DETENTION AND
CORRECTIONS
CASELAW CATALOG

26th Edition
2015-2016

Volume One: Sections 1-7
Rod C. Miller
Donald J. Walter
Research and Review:
Joseph Heltzel
Chris Dickey
Richard Drennon
Kyle McCarty

CRS, Inc.

A Non-Profit Organization
925 Johnson Drive
Gettysburg, PA 17325
(717) 338-9100
Fax (717) 718-6178
www.correction.org
rod@correction.org
Copyright 2017

Table of Contents
DETENTION AND CORRECTIONS CASELAW CATALOG
VOLUME 1
How to Use the Catalog
Index and Topic Finder
Table of Cases
1. Access to Courts
2. Administration

3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Administrative Segregation
Assessment of Costs
Attorney Fees
Bail
Civil Rights

VOLUME 2
8. Classification and Separation
9. Conditions of Confinement
10. Cruel and Unusual Punishment
11. Discipline

12. Exercise and Recreation
13. Ex-Offenders
14. Failure to Protect

VOLUME 3
15. Facilities
16. False Imprisonment/Arrest
17. Female Prisoners
18. Food
19. Free Speech, Expression, Assoc.
20. Good Time

21. Grievance Procedures, Prisoner
22. Habeas Corpus
23. Hygiene-Prisoner Personal
24. Immunity
25. Intake and Admissions
26. Juveniles

VOLUME 4
27. Liability
28. Mail
29. Medical Care

30. Mental Problems (Prisoner)
31. Personnel

VOLUME 5
32. Pretrial Detention
33. Privacy
34. Programs-Prisoner
35. Property-Prisoner Personal

36. Release
37. Religion
38. Rules & Regulations-Prisoner

VOLUME 6
39. Safety and Security
40. Sanitation
41. Searches
42. Services-Prisoner
43. Sentence
44. Standards

45. Supervision
46. Training
47. Transfers
48. Use of Force
49. Visiting
50. Work- Prisoner

CRS, Inc.
925 Johnson Drive, Gettysburg, PA 17325 (717) 338-9100
www.correction.org Fax (717) 718-6178 rod@correction.org
All Rights Reserved

Index and Topic Finder
I. Index
Major section headings are shown in bold print and are underlined. Numbers after entry identify
the section(s) in which the word or phrase can be found.
-Prisoner...14
-Prisoner on Staff...14
Assembly...19
Assessment of Costs...Section 4, 32
Assignment...3, 31, 45, 50
Assignment, staff...3, 45
Assistance...11
Assistance, Legal...1, 9
Association... 19, 31
Association, Expression and Free Speech...Sec.19
ATCA- Alien Tort Claim Act...27
Attendance, court...1
Attorney...31, 49
Attorney-Client Area...15
Attorney-Client Communications...33
Attorney Fees...Section 5
Attorney Fees...1, 4, 5
Attorney Mail...28
Attorney Scheduling...49
Attorney Search...41, 49
Attorney Visits...32
Audio Communication…15, 39, 45
Automobile...33, 41

Abortion...17, 29
Absolute Immunity...24
Access to Attorneys...1, 38, 39, 47
Access to Counsel...1
Access to Courts...Section 1, 3, 7, 11, 13, 17, 22,
26, 32, 38, 47
Access to Religion...38
Accounts, Prisoner...2
Accreditation...44
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS)...7,
8, 14, 22, 29, 33, 37, 38, 49
ADA-Amer. with Disabilities Act...7, 9, 11, 15, 25,
29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 49, 50
ADEA-Age Discrimination in Employment Act…
31
Adequacy of Care...29
Administration...Section 2
Administrative Segregation... Section 3, 34
Administrative Procedures Act (APA)… 2, 4
Admission Procedures...37
Admission, Intake &...Section 25
AEDPA, Antiterror. & Effect. Death Penalty Act..1,
22
Age Discrimination...31
AIDS - Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome...7,
8, 14, 22, 29, 33, 37, 38, 49
Alcohol/Drugs...29, 34
Alien...6, 7, 9, 22, 27, 32, 36
Alien Tort Claim Act (ATCA) ...27
Alternative to Confinement...36
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)… 7, 9, 11,
15, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 49, 50
Antiquated Facility...15
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
(AEDPA)...1, 22
APA -Administrative Procedures Act … 2, 4
Appeal...11
Appearance...37
Appointed Attorney...1
Arrest and Detention...16
Art...34
Articles...37
Artificial Insemination...22, 38
Asbestos...9, 15
Assault--Officer on prisoner...14

Back Pay...31
"Bad" Time... 11
Bail...Section 6, 22, 32, 36
Bail Fund...6
Bail Reform Act (BRA)...6, 32
Banishment...43
Beards...37, 38
Bedding...9, 10, 23, 25, 40
Beds...9, 15
Benefits… 31, 50
BFOQ- Bona Fide Occupational Qualification...31
Binding….. 1
Bivens Claims...24, 27
Blood Tests...33, 37, 41
Body Cavity Search...41
Body Searches...41
Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ)...31
Bond...6
Books...19, 38, 39
BRA- Bail Reform Act… 6, 32
Breast Feeding...17
Brutality...7, 14, 48

XXVI

i

Compassionate Release...36
Compensation...50
Compensatory Damages...27
Computers… 1
Conditions...2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 17, 26, 32
Conditions of Confinement... Section 9, 9, 10, 22
Conditions of Segregation...11
Conditional Release...36
Confidential Information...33, 37
Confinement...30
Confinement, Conditions of... Section 9, 9, 10, 22
Confiscation...28, 35
Conjugal Visit...49
Consecutive Sentences...43
Consent Decree...5, 15, 27, 50
Consent Decree- Modification...27
Consent Decree- Termination...27
Conspiracy...7
Contact Visits...32, 39, 49
Contagious Diseases...3, 29
Contempt...27
Contraband...39, 41
Contract... 31
Contract Services...2, 27, 29
Contractors... 31
Conversation...19
Copayment... 4
Corporal Punishment...11
Correspondence...7, 8, 11, 19,
28, 37, 38
-Court...28
-Friends, Relatives...28
-Withholding...28
Cost of Confinement...4, 13
Costs...29, 37
Costs, Assessment of...Section 4, 32
Counsel...11
Counseling...34, 37
Court,
-Access to...Section 1, 3, 7, 11, 13, 17, 22, 26, 32,
38, 47
-Appearance...6
-Costs...1, 4, 14
-Monitor...27
-Order...15
-Transfer...47
Covenant- Not-To-Sue...27
Crafts… 34
Credit...36, 43
Credit For Time Served...22
Credit, Reduction...43
Criminal Charges...11
CRIPA-Civil Rights of Inst. Persons Act...7, 9, 32
Crisis Intervention...34

Budget... 2
Bulk Mail...28
Bunk, Lower...7, 8
Capacity...9, 15
Capital Punishment...10, 43
Care, Adequacy of...29
Cassette Tapes...19
Cell Assignment...8
Cell Capacity...9, 15, 32, 39
Cell Extraction...48
Cell Checks...45
Cell Searches...32, 41
Cell Size...15
Cells...9, 10, 15, 29, 32, 40
Censorship...19, 28
Chain Gang...50
Challenges...9
Change of Conditions...9
Chapel...15
Chaplain...37
Chemicals, Exposure...39, 50
Chemical Agents...48
Children...17, 29, 49
Civil Commitment...7, 8, 9, 16, 22, 32, 36
Civil Liability...27
Civil Rights...Section 7
Civil Rights of Inst. Persons Act (CRIPA)...7, 9, 32
Civil Rights Remedies Equal. Act (CRREA)…1
Civil Suit...1
Claims...13
Class Action...27
Classification & Separation... Section 8, .7, 9, 17,
25, 26, 32, 37, 39
Classification Criteria...8
Cleaning Supplies...39
Clemency...43
Clippings… 19
Clothing...9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 19, 23, 25, 31, 32, 37,
38, 39, 40
Clothing- Court Appearances...1, 32
Color of Law...7
Commissary...2, 4, 10, 18, 32, 42
Commission...2, 42
Commitment...30
Commitment, Involuntary...36, 43
Common Areas...40
Communication...17, 30
-Client/Attorney...33
-Systems...45
-Video...1
-with Parents...26
-with Prisoners...19
Community Service...43
XXVI

ii

DNA- Deoxy Ribonucleic Acid... 33, 41
Dogs...41, 48
Dormitories...9, 15
Double-Celling/Bunking...8, 9, 10, 15
Double-Jeopardy...11, 43
Drug...34
Drug/Alcohol Testing...41
Drug Testing...10, 11, 31, 32, 33, 38, 41
Due Process...1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 16, 20, 21, 22, 30, 31,
32, 34, 36, 38, 47, 50

Criteria...8
Criticism...19
Cross-Dressing...19
Cross Gender… 41
Cross Gender Supervision...45
Crowding...9, 10, 15, 32, 33, 35, 39, 40
CRREA- Civil Rights Remedies Equal. Act…1
Cruel & Unusual Punishment... Section 10, 9, 47
Custody Level...8, 38
Damage to Property...41
Damages...4, 27
Damages, Monetary...21
Dayroom...15
Deadly Force...48
Death... 7
Death Penalty...9, 10, 22, 30, 37
Deductions from Pay/Wages...50
Defenses...4, 9, 10, 27
Delay...6, 28, 36, 43
Delay in Treatment/Care...29, 30
Deliberate Indifference...27, 29, 30, 45
Delivery...28
Demotion...31
Denial...29, 47
-of Bail...6
-of Food...18
-of Visits...49
Deoxy Ribonucleic Acid (DNA)... 33, 41
Dental Care...29
Destruction, Property...35
Detainee, Pretrial...4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 19, 22, 29,
34,38, 39, 41, 47, 49, 50
Detention...30
-in Police Car...16
-Investigative...16
-Preventive...26, 32
Determination...5
Diagnosis…29
Diet...3, 37
Diet, Medical...18
Dining...9, 15, 18
Disability (see also Handicap)...1, 31
Disciplinary Procedures...8, 11
Discipline...Section 11, .7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 22,
31, 32, 47, 50
Discretion...39
Discrimination...2, 7, 11, 17, 31, 32, 36, 50
Diseases, Contagious...3, 29
Disposition of Funds...4, 35
Disposition of Property... 35, 36
Distance...47
Disturbance...38, 39, 48
Diversion...9, 26, 32
XXVI

