Christopher Zoukis's Blog - Posts Tagged "appeals-court"
Appeals Court: Detainees Can Sue Over Jail’s Laundry Policy
A federal appeals court has overruled a lower court decision that rejected a lawsuit filed by detainees in a Missouri county jail attacking a policy as unconstitutional. The policy forced them to remain naked for about seven hours at least one or two times a week while their only clothing was being laundered.
In July 2015, groups of current and former prisoners held at the Cole County jail in Jefferson City sued the county and the jail warden and deputy, claiming the jail’s laundry and related policies combined to deprive them of constitutional rights.
The trial record established jail rules required male prisoners’ clothing to be laundered every two or three days, and female prisoners’ clothing after four days’ use. Jail residents were given only a single set of clothes and not permitted to clean their own clothing or to wear other clothes of their own while their jail-issued clothing was being washed overnight.
As a result, while deprived of their clothing, they could cover themselves with bedsheets or blankets, but might otherwise be visible to other prisoners or guards who delivered washed clothing to cells. The record also noted opposite-sex guards sometimes deliver the clothing, and another prison rule forbade covering or blocking cell windows allowing occupants to be viewed.
Two months after the lawsuit was filed, the trial court dismissed the case, accepting the county’s arguments the prisoners had not made out a constitutional claim. In throwing out the case, the trial court noted that for most of the time the prisoners would be naked, they would be in bed in their cells.
Echoing county arguments that the laundry rules served hygienic and cleanliness purposes, the trial court found the jail rules being attacked amounted to no more than “minimal deprivations,” well short of violating constitutional rights. It further held, since no constitutional rights had been denied, jail officials had limited immunity to being sued.
But on Jan. 17, a three-judge panel of the St. Louis-based 8th Circuit unanimously decided, in Ingram et al v. Cole County et al, that the trial court had erred. Because the prisoners bringing suit were pretrial detainees rather than convicted inmates, both courts analyzed the constitutionality of jail practices under the 14th Amendment’s requirement of due process, rather than under the 8th Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
For the appeals court, this distinction was significant, because the 14th Amendment forbids punishment of pretrial detainees, since they have not yet been convicted. So the key test, the appeals court said, was whether policies attacked in the lawsuit were so arbitrary or purposeless as to constitute punishment without a valid correction purpose.
The appeals court stopped short of deciding that question, but did rule there was enough evidence in the record to form the basis of a claim on which the detainees should be heard. One appellate judge, for example, noted the absence of any official explanation of why the jail couldn’t stock or wash enough clothes to prevent frequent, recurring periods that detainees would be left without clothing. The case is now scheduled to return to the lower court to examine the purposes and justification for the jail’s practices.
In July 2015, groups of current and former prisoners held at the Cole County jail in Jefferson City sued the county and the jail warden and deputy, claiming the jail’s laundry and related policies combined to deprive them of constitutional rights.
The trial record established jail rules required male prisoners’ clothing to be laundered every two or three days, and female prisoners’ clothing after four days’ use. Jail residents were given only a single set of clothes and not permitted to clean their own clothing or to wear other clothes of their own while their jail-issued clothing was being washed overnight.
As a result, while deprived of their clothing, they could cover themselves with bedsheets or blankets, but might otherwise be visible to other prisoners or guards who delivered washed clothing to cells. The record also noted opposite-sex guards sometimes deliver the clothing, and another prison rule forbade covering or blocking cell windows allowing occupants to be viewed.
Two months after the lawsuit was filed, the trial court dismissed the case, accepting the county’s arguments the prisoners had not made out a constitutional claim. In throwing out the case, the trial court noted that for most of the time the prisoners would be naked, they would be in bed in their cells.
Echoing county arguments that the laundry rules served hygienic and cleanliness purposes, the trial court found the jail rules being attacked amounted to no more than “minimal deprivations,” well short of violating constitutional rights. It further held, since no constitutional rights had been denied, jail officials had limited immunity to being sued.
But on Jan. 17, a three-judge panel of the St. Louis-based 8th Circuit unanimously decided, in Ingram et al v. Cole County et al, that the trial court had erred. Because the prisoners bringing suit were pretrial detainees rather than convicted inmates, both courts analyzed the constitutionality of jail practices under the 14th Amendment’s requirement of due process, rather than under the 8th Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
For the appeals court, this distinction was significant, because the 14th Amendment forbids punishment of pretrial detainees, since they have not yet been convicted. So the key test, the appeals court said, was whether policies attacked in the lawsuit were so arbitrary or purposeless as to constitute punishment without a valid correction purpose.
The appeals court stopped short of deciding that question, but did rule there was enough evidence in the record to form the basis of a claim on which the detainees should be heard. One appellate judge, for example, noted the absence of any official explanation of why the jail couldn’t stock or wash enough clothes to prevent frequent, recurring periods that detainees would be left without clothing. The case is now scheduled to return to the lower court to examine the purposes and justification for the jail’s practices.
