different for protective custody inmates at Iowa state protective custody inmates at Iowa State Penitentiary (ISP) then general population at ISP and to other inmates at other penal institution in Iowa, and these differences violate Equal protection rights. Plaintiff awarded normal damages and punitive damages $100 for 3 rd count and first two counts were dismissed. Dismissed their claims claims. Council appointed to case indicated he would accept appointment to recast White s complaint. Some allegations do not raise a claim upon which relief can be granted. Affirmed: magistrate was correct on the finding that because defendant investigated the charges, it was improper for him to serve on the adjustment committee pursuant to Administrative Regulation 804. According to Smith v. Wade (461 U.S. 30), punitive damages may be addressed when defendant s conduct is shown by evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others. Affirmed: Bell v. Wolfish deference to prison To succeed on equal protection, must show treatment was individiously disclaimer. Peck V. Hoff (660 f.2d 371). Plaintiffs have not done so. In light of riots at ISP, must give deference to prison officials expertise and security concerns f.2d 1341 Plaintiff arrested for violating FA statute Granted plaintiff summary judgment and Vacate and remand: Since Florida

11 f.2d f.2d f.2d 817 outside Florida territorial boundaries. Filed action seeking declaration that statue is unconstitutional as applied outside boundaries and claimed damages. Plaintiff is an ordained minister of a religious faith known as the church of prophetic mediation, one of the tenets of which prohibits members form cutting their hair from any part of their bodies. He received misconduct reports resulting in loss of his privileges and segregation. Prisoners brought 42 U.S.C against Dr. Sharp for failing to provide him with medical treatment in violation of 8 th amendment. Dr. Sharp filed motion for dismissal of complaint because he was not acting under state law. Plaintiff intervened in a fight between two other inmates at the prison. The three had a disciplinary hearing after which one of the inmates threatened plaintiff. The plaintiff immediately returned to the hearing room and reported the incident to the hearing officer, who told a guard to relay the message to the proper officials. The guard presented the assistant superintendent of the prison with the note, who was not able to give the message to the Sergeant until later that afternoon. Since he had to report to other emergencies that day, the Sergeant forgot about the note. Two days later the inmate attacked the plaintiff with a fork. The plaintiff brought this action against all of the above officers. The defendants contend that district court erred in : 1) finding they were negligent issued permanent injunction against it application outside Florida boundaries. Summary judgment for the defendant. Dr. Sharp acted under state law according to Estelle v. Gamble (429 U.S. 97) motion denied. The district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff finding that the defendants were negligent and that the plaintiff has a liberty interest in being protected by prison officials from an assault by another inmate. Supreme Court decided statue doesn t apply outside boundaries, this is not a live controversy. Affirmed: Jones V. NC Prisoner s labor union (433 U.S. 119) restriction on first amendment rights may be deemed valid when prison officials, in the exercise of their informed discretion, can conclude that there is a potential danger to security even though the same showing might be unimpressive if submitted to justify restriction upon members of the general public. Plaintiff fails to show that measures were unreasonable in light of security considerations. Reverse: Estelle v. Gamble says that a deliberate indifference by a needs of an intimate can support a 1983 under color of state law. Dr. Sharp is privately employed and his obligation was not to the mission of the state therefore he did not act under state law. The state bears the responsibility for an inmate s safety and the fact that there was only a single or isolate episode has no bearing on whether the liberty interest of the plaintiff was implicated. The essential element of 1983 suits is abuse by a state official in his or her official position. In this case, the plaintiff has not remedy under 1983 because the mere negligence of the officials is not such an abuse of official power that would warrant the raising the tortuous conduct of the prison officials to the level of a deprivation of constitutional right within the scope of 1983.