Early Release...36
Eavesdropping...19
Educational...34
Educational Areas...15
EEOC- Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission...50
Electronic Monitoring...14, 36
Electronic Surveillance...45
Eleventh Amendment...24
eMail…28
Emergency Care...29
Emergency Drill… 39
Emotional Distress, 9
Employee...41, 50
Employee Discipline...2
Employee Qualifications...2
Employee Union...2, 31
Employment Discrimination...17
Enforcement... 38
Enhancement...5
Environmental Impact...15
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC)...50
Equal Opportunity...31, 50
Equal Pay Act...31
Equal Protection...1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 11, 15, 17, 18, 20, 26,
29, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37, 43, 47, 50
Equipment...15, 29
Escape...39
Establishment Clause... 37
Evacuation…39
Evaluation...1, 30
Evidence...2, 3, 11, 41
Ex Post Facto...20, 36, 43
Examination Facilities...29
Examinations...29
Excessive Bail...6
Excessive Fines Clause... 4
Excessive Force...48
Execution...7, 10, 19
Exercise...3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 32, 39
Exercise and Recreation...Section 12
Exhaustion...1, 7, 21, 22
iii

FOIA- Freedom of Information Act...2, 5, 19
Food...Section 18, .9, 10, 11, 32
-Handlers...18
-Quality...18
-Service...40
-Temperature...18
Forced Exposure...37
Forced Labor...50
Forcible Injection...33
Foreign Countries...47
Former Employee... 49
Former Prisoners...19, 49
42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1983...1, 5, 7, 24, 27, 29
4 U.S.C.A. Section 1988...5
Forwarding… 28
Free Exercise… 37
Free Expression...38
Free Speech...3, 7, 19, 31, 50
Free Speech, Expression and
Association...Section 19
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)...2, 5, 19
Freedom of Religion...37
Frequency...49
Frisk Search...41
Frivolous Petitions…22
Frivolous Suits....1
FTCA- Federal Tort Claims Act...24, 27
Funds, Inmate... 2
Furloughs...36, 43
Furnishings...15

Ex-Offenders...Section 13, 1
Experimentation...29
Expert Witness...1
Expiration...43
Expiration of Sentence...36
Exposure to Chemical Agents...39, 50
Expungement...7, 11, 33
Eye Care...29
Facial Hair...38, 39
Facilities...Section 15, 9, 12, 29, 47
Facility Design...15
Facility Plans...32
Failure--to Act…27
-to Appear... 6
-to Direct...27, 48
-to Intervene…14, 27
-to Protect...Section 14, 7, 8, 10,
14, 17, 26, 27, 31, 32, 36, 47, 48
-to Provide Care...9, 10, 29, 30
-to Supervise...27, 45
-to Train...7, 27, 46
Fair Housing Act (FHA)...7, 27
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)...27, 31, 50
False Arrest...7, 16, 26, 32
False Claims Act... 27
False Imprisonment/Arrest...Section 16, 7, 16, 32
Family...19, 49
Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)...31
Family Relationships...33
Fast...37
FCA- False Claims Act...27
Federal Courts...22
Federal Probation Act...43
Federal Standards…44
Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)...24, 27
Fees, Attorney...Section 5
Fees...4
Female--Detainees...6
-Officers...45
-Prisoners...Section 17, 29, 49
-Staff...45
Females...12, 32
FHA- Fair Housing Act...27
Filing Fees...1
Fines...4, 11, 27, 43
Fire...14, 39,
Fire Hose...48
Fire Safety...9, 10, 15, 39
Floor, Sleeping...9
FLSA- Fair Labor Standards Act...31, 50
FMLA- Family Medical Leave Act...31
XXVI

Gangs...8, 39
Gender Identity Disorder (GID)... 17, 29
General Conditions...15
GID- Gender Identity Disorder…17, 29
Good Faith Defense...7, 24, 27
Good Faith Immunity...27
Good-Time...Sec. 20, 3, 11, 20, 22, 32, 36, 43, 50
Good Time Credit...20, 22
Governmental Immunity...24, 27
Governmental Liability...27
Graduated Release... 36
Grievance...7, 11, 32
Grievance Procedures, Prisoner... Section 21
Grooming...38
Groups...11
Guidelines...43
Habeas Corpus...Section 22, 7, 47
Habeas Corpus Relief...22
Hair...19, 23, 32, 37, 38, 39
Haircut...42
Haircutting… 40
Hair Length...37, 38, 39, 40
iv

Informants...3, 11
Informants Procedures...11
Informed Consent...29
Initial Appearance...1, 32
Injunctive Relief... 27
Injury...10, 50
Inmate Funds... 2, 4, 35
Inmate-Run Business...38
Insanity...43
Insanity Defense...11
Inspection...2, 18
Inspection of Mail...19, 28
Insurance...24
Intake and Admissions...Sec 25
Intake Screening...29, 30, 32
Intercom…15
Interest...35
Interference... 28, 29
Interference with Treatment...29
International Standards....44
Internet... 19, 33
Interpreter...8, 11, 29, 31, 33
Interrogation...1, 22
Interstate Compact...7, 22, 47
Intervene, Failure to…14, 27
Intimidation...14
Investigation...1, 31
Investigative Detention...16
Involuntary--Commitment...7, 36, 43
-Medication...29, 30, 32
-Nourishment...18, 29
-Servitude... 7, 50
-Treatment… 29
Isolation...3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 23, 26, 28, 29
Items Permitted...38, 39

Handicap...3, 7, 8, 29, 32
Handicapped...15, 34
Handicapped Inmates...8, 9
Harassment...2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 31
Hats...19, 37, 38, 39
Health...33
Health Standards...18
Hearing... 3, 11
Hearing Impaired...9, 11, 29
Heating...9
Heck Rule… 27
Hiring/Qualifications...31
HIV - See AIDS
Hobbies…34
Holidays…31
Home Detention...6, 32, 36
Homosexuals...3, 7, 8
Hospital...29
Hospitalization...30
Hostile Work Environment...31
Hot Water...9, 23, 40
House Arrest...43
Housekeeping...40
Hunger Strike...19
Hygiene...3, 7, 9, 15, 17, 23
Hygiene- Prisoner Personal... Section 23
Hygiene Items...23, 25
IDEA-Individuals with Disabilities Education Act...
26, 34
Identification... 16, 25, 49
Idle Pay...50
Idleness...9, 42, 50
Immunity...Section 24, (see also Liability) 7, 11
-Absolute...24
-Government…24, 27
-Judicial....24
-Legislative...24
-Municipal...24
-Qualified…7, 24, 27, 41
-Quasi-Judicial…24, 27
-Sovereign…24, 27
Impartitlity…11
Inadequate Care…29
Inadequate Supervision...45
Incentives... 34
Indigency...4, 43
Indigent Inmates...1, 28, 42
Indigent Prisoners...19, 23, 42
Individual Capacity...24, 27
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA)... 26, 34
Indoor Exercise…12
In Forma Pauperis...1
XXVI

Jail House Lawyers...1, 5, 19
Jewelry...35, 38, 39
Jewelry/Ornaments...37
Judicial Immunity...24
Jurisdiction...22
Juveniles...Section 26, 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 22,
29, 30, 32, 34, 36, 41
Keys...39
Kitchen...9, 15, 18, 40
Kitchen Sanitation...18
Labor...9, 10
Language...11, 19, 28, 38
Laundry...9, 23, 40
Law Books...1
Law Libraries...1, 3, 7, 32, 47
v

-Exam...15
-Issues...33
-Restrictions...50
-Screening...25, 46
-Treatment...3
Medication...25, 26, 29, 30, 32, 36
Medication, Involuntary...29, 30, 32
Mental Commitments...26
Mental Health...29, 32, 46, 47
Mental Illness... 7
Mental Institutions...47
Mental Problems (Prisoners)... Section 30
Mentally Ill...8
Methadone...29
Methadone Treatment...32
Military Facility... 7
Military Service….31
Minimum Sentence... 43
Miranda Warning...7
Misdiagnosis...29
Monetary Damages...21
Money...35
Movies...12, 19
Municipal Immunity...24
Municipal Liability...27
Music...19

Laxatives...41
"Least Restrictive Means"...32
Legal--Assistance...1, 9
-Costs...43
-Mail...28
-Material...1, 35
-Research…1
-Services...31
Legislative Immunity...24
Length...3, 25, 32
Length of Segregation...8, 11
Lethal Injection...10
Liability...Section 27, (see also Immunity)... 7, 11,
27
Liability- Release of Prisoner...36
Liberty Interest...3, 8, 11, 20, 31, 34, 36, 38, 43, 47,
49, 50
Library...42
Libraries, Law...1, 3, 7, 32, 47
Lien… 1
Lighting...9, 10
Lights...9, 10, 15
Limitation...5, 28, 35
Limiting Correspondents...28
Limiting Language...28
Literature...19
Live Testimony…11
Living Areas...41
Lobbying...19
Location... 15
Lock Down... 39
"Lock-In"...39
Locks...39
Loss of Property...35
Lower Bunk...7, 8

Name...19, 37
National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA)...15
Natural Light...9
Negligence...7, 27, 29, 46
Negligent Hiring…27
Negligent Retention...27
Negligent Supervision...27
Negotiation...31
NEPA- National Environmental Protection Act...15
Newspapers...19
Noise...9, 10, 15
Nominal Damages...27
Notary...1
Notice...11, 28, 38
Notification...47
Nourishment, Involuntary...18, 29
Nudity...33
Nutrition...18

Mail...Section 28, 3, 19, 32, 33, 37, 38, 39, 47
Mail, Outgoing...28, 38
Maintenance... 15
Makeup...38
Malicious Prosecution…16
Malpractice...29
Mandatory Retirement...31
Marriage...19, 22, 31
Mattress... 8, 9
Media...28, 33, 49
Media Access...19, 38, 39
Medical Areas...15
Medical Care...Section 29, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 17, 26,
32, 33, 36, 37, 46, 47
Medical--Costs...4
-Diet...18
XXVI

