Legal Issues in Jail
ISSDA Jail School
Des Moines, Iowa
September 19, 2006
David Vestal
ISAC General Counsel
dvestal@iowacounties.org
(515) 244-7181
Disciplinary Segregation
• Putting a prisoner in
segregation, even without
cause, is not a constitutional
violation.
Right to Marry
• The Supreme Court has
concluded that prisoners have
a constitutionally protected
right to marry.
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 96,
(1987)
Right to Outdoor Exercise
• There is no right to outdoor
exercise.
Campbell v. Cauthron, 623 F.2d
503, 507 (8th Cir.1980)
Right to Exercise Equipment
• The lack of exercise equipment
does not constitute cruel and
unusual punishment.
Rhodes, v. Chapman, 452 U.S.
337, 69 L. Ed. 2d 59, 101 S. Ct.
2392 (1981)
Visitation
• “Visitation is a privilege and
within the correctional facility's
province to administer as it
sees fit.”
Burke v. Rudnick, 2000 WL
33339652 (D.N.D. 2000)
Commissary
• "Because the county provided
for the plaintiff's basic
necessities (food, shelter,
clothing, medical care, etc.), he
had no protected property or
liberty interest in commissary
privileges."
Poole v. Stubblefield, 2005 WL
2290450 (E.D.Mo. 2005)
Smoking
• “Plaintiff complains that
defendants will not allow him
to smoke. There is no
constitutional right to smoke in
prison."
Grass v. Sargent, 903 F.2d 1206,
1206 (8th Cir. 1990)
Food
• Jail officials must provide a
nutritionally adequate diet for
prisoners.
Divers v. Dep't of Corrections,
921 F.2d 191, 194 (8th Cir. 1990)
Food Cont.
• The denial of food violates the
constitutional rights of
prisoners.
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
825, 832, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 128 L.
Ed. 2d 811 (1994)
Food Cont.
• Jails have a duty to provide their
prisoners with nutritionally
adequate food. But assuming that
this is done, jail officials have the
discretion to control its contents.
Divers v. Department of Corr., 921
F.2d 191, 194 (8th Cir. 1990)
Charging for Medical Care
• You can charge for medical
care.
• You cannot refuse medical care
because someone is unwilling
or unable to pay for it.
Taylor v Greenwell, D. Mo. 2005,
Lexis 22373
Religious Services
• The state cannot compel or
even encourage prisoners'
attendance at religious
services.
Montano v. Hedgepeth, 120 F.3d
844, 850 n. 10 (8th Cir. 1997)
Religious Services Cont.
• A jail cannot require prisoners
to attend church services or
participate in God-related
programs like AA or NA
Munson v Norris 8th Cir
January 2006
Religious Services Cont.
• "A prisoner need not be
afforded his preferred means
of practicing his religion as
long as he is afforded sufficient
means to do so.“
Murphy v Missouri Dept. of
Corrections, 372 F.3d 979, 983
(8th Cir. 2004)
Religious Services Cont.
• A prisoner is not entitled to “a
religious advisor whose beliefs
are completely congruent with
his own.”
Weir v. Nix, 114 F.3d 817, 820
(8th Cir. 1997)
Threatening Language By Jail Staff
• Threatening words of jail staff,
without more, do not invade a
federally protected right.
McDowell v. Jones, 990 F.2d 433,
434 (8th Cir. 1993)
Use of Force
• An 'actual injury' must be
shown to support an excessive
force claim under the Fourth
Amendment.
Hanig v. Lee, 415 F.3d 822, 824
(8th Cir. 2005)
Use of Force Cont.
• “The basic question in use of
force cases is "whether force
was applied in a good faith
effort to maintain or restore
discipline or maliciously and
sadistically to cause harm."
Jones v. Shields, 207 F.3d 491,
495 (8th Cir. 2000)
Use of Force Cont.
Factors to be considered by a court in
making the “use of force” determination
include
• the need for the application of physical
force;
• the relationship between the need for
physical force and the amount of force
applied; and
• the extent of the injury suffered by the
prisoner.
Jones v. Shields, 207 F.3d 491, 495 (8th Cir.
2000)
Use of Force Cont.
• “Limited use of the restraint
board is not unreasonable, as
long as it is only used for the
amount of time necessary to
restore order.”
Sanders v Zeller, U.S. Dist. Ct
(N.D. Ia 2006)
Use of Force Cont.
• Incidents of property
destruction are constitutionally
valid reasons for restraining
prisoners for short periods to
prevent further damage.