12 f.2d f.2d 719 2) that an inmate such as the plaintiff has a liberty interest in being protected by prison officials from a single assault by another inmate. Plaintiff challenges constitutionality of the prison Publishers Only Rule, which limits the sources from which prisoners may receive reading material. Plaintiff was held in detention for 18 days without appearance before judge or magistrate, after which prosecutor told sheriff to release him. Ruled that on its face, it does not violate the First Amendment and limited trial to question of constitutionality of rule as applied. Held that the challenge was not ripe for decision and didn t present a justiciable controversy. Summary judgment for defendant because shielded from 1983 liability by a qualified immunity and no violation or constitution occurred Affirmed: under Bell, deference to prison policy serving government interest in the internal security. Because plaintiff never requested permission to receive an outof-print book, or was denied materials on alternative sources, question is not justiciable. Affirmed: 2 essential elements of 1983 claims: (1) whether conduct committed by person under color of state law (2) conduct deprived person of rights secured by the constitution. It was a constitutional violation of due process clause to detain plaintiff without appearance before judge/magistrate. BUT sheriff is immune because he attempted to get plaintiff first appearance and prospector did not respond to his calls f.2d 360 Plaintiff was placed in segregation for possessing contraband items (cameras and tape recorder) which she allegedly didn t know was contraband since inmates had only possessed and used them in the past. She further lost her job at the law library without being granted an appearance before assignment committee as required by Administrative Regulation 802. As the only jail house lawyer, she refused to accept a reassignment to laundry, so she was placed in punitive segregation again. Defendant appeal district court decision on: 1) exclusion of certain documents 2) plaintiff didn t take reassignment, so didn t mitigate damages 3) damages awarded were excessive Jury awarded plaintiff 80,770 in damages 20,000 in punitive damages and 83, in attorney fees. District court ordered plaintiff be assigned to law library and return to general population 1) defense attorney came unprepared to first pretrial conference and second rescheduled conference also 2) district court instructed jury on mitigation issue and jury made determination on issue. Affirmed: 1) defense attorney s indifference to court s rules would have led to disruption of orderly and efficient disposal of the case. 2) jury s job to make determination 3) this court has upheld greater per day awards for segregation confinement, so relatively this amount is not excessive 4) Rowe knew of his subordinates action and didn t take any preventative action a prima facie case was established.

13 f.2d f.2d f.2d f.2d f.2d 334 4) plaintiff didn t establish a prima facie against Rowe, head of department connection claims plaintiff didn t show his personal involvement. Plaintiff claims that state regulation limiting amount it will pay for postage restricts inmates access to courts. Appeals contending district court should have held an evidentiary hearing as to reasonableness of limitations and facts as to the state s exercise of discretion. Plaintiff received misconduct report and was afforded a hearing on August 31, 1981 and found guilty after unsuccessful attempt he bought 1983 on May 12, Plaintiff alleges conspiracy by defendants Barr, Cheryl Van Tassel and Michael VanTassel and Judge Wolfe to deprive him of the custody and guardianship of his kids. Also Prudential Insurance Co. unlawfully paid proceeds of insurance policy on life of his deceased wife to VanTassel defendants. Plaintiff sued for damages under 42 U.S.C for violation of civil rights while in Texas prison. Case was tried to a jury with a U.S. magistrate presiding despite defendant s objection and demand for Article III Judge. Plaintiff allege that defendant failed to protect him from being attacked by his Dismissed for failure to state a claim regulation is facially reasonable because state allows inmates to send mail at their own expense and may advance credit for excess mailing at its own discretion. Dismissed complaint on grand that Judge Wolfe is immune from suit, private citizens cannot be sued under 1983 for non-state-related activities, and that an alleged conspiracy of private citizens with immune state officials bars on action against that people citizens. Jury found for plaintiff on 2 of his claims and no money awarded. District court adopted magistrate s recommendation to dismiss defendant s objection to proceeding before a magistrate because his presiding was authorized by 28 U.S.C. 636 (b)(1),(b)(3) + (2) Jury decided defendants were indifferent to plaintiff s medical needs often to fight Vacate and remand: cites Bounds v. Smith (430 U.S. 817) that state must provide adequate postage for legal documents and that regulation obstructing access to courts are invalid, and Procunier v. Martinez (416 U.S. 369) that prisoners must be provided with adequate access to court. Regulation under constitution states, no postage for any legal briefs (this is obviously against precedent). Vacate and remand: Wilson v. Garcia PN 2 yr. limit action for personal injuries should be applied to District court decision to judge dismissal against defendants VanTassels on ground that private citizens with an immune state officials bars on action against private citizens under 1983, the court erred. Supreme Court decision in Dennis v. Sparks (499 U.S. 24). However, this case lacks specific facts to support claim that the defendants conspired with the judge on those grounds. That plaintiff should be given a chance to amend case to provide specific facts. Vacate and remand for defendant VanTassels, affirm for Judge Wolfe and Prudential Insurance Co. Vacate and remand: Ford v. Estelle (740 f.2d 37) established that a case may be referred to magistrate for jury trial only under sect 636 (c), which requires the consent of the parties. Defendant s objection negated the required consent. Evidence allows for reasonable but differing conclusions, we cannot overturn