Appeals Court: Prison Litigation Reform Act Doesn’t Apply to Suits Filed by Ex-Prisoners
A three-judge panel of a federal appeals court has ruled that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) applies only to lawsuits filed by people who are incarcerated at the time they file the lawsuit, not to those formerly incarcerated.
On May 19, in Olivas v. Nevada, the 9th Circuit panel reinstated a lawsuit brought by Dario Olivas, a former inmate in Nevada’s High Desert State Prison, that he filed against the prison, one corrections officer that was named, and 10 more unnamed ones.
In July 2012, Olivas was eating in the prison dining hall when a fight broke out nearby. Nevada equips its corrections officers with shotguns loaded with birdshot — one of the only states that does so. One officer quickly fired at the fighting inmates. Olivas, who wasn’t involved in the fight, was hit by pellets in his upper body, face and eye. As a result of that, and the allegedly inadequate medical treatment of the injury, he lost sight in one eye and was permanently disfigured.
After being released almost two years later, acting as his own lawyer, Olivas filed a state court lawsuit, alleging his injuries were due to unconstitutional actions of prison officers and violations of various state laws. After the case was moved to the federal district court, the presiding judge reviewed the case using procedures set in the PLRA.
Adopted by Congress in 1995, the PLRA was designed to crack down on frivolous lawsuits by creating new requirements for prisoner lawsuits, in order to ease the caseload burdens of courts. One section of the new law disallows filing of claims that are malicious, frivolous, don’t state a claim on which relief can be granted, or which seek monetary damages from an immune defendant.
PLRA also prohibits prisoner-filed lawsuits over prison conditions unless the inmate has first exhausted available administrative remedies. The PLRA doesn’t specify what administrative remedies a state must provide, but the Supreme Court has clearly held they must be completed before a prisoner’s lawsuit may be heard.
Finding the case failed to meet PLRA standards, the judge then dismissed the federal and constitutional claims, and sent the state law claims to a state court, which soon dismissed them as well. He did allow Olivas a chance to amend his lawsuit, however. Now aided by counsel, Olivas renewed his case, claiming the officers intended to harm him.
The revised complaint then came back to the judge for another PLRA review, and was again found deficient. The case could not go forward, the judge ruled, because Olivas had not offered any basis for showing intent to harm him. Instead, the court viewed the shotgun injury as an unintentional consequence of a good-faith effort to restore order.
But when the dismissal went to the federal appeals court, the three-judge panel focused on a new question: whether PLRA screening was appropriate for a lawsuit filed by a former inmate, not a current prisoner. Based on the statute’s definition of “prisoner,” they decided it was not, overriding the lower court’s dismissal and reviving Olivas’ case. Because Olivas was not in custody at the time he filed the lawsuit, it was wrong for the lower court to screen it for compliance with PLRA requirements.
On May 19, in Olivas v. Nevada, the 9th Circuit panel reinstated a lawsuit brought by Dario Olivas, a former inmate in Nevada’s High Desert State Prison, that he filed against the prison, one corrections officer that was named, and 10 more unnamed ones.
In July 2012, Olivas was eating in the prison dining hall when a fight broke out nearby. Nevada equips its corrections officers with shotguns loaded with birdshot — one of the only states that does so. One officer quickly fired at the fighting inmates. Olivas, who wasn’t involved in the fight, was hit by pellets in his upper body, face and eye. As a result of that, and the allegedly inadequate medical treatment of the injury, he lost sight in one eye and was permanently disfigured.
After being released almost two years later, acting as his own lawyer, Olivas filed a state court lawsuit, alleging his injuries were due to unconstitutional actions of prison officers and violations of various state laws. After the case was moved to the federal district court, the presiding judge reviewed the case using procedures set in the PLRA.
Adopted by Congress in 1995, the PLRA was designed to crack down on frivolous lawsuits by creating new requirements for prisoner lawsuits, in order to ease the caseload burdens of courts. One section of the new law disallows filing of claims that are malicious, frivolous, don’t state a claim on which relief can be granted, or which seek monetary damages from an immune defendant.
PLRA also prohibits prisoner-filed lawsuits over prison conditions unless the inmate has first exhausted available administrative remedies. The PLRA doesn’t specify what administrative remedies a state must provide, but the Supreme Court has clearly held they must be completed before a prisoner’s lawsuit may be heard.
Finding the case failed to meet PLRA standards, the judge then dismissed the federal and constitutional claims, and sent the state law claims to a state court, which soon dismissed them as well. He did allow Olivas a chance to amend his lawsuit, however. Now aided by counsel, Olivas renewed his case, claiming the officers intended to harm him.
The revised complaint then came back to the judge for another PLRA review, and was again found deficient. The case could not go forward, the judge ruled, because Olivas had not offered any basis for showing intent to harm him. Instead, the court viewed the shotgun injury as an unintentional consequence of a good-faith effort to restore order.
But when the dismissal went to the federal appeals court, the three-judge panel focused on a new question: whether PLRA screening was appropriate for a lawsuit filed by a former inmate, not a current prisoner. Based on the statute’s definition of “prisoner,” they decided it was not, overriding the lower court’s dismissal and reviving Olivas’ case. Because Olivas was not in custody at the time he filed the lawsuit, it was wrong for the lower court to screen it for compliance with PLRA requirements.
Appeals Court Tosses FCC Rate Controls on Most Prison Calls
Advocates of government action on lowering phone rates for calls to prison and jail inmates were handed a major setback June 13 when three-judge panel of a Washington, D.C. federal appeals court ruled the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) lacked legal authority to impose rate limits on intrastate calls to inmates.
In October 2015, the agency – then under Democratic control – voted 3-2 along party lines to issue rules blocking state prisons or local jails from charging inmates more than 11 cents per minute on local and long-distance calls, plus a variety of changes, including caps or bans on a host of other charges, such as for video and other technically advanced services. About 80 percent of inmate calls are intrastate.
A coalition of inmates, their families, and other activists supported the agency’s action, and some even argued for farther-reaching steps, arguing that the high expense of inmate calls interferes with keeping ties with their families and communities. Studies show inmates who stay in contact with their families while incarcerated have lower recidivism rates.
In 2016, companies providing inmate calling services filed a challenge to the new FCC rules in a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., as did a group of eight states. Both groups argued many of the regulations exceeded the agency’s authority.
Certain parts of the FCC rules drew challenges from one group or the other. For example, the states challenging the rules said the low FCC-set cap on intrastate call rates would keep state prisons and local jails from recovering their costs for security-related services and technology updates needed for inmate phone systems. The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners also opposed the FCC rules as exceeding the agency’s authority.
Earlier this year, while reviewing the legal challenges, the appellate court twice froze large sections of the rules, including the intrastate rate cap. After the Trump administration took control, the FCC’s new chairman – who had been one of the two dissenting agency members when the rules were adopted – announced the FCC would stop defending the rule in court. He pledged he’d work on relief from expensive prison and jail phone rates, but “in a lawful manner.” It was left to a variety of intervening advocates to defend the FCC rules.
But on June 13, the three-judge panel handed down a 2-1 decision knocking down the intrastate rate cap. Writing for the majority, Judge Harry Edwards held the FCC had misinterpreted the Telecommunications Act, as well as earlier decisions by the agency and courts. The appeals court also dismissed the way the FCC rules calculated industry cost data, saying it was arbitrary and capricious, lacked justification in the rulemaking record, and was unsupported “by reasoned decisionmaking.”
The court also found the FCC exceeded its authority in imposing reporting requirements on video visitation communications. While sending a few issues back to the agency for further work, the decision likely means the end—for the time being—of the effort to impose federal regulations on most phone calls to jail and prison inmates.
In October 2015, the agency – then under Democratic control – voted 3-2 along party lines to issue rules blocking state prisons or local jails from charging inmates more than 11 cents per minute on local and long-distance calls, plus a variety of changes, including caps or bans on a host of other charges, such as for video and other technically advanced services. About 80 percent of inmate calls are intrastate.
A coalition of inmates, their families, and other activists supported the agency’s action, and some even argued for farther-reaching steps, arguing that the high expense of inmate calls interferes with keeping ties with their families and communities. Studies show inmates who stay in contact with their families while incarcerated have lower recidivism rates.
In 2016, companies providing inmate calling services filed a challenge to the new FCC rules in a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., as did a group of eight states. Both groups argued many of the regulations exceeded the agency’s authority.
Certain parts of the FCC rules drew challenges from one group or the other. For example, the states challenging the rules said the low FCC-set cap on intrastate call rates would keep state prisons and local jails from recovering their costs for security-related services and technology updates needed for inmate phone systems. The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners also opposed the FCC rules as exceeding the agency’s authority.
Earlier this year, while reviewing the legal challenges, the appellate court twice froze large sections of the rules, including the intrastate rate cap. After the Trump administration took control, the FCC’s new chairman – who had been one of the two dissenting agency members when the rules were adopted – announced the FCC would stop defending the rule in court. He pledged he’d work on relief from expensive prison and jail phone rates, but “in a lawful manner.” It was left to a variety of intervening advocates to defend the FCC rules.
But on June 13, the three-judge panel handed down a 2-1 decision knocking down the intrastate rate cap. Writing for the majority, Judge Harry Edwards held the FCC had misinterpreted the Telecommunications Act, as well as earlier decisions by the agency and courts. The appeals court also dismissed the way the FCC rules calculated industry cost data, saying it was arbitrary and capricious, lacked justification in the rulemaking record, and was unsupported “by reasoned decisionmaking.”
The court also found the FCC exceeded its authority in imposing reporting requirements on video visitation communications. While sending a few issues back to the agency for further work, the decision likely means the end—for the time being—of the effort to impose federal regulations on most phone calls to jail and prison inmates.
