10 Lessons from 10 Lessons from Current Jail LitigationCurrent Jail Litigation

ISSDA Jails SchoolHoliday Inn Airport

Des Moines, IASeptember 25, 2002

David VestalIowa State Association of Counties

(515) 244-7181E-mail: dvestal@iowacounties.orgWebsite: www.iowacounties.org

Lesson One:

Counties are not Liable for Escaped Prisoners

Lesson Two:

Jail Conditions Claims Require Physical Injury

“No Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison or other correctional facility for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without prior showing of physical injury.” 42 U.S.C. §1997e(e).

Lesson Three:

Any Prisoner Claim Requires Exhaustion of Jail Grievance Procedures

The PLRA provides as follows: “No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, 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) (Supp. 2000).

“We hold that the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong.”

Correction Officer Porter v. Nussle 534 U.S. 516 (2002)

Lesson Four:

You Cannot Search a Prisoner’s Legal Papers

Lesson Five:

Test is Different for Pretrial Detainees and Convicted Prisoners

The Eighth Amendment provides: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Convicted Prisoners

The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees pre–trial detainees protection from deprivations that are intended to punish. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979)

Pre–Trial Standard

Lesson Six:

Deliberate Indifference has Two-Part Test

The prisoner must demonstrate (1) that he suffered from objectively serious medical needs and (2) that the jail officials actually knew of but deliberately disregarded those needs.

The objective component in a case where the prisoner is claiming inadequate medical care is met when the prisoner proves that his medical need is serious.

Objective Test

A serious medical need is one that has been diagnosed by a physician as requiring treatment, or one that is so obvious that even a layperson would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention.

No Serious Medical Need Swollen wrists

Prisoner’s sensitive skin condition caused by shaving

Headaches, neck pain and blurred vision

Being kicked in the leg

Slight visual impairment causing mild headaches and mild tension

Aches and sore throats

Serious Medical Needs

Inguinal hernia

Toenails which had become infected and turned black

Painful nasal condition

Painful gallstones

Ruptured appendix

Fracture in the hip joint which required surgery

Serious Medical Needs –Cont’d.

Infected teeth

Back and head injuries which prohibited prisoner from walking

Repeated complaints of chest pains, headaches, and dizziness which later resulted in prisoner’s death

Severe asthmatic attack which led to prisoner’s death

Emphysema which required the use of oxygen equipment

Broken hand

A prisoner must demonstrate that the jail officials actually knew about his serious medical needs but deliberately disregarded those needs.

Subjective Test

The failure to treat a medical condition does not constitute punishment with the meaning of the Eighth Amendment unless jail officials knew that the condition created an excessive risk to the inmate's health and then failed to act on the knowledge.

Reliance by jail officials upon the opinion of the medical staff as to the proper course of treatment is generally sufficient to insulate them from liability.

Medical Judgement Upheld

The question whether an X–ray or additional diagnostic techniques or forms of treatment is indicated is a classic example of a matter for medical judgement. A medical decision not to order an X–ray, or like measures, does not represent cruel and unusual punishment.

Estelle v. Gamble 429 U.S. 97 US Supreme Court 1976

Mere disagreement with treatment decisions does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.

Jail officials do not violate the Eighth Amendment when, in the exercise of their professional judgment, they refuse to implement a prisoner’s requested choice of treatment.

Prisoners do not have a constitutional right to any particular type of treatment.

Diagnosis or treatment which is grossly incompetent or deviates from professional standards of conduct can rise to the level of deliberate indifference.

When the need for treatment is obvious, medical care which is so cursory as to amount to no treatment at all, or that which may constitute recklessness may amount of deliberate indifference.

Mere proof that an inmate has obtained some medical care, however, does not mean that the course of treatment of an inmate’s medical problems cannot manifest deliberate indifference.

Most common cause of county losing a “deliberate indifference” case:

Failure to provide prisoners with the care that the jail medical staff has ordered.

Lesson Seven:

You Can Charge for Medical Visits

Iowa Code section 356.5

The keeper of each jail shall:

Furnish each prisoner with necessary medical aid.

Iowa Code sections 356.5 and 356.15 regarding care of prisoners were not intended to insulate prisoners themselves from payment for medical services rendered for their benefit. Smith v. Linn County, 342 N.W.2d 861. (1984)

Lesson Eight:

There is a Limited Duty to Identify Suicide Risks

In such cases, the burden is on the plaintiff to show that (1) he suffered from a serious medical need and (2) the prison officials actually knew of his need, but deliberately failed to meet it.

Hott v Hennepin County 200 F. 3d 901 (2001)

Suicide Cases

Lesson Nine:

Practice of Religion in Jail Can be Regulated

“Schreiber presents a valid free exercise claim and prison officials may infringe on Schreiber’s rights only if their action is reasonably related to legitimate penological interest.”

Schreiber v. Ault 280 F.3d 891(2002)

“The State’s procedure that delivers excess blood from testing to a third-party contractor is reasonable, and is rationally connected to the legitimate, neutral government interest of protecting the health and safety of prison inmates and employees.”

Schreiber v Ault, 280 F.3d 891 (2002)

(1) the belief system is not a “religion”;(2) the Jail’s rules do not impinge upon the prisoner’s free exercise of that religion; and (3) the jail’s policies are reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest.

3 Defenses to a Free Exercise Claim

What is a religion?

•First, a religion addresses fundamental and ultimate questions

•Second, a religion is comprehensive in nature

•Third, a religion has certain formal and external signs

Lesson Ten:

Special Test for Jail Disturbance Cases

When a court analyzes an Eight Amendment claim of excessive physical force, “the ‘core judicial inquiry’ is whether the force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.”

Reminder:

Those Convicted of Domestic Abuse Cannot Carry Firearms

18 US Code §922(g)(9): If someone is convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic abuse, he or she may not possess a firearm.