14 f.2d f.2d f.2d f.2d f.2d 453 cell mate and they failed to provide him with adequate medical treatment following the attack. as allege that evidence is insufficient to establish either serious medical need or deliberate indifference. Action brought under 42 U.S.C assets that plaintiff s decedent David Robert s rights were violated by failure to promulgate and enforce procedures to identify potential suicides and prevent their occurrences. Roberts was not screened for suicidal tendencies. Plaintiff sought injunction against dept. of connection director to reclassify him to min. security. Under new classification, plaintiff must serve 20% of sentence before he is eligible for reclassification where before it was 10%. Challenges constitutionality of Mississippi of habitual offender statues. Alleges: - Defendant s punishment for previous crimes - distinction in privileges awarded other prisoners violates equal protection Plaintiff filed suit addressing 8 issues: prisoner idleness, health care, mail, discipline, access to courts, fire safety, food, discipline and visitation. Plaintiff filed motion to certify as class action. Plaintiff seeks damages for malpractice concerning death of his daughter, for permanent injuries sustained as a result of brutality of Naval Investigative and awarded plaintiff $2000 in comp. damages and $3500 in punitive damages. Jury returned verdict for defendants and case was dismissed. Court granted summary judgment to defendant on state claims finding he was performing a discretionary government function for which he was immune under state law. Dismissed as frivolous. Dismissed. Failure to state a claim for relief. Magistrate ruled in favor of plaintiff on all counts except access to courts and visitation. District court didn t give them class action despite the fact that they met requirements because a non-class action would also result in benefits for similarly situated individuals. Dismissed due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C jury s finding affirmed. Reverse summary judgment against fisher and remand for further consideration under Ross V. Consumers Bureau (420 Mich. 567) distinction between ministerial and discretionary function. To be discretionary action must be decisional and so some of defendant s decisions may be ministerial. Affirmed. To violate Ex Port Facto clause, the new classification says must retrospective and disadvantageous to the offender because it may impose greater punishment. Paschal V. Wainwright (738 f.2d 1173). Since this regulation relates to internal administration of prison, its aim doesn t violate Ex Port facto clause. Affirmed. Legislative may define different penalties for different offences. Also, statue fixes punishment for future penalties and doing so in terms of past offenses doesn t increase punishment on past offenses. Remand: Since all plaintiffs have been released from jail, action must be certified as a class action. Bounds v. Smith (430 U.S. 817) held that a prisoner s 1 st Amendment right of access to courts is satisfied if it is achieved by any alternative means available. Record before court is lacking evidence of an alternative means of access to courts or visitation. Affirmed: Section 1983 applies to persons acting under color of state law, not federal law. Plaintiff alleges his rights were violated by federal officials

15 f.2d f.2d f.2d f.2d 977 Service Agents and his family s embarrassment as a result of his incarceration. 2 months after his transfer from Portsmouth City Jail, plaintiff filed 42 U.S.C complaint for lack of adequate medical care, denial of access to courts (lack of library and free envelopes), and failure to furnish proper security for personal property. On Appeal issues are access to courts, library, certification of class action and failure to appoint counsel. Plaintiff alleges that defendants deprived him of certain property without due process. Alleges that Missouri courts refusal to grant him in forma pauperis status demonstrates that he has no adequate post deprivation remedy at state level. Plaintiff brought suit against U.S. Attorney General and Assistant Attorney General for writing letter to Parole Commission which resulted in extension of the date for his parole eligibility. The letter was regarding a false accusation of plaintiff s guilt of drug trafficking (beyond what he was convicted for). Defendants allege they are immune because action was performed in their official capacity. Plaintiff alleges that defendant was indifferent to danger of returning plaintiff to dormitory after incident with another inmate. After his return to dormitory, he was attacked by inmate while he slept and sustained injuries. Dismissed complaint. Dismissed on grounds that Missouri law provided plaintiff with adequate post deprivation remedies of his loss. Granted defendants motion to dismiss on grounds that federal prosecutor who submits information to the U.S. parole commission is cloaked with absolute immunity. Granted summary judgment to defendant. acting under federal law. Affirmed: District court didn t abuse discretion in not appointing counsel and in not giving class action certification. Because he was a temporary occupant waiting for transfer has not shown any specific harm as a result of a lack of library or its limited contents. His constitutional rights were not violated. Reversed: Missouri courts inexplicable denial of non-frivolous case to proceed in forma pauperis shows that there is not an adequate post deprivation remedy at state level. Affirmed: Imbler v. Pachtman (424 U.S. 709) state prosecutor in initiating a prosecution and in presenting a state case is immune from civil rights damages under 1983 because his activities were intimately associated with judicial phase of criminal process. Reversed and Remanded in part: There was an issue of material fact regarding exact circumstances under which plaintiff sustained injuries at hand of fellow inmates, so summary judgment was inappropriate. Estelle v. Gamble and Davis v. Zahradnick (600 f.2d 458) the 8 th Amendment protects a convicted inmate from physical harm at hands of fellow inmates resulting in deliberate indifference of officials.