Hanks v Prachar, 8th Cir., August
2006
Jail Jobs
• Prisoners do not have a
constitutional right to a
particular jail job.
Lomholt v. Holder, 287 F.3d
683, 684 (8th Cir. 2002)
Grievance Procedures
• “No action shall be brought
with respect to prison
conditions under section 1983
by a prisoner confined in any
jail, prison, or other
correctional facility until such
administrative remedies as are
available are exhausted.”
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)
Grievance Procedures Cont.
• It is well-settled that a prisoner has
no constitutional right to an intraprison grievance system and that
the failure to investigate or respond
to a prisoner's grievances is not
actionable under 42 U.S.C §1983.
Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495
(8th Cir. 1993)
Grievance Procedures Cont.
• Only grievance procedures
which are in reality available to
a prisoner must be exhausted.
Lyon v. Vande Krol, 305 F.3d
806, 808-09 (8th Cir. 2002)
Prisoner Mail
• Jail officials do not commit
constitutional violations by
reading prisoners' outgoing
non-privileged mail.
Gassler v. Wood, 14 F.3d 406,
408 n.5 (8th Cir. 1994)
Prisoner Mail Cont.
• An isolated, inadvertent instance of
opening incoming confidential legal
mail will not support a §1983
damage action. An isolated incident,
without any evidence of improper
motive or resulting interference
with a prisoner’s right to counsel
does not give rise to a constitutional
violation.
Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 431
(8th Cir. 1997)
Personal Care Products
• The failure to regularly provide
prisoners with toilet articles
including soap, razors, combs,
toothpaste, toilet paper, access to a
mirror and sanitary napkins for
female prisoners constitutes a denial
of personal hygiene and sanitary
living conditions.
Atkins v. County of Orange, 372
F.Supp.2d 377 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)
Cell Searches
• A single search, even if legal
papers were mistakenly
misappropriated, does not
constitute the kind of unnecessary
and wanton infliction of pain
which can violate the Eighth
Amendment.
Scher v. Engelke, 943 F.2d 921 (8th
Cir. 1991)
Prisoner-On-Prisoner Violence
• The test in a prisoner-onprisoner violence case is
whether the jail staff was
deliberately indifferent to "a
known, excessive risk of
serious harm" to the victim.
Pagels v. Morrison, 335 F.3d
736, 740 (8th Cir. 2003)
Personal Items
• Rules related to personal
property of prisoners will be
upheld unless prisoners can
show that the rules are not
reasonably related to a
legitimate penological interest.
McClinton v. ADC (8th Circuit
Court of Appeals, Feb. 9, 2006)
Right to Sue
• Prisoner claims for injunctive
relief to improve prison
conditions are moot when the
prisoner is transferred to
another facility and is no
longer subject to those
conditions.
Smith v. Hundley, 190 F.3d 852,
855 (8th Cir. 1999)
Retaliation
• Jail staff cannot retaliate
against a prisoner for his use of
the jail grievance system.
Pool v. Sebastian County, 418
F.3d 934, 942 (8th Cir. 2005)
Retaliation Cont.
• A jail can successfully defend a
retaliatory discipline claim by
showing "some evidence" that
the prisoner actually
committed a rule violation.
Goff v. Burton, 7 F.3d 734, 739
(8th Cir. 1993)
Deliberate Indifference
• For the prisoner to succeed in his
claim that defendants were
deliberately indifferent, he "must
evidence (1) he suffered from a
serious medical condition, (2)
defendants knew of the condition,
and (3) defendants deliberately
disregarded the condition.“
Kitchen v. Miller, 343 F.Supp.2d 820,
823 (E.D. Mo. 2004)
Deliberate Indifference Cont.
• To show deliberate indifference, a
prisoner must demonstrate that he
suffered objectively serious
medical needs, and the officials
actually knew of but deliberately
disregarded those needs.
Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234,
1239 (8th Cir. 1997)
Delays In Medication
• “Deliberate indifference”
includes intentional
interference with a prisoner’s
prescribed treatment.
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,
104-05, 97 S. Ct. 285, 50 L. Ed.
2d 251 (1976)
Delays In Medication Cont.
• The knowing failure to
administer prescribed
medicine can itself constitute
deliberate indifference.
Phillips v. Jasper County, 8th
Circuit, February 2006
Delays In Medication Cont.
• To prevail on deliberateindifference claim, a prisoner
must show he suffered from
serious medical need that the
jail staff knew of but ignored.
Roberson v. Bradshaw, 198 F.3d
645, 647 (8th Cir. 1999)
For Copy of Power Point
www.iowacounties.org
Legal Issues in Jail