Louisiana Jail Sanctioned With Contempt, Fines and Attorney Fees

A federal district court in Louisiana fined the Bienville parish jail, sheriff, police and the state of Louisiana $l2,000 plus $1,000 per day the jail was not in compliance with a prior court injunction over jail conditions. In a detailed order, the court found 35 consent decree violations, including a lack of clothes, showers, health care, hygiene items, disciplinary rules and no grievance procedure s well as inadequate food, vermin infestation, no confidential attorney mail, visits or phone calls, no known methods to access the jail law library or photo copy services, among other things. The court held that remedial and coercive measures in the form of contempt fines were the only means to ensure compliance with the consent decree. The court also awarded the plaintiffs attorney fees and costs for bringing the contempt motion. See: Jackson v. Whitman, 642 F. Supp. 816 (WD LA 1986).

BOP Liable for Medical Neglect Under State Tort Law


A federal district court in Pennsylvania held that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) was liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries a federal prisoner suffered as a result of medical neglect by the POP. In a detailed ruling in the plaintiff's favor, the court held that the BOP was liable under state law standards of medical neglect and breach of duty. Medical negligence by BOP staff was found to be the proximate cause of pain and reduction of use in an injury to plaintiff's wrist, which amounted to malpractice. While the court also found the BOP had deliberately interfered with plaintiff's attorney calls, the court held the BOP was liable only for the medical claims. Plaintiff was awarded $150,000 for his pain and suffering and an additional $183,387.73 for lost wages and future medical expenses. See: Yosuf v. United States, 642 F. Supp. 432 (MD PA 1986) and 642 r. Supp. 415 (MD PA 1986).

The court of appeals for the Second circuit held that federal prisoners at the USP in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, had received adequate notice that their phone calls were monitored and recorded. In this criminal prosecution for prison drug trafficking, the court held that 28 U.S.C. § 2510-20 which bars the recording of phone calls without a court order, does not apply to prisons where prison officials can record prisoners' phone calls as a part of their normal duties. All courts to consider this issue have held likewise. See: United States v. Amen, 831 F.2d 373 (2nd Cir. 1987).

The court of appeals for the Eighth circuit held that a lower court erred when it dismissed as frivolous a lawsuit that Missouri prisoners in Protective Custody (PC) were deprived of religious services, only received 45 minutes of exercise a week, were denied adequate food and laundry and were limited in their calls to attorneys. Note this is not a ruling on the merits. See: Divers v. Department of Corrections, 921 F.2d 191 (8th Cir. 1990).

The court of appeals for the Eighth circuit upheld a Nebraska prison's administrative segregation policy that permitted ad seg prisoners to call only three on a list, and the list was limited to two family members and one female friend. In doing so, the appeals court reversed a lower court ruling, nominal damage and attorney fee award in favor of the prisoner plaintiffs. See: Benzel v. Grammer, 869 F.2d 1105 (8th Cir. 1989).

A federal district court in Tennessee held that no constitutional violation occurred when a Tennessee prison replaced its coin operated phones with a coinless, collect call only phone system. Lawsuit was brought in context of access to counsel and courts. The ruling notes that the rates charged on both types of phones were identical to the rates charged to non prisoners. Case cites numerous cases involving prisoner phone access. See: Wooden v. Norris, 637 F. Supp. 543 (MD TN 1986).

The court of appeals for the Ninth circuit held that a California jail detainee's court access rights were violated when the jail interfered with court ordered local and long distance phone calls, legal materials, subpoena runner and obtaining legal materials and an investigator. The appeals court found both a due process and a Sixth amendment violation where the jail could not give a justifiable reason for its interference with the legal materials. The court reversed the defendant's criminal conviction and remanded for a new trial. The court relied on Faretta v. California, 95 S.Ct. 2525 (1975), and its right to self representation, for this ruling. See: Milton v. Morris, 767 F.2d 1443 (9th Cir. 1985).

The court of appeals for the Eighth circuit, sitting en Banc, held that a Missouri jail prisoner had stated a constitutional claim because he was held in a six foot by six foot cell for 72 hours at a time and allowed only one fifteen minute shower, no-contact visit, phone call and exercise period per week. Plaintiff also claimed he was bitten by rat in the vermin infested jail. Jail admitted it knew of jail conditions but lacked resources to correct them due to staff shortages. The district court entered a JNOV dismissing the suit. Appeals court reversed and remanded in part. Appeals court noted that certain substantive constitutional rights are redressible by substantial compensatory damage awards independent of actual injury. This ruling may be useful to those challenging the "physical injury" requirement of the PLRA. See: Villanueva v. George, 659 F.2d 851 (8th Cir. 1981) (en banc).

Affirming the decision of the U.S. District Court of Maryland, the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that prisoners of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) consent to have their telephone calls monitored and taped and that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) can obtain these tapes by subpoena for any lawful use, including criminal investigation and prosecution.

Donte Hammond, a BOP prisoner, made several telephone calls to Queen Tynes. The FBI became suspicious of Tynes' testimony on Hammond's behalf. FBI officials subpoenaed all BOP tapes of telephone calls made by Hammond to Tynes. Hammond was then indicted on 11 counts of witness tampering and obstruction of justice.

Hammond moved to suppress evidence from the telephone, arguing that the FBI needed a wiretap order under 18 U.S.C. § 2510, et. seq. The district court disagreed, and Hammond appealed.

The Court of Appeals noted that Hammond was informed in his prison handbook and twice during orientation that all calls other than attorney calls are monitored. Further, Hammond signed a consent form agreeing to monitoring. It found that Hammond's consent was an exception to the wiretap laws. No warrant was required. A subpoena sufficed to obtain Hammond's conversations.

Further, once subpoenaed, the ...

In this criminal proceeding, the Supreme Court of California held that evidence from a car towed from defendant's apartment was admissible, but evidence from a tape-recorded conversation between the defendant and his wife was not. After his arrest, defendant's wife was permitted to visit with him in a detective's office. The conversation was tape-recorded without her knowledge. Defendant moved to suppress all evidence, both from the car and the conversation. Motion was denied by the trial court. In a mandamus review, the Supreme Court of California held: 1) Evidence obtained from the car was admissible as it was in plain view of police. 2) Defendant had a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in his conversation with his wife; therefore, evidence from the tape-recorded conversation should have been suppressed. See: North v. The Superior Court of Riverside County, 8 Cal.3d 301 (1972).