Skip navigation

Articles by David Reutter

Settlement Reached in Lawsuit Alleging Inadequate COVID-19 Response at Maryland Jail

by David M. Reutter

Under a settlement agreement reached on August 23, 2021, officials at the Prince George’s County Jail in Maryland agreed to a raft of safety protocols overseen for at least four months by an independent monitor in order to protect detainees and prisoners from COVID-19.

The agreement ...

Seventh Circuit Reinstates Illinois Prisoner’s Suit Over ‘Orange Crush’ Shakedown

by David M. Reutter

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held on August 25, 2021, that a district court erred in dismissing a state prisoner’s pro se lawsuit by failing to make a finding that the plaintiff willfully abused the judicial process or otherwise conducted the litigation ...

All Writs Act Provides Authority for Medical-Imaging Transport Order for Condemned Ohio Prisoner Challenging His Conviction; Certiorari Granted

by David M. Reutter

On August 26, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed with a district court that an Ohio state prisoner must be transported to a medical center for neurological imaging that may bolster his challenge to his capital murder conviction.

The prisoner, Raymond ...

$21,525 Awarded by Federal Court to Indiana Prisoner Subjected to Battery by Guard

by David M. Reutter

A federal district court in Indiana awarded $21,525 to a prisoner on May 30, 2021, after granting partial summary judgment in a civil rights action he filed alleging battery by a guard at the state’s Pendleton Correctional Facility.

The lawsuit was filed pro se in U.S. ...

$90,000 Paid by Illinois County to Prisoner Tasered by Two Guards He Wasn’t Resisting

by David M. Reutter

After guards at the Lake County Jail (LCJ) in Illinois were sued for using excessive force by tasering an unresisting prisoner, the parties reached a settlement for $90,000 on June 30, 2021.

The prisoner, Christopher Davis, was held at LCJ while awaiting sentencing and housed in ...

Sixth Circuit Denies Qualified Immunity for Failure to Protect Michigan Prisoner from Unsafe Working Conditions

by David M. Reutter

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held on August 24, 2021, that two Michigan prison employees were not entitled to qualified immunity in a lawsuit alleging they were deliberately indifferent to a prisoner’s safety.

The case involved an October 15, 2015, incident in ...

Activists Play Whack-a-Mole Closing ICE Detention Centers

by David M. Reutter

A Bloomberg Equality report published on January 11, 2022, gave little hope that the omicron variant behind a resurgence in the COVID-19 pandemic would spare immigrant detainees held for federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), with 1,254 people in isolation out of 22,142 in custody, a ...

$900,000 Settlement in Class Action Lawsuit Alleging Securus Recorded California Prisoner-Attorney Calls

Company Walks From Similar Case in Maine

by David M. Reutter

In November 2021, a year after a federal district court in California approved a $900,000 settlement in a class-action lawsuit alleging Securus Technologies, Inc. unlawfully recorded privileged calls between detainees and attorneys, the prison phone giant was still fighting ...

Qualified Immunity Granted in Suit Challenging Policy of “Checking-In” on Nevada Prisoner’s Legal Calls

by David M. Reutter

On July 8, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit refused a request to rehear en banc a decision by a three-judge panel of the Court that three months earlier affirmed a grant of qualified immunity to a guard who monitored phone calls ...

Fourth Circuit Grants Qualified Immunity to Prison Official Who Gave Prisoner No Notice Before Hearing That Resulted in Transfer to Security Detention

by David M. Reutter

In a ruling on March 30, 2021, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that a prisoner had a right to fair notice of a security detention hearing.

The Court’s opinion was ...