Constitutional Rights of Inmates

Chapter 13Civil and Criminal Liability

Of Prison Officials

Judicial remedies Administrative remedies largely unused Administrative remedies are good alternative to

court

Generally, federal court jurisdiction is limited to cases arising under”

U.S. Constitution U.S. law

United States Code –acts of Congress Code of Federal Regulations – regulations of federal

agencies

Courts of general jurisdiction Presumed to have jurisdiction to hear a dispute

unless contrary is shown Concurrent jurisdiction to hear claims under U.S.

Constitution unless Congress has given exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts

Gives inmate a choice of forums

Private citizen may not sue government agency without its consent

Common law maxim “The king can do no wrong.” Public funds should not be spent to pay for private injuries Government officials would not do job properly if they

made decisions based upon threat of litigation.

Most states have abolished or modified doctrine of sovereign immunity

In states where sovereign immunity is still the law, inmates may sue for injunctive relief, or sue in federal court under 42 USC § 1983

Suits against individual government officers If acting in unconstitutional manner, not protected

by sovereign immunity because they acting beyond scope of authority

Some states allow employees to be sued for intentional torts

Some states allow suits for negligence of state employees

Balance needs of government officials to have immunity from suits against need for compensation of persons who have been injured by negligent government action

Proposed that agents and employees should be immune, but government should pay damages where appropriate

Courts have traditionally avoided hearing suits by prisoners against prison and jail officials

Reasons for not considering such suits separation of powers (prisons are part of executive

branch) lack of judicial expertise in correctional issues fear that court intervention will subvert prison discipline

Hands off doctrine declined since Cooper v. Pate, 378 U.S. 546 (1964), Supreme Court held inmates could sue under Federal Civil

Rights Act 42 USC § 1983

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable….

Under “color of law” means misuse of power. Elements:

Person who Under color of state lawCauses deprivation of rights Under Constitution and laws Shall be liable To the injured party

“Person” - not a state or state agency Person is sued individually, not as agent of state Relief and any compensation for damages is sought

against individual Most agencies agree to provide legal defense for

employee and pay any damages assessed Governmental unit or agency may be sued only when

an official policy contributed to causation of damages

Person Cities and counties have been held by the US

Supreme Court to fall within definition of “persons.” Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)

Court considered legislative history of Civil Rights Act of 1871 and concluded Congress intended to include local governments to fall within Act

But damage must result from government policy, not individual actions of employee

States and state agencies cannot be sued in federal court due to the 11th Amendment

Many states have tort claims acts that allow suits against state, or an administrative agency to hear and decide tort claims against the state

What constitutes the “policy” of local government? Gregory v. Shelby County, 220 F.3d 433 (6th Cir. 2000) Inmate was killed by another inmate when doors to two

cells were open at same time Jail rules required that only one cell be open at a time Rule was violated frequently and violations were tolerated

by jail This was insufficient to prove that was county policy Relief was denied

Inadequate training may be grounds for 1983 If training is not adequate to prevent problem, then

that is the policy of government If training program is adequate, even if the

employee was not well trained, no liability Inadequate training must also be proven to cause

harm

Hiring practices may be basis for liability Agency that had no hiring standards and hired

person who had prior convictions for violence would be liable if the person assaulted an inmate

Sheriff had policy of background checks, and obtained traffic and criminal history of applicant who had several misdemeanor convictions for battery,

but failed to look closely and was not aware of his record,

was not liable when the new jailor assaulted an inmate. It did not constitute deliberate indifference.

“Under color of state law” - must be acting in course of employment with govt.

The government position gives person the opportunity to violate rights of others

Causation - must prove actions of person actually produced an injury to another

Freedom of religion (1st Amendment) Right to Counsel (6th Amendment) Equal protection (14th Amendment) Excessive force (8th Amendment)

Inmates have no right to counsel in civil suits, so are filed pro se

Results in more frivolous claims Defendants must hire attorney and defend Prison Litigation Reform Act (1996) limited

prisoner suits

Federal court may not adopt higher standards of pleading for prisoner suits

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 8(c) provides for “notice pleading”, P must simply state sufficient facts that put D on notice of the allegations

Some state require “fact pleading” which requires that complaint state in detail factual basis for complaint

Court may not put higher standard on inmates than other litigants

Congress (1998) passed legislation limited scope of discovery in suits against prison officials. Limited access to: Financial records: without consent, court order, or following

judgment against official for monetary damages Home address Social Security Number Home telephone number Identity of family members Tax returns

In re Wilkerson, 137 F.3d 911 (6th Cir. 1998) Court upheld exclusion of inmate from deposition

of prison staff Expert witness testified institution security and

discipline would be harmed if inmate were present Exclusion was needed to maintain authority of staff;

avoid unnecessary tension; protect staff morale.

Actions under Civil Rights Act would not be allowed if the government official were protected under sovereign immunity

Immunity not apply when official exceeds authority Constitutional violations are not within law, so

immunity not apply 11th Amendment does not prevent suit against one who

acts under color of state law and violates federal constitution

Official who violates constitution is stripped of governmental protection and is personally responsible

Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 (1975) [p. 288] School board member given qualified immunity for

excessive discipline where he acts in good faith and sincerely believes actions are legal.

No immunity where he acted maliciously to cause deprivation of rights of student, or where he knew or reasonably should have known that his actions would violate constitutional rights.

O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975) Superintendent of mental institution sued for depriving mental patient of his liberty.

Jury awarded inmate judgment of $38,500. Superintendent argued he was following a state law,

and did not know that it was constitutionally invalid.

Supreme Court agreed and remanded for trial court to reconsider in accord with Wood v. Strickland.

The Supreme Court stated that the Eleventh Amendment provides no shield for a state official confronted by a claim he had deprived another of a Federal right under the color of state law.

The Supreme Court felt that too many cases were going to the jury or leading to extensive pretrial discovery.

The Supreme Court felt that more cases should be disposed of during the pleading stage of summary judgment.

Ruling on page 310.

Williams v. Treen, 671 F.2d 892 (5th Cir. 1982) State prison officials violated fire, safety, and health

regulations. Court held belief that their actions were lawful was per

se unreasonable Not entitled to good faith immunity from liability. State officials are charged with knowledge of their

state’s own explicit and clearly established regulations

Plaintiff who brings successful action under Civil Rights Act

Entitled to monetary damages to compensate for violation of rights

Actual damages to compensate for out-of pocket-loss and mental suffering

Nominal damages when there are no actual damages Punitive damages if act done intentionally or

maliciously Attorney fees if plaintiff has counsel

Intentional violations Malicious actions Reckless or callously indifferent deprivations of

federal constitutional or statutory rights

Generally, under the American Rule,parties must pay their own attorney fees

Exception to this rule: When statute provides for such award Where a contract provides for fees Where there is a willful violation of a court order Where losing party has acted in bad faith

Congress passed legislation that provided for award of attorney fees in various civil rights violation cases, including suits against prison officials

No entitlement to attorney fees unless the party prevails on the petition

Party “prevails” if they are successful on any significant issue

Significant issue is one that alters legal relationship of parties promotes goals of the act that is sued upon technical success on de minimus issues is not enough

Not calculated on time spent on losing issues Starting point is number of hours spent by attorney

by a reasonable hourly rate Fee may then be adjusted up or down depending

upon results obtained, complexity of issues, quality of representation, benefit to the plaintiff or class

Fees in civil rights cases are not related to the amount recovered

Civil rights suit is intended to affect important rights,

Sums involved are not necessarily related to these rights

If defendant makes settlement offer and plaintiff refuses to accept and the judgment is less than the offer,

then plaintiff may be liable for fees and costs incurred by defendants after the offer

25% of damage award must go to satisfy any aty fee award

Limits liability of defendants to 150% of monetary judgment

suits for injunctive relief not subject to this limitation

Limits hourly rate to 150% of rate paid to court appointed attorneys

Plaintiffs can be assessed fees and costs if the suit is found to be without any reasonable argument in support of the claim

Civil Rights Act authorizes equitable remedies as well as money judgments

Equitable remedies include injunctive relief Order to do or not do certain acts Courts have given states chance to propose manner of

addressing deficiencies Courts have also entered orders that specify how problem

should be solved

Statute of limitation sets time limits within which a suit must be filed

Prevents “stale” claims. Civil Rights Act does not set out statute of

limitations for claims

Law of state where claim arose determines length of limitations period

Action is treated as a personal injury claim for this purpose

Most common limitation for filing personal injury claim is 3 years

Many states have one-year limitations for intentional torts such as battery

District Courts have not allowed this shorter time in Civil Rights Act cases, and have required using the longer time period for filing general torts claims

Tolling statute stops time from running. Federal courts must also use state’s tolling statutes

in 1983 suits Unless this would defeat purpose of Civil Rights

Act “Continuing torts” time not run because the

wrongful act continues Fraud to conceal injury or existence of claim tolls

running of statute

Allowed when parties are unsure of legal status Court may declare rights and legal relations of parties All states and federal governments have legislation that

allows petitions for declaratory judgment

U.S. Declaratory Judgment Act Any federal court may declare the rights and legal

relations of parties May also grant relief beyond the declaratory

judgment

History Habeas corpus- common law remedy to challenge

unlawful detention Made part of U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9 May be suspended only in case of rebellion or invasion

Provides mechanism for prisoners to challenge violation of rights in prosecution of case

Focuses on violations of constitutional rights

Prisoner must first exhaust available state remediesAppealstate post-conviction relief

procedures

Wrongful conviction due to constitutional violation Improper loss of good-time Child custody cases

Many states have habeas corpus statutes May file in federal court after exhausting state remedies Must allege federal violation for federal jurisdiction But, Stone v. Powell, 1976, held state inmates may not use

4th Amendment violations as basis for federal habeas jurisdiction if issue was fully considered by state appellate court

No right to counsel in federal habeas actions Inmate must prepare and file his own petition Some states have programs for assistance of counsel

Staff attorneys Law school clinical programs Counsel substitute

Exception: inmates seeking habeas relief in death penalty cases are appointed counsel

Non-capital cases No appointed attorney unless petitioner survives

initial motion for dismissal and judge believes case may raise complicated legal and factual issues or may have substantial merit

State court judges do not like federal judges reviewing their decisions

Cases have already been fully reviewed by state appellate courts

Only 1% of habeas petitions are successful Runs counter to concept of federalism States are entitled to run their own courts Habeas review by federal courts undermines

authority of state courts

Persons may not obtain relief based on judicial decisions and rights that did not exist at the time of petitioner’s conviction. Butler v. McKeller, 1989

Prisoners must include all constitutional claims in one petition. McCleskey v. Zant, 1991

Prisoners forfeit right to raise issues in federal court if inmate failed to properly follow state procedures in state court appeal. Coleman v. Thompson, 1991. Inmate failed to file appeal on time.

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, 1996 18 U.S.C. § 2244 Limits number of habeas petitions

A second habeas petition will be dismissed unless: petitioner shows claim is based on new

constitutional ruling by Supreme Court that was made retroactive (Court rarely does this); or

petition is based on facts which could not have been reasonably discovered previously; and

petitioner shows by clear and convincing evidence that but for the alleged error no reasonable factfinder would have found petitioner guilty of the offense

Before filing second habeas petition, petitioner must file motion with appropriate Court of Appeals for permission to file petition in District Court

Motion must be heard by a three judge panel of the court

One-year statute of limitation will apply to second habeas petitions for state prisoners

18 U.S.C. § 242 provides for fine of not more than $1,000 and/or imprisonment of not more than one year

for person who, under color of law, willfully subjects a person to deprivation of rights,

privileges or immunities provided by constitution or laws of U. S.

If death results then penalty can be any term of years or for life.

Deprivation of life, liberty, or privilege Must be a right that has been clearly expressed by

constitution, laws or decision interpreting them. Deprivation must be willful Deprivation must be under color of state law.

Means misuse of power Power possessed as result of position of authority Act could only have been done if the person had this

authority

Some states have specific criminal offense of intentional mistreatment of a prisoner. Arizona “willful inhumanity or oppression toward a prisoner...”

General criminal statutes apply such as battery and homicide. North Carolina Supreme Court upheld battery conviction of correctional officer for excessive force in corporal punishment. State v. Mincher, 90 S.E. 429 (1916).

Arizona and Rhode Island, have used power of court to punish for contempt of court orders to punish persons for abusing prisoners and failure to remedy deficiencies in prisons

Privatization of correctional facilities and services Not new, many states leased inmates to private

contractors for labor in 19th and early 20th century. This ended due to abuses.

But in last 20 years states have contracted services and entire facilities to private companies for management of prison

Immunity for employees of private contractors?