16 f.2d f.2d f.2d f.2d 876 Plaintiff filed 42 U.S.C against sheriff and Judge Menedez claiming that they conspired to have his probation revoked. Plaintiff filed 1983 complaint charging the he d been forced to participate in work stoppage and that he was falsely accused of instigating work stoppage and after allegations were dropped, he was still held in administrative custody and was deprived of work status and back pay. Also alleged denial of use of law books, legal materials, pens, pencils and paper and that his requests were unanswered for 3 weeks and he was told inmates in segregation couldn t access such materials. Contends that he was deprived of a liberty interest by due process when guards fired in his direction. (he was not hit by shots). Plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the provision of 8 th Amendment that prohibits the imposition of excessive fines. Prisoner was shot and killed while escaping from prison. Plaintiff brought case against defendants claiming violation of prisoner s constitutional rights. The 2 defendants appealed Dismissed as frivolous Dismissed Dismissed because defendant is immune. Also, imposed a $10 sanction on plaintiff to deter further abuse of process. While dismissing cases against several of the defendants, ruled that cases against defendant Newsome (warden) and defendant Coleman (guard who shot prisoner) would go to trial. Affirmed: plaintiff gives no basis for his conspiracy complaint. Reversed and Remanded because of there is an issue of material fact. District court must determine whether plaintiff s right to due process of law was violated by his continued detention in administrative segregation after he d been cleared of allegations which justified his initial placement in segregation. There s little difference between depriving a personal liberty without due process and failing to restore a person s liberty after legal justification for its deprivation has been eliminated. That s why actions which affect timing of prisoners release from prison require due process. Wolff v. McDonnell (418 U.S. 539) Touchstone of due process is protection of individual against arbitrary action of government. Plaintiff was placed in segregation because he refused to be returned to general prison population and warden refused to transfer him. In light of reason why shotguns were used and that plaintiff wasn t injured, it was not a deprivation of liberty. As a member of Board of Pardons, defendant is immune from action taken under performance of his official duties regarding granting or denying parole. Also, plaintiff admits that this case raises issues identical to 3 other previously dismissed cases, so district court s conclusion that plaintiff needed to be deterred from abuse is justified. Affirm the dismissal for 1 st set of defendants. Reverse with respect to defendants Newsome and Coleman. Mitchell v. Forsyth (472 U.S. 530) defendants entitled to qualified immunity

17 f.2d f.2d 1451 immunity denial and plaintiff appeals dismissal against 1 st set of defendants. Plaintiff alleges defendant Newsome is liable because security measures at prison were inadequate. Plaintiff alleged that on Aug. 15, 1984, while he was an inmate at St. Louis City Jail, an officer entered his cell and beat him and subsequently denied medical treatment and attention for injuries inflicted. Plaintiff alleges violations of his constitutional rights while a pre-trial detainee: 1) jail limited number of visitors and length of visits and prohibition of contact visits; 2) lack of law library denied him access to the courts; 3) denied him a classification hearing prior to placing him in a one-man cell and then an eight-men cell; 4) denied access to sunshine, fresh air; 5) defendants opened his mail outside of his presence; 6) at his arrival at the jail, he was placed in segregation for 6 days; 2 7) denied use of pillow, forced to wear tennis shoes that had been previously worn, lack of cleaning supplies, and the infrequency of laundry schedule; 8) denied medical care on two occasions, and lack of doctor on the staff of the jail; Granted city s Motion for Direct Verdict because there s a failure to show a pattern and practice of acquiescing and allowing beating and guards who are incompetent to remain on duty. Jury found for plaintiff and awarded $500. District court denied plaintiff s motion for new trial. Summary judgment in favor of defendants. if law with respect to their action was unclear at the time the cause of action arose. We conclude that a reasonable officer could believe that Coleman s action were lawful, therefore, he s immune. Nothing sufficient is found to place Newsome on notice at time of Sharp s (prisoner) death regarding specific security measures plaintiff brings up that would violate Sharp s constitutional rights, therefore, Newsome is immune. Affirmed: A single act is insufficient predicate for municipal liability. Furthermore, the officer, who beat the plaintiff has been placed on the city s progressive discipline policy. So after the incident in this case, the officer was recommended for termination. There s insufficient basis in the transcript for holding the progressive discipline policy implemented by city is unconstitutional. Affirmed and Vacate point 8: 1) deference must be given to prison administration. 2) Bounds v. Smith plaintiff was represented by legal counsel on his criminal charges and the fact that he has pressed this suit suggests he has not been harmed. 3) Plaintiff has made no indication of any injury due to his cell placement. 4) no proof that ventilation was inadequate. Furthermore plaintiff posed a security risk, since he was facing charges for an escape from jail. 5)Bell v. Wolfish as a pre-trial detainee, plaintiff was not immune from prison regulations. 6) segregation was a legitimate response to a security risk. 7) he has not been deprived of any constitutional rights on these allegations. 8) plaintiff presented no evidence to sustain that his allegation 2 At the time, the plaintiff was facing a charge of felony escape.