Obscenity...19
Observation By Staff...33
Odors...9
Offenders, Ex-...Section 13, 1
Officer on Prisoner Assault...14
Official Capacity...24, 27
Opening of Mail...19, 28
Opportunity...37
vi

Placement in Segregation...3, 11
Planning...2
PLRA- Prison Litigation Reform Act... 1, 4, 5, 7, 13,
14, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 32, 36
Plumbing...9, 10, 15, 35, 40
Policies and Procedures...2, 8, 11, 21, 25, 27, 29
Political Affiliation… 31
Polygraph...11, 31
Population...9
Portions...18
Post Cards… 28
Postage...1, 28
Post-Judgment Services...5
Precedent... 24
Pregnancy...17
Pre-Release...36
Presentence Report...43
Pre-Sentence Detention...20. 32
Pretrial Confinement...43
Pretrial Detainees...4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 19, 22, 29, 34,
38, 39, 41, 47, 49, 50
Pretrial Detention...Section 32, 29, 30
Pretrial Release… 6, 36, 41
Prevailing Party...4, 5
Preventive Detention...26, 32
Prison Industries...50
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA)... 1, 4, 5, 7,
13, 14, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 32, 36
Prisoner--Accounts...2, 4
-Assault (guards)...14
-Assault (inmates)...11, 14
-Associations...19
-Checks...45
-On Staff Assault…14
-Publications...19
-Suicide...14
-Suicide Attempt...14
-Unions...19
-Work Stoppage...19
Prisoners... 19
Privacy...Section 33, 7, 10, 13, 15, 17, 19, 29, 30,
31, 32, 37, 41, 49
Privacy Act...33
Private Facility...47
Private Operator...27
Private Physician...29
Private Provider... 18, 27, 29, 30
Private Sector... 50
Privileged Communications...1
Privileged Correspondence/Mail... 1, 28
Privileges...3, 8, 9
Pro Se Litigants/Litigation...1, 5
Probable Cause...16, 32

Opportunity to Practice...37
Opportunity To Worship...37
Opposite Sex...41
Original Sentence...43
Other State...1, 47
Out of Cell Time...9
Outdoor Exercise...12
Outdoor Recreation...12
Outgoing Mail...28, 38
Overcrowding...7, 9
Overtime... 2, 31
Packages...28, 32, 38
Padded Cells...15, 30
PAMII- Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill
Individuals Act… 30
Paralegals...5
Pardon...13, 36, 43
Parity- Male/Female...34
Parity with Sentenced...32
Parole... 4, 7, 14, 22, 33, 36, 37, 43
-Costs…4
-Conditions...36
-Denial…36
-Due Process...36
-Granting...36
-Guidelines...36
-Hearing...36
-Interpretor...36
-Liability...36
-Policies...36
-Revocation...36
-Searches...36
-Sentencing to...36, 43
-Violations...36
-Violators...6
Parolees…41
Partial Success...5
Participation...34
"Pat Down" Searches...41
Payment...50
Payment of Expenses...47
Pay Parity...31
Pepper Spray... 48
Personal Liability...27
Personnel...Section 31, 29
Pests/Rodents...23, 40
Petition... 21
Photocopying...1
Photographs… 19
Physical Requirements...31
Place of Imprisonment...43
Place to Worship...37
Placement…3
XXVI

vii

Probation...22, 31, 43, 45
-Conditions...43
-Revocation...6, 36, 43
-Search...43
-Violation...43
Probationers...41
Procedures/Policies...2, 8, 11, 21, 25, 27
Professional Standards...44
Programming...17
Programs...3, 7, 9, 22, 26, 32
Programs-Prisoner...Section 34
Prohibited Property...35
Prohibition...28
Prohibition- Corres. with Jurors...28
Prohibition- Publications...28
Promotion...31
Property...2, 7, 38
Property Interest...31, 50
Property- Prisoner Personal...Section 35
Prosecution...11, 31
Prostheses...29
Protection...32, 39
Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals
Act (PAMII)… 30
Protection From Harm...14, 31
Protective Custody...3, 8, 10, 15, 32
Psychiatric...34
Psychiatric Care...3, 30
Psychological...34
-Counseling...34
-Screening...25, 31
-Services...32, 33
Psychotropic Drugs...29, 30
Publications...19, 32, 37, 38, 39
Publishers Only Rule...19, 28, 38
Punishment...11, 32
Punishment, Cruel & Unusual... Section 10, 9, 47
Punitive Damages...7, 27
Punitive Segregation...8, 9, 11
Purpose...47
Qualifications...31
Qualified Immunity...7, 24, 27, 41
Quality...18
Quarantine...29
Quasi-Judicial Immunity...24, 27
RA- Rehabilitation Act…7, 29, 32
Racial Discrimination...7, 8, 9, 31, 34, 49
Radio...12
Razors… 23
Reading of Mail...28
Reading Material...11
Research, Legal… 1
XXVI

viii

Reasonable Belief...24
Reasonable Care...29
Receipts...35
Reclassification...8, 11
Recognized Religions...37
Recommendation… 43
Records...1, 2, 11, 18, 29, 30, 33, 47
Records-Access...29
Recoupment...1, 4
Reckless Indifference…27
Recreation...3, 12, 32
Recreation Areas...15
Redress Of Grievances...19
Reduction...43
Reduction of Crowding...20
Reduction of Sentence...43
Refusal to Admit...25
Refusal- Mail... 28
Refusal to Work...11, 50
Regulation...37
Regulation- Name...37
Regulations...3, 7, 8, 11, 19, 28, 37
Rehabilitation...34
Rehabilitation Act (RA)… 7, 29
Rejecting Mail...28
Release...Section 36, 13, 14, 26, 29, 32, 34
-Condition...32
-Date...22, 36
-on Bond...36
-on Recognizance...36
-Site...36
-Work Release…50
Release Notification...22
Religion...Section 37, 3, 7, 8, 11, 19, 22, 26, 28, 29,
31, 32, 34, 38, 39, 50
Religious--Areas...15
-Articles...37, 38, 39
-Diet...18
-Groups...39
-Literature...19, 28
-Services...3, 11, 39
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)...37
Religious Land Use & Institutionalized Persons Act
(RLUPPA) ... 37
Remedies...4, 7, 9, 10, 26, 27
Removal...20
-from Job...50
-from Program...34
Reprisal...47
Requirements, Program...34
Respondeat Superior...7, 24, 27
Restitution...4, 11, 43
Restoration...20

-Searches... 50
Segregation...8, 9, 11, 12, 18, 22, 30, 32, 34, 39, 49,
50
Segregation, Administrative... Section 3, 34
Segregation- Mail...11
Seizure...28
Seizure- Outgoing Mail...28
Self-Incrimination...1, 7
Sentence...Section 43, 22, 26, 30, 36
Sentence Conditions...36
Sentence Reduction...21, 32
Sentencing to Parole...36, 43
Separation...3, 8, 9, 10, 15, 26, 32, 39
Services...37
Services- Prisoner...Section 42
Serving...18
Servitude, Involuntary...7, 50
Settlement… 27
Sewerage...40
Sex Discrimination...7, 31
Sex Offenders...7, 8, 13, 19, 22, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36,
39, 43
Sexual Abuse...7
Sexual Assault... 14, 17, 32
Sexual Harassment...7, 17, 31
"Shakedowns"...41
Shaving...23
Shoes…23
Showers...9, 23, 25, 35, 40
Sick Call...29
Sincerity, Religion...37
Sinks...23, 40
Slavery...7, 50
Smoke...9, 10, 29
Smoke-free Environment...10, 29
Smoking...7, 8, 10, 38
Soap/Shampoo...37
Social Security...4, 35
Solitary Confinement...8, 11
Sovereign Immunity...24, 27
Special--Cell...15
-Diets...18, 29
-Housing...29, 30
-Master...27
-Needs...8, 17
-Visits... 49
Speedy Trial...1, 32
Spouses...10, 49

Restraining Chair...48
Restraints...1, 3, 10, 11, 12, 17, 25, 29, 30, 32, 39,
47, 48
Restrictions...3, 37, 38, 49
Retaliation...1, 3, 11, 19, 21, 31, 36, 47
Retaliation for Legal Action...1
Retardation...3, 30
Retention...31
Retirement...31, 35
Review...3, 43
Review of Segregation...11
Revocation...6, 20, 43
Revocation, Parole...36
RFRA-Religious Freedom Restoration Act...37
Right--of Access...21
-of Privacy...33
-to Counsel...1, 47
-to Marry...38
-to Refuse...29
-to Treatment...26, 30, 34, 42
-to Work...50
Rights Retained...7, 9, 32
Riot...14, 39
RLUIPA- Religious Land Use & Institutionalized
Persons Act...37
Rodents/Pests...23, 40
Rules...11, 25, 38, 49
Rules and Regulations- Prisoner... Section 38
Rules- Items Permitted...38
Safety...9, 10, 15, 32, 39, 50
Safety and Security...Section 39
Safety Regulations...39
Same-Sex Search...41
Sanctions...27
Sanitation...Section 40, 9, 10, 15, 18, 32, 41
Satanism...37, 39
Schedule...31
Scheduling...49
Screening...1, 25, 46
Search by Female...37
Search- Property...25, 41
Search of Prosthetic...41
Search Warrant...41
Searches...Section 41, 1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 14, 17, 25, 26,
31, 32, 33, 35, 37, 39, 47, 49
-Attorney...1
-Cell...39
Section 1983...1, 5, 7, 24, 27, 29
Section 1988...5
Security...7, 10, 15
-Practices...28, 39
-Restrictions...39
XXVI

ix

Title VII...31
Tobacco… 37
Toilet Paper...23
Toilets...9, 10, 23, 35, 40
Toothpaste… 23
Tort Claims...7
Tort Law...27
Tort Liability...27
Torture... 7, 10
Totality of Conditions...9, 10
Towels...25
Training....Section 46, 4, 29, 30, 31, 34,
Transfer between Prisoners...35
Transfers...Section 47, 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 11, 17, 22, 26,
29, 30, 31, 32, 39, 47, 50
Translation...1
Translators...11, 25, 29
Transplant… 29
Transport...32
Transport Costs...2
Transportation...4, 14, 29, 39, 47
Transsexual...8, 17, 29, 38, 47
Treatment...8, 29
Treatment Programs...34
Trial….1
Trial as Adult...26
Trusties...10
Trusty...8
Trusty System...9
Typewriters...1

