Christopher Zoukis's Blog - Posts Tagged "lawsuit"
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.
Female Inmates Sue over BOP Guidelines for Transgender Males
Three female inmates in a federal prison in Texas have gone to court in an attempt to block a Bureau of Prisons (BOP) policy that requires them to share bathrooms and showers with inmates who identify as transgender females but are biologically male.
On Feb. 15th, inmates Rhonda Fleming, Jeanette Driever, and Charlsa Little sued to block the BOP policy from being applied at the Federal Medical Center Carswell, a medical facility and camp located at the Fort Worth naval air station.
Months earlier, the plaintiffs had attempted but failed to persuade a federal judge in Fort Worth to expand a temporary injunction to include their incarceration site. The temporary injunction blocked an Obama administration directive giving bathroom access to public school students based on their gender identity.
On March 14, the Texas Senate approved the transgender bathroom bill that would, among other things, impose escalating fines on schools or governments that allow transgender people to use bathrooms that conform with their gender identities. A vote on the bill takes place March 15.
The inmates’ lawsuit claims the current policy forces them to live in a dangerous and degrading environment and share intimate facilities “with men who allege they are women,” but who "openly express their sexual desire” for the female inmates in settings where they are only partially clothed or naked. They also allege transgender men intentionally exposure themselves to the female inmates.
Their lawsuit also claims that one male transgender inmate, who was 6’5” and weighed over 200, was assigned to the Special Housing Unit (SHU) of the facility and warned officials there not to assign him to share a cell with a certain female inmate, since if they did, “he would rape her.” Female inmates with SHU assignments, the lawsuit argued, would be “subject to government-sanctioned rape.”
The BOP's 15-page “Transgender Offender Manual,” issued in mid-January, provides staff with guidance for dealing with “unique issues that arise when working with transgender inmates,” and states the views of transgender or intersex inmates as to their own personal safety “must be given serious consideration.” It also advises that transgender inmates must be allowed to shower separately from other inmates if they so desire. But the manual also advises that housing assignments for transgender or intersex inmates must consider case-by-case the inmate’s health and safety and potential security or management problems.
The Trump administration has already revoked earlier guidance from the Department of Education on transgender students’ access to bathrooms and similar facilities, so the BOP policy could also be revised in the future. But if that doesn’t happen, the female inmates from Fort Worth could face serious difficulties prevailing in their lawsuit, which is before the same judge who granted the injunction against the DOE policy.
In the first place, the three inmates are thus far representing themselves. In addition, the judge hearing their case has already cautioned them, when denying their request to extend his DOE injunction, that challenges to conditions of incarceration first require attempts to win administrative relief from prison officials.
It’s also unlikely to help the case that lead plaintiff Fleming, who’s serving a lengthy sentence as ringleader in a Medicare-Medicaid fraud scheme, has a history of filing unsuccessful lawsuits. In fact, in 2000 a federal appeals court ordered she not be permitted to file in forma pauperis (without paying filing fees, due to indigency) in any federal court, unless able to show she was in imminent danger of serious personal injury.
On Feb. 15th, inmates Rhonda Fleming, Jeanette Driever, and Charlsa Little sued to block the BOP policy from being applied at the Federal Medical Center Carswell, a medical facility and camp located at the Fort Worth naval air station.
Months earlier, the plaintiffs had attempted but failed to persuade a federal judge in Fort Worth to expand a temporary injunction to include their incarceration site. The temporary injunction blocked an Obama administration directive giving bathroom access to public school students based on their gender identity.
On March 14, the Texas Senate approved the transgender bathroom bill that would, among other things, impose escalating fines on schools or governments that allow transgender people to use bathrooms that conform with their gender identities. A vote on the bill takes place March 15.
The inmates’ lawsuit claims the current policy forces them to live in a dangerous and degrading environment and share intimate facilities “with men who allege they are women,” but who "openly express their sexual desire” for the female inmates in settings where they are only partially clothed or naked. They also allege transgender men intentionally exposure themselves to the female inmates.
Their lawsuit also claims that one male transgender inmate, who was 6’5” and weighed over 200, was assigned to the Special Housing Unit (SHU) of the facility and warned officials there not to assign him to share a cell with a certain female inmate, since if they did, “he would rape her.” Female inmates with SHU assignments, the lawsuit argued, would be “subject to government-sanctioned rape.”
The BOP's 15-page “Transgender Offender Manual,” issued in mid-January, provides staff with guidance for dealing with “unique issues that arise when working with transgender inmates,” and states the views of transgender or intersex inmates as to their own personal safety “must be given serious consideration.” It also advises that transgender inmates must be allowed to shower separately from other inmates if they so desire. But the manual also advises that housing assignments for transgender or intersex inmates must consider case-by-case the inmate’s health and safety and potential security or management problems.
The Trump administration has already revoked earlier guidance from the Department of Education on transgender students’ access to bathrooms and similar facilities, so the BOP policy could also be revised in the future. But if that doesn’t happen, the female inmates from Fort Worth could face serious difficulties prevailing in their lawsuit, which is before the same judge who granted the injunction against the DOE policy.
In the first place, the three inmates are thus far representing themselves. In addition, the judge hearing their case has already cautioned them, when denying their request to extend his DOE injunction, that challenges to conditions of incarceration first require attempts to win administrative relief from prison officials.
It’s also unlikely to help the case that lead plaintiff Fleming, who’s serving a lengthy sentence as ringleader in a Medicare-Medicaid fraud scheme, has a history of filing unsuccessful lawsuits. In fact, in 2000 a federal appeals court ordered she not be permitted to file in forma pauperis (without paying filing fees, due to indigency) in any federal court, unless able to show she was in imminent danger of serious personal injury.
Florida Weighs Restoring Voting Rights for Released Felons
For 150 years, Florida has had one of the nation’s harshest policies toward restoring the voting rights of released inmates – lifetime disenfranchisement for former felons – but the state’s voters may soon get a chance to reverse that ban, which is also under legal challenge.
A long-standing provision in Florida’s constitution permanently prevents voting by an estimated 1.6 million Floridians, a figure roughly equal to the adult population of Miami-Dade County. Along with Kentucky and Iowa, Florida is the only state currently providing for lifetime disenfranchisement for felons who have completed all parts of their sentences. In the years since 2000, four other states (Delaware, New Mexico, Nebraska, and Maryland) have dropped laws similar to Florida’s.
Activists are working to undo the ban through a ballot initiative, the Voting Restoration Amendment, which would become law if approved by 60% of voters going to the polls in November 2018. The proposal would automatically restore voting rights to ex-felons who have completed all terms of their sentences, including probation or parole. The measure would not apply to persons convicted of murder or sexual felonies. Those individuals would remain permanently disenfranchised unless both the governor and the state cabinet vote to restore their voting rights.
As state law requires, the Florida Supreme Court held a March 6 hearing to examine whether the wording of the Voting Restoration Amendment complies with the standards ballot initiatives must meet in order to go before the voters. The initiative must be clearly worded and address only a single issue. A decision on whether the initiative is properly drawn is expected soon. Supporters were encouraged that Pam Bondi, the state’s Attorney-General, seen as a potential opponent, took no position on the measure during the court hearing.
In 2011, Bondi and Gov. Rick Scott, shortly after taking office, reversed major parts of a broader clemency process adopted by ex-governor Charlie Crist. As amended by Scott and his cabinet, ex-felons have to wait at least five years after finishing their sentences before they can apply to the governor and his cabinet for restoration of their voting rights. Fewer than 2,500 of those requests have been approved during Scott’s time in office, and a backlog of about 10,500 applications awaits action.
If the state Supreme Court clears the new initiative to win a spot on the 2018 ballot, supporters will also have to muster almost 700,000 more signatures from registered state voters – which could be a lengthy and expensive undertaking. A similar effort in 2016 fell far short.
In other action aimed at overturning the Florida lifetime disenfranchisement of felons, on March 13 seven former felons and the nonpartisan Fair Elections Legal Network filed a class-action lawsuit against Gov. Scott and other state officials, attacking the state’s disenfranchisement law as unconstitutional.
The lawsuit argues the state’s mandate on felon disenfranchisement has a disparate impact on racial minorities. It also alleges that the governor, who has the deciding vote in some voting rights restoration cases, has in some cases rejected requests because the applicants have gotten traffic tickets after completing all terms of their sentences. In other instances, applicants complained of being quizzed about whether they were using alcohol or controlled substances.
A long-standing provision in Florida’s constitution permanently prevents voting by an estimated 1.6 million Floridians, a figure roughly equal to the adult population of Miami-Dade County. Along with Kentucky and Iowa, Florida is the only state currently providing for lifetime disenfranchisement for felons who have completed all parts of their sentences. In the years since 2000, four other states (Delaware, New Mexico, Nebraska, and Maryland) have dropped laws similar to Florida’s.
Activists are working to undo the ban through a ballot initiative, the Voting Restoration Amendment, which would become law if approved by 60% of voters going to the polls in November 2018. The proposal would automatically restore voting rights to ex-felons who have completed all terms of their sentences, including probation or parole. The measure would not apply to persons convicted of murder or sexual felonies. Those individuals would remain permanently disenfranchised unless both the governor and the state cabinet vote to restore their voting rights.
As state law requires, the Florida Supreme Court held a March 6 hearing to examine whether the wording of the Voting Restoration Amendment complies with the standards ballot initiatives must meet in order to go before the voters. The initiative must be clearly worded and address only a single issue. A decision on whether the initiative is properly drawn is expected soon. Supporters were encouraged that Pam Bondi, the state’s Attorney-General, seen as a potential opponent, took no position on the measure during the court hearing.
In 2011, Bondi and Gov. Rick Scott, shortly after taking office, reversed major parts of a broader clemency process adopted by ex-governor Charlie Crist. As amended by Scott and his cabinet, ex-felons have to wait at least five years after finishing their sentences before they can apply to the governor and his cabinet for restoration of their voting rights. Fewer than 2,500 of those requests have been approved during Scott’s time in office, and a backlog of about 10,500 applications awaits action.
If the state Supreme Court clears the new initiative to win a spot on the 2018 ballot, supporters will also have to muster almost 700,000 more signatures from registered state voters – which could be a lengthy and expensive undertaking. A similar effort in 2016 fell far short.
In other action aimed at overturning the Florida lifetime disenfranchisement of felons, on March 13 seven former felons and the nonpartisan Fair Elections Legal Network filed a class-action lawsuit against Gov. Scott and other state officials, attacking the state’s disenfranchisement law as unconstitutional.
The lawsuit argues the state’s mandate on felon disenfranchisement has a disparate impact on racial minorities. It also alleges that the governor, who has the deciding vote in some voting rights restoration cases, has in some cases rejected requests because the applicants have gotten traffic tickets after completing all terms of their sentences. In other instances, applicants complained of being quizzed about whether they were using alcohol or controlled substances.