Staff...17, 18, 19, 29, 30, 33
-Assignment...3, 45
-Contracts...2
-Discipline...2
-Drug Test...2
-of Opposite Sex...33
Staffing...9, 10, 14, 32, 39
Staffing Levels...2, 31, 45
Stamps...35
Standards...Section 44
-Federal....44
-International...44
-United Nations....44
State--Interest...32
-Liability...26, 27
-Regulations...44
-Requirements...9
-Standards...44
-Statutes...10, 44, 47
Statute of Limitations...1, 22
Statutes (preventing lawsuits)...27
Stinger Grenade…48
Storage...35
Strikes...31
Strip Searches...41
Stun Belt...1, 48
Stun Gun...1, 48
Suicide...8, 14, 15, 17, 25, 26, 29, 30, 32
Suicide Attempt...14, 26, 29, 32
Supermax... 38, 39
Supervised Release...36, 43
Supervised Release- Conditions...43
Supervision...Section 45, 14, 30, 31, 32, 50
Supervisory Liability...27
Surveillance...3, 39, 45
Surveillance, Video...39, 45
Suspension...31, 50
Sweat Lodge… 37
Taser… 48
Teleconference... 1
Telephone...1, 2, 3, 4, 19, 25, 32, 39, 42
Telephone Calls...33, 39
Telephone Costs… 2, 7
Television...12
Temperature...9, 10, 15, 18
Temporary Release (furloughs)... 32, 36
Termination...31, 50
Termination of Order...27
Termination of Visits...49
Threatening...48
Threats...9, 10, 14
Time Limits...49
Timely Release...36
XXVI

Unemployment...2
Union...2, 31
United Nations, Standards...44
Unlawful Detention... 16, 32
Unsentenced Prisoners...50
Urine Test...41
Use of Force...Section 48, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 25,
26, 30, 32, 39, 41, 48
Utensils...18
Variety...18
VAWA- Violence Against Women Act… 17, 27
Vehicles...41
Ventilation...9, 10, 15
Verbal Harassment...7
Veterans... 35
Vicarious Liability...27
Victim… 6, 7, 36
Video… 49
Video Communication...1
Video Surveillance...39, 45
View by Inmate... 33
View By Staff...33
x

Violation...38
Violation Of Court Order...27
Violence...10
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)... 17, 27
Visitation...9, 19
Visitation Areas...15
Visiting...Section 49, 19
Visitor Searches...19, 41, 49
Visitors...19, 33
Visits...1, 3, 7, 11, 17, 19, 32, 37, 38, 39, 41
Vocational...34
Volunteers... 2, 37, 38, 49
Voting...6, 7, 19, 32
Waiver...28, 30
Waiver by Prisoner...20
Waiver of Rights...7
Water...40
Weapon… 39
Wheelchair... 29, 39
Windows...9, 15, 32, 39
Withholding Correspondence...28
Witness...11
Witness Fees...1
Women...9
Work...3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 32, 37, 38, 39
-Assignment...29, 50
-Conditions...2, 31, 50
-Prisoner...Section 50
-Release...17, 36, 50
-Rules... 31
-Stoppage...50
-Work/Study...34
Worker’s Compensation…31
Writing Material...1
Wrongful Death...14, 32
X-Ray...29, 41

XXVI

xi

II. TOPIC FINDER:
INDEX OF 50 MAJOR SECTIONS
SUBTOPICS ADDRESSED BY EACH
The following pages present the specific subtopics which are used within each of the 50 major
sections of the Catalog. Subtopics are identified on the left margin of each case summary.
Legal Research
Lien
Notary
Other State
Photocopying
PLRA- Prison Litigation Reform Act
Postage
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA)
Privileged Communication
Privileged Correspondence/Mail
Pro Se Litigation
Records
Recoupment
Restraints
Retaliation
Retaliation for Legal Action
Right to Counsel
Screening
Searches
Searches- Attorney
Self-Incrimination
Speedy Trial
Statute of Limitations
Stun Belt
Stun Gun
Teleconference
Telephone
Transfer
Transportation
Translation
Trial
Typewriter
Video Communication
Visits
Witness Fees
Writing Material

1. ACCESS TO COURTS
Subtopics:
Access to Attorney
Access to Counsel
Access to Court
ADA- Americans with Disabilities Act
AEDPA- Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
(AEDPA)
Appointed Attorney
Assistance, Legal
Attendance, Court
Attorney Fee
Binding
Civil Rights Remedies Equal. Act (CRREA)
Civil Suit
Class Action
Clothing-Court Appearances
Computers
Court Costs
CRREA- Civil Rights Remedies Equal.Act
Disability
Due Process
Equal Protection
Evaluation
Evidence
Exhaustion
Ex-Offender
Expert Witness
Filing Fees
42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1983
Frivolous Suits
In Forma Pauperis
Indigent Inmates
Initial Appearance
Interrogation
Investigation
Jail House Lawyers
Juveniles
Law Books
Law Library
Legal Assistance
Legal Mail
Legal Material

XXVI

2. ADMINISTRATION
Subtopics:
APA- Administrative Procedures Act
Administrative Procedures Act (APA)
Budget
Commissary
Commission
Conditions
xii

Placement
Placement in Segregation
Pretrial Detainee
Privileges
Programs
Protective Custody
Psychiatric Care
Recreation
Regulations
Religion
Religious Services
Restraints
Restrictions
Retaliation
Retardation
Review
Searches
Separation
Staff Assignment
Surveillance
Telephone
Transfer
Visits
Work

Contract Services
Discrimination
Employee Discipline
Employee Qualifications
Employee Union
FOIA- Freedom of Information Act
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
Harassment
Inmate Funds
Inspection
Overtime
Planning
Policies/Procedures
Prisoner Accounts
Property
Records
Staff Contracts
Staff Discipline
Staff Drug Test
Staffing Levels
Telephone
Telephone Costs
Training
Transport Costs
Unemployment
Union
Volunteers
Working Conditions

4. ASSESSMENT OF COSTS
Subtopics:
Administrative Procedures Act (APA)
APA- Administrative Procedures Act
Attorney Fees
Commissary
Copayment
Cost of Confinement
Court Costs
Damages
Defense
Disposition of Funds
Due Process
Excessive Fines Clause
Fees
Fines
Indigency
Inmate Funds
Medical Costs
Parole
Parole Costs
PLRA- Prison Litigation Reform Act
Prevailing Party
Pretrial Detainee
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA)
Prisoner Accounts
Recoupment
Remedies
Restitution

3. ADMINISTRATIVE SEGREGATION
Subtopics:
Access to Courts
Assignment
Conditions
Contagious Diseases
Diet
Due Process
Equal Protection
Evidence
Exercise
Free Speech
Good Time
Handicap
Hearing
Homosexuals
Hygiene
Informant
Isolation
Juvenile
Law Library
Length
Liberty Interest
Mail
Medical Treatment

XXVI

xiii

AIDS- Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome
Aliens
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Brutality
Civil Commitment
Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act
(CRIPA)
Classification
Color of Law
Conditions
Conspiracy
Correspondence
CRIPA- Civil Rights of Inst. Persons Act
Death
Discipline
Discrimination
Due Process
Equal Protection
Execution
Exhaustion
Expungement
Failure to Protect
Failure to Train
Fair Housing Act- FHA
False Arrest
False Imprisonment
42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1983
FHA- Fair Housing Act
Free Speech and Association
Good Faith Defense
Grievance
Habeas Corpus
Handicap
Harassment
Homosexuals
Hygiene
Immunity
Interstate Compact
Involuntary Commitment
Involuntary Servitude
Juvenile
Law Library
Liability
Lower Bunk
Medical Care
Mental Illness
Military Facility
Miranda Warning
Negligence
Overcrowding
Parole
PLRA- Prison Litigation Reform Act
Pretrial Detainees

Social Security
Telephone
Transportation
5. ATTORNEY FEES
Subtopics:
Attorney Fees
Consent Decree
Determination
Enhancement
42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1983
42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1988
Freedom of Information Act
Jail House Lawyer
Limitation
Paralegals
Partial Success
PLRA-Prison Litigation
Reform Act
Post-Judgment Services
Prevailing Party
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA)
Pro Se Litigants
6. BAIL
Subtopics:
Alien
Bail
Bail Fund
Bail Reform Act (BRA)
Bond
BRA- Bail Reform Act
Conditions
Court Appearance
Delay
Denial of Bail
Excessive Bail
Failure to Appear
Female Detainees
Home Detention
Parole Violators
Pretrial Release
Probation Revocation
Revocation
Searches
Victim
Voting
7. CIVIL RIGHTS
Subtopics:
Access to Court
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
(AIDS)
ADA- Americans with Disabilities Act

XXVI

xiv

Equal Protection
Failure to Protect
Gangs
Handicapped Inmate
Harassment
Homosexuals
Interpreter
Isolation
Juveniles
Length of Segregation
Liberty Interest
Lower Bunk
Mattress
Medical Care
Mentally Ill
Policy/Procedure
Pretrial Detainees
Privileges
Protective Custody
Punitive Segregation
Racial Discrimination
Reclassification
Regulations
Religion
Segregation
Separation
Sex Offenders
Smoking
Solitary Confinement
Special Needs
Suicide
Transfer
Transsexual
Treatment
Trusty
Work

Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA)
Privacy
Programs
Property
Punitive Damages
Qualified Immunity
RA- Rehabilitation Act
Racial Discrimination
Regulations
Rehabilitation Act (RA)
Religion
Remedies
Respondeat Superior
Rights Retained
Safety
Search
Security
Self Incrimination
Sex Discrimination
Sex Offender
Sexual Abuse
Sexual Harassment
Slavery
Smoking
Telephone Costs
Tort Claims
Torture
Transfers
Use of Force
Verbal Harassment
Victims
Visits
Voting
Waiver of Rights
Work
8. CLASSIFICATION AND
SEPARATION
Subtopics:
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
(AIDS)
AIDS- Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome
Cell Assignment
Civil Commitment
Classification
Classification Criteria
Correspondence
Criteria
Custody Level
Disciplinary Procedures
Discipline
Double Celling
Due Process

XXVI

9. CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT
Subtopics:
ADA- Americans with Disabilities Act
Aliens
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Asbestos
Bedding
Beds
Capacity
Cell Capacity
Cells
Challenges
Change of Conditions
Civil Commitment
Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act
(CRIPA)
Classification
xv

Safety
Sanitation
Segregation
Separation
Showers
Smoke
Staffing
State Requirements
Temperature
Threats
Toilets
Totality of Conditions
Transfers
Trusty System
Use of Force
Ventilation
Visitation
Windows
Women
Work

Clothing
Conditions
Conditions of Confinement
CRIPA- Civil Rights of Inst. Persons Act
Crowding
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Death Penalty
Defenses
Dining
Discipline
Diversion
Dormitories
Double Bunking
Double Celling
Emotional Distress
Equal Protection
Exercise
Facilities
Failure to Provide Care
Fire Safety
Floor-Sleeping
Food
Handicapped Inmates
Harassment
Hearing Impaired
Heating
Hot Water
Hygiene
Idleness
Isolation
Juveniles
Kitchen
Labor
Laundry
Legal Assistance
Lighting
Lights
Mattress
Medical Care
Natural Light
Noise
Odors
Out of Cell Time
Overcrowding
Plumbing
Population
Pretrial Detainees
Privileges
Programs
Punitive Segregation
Racial Discrimination
Remedies
Restraints
Rights Retained

XXVI

10. CRUEL AND UNUSUAL
PUNISHMENT
Subtopics:
Bedding
Capital Punishment
Cells
Clothing
Commissary
Conditions
Crowding
Death Penalty
Defenses
Discipline
Double Celling
Drug Testing
Execution
Exercise
Failure to Protect
Failure to Provide Care
Fire Safety
Food
Harassment
Injury
Isolation
Juveniles
Labor
Lethal Injection
Lighting
Lights
Medical Care
Noise
Plumbing
Pretrial Detainees
xvi

Groups
Hearing
Hearing Impaired
Immunity
Impartiality
Informants
Informants Procedures
Insanity Defense
Interpreter
Investigation
Isolation
Juveniles
Language
Length of Segregation
Liability
Liberty Interest
Live Testimony
Notice
Placement in Segregation
Polygraph
Pretrial Detainees
Prisoner on Prisoner Assault
Procedures
Prosecution
Punishment
Punitive Segregation
Reading Material
Reclassification
Records
Refusal to Work
Regulations
Religion
Religious Services
Restitution
Restraints
Retaliation
Review of Segregation
Rules
Segregation
Segregation-Mail
Solitary Confinement
Transfer
Translators
Visits
Witness
Work

Privacy
Protective Custody
Remedies
Restraints
Safety
Sanitation
Searches
Security
Separation
Smoke
Smoke-Free Environment
Smoking
Spouses
Staffing
State Statutes
Temperature
Threats
Toilets
Torture
Totality of Conditions
Trusties
Use of Force
Ventilation
Violence
Work
11. DISCIPLINE
Subtopics:
Access to Courts
ADA-Americans with Disabilities Act
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Appeal
Assistance
“Bad” Time
Clothing
Conditions of Segregation
Corporal Punishment
Correspondence
Counsel
Criminal Charges
Disciplinary Procedures
Discipline
Discrimination
Double Jeopardy
Drug Testing
Due Process
Equal Protection
Evidence
Exercise
Expungement
Fine
Food
Good-Time
Grievance

XXVI

12. EXERCISE AND RECREATION
Subtopics:
Clothing
Exercise
Facilities
Females
Indoor Exercise
xvii

Threats
Transportation
Use of Force
Wrongful Death

Movies
Outdoor Exercise
Outdoor Recreation
Radio
Recreation
Restraints
Segregation
Television

15. FACILITIES
Subtopics:
ADA- Americans with Disabilities Act
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Antiquated Facility
Asbestos
Attorney-Client Area
Audio Communication
Beds
Capacity
Cell Capacity
Cell Size
Cells
Chapel
Consent Decree
Court Order
Crowding
Dayroom
Dining
Dormitories
Double Celling
Educational Areas
Environmental Impact
Equal Protection
Equipment
Facility Design
Fire Safety
Furnishings
General Conditions
Handicapped
Hygiene
Intercom
Kitchen
Lights
Location
Maintenance
Medical Areas
Medical Exam
National Environmental Protection Act
(NEPA)
NEPA- National Environ.Protection Act
Noise
Padded Cells
Plumbing
Privacy
Protective Custody
Recreation Areas
Religious Areas
Safety

13. EX-OFFENDERS
Subtopics:
Access to Court
Claims
Cost of Confinement
Pardon
PLRA- Prison Litigation Reform Act
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA)
Privacy
Release
Sex Offenders
Voting
14. FAILURE TO PROTECT
Subtopics:
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
(AIDS)
AIDS- Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome
Brutality
Court Costs
Electronic Monitoring
Failure to Intervene
Failure to Protect
Fire
Intimidation
Juveniles
Medical Care
Officer on Prisoner Assault
Parole
PLRA-Prison Litigation Reform Act
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA)
Prisoner on Prisoner Assault
Prisoner on Staff Assault
Prisoner Suicide
Prisoner Suicide Attempt
Protection From Harm
Release
Riot
Searches
Sexual Assault
Staffing
Suicide
Suicide Attempt
Supervision

XXVI

xviii

Suicide
Transfer
Transsexual
VAWA- Violence Against Women Act
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)
Visits
Work Release

Sanitation
Security
Separation
Special Cell
Suicide
Temperature
Use of Force
Ventilation
Visitation Areas
Windows

18. FOOD
Subtopics:
Commissary
Denial of Food
Dining
Discipline
Equal Protection
Food
Food Handlers
Food Quality
Food Temperature
Health Standards
Inspection
Involuntary Nourishment
Kitchen
Kitchen Sanitation
Medical Diet
Nutrition
Portions
Private Provider
Quality
Records
Religious Diet
Sanitation
Segregation
Serving
Special Diet
Staff
Temperature
Utensils
Variety

16. FALSE IMPRISONMENT/ARREST
Subtopics:
Arrest and Detention
Civil Commitment
Detention in Police Car
Due Process
False Arrest
False Imprisonment
Identification
Investigative Detention
Malicious Prosecution
Probable Cause
Unlawful Detention
17. FEMALE PRISONERS
Subtopics:
Abortion
Access to Court
Breast-feeding
Children
Classification
Clothing
Communication
Conditions
Discipline
Discrimination
Employment Discrimination
Equal Protection
Exercise
Failure to Protect
Gender Identity Disorder (GID)
GID- Gender Identity Disorder
Hygiene
Medical Care
Pregnancy
Privacy
Programming
Restraints
Searches
Sexual Assault
Sexual Harassment
Special Needs
Staff

XXVI

19. FREE SPEECH, EXPRESSION AND
ASSOCIATION
Subtopics:
Assembly
Association
Books
Cassette Tapes
Censorship
Clippings
Clothing
Communications with Prisoners
Conversation
Correspondence
Criticism
xix

Cross-Dressing
Eavesdropping
Executions
Family
FOIA- Freedom of Information Act
Former Prisoners
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
Free Speech
Hair
Hats
Hunger Strike
Indigent Prisoners
Inspection of Mail
Internet
Jail House Lawyer
Language
Literature
Lobbying
Mail
Marriage
Media Access
Movies
Music
Name
Newspapers
Obscenity
Opening of Mail
Photographs
Pretrial Detainees
Prisoner Associations
Prisoner Publications
Prisoner Unions
Prisoner Work Stoppage
Privacy
Publications
"Publisher-Only" Rule
Redress of Grievances
Regulations
Religion
Religious Literature
Retaliation
Sex Offenders
Staff
Telephone
Visitation
Visiting
Visitor Searches
Visitors
Visits
Voting

Equal Protection
Ex Post Facto
Good Time
Good-Time Credit
Liberty Interest
Pre-Sentence Detention
Reduction of Crowding
Removal
Restoration
Revocation
Waiver by Prisoner
21. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES,
PRISONER
Subtopics:
Due Process
Exhaustion
Investigation
Monetary Damages
Petition
PLRA- Prison Litigation Reform Act
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA)
Procedures
Retaliation
Right of Access
22. HABEAS CORPUS
Subtopics:
Access to Courts
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
(AIDS)
AEDPA-Antiterrorism & Effective Death
Penalty Act
AIDS- Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome
Alien
Antiterrorism & Effective Death Penalty Act
(AEDPA)
Artificial Insemination
Bail
Civil Commitment
Conditions of Confinement
Credit For Time Served
Death Penalty
Discipline
Due Process
Exhaustion
Federal Courts
Frivolous Petitions
Good Time
Good- Time Credit
Habeas Corpus
Habeas Corpus Relief
Interrogation

20. GOOD-TIME
Subtopics:
Due Process

XXVI

xx

Judicial Immunity
Legislative Immunity
Municipal Immunity
Official Capacity
Precedent
Prosecutorial Immunity
Qualified Immunity
Quasi-Judicial Immunity
Reasonable Belief
Respondeat Superior
Sovereign Immunity

Interstate Compact
Jurisdiction
Juvenile
Marriage
Parole
PLRA-Prison Litigation Reform Act
Pretrial Detainee
Probation
Programs
Release Notification
Release Date
Religion
Segregation
Sentence
Sentence Reduction
Sex Offender
Statute of Limitations
Transfer

25. INTAKE AND ADMISSIONS
Subtopics:
ADA-Americans with Disabilities Act
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Bedding
Classification
Clothing
Delay
Hygiene Items
Identification
Length
Medical Screening
Medication
PLRA- Prison Litigation Reform Act
Procedures
Psychological Screening
Refusal to Admit
Restraints
Rules
Screening
Searches
Search- Property
Showers
Suicide
Telephone
Towels
Translator
Use of Force

23. HYGIENE- PRISONER PERSONAL
Subtopics:
Bedding
Clothing
Hair
Hot Water
Housekeeping
Hygiene
Hygiene Items
Indigent Prisoners
Isolation
Laundry
Razor
Rodents/Pests
Shaving
Shoes
Showers
Sinks
Toilet Paper
Toilets
Toothpaste
Water

26. JUVENILES
Subtopics:
Access to Court
Classification
Communication with Parents
Conditions
Credit
Diversion
Due Process
Equal Protection
Failure to Protect
False Arrest
IDEA-Indiv. w/Disabilities Education Act

24. IMMUNITY
Subtopics:
Absolute Immunity
Bivens Claims
Eleventh Amendment
Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)
FTCA- Federal Tort Claims Act
42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1983
Good Faith Defense
Governmental Immunity
Individual Capacity
Insurance

XXVI

xxi

Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)
Fines
FLSA- Fair Labor Standards Act
FTCA- Federal Tort Claims Act
42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1983
Good Faith Defense
Good Faith Immunity
Governmental Immunity
Governmental Liability
Heck Rule
Individual Capacity
Injunctive Relief
Insurance
Liability
Municipal Liability
Negligence
Negligent Hiring
Negligent Retention
Negligent Supervision
Nominal Damages
Official Capacity
Personal Liability
PLRA-Prison Litigation Reform Act
Policies/Procedures
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA)
Private Operator
Private Provider
Punitive Damages
Qualified Immunity
Quasi-Judicial Immunity
Reckless Indifference
Religious Land Use and Inst. Persons Act
(RLUIPA
Remedies
RLUIPA- Religious Land Use and Inst.
Persons Act
Respondeat Superior
Sanctions
Settlement
Sovereign Immunity
Special Master
State Liability
Statutes (preventing lawsuits)
Supervisory Liability
Termination of Order
Tort Law
Tort Liability
VAWA- Violence Against Women Act
Vicarious Liability
Violation of Court Order
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

Isolation
Medical Care
Medication
Mental Commitment
Parole
PLRA- Prison Litigation Reform Act
Preventive Detention
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA)
Privacy
Programs
Release
Religion
Remedies
Right to Treatment
Search
Sentence
Separation
State Liability
Suicide
Suicide Attempt
Supervision
Transfer
Trial as Adult
Use of Force
27. LIABILITY
Subtopics:
Alien
Alien Tort Claims Act (ACTA)
ATCA- Alien Tort Claims Act
Bivens Claim
Civil Liability
Class Action
Compensatory Damages
Consent Decree
Consent Decree- Modification
Consent Decree- Termination
Contempt
Contract Services
Court Monitor
Covenant- Not-To-Sue
Damages
Defenses
Deliberate Indifference
Failure to Act
Failure to Direct
Failure to Intervene
Failure to Protect
Failure to Supervise
Failure to Train
Fair Housing Act (FHA)
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
False Claims Act (FCA)
FCA- False Claims Act

XXVI

xxii

AIDS- Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome
Alcohol/Drugs
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Cells
Children
Contagious Diseases
Contract Services
Costs
Delay in Treatment
Delay of Care
Deliberate Indifference
Denial
Dental Care
Diagnosis
Emergency Care
Equal Protection
Equipment
Examination Facilities
Examinations
Experimentation
Eye Care
Facilities
Failure to Provide Care
Female Prisoners
42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1983
GID- Gender Identity Disorder
Handicap
Hearing Impaired
Hospital
Inadequate Care
Informed Consent
Intake Screening
Interference
Interference with Treatment
Interpreter
Involuntary Medication
Involuntary Nourishment
Involuntary Treatment
Isolation
Juvenile
Malpractice
Medication
Mental Health
Methadone
Misdiagnosis
Negligence
Personnel
Policies
Pretrial Detainee
Pretrial Detention
Privacy
Private Physician
Private Provider

28. MAIL
Subtopics:
Attorney Mail
Bulk Mail
Censorship
Confiscation
Correspondence
Corres.- Court
Corres.- Friends, Relatives
Delay
Delivery
e-Mail
Forwarding
Indigent Inmates
Inspection of Mail
Interference
Isolation
Language
Legal Mail
Limitation
Limiting Correspondents
Limiting Language
Media
Notice
Opening Mail
Outgoing Mail
Packages
Post Cards
Postage
Privileged Correspondence
Privileged Mail
Prohibition
Prohibition- Corres. with Jurors
Prohibition- Publications
"Publisher-Only" Rule
Reading of Mail
Refusal
Regulations
Rejecting Mail
Religion
Religious Literature
Security Practices
Seizure
Seizure- Outgoing Mail
Waiver
Withholding Correspondence
29. MEDICAL CARE
Subtopics:
Abortion
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
(AIDS)
ADA-Americans with Disabilities Act
Adequacy of Care

XXVI

xxiii

Pretrial Detention
Privacy
Private Provider
Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill
Individuals Act (PAMII)
Psychiatric Care
Psychotropic Drugs
Records
Restraints
Retardation
Right to Treatment
Segregation
Sentence
Sex Offenders
Special Housing
Staff
Suicide
Supervision
Training
Transfer
Use of Force
Waiver

Prostheses
Psychotropic Drugs
Quarantine
RA- Rehabilitation Act
"Reasonable Care"
Records
Records-Access
Rehabilitation Act (RA)
Release
Religion
Restraints
Right to Refuse
Sick Call
Smoke
Smoke-free Environment
Special Diets
Special Housing
Staff
Suicide
Suicide Attempt
Training
Transfer
Translator
Transplant
Transportation
Transsexual
Treatment
Wheelchair
Work Assignment
X-Ray

31. PERSONNEL
Subtopics:
ADA- Americans with Disabilities Act
ADEA- Age Discrimination in Employment
Act
Age Discrimination
Age Discrimination in Employment Act
(ADEA)
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Assignment
Association
Attorney
Back Pay
Benefits
BFOQ- Bona Fide Occupational Qualification
Clothing
Contract
Contractors
Demotion
Disability
Discipline
Discrimination
Drug Testing
Due Process
Equal Opportunity
Equal Pay Act
Equal Protection
Failure to Protect
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
FLSA- Fair Labor Standards Act

30. MENTAL HEALTH
Subtopics:
ADA-Americans with Disabilities Act
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Commitment
Communication
Confinement
Death Penalty
Delay In Care
Deliberate Indifference
Detention
Due Process
Equal Protection
Evaluation
Failure to Provide Care
Hospitalization
Intake Screening
Involuntary Medication
Juvenile
Medication
Padded Cells
PAMII- Protection and Advocacy for Mentally
Ill Individuals Act

XXVI

xxiv

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Assessment of Costs
Attorney Visits
Bail
Bail Reform Act (BRA)
BRA- Bail Reform Act
Cell Capacity
Cell Searches
Cells
Civil Commitment
Civil Rights of Inst. Persons Act (CRIPA)
Classification
Clothing
Clothing-Court Appearances
Commissary
Conditions
Contact Visits
CRIPA- Civil Rights of Inst. Persons Act
Crowding
Discipline
Discrimination
Diversion
Drug Test
Due Process
Equal Protection
Exercise
Facility Plans
Failure to Protect
False Arrest
False Imprisonment
Females
Food
Good Time
Grievance
Hair
Handicap
Home Detention
Initial Appearance
Intake Screening
Involuntary Medication
Juveniles
Law Libraries
"Least Restrictive Means"
Length
Mail
Medical Care
Medication
Mental Health
Methadone Treatment
Packages
Parity with Sentenced
PLRA- Prison Litigation Reform Act
Pre-Sentence Detention
Preventive Detention

FMLA- Family Medical Leave Act
Free Speech
Harassment
Hiring/Qualifications
Holidays
Hostile Work Environment
Interpreter
Investigation
Legal Services
Liberty Interest
Mandatory Retirement
Marriage
Military Service
Negotiation
Overtime
Pay Parity
Physical Requirements
Political Affiliation
Polygraph
Privacy
Probation
Promotion
Property Interest
Prosecution
Protection From Harm
Psychological Screening
Qualifications
Racial Discrimination
Religion
Retaliation
Retention
Retirement
Schedule
Searches
Sex Discrimination
Sexual Harassment
Staffing Levels
Strikes
Supervision
Suspension
Termination
Title VII
Training
Transfers
Union
Worker’s Compensation
Working Conditions
Work Rules
32. PRETRIAL DETENTION
Subtopics:
Access to Court
ADA-Americans with Disabilities Act
Alien

XXVI

xxv

Drug Testing
Expungement
Family Relationships
Forcible Injection
Health
Internet
Interpreters
Mail
Media
Medical Care
Medical Issues
Nudity
Observation by Staff
Parole
Privacy Act
Psychological Services
Records
Removal from Program
Right of Privacy
Searches
Sex Offenders
Staff
Staff of Opposite Sex
Telephone Calls
View by Inmates
View by Staff
Visitors

Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA)
Privacy
Probable Cause
Programs
Protection
Protective Custody
Psychological Services
Publications
Punishment
RA- Rehabilitation Act
Recreation
Rehabilitation Act (RA)
Release
Release- Condition
Religion
Restraints
Rights Retained
Safety
Sanitation
Searches
Segregation
Sentence Reduction
Separation
Sex Offenders
Sexual Assault
Speedy Trial
Staffing
State Interest
Suicide
Suicide Attempt
Supervision
Telephone
Temporary Release
Transfer
Transport
Unlawful Detention
Use of Force
Visits
Voting
Windows
Work
Wrongful Death

34. PROGRAMS-PRISONER
Subtopics:
Administrative Segregation
ADA-Americans with Disabilities Act
Alcohol/Drugs
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Art
Counseling
Crafts
Crisis Intervention
Drug
Due Process
Educational
Equal Protection
Handicapped
Hobbies
I.D.E.A.- Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act
Incentives
Individuals with Disabilities Educ. Act (IDEA)
Juveniles
Liberty Interest
Parity- Male/Female
Participation
Pretrial Detainees
Psychiatric

33. PRIVACY
Subtopics:
Acquired Immune Def. Syndrome (AIDS)
AIDS- Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome
Attorney-Client Communications
Automobile
Blood Test
Confidential Information
Crowding
DNA

XXVI

xxvi

Credit
Delay
Discrimination
Disposition of Property
Due Process
Early Release
Electronic Monitoring
Equal Protection
Ex Post Facto
Expiration of Sentence
Failure to Protect
Furloughs
Good-Time
Graduated Release
Home Detention
Involuntary Commitment
Juvenile
Liability-Release of Prisoner
Liberty Interest
Medical Care
Medication
Notification
Pardon
Parole
Parole-Conditions
Parole-Denial
Parole-Due Process
Parole-Granting
Parole-Guidelines
Parole- Hearing
Parole- Interpreter
Parole-Liability
Parole-Policies
Parole-Revocation
Parole-Searches
Parole Violations
PLRA- Prison Litigation Reform Act
Pre-Release
Pretrial Release
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA)
Probation/Revocation
Release Date
Release on Bond
Release on Recognizance
Release Site
Retaliation
Sentence
Sentence Conditions
Sentencing to Parole
Sex Offenders
Supervised Release
Temporary Release
Timely Release
Veterans

Psychological
Psychological Counseling
Racial Discrimination
Rehabilitation
Release
Religion
Removal from Program
Requirements
Right to Treatment
Segregation
Sex Offender
Training
Treatment Programs
Vocational
Work/Study
35. PROPERTY- PRISONER PERSONAL
Subtopics:
Confiscation
Crowding
Destruction of Property
Disposition of Funds
Disposition of Property
Inmate Funds
Interest
Jewelry
Legal Material
Limitations
Loss of Property
Money
Plumbing
Pre-Release
Prohibited Property
Receipts
Retirement
Searches
Showers
Social Security
Stamps
Storage
Toilets
Transfer between Prisoners
Veterans
36. RELEASE
Subtopics:
ADA- Americans with Disabilities Act
Alien
Alternatives to Confinement
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Bail
Civil Commitment
Compassionate Release
Conditional Release

XXVI

xxvii

Satanism
Searches
Search by Female
Services
Sincerity
Soap
Sweat Lodge
Tobacco
Visits
Volunteers
Work
38. RULES AND REGULATIONSPRISONER
Subtopics:
Access to Attorney
Access to Court
Access to Religion
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
(AIDS)
AIDS- Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome
Artificial Insemination
Beards
Books
Clothing
Correspondence
Custody Level
Disturbance
Drug Testing
Due Process
Enforcement
Facial Hair
Free Expression
Grooming
Hair
Hair Length
Hats
Inmate-Run Business
Items Permitted
Jewelry
Language
Liberty Interest
Mail
Makeup
Media Access
Notice
Outgoing Mail
Packages
Pretrial Detainees
Property
Publications
"Publisher-Only" Rule
Religion
Religious Articles

Victim
Work Release
37. RELIGION
Subtopics:
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
(AIDS)
AIDS- Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome
Admission Procedures
Appearance
Articles
Beards
Blood Tests
Books
Chaplain
Classification
Clothing
Correspondence
Costs
Counseling
Death Penalty
Diet
Equal Protection
Establishment Clause
Fast
Forced Exposure
Free Exercise
Freedom of Religion
Hair
Hair Length
Hats
Jewelry/Ornaments
Mail
Medical Care
Name
Opportunity
Opportunity to Practice
Opportunity to Worship
Parole
Place to Worship
Privacy
Publications
Recognized Religions
Regulations
Regulation- Name
Religious Articles
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)
Religious Land Use & Inst. ersons Act
(RLUIPA)
Restrictions
RFRA-Religious Freedom Restoration Act
RLUIPA- Religious Land Use & Inst. Persons
Act

XXVI

xxviii

Restraints
Riot
Safety
Safety Regulations
Satanism
Searches
Searches- Cell
Security Practices
Security Restrictions
Segregation
Separation
Sex Offender
Staffing
Supermax
Telephone
Telephone Calls
Transfer
Transportation
Use of Force
Video Surveillance
Visits
Weapon
Wheelchair
Windows
Work

Restrictions
Right to Marry
Rules
Rules- Items Permitted
Smoking
Supermax
Transsexual
Violation
Visits
Volunteers
Work
39. SAFETY AND SECURITY
Subtopics:
Access to Attorney
Audio Communication
Books
Cell Capacity
Classification
Cleaning Supplies
Clothing
Confidential Information
Contact Visits
Contraband
Crowding
Discretion
Disturbance
Emergency Drill
Escape
Evacuation
Exercise
Exposure to Chemicals
Facial Hair
Fire
Fire Safety
Gangs
Hair
Hair Length
Hats
Items Permitted
Jewelry
Keys
"Lock-In"
Locks
Lock Down
Mail
Media Access
Pretrial Detainees
Protection
Publications
Religion
Religious Articles
Religious Groups
Religious Services

XXVI

40. SANITATION
Subtopics:
Bedding
Cells
Clothing
Common Areas
Crowding
Food Service
Haircutting
Hair Length
Hot Water
Housekeeping
Kitchen
Laundry
Plumbing
Rodents/Pests
Sanitation
Sewerage
Showers
Sinks
Toilets
Water
41. SEARCHES
Subtopics:
Attorney Search
Automobile
Blood Tests
xxix

Body Cavity Search
Body Searches
Cell Searches
Contraband
Cross Gender
Damage to Property
DNA- Deoxy Ribonucleic Acid
Dogs
Drug/Alcohol Testing
Drug Test
Employee
Evidence
Frisk Search
Juvenile
Laxatives
Living Areas
Opposite Sex
Parolees
Pat Down Search
Pretrial Detainees
Pretrial Release
Privacy
Probationers
Property
Qualified Immunity
Retaliation
Same-Sex Search
Sanitation
Search of Property
Search of Prosthetic
Search Warrant
"Shakedowns"
Strip Searches
Urine Test
Use of Force
Vehicle
Visits
Visitor Searches
X-Ray

Capital Punishment
Clemency
Community Service
Consecutive Sentences
Conditions
Credit
Delay
Double Jeopardy
Equal Protection
Expiration
Ex Post Facto
Federal Probation Act
Fines
Furlough
Good-Time
Guidelines
House Arrest
Indigency
Insanity
Involuntary Commitment
Legal Costs
Liberty Interest
Minimum Sentence
Original Sentence
Pardon
Parole
Place of Imprisonment
Presentence Report
Pretrial Confinement
Probation
Probation- Conditions
Probation- Revocation
Probation- Search
Probation- Violation
Recommendation
Reduction of Sentence
Reduction
Restitution
Review
Revocation
Sentence
Sentence to Parole
Sex Offenders
Supervised Release
Super. Release-- Conditions

42. SERVICES- PRISONER
Subtopics:
Commissary
Commission
Haircut
Idleness
Indigent Inmates
Library
Right to Treatment
Telephone

44. STANDARDS
Subtopics:
Accreditation
Federal Standards
International Standards
Professional Standards
Standards
State Regulations

43. SENTENCE
Subtopics:
Banishment

XXVI

xxx

Mental Health
Mental Institution
Notification
Other State
Payment of Expenses
Pretrial Detainees
Private Facility
Purpose
Records
Reprisal
Restraints
Retaliation
Right to Counsel
Searches
State Statute
Transfer
Transportation
Transsexual

State Standards
State Statutes
United Nations Standards
45. SUPERVISION
Subtopics:
Assignment
Audio Communication
Cell Checks
Communication Systems
Cross Gender Supervision
Deliberate Indifference
Electronic Surveillance
Failure to Supervise
Female Officers
Female Staff
Inadequate Supervision
Prisoner Checks
Probation
Staff Assignment
Staffing Levels
Surveillance
Video Surveillance

48. USE OF FORCE
Subtopics:
Brutality
Cell Extraction
Chemical Agents
Deadly Force
Disturbance
Dogs
Excessive Force
Failure to Direct
Failure to Protect
Fire Hose
Pepper Spray
Restraining Chair
Restraints
Stinger Grenade
Stun Belt
Stun Gun
Taser
Threatening
Use of Force

46. TRAINING
Subtopics:
Failure to Train
Medical Care
Mental Health
Medical Screening
Negligence
Screening
Training
47. TRANSFERS
Subtopics:
Access to Attorney
Access to Court
Court Transfer
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Denial
Discipline
Distance
Due Process
Equal Protection
Facility
Failure to Protect
Foreign Countries
Habeas Corpus
Interstate Compact
Law Library
Liberty Interest
Mail
Medical Care

XXVI

49. VISITING
Subtopics:
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
(AIDS)
ADA-Americans with Disabilities Act
AIDS- Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Attorney
Attorney Scheduling
Attorney Search
Children
Conjugal Visit
xxxi

Involuntary Servitude
Liberty Interest
Medical Restrictions
Payment
Pretrial Detainees
Prison Industries
Private Sector
Property Interest
Refusal to Work
Religion
Removal From Job
Right to Work
Safety
Security Searches
Segregation
Slavery
Supervision
Termination
Transfer
Unsentenced Prisoners
Work Assignments
Work Conditions
Work Release
Work Stoppage

Contact Visits
Denial of Visits
Family
Female Prisoners
Former Employees
Former Prisoners
Frequency
Identification
Liberty Interest
Media
Pretrial Detainees
Privacy
Racial Discrimination
Restrictions
Rules
Scheduling
Searches
Segregation
Special Visits
Spouses
Termination of Visits
Time Limits
Video
Visiting
Visitor Searches
Volunteers
50. WORK- PRISONER
Subtopics:
ADA-Americans with Disabilities Act
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Assignment
Benefits
Chain Gang
Compensation
Consent Decree
Deductions From Pay
Deduction From Wages
Discipline
Discrimination
Due Process
EEOC- Equal Employment Opp. Comm'n
Employee
Equal Opportunity
Equal Protection
Exposure to Chemicals
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
FLSA- Fair Labor Standards Act
Forced Labor
Free Speech
Good-Time
Idle Pay
Idleness
Injury

XXVI

xxxii

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

TABLE OF CASES
A.A. v. New Jersey, 176 F.Supp.2d 274 (D.N.J. 2001). 13,
27, 33
A.L.A. v. West Valley City, 26 F.3d 989 (10th Cir. 1994).
33
A.M. v. Luzerne County Juvenile Detention Center, 372
F.3d 572 (3rd Cir. 2004). 26
A.N.R. Ex Rel. Reed v. Caldwell, 111 F.Supp.2d 1294
(M.D.Ala. 2000). 21, 32
Aaron v. Finkbinder, 793 F.Supp. 734 (E.D.Mich. 1992),
affirmed, 4 F.3d 993. 25, 29
Abarca v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 75 F.Supp.2d 566
(E.D.Tex. 1999). 9, 10, 31
Abbott v. McCotter, 13 F.3d 1439 (10th Cir. 1994). 35
Abbott v. Meese, 824 F.2d 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1987). 28, 38
Abdool-Rashaad v. Seiter, 690 F.Supp. 598 (S.D. Ohio
1987). 37, 38
Abdul Jabbar-Al Samad v. Horn, 913 F.Supp. 373 (E.D.Pa.
1995). 39, 37
Abdul-Akbar v. Department of Corrections, 910 F.Supp.
986 (D.Del. 1995). 1
Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307 (3rd Cir. 2001). 1
Abdul-Akbar v. Watson, 4 F.3d 195 (3rd Cir. 1993). 1, 27
Abdul-Akbar v. Watson, 775 F.Supp. 735 (D. Del. 1991). 1
Abdul-Hakeem v. Koehler, 910 F.2d 66 (2nd Cir. 1990). 22,
47
Abdulhaseeb v. Calbone, 600 F.3d 1301 (10th Cir. 2010).
18, 37
Abdullah v. Gunter, 949 F.2d 1032 (8th Cir. 1991), cert.
denied, 112 S.Ct. 1995. 1, 35
Abdullah v. Smith, 465 N.Y.S.2d 81 (App. 1983). 12, 37
Abdullah v. Washington, 437 F.Supp.2d 137 (D.D.C.
2006). 9, 10, 27, 29
Abdullah v. Washington, 530 F.Supp.2d 112 (D.D.C.
2008.) 2, 10, 29, 38
Abdul-Muhammad v. Kempker, 450 F.3d 350 (8th Cir.
2006). 1, 21
Abdul-Wadood v. Nathan, 91 F.3d 1023 (7th Cir. 1996). 1
Abdur-Raheem v. Selsky, 806 F.Supp.2d 628 (W.D.N.Y.
2011). 3
Abdur-Rahman v Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 65 F.3d
489 (6th Cir. 1995). 37
Abdur-Raqiyb v. Erie County Medical Center, 536
F.Supp.2d 299 (W.D.N.Y. 2008). 29, 37
Abdush-Shahid v. Coughlin, 933 F. Supp. 168 (N.D.N.Y.
1996). 18, 29, 33
Abed v. Armstrong, 209 F.3d 63 (2nd Cir. 2000). 8, 20, 22
Abernathy v. Perry, 869 F.2d 1146 (8th Cir. 1989). 3, 8
Abney v. Alameida, 334 F.Supp.2d 1221 (S.D.Cal. 2004).
1, 2, 4, 35
Abney v. Jopp, 655 F.Supp.2d 231 (W.D.N.Y. 2009). 7, 10,
14
Abodeen v. Bufardi, 75 Fed.Appx. 822 (2nd Cir. 2003)
[unpublished]. 1
Abordo v. State of Hawaii, 938 F.Supp. 656 (D.Hawai'i
1996). 7, 37, 38
Abrams v. Hunter, 910 F.Supp. 620 (M.D.Fla. 1995). 14, 45
Abrazinski v. Dubois, 876 F.Supp. 313 (D.Mass. 1995). 11
Abrazinski v. DuBois, 940 F.Supp. 361 (D.Mass. 1996). 11
Abshire v. Walls, 830 F.2d 1277 (4th Cir. 1987). 5, 32, 41
Abuhouran v. U.S., 595 F.Supp.2d 588 (E.D.Pa. 2009). 9,
10, 27, 29
Abu-Jamal v. Price, 154 F.3d 128 (3rd Cir. 1998). 1, 19, 38,
49

TC-1
XXVI

Acevedo v. Forcinito, 820 F.Supp. 886 (D.N.J. 1993). 1
Ackerman v. Giles, 105 S.Ct. 2114 (1985). 17, 41
ACLU of Maryland of Wicomico County, MD., 999 F.2d
780 (4th Cir. 1993). 49
Acoolla v. Angelone, 186 F.Supp.2d 670 (W.D.Va. 2002). 1
Acosta v. U.S. Marshals Service, 445 F.3d 509 (1st Cir.
2006). 1, 27, 29, 32
Adair v. U.S., 497 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2007). 2, 31
Adames v. Perez, 331 F.3d 508 (5th Cir. 2003). 14
Adams v. Banks, 663 F.Supp.2d 485 (S.D.Miss. 2009). 9,
10, 29
Adams v. Bouchard, 591 F.Supp.2d 1191 (W.D.Okla.
2008). 1, 31, 48
Adams v. Bradshaw, 484 F.Supp.2d 753 (N.D.Ohio 2007).
1, 22, 48
Adams v. Carlson, 488 F.2d 619 (7th Cir. 1973). 1
Adams v. Cook County Dept. of Corrections, 485
F.Supp.2d 940 (N.D.Ill. 2007). 29, 32
Adams v. Drew, 906 F.Supp. 1050 (E.D.Va. 1995). 14, 29,
33
Adams v. Ellis, 197 F.2d 483 (5th Cir. 1952). 22
Adams v. Franklin, 111 F.Supp.2d 1255 (M.D.Ala. 2000).
24, 29, 32
Adams v. Hansen, 906 F.2d 192 (5th Cir. 1990). 48
Adams v. James, 784 F.2d 1077 (11th Cir. 1986). 1, 50
Adams v. James, 797 F.Supp. 940 (M.D.Fla. 1992). 50, 47
Adams v. Kincheloe, 743 F.Supp. 1393 (E.D. Wash. 1990).
11, 18
Adams v. Mathis, 458 F.Supp. 302 (N.D. Ala. 1978). 12
Adams v. Poag, 61 F.3d 1537 (11th Cir. 1995). 14, 29
Addison v. Pash, 961 F.2d 731 (8th Cir. 1992). 11, 38
Adem v. Bush, 425 F.Supp.2d 7 (D.D.C. 2006). 1, 7, 22
Adewale v. Whalen, 21 F.Supp.2d 1006 (D.Minn. 1998).
16, 24, 25, 32, 41, 46, 48
Adeyola v. Gibon, 537 F.Supp.2d 479 (W.D.N.Y. 2008).
38, 41, 49
Adkins v. Kaspar, 393 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 2004). 37, 38, 50
Adkins v. Martin, 699 F.Supp. 1510 (W.D. Okl. 1988). 11,
22, 41
Adkins v. Wolever, 554 F.3d 650 (6th Cir. 2009). 11, 14
Adler v. Menifee, 293 F.Supp.2d 363 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). 8
Admire v. Strain, 566 F.Supp.2d 492 (E.D.La. 2008). 31
Advocacy Center for Elderly and Disabled v. Louisiana
Dept. of Health and Hospitals, 731 F.Supp.2d 583
(E.D.La. 2010). 27, 30
Advocacy Center for Elderly and Disabled v. Louisiana
Dept. of Health and Hospitals, 731 F.Supp.2d 603
(E.D.La. 2010). 9, 27, 30
Advocacy Center v. Stalder, 128 F.Supp.2d 358 (M.D.La.
1999). 1, 2, 30
Africa v. Horn, 998 F.Supp. 557 (E.D.Pa. 1998). 3, 29, 37
Africa v. Vaughan, 998 F.Supp. 552 (E.D.Pa. 1998). 19, 38,
49
Ageel v. Seiter, 781 F.Supp. 517 (S.D. Ohio 1991),
affirmed, 966 F.2d 1451. 37, 38
Agster v. Maricopa County, 406 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2005).
32, 48
Agster v. Maricopa County, 486 F.Supp.2d 1005 (D.Ariz.
2007). 5
Aguilera v. Cook County Police and Corrections Merit
Board, 582 F.Supp. 1053 (N.D. Ill. 1983), cert.
denied, 106 S.Ct. 237. 2
Aguilera v. Cook County Police and Corrections Merit
Board, 760 F.2d 844 (7th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 106
S.Ct. 237. 31

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Ahlers v. Schebil, 188 F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 1999). 31
Ahmad v. Ehrmann, 339 F.Supp.2d 1134 (D.Colo. 2004).
37, 38
Ahrens v. Thomas, 434 F.Supp. 873 (W.D. Mo. 1977). 8,
12, 14, 17, 18, 23, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 37, 38,
40, 44, 45, 47, 50
Aiello v. Kingston, 947 F.2d 834 (7th Cir. 1991). 38
Aiello v. Litscher, 104 F.Supp.2d 1068 (W.D.Wis. 2000).
19, 28, 38
Ainsworth v. Stanley, 317 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002). 7, 33, 34
Ajala v. West, 106 F.Supp.3d 976 (W.D. Wisc. 2015). 7,
37, 38, 39
Akande v. Grounds, 555 F.3d 586 (7th Cir. 2009). 31
Akao v. Shimoda, 832 F.2d 119 (9th Cir. 1987), cert.
denied, 108 S.Ct. 1301. 9, 10, 15
Akbar v. Borgen, 803 F.Supp. 1479 (E.D.Wis. 1992). 38
Akbar v. Fairman, 788 F.2d 1273 (7th Cir. 1986). 4, 5, 11
Akbar v. Gross, 816 F.Supp. 501 (E.D.Wis. 1993). 11
Akella v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 67 F.Supp.2d 716
(E.D.Mich. 1999). 33
Akers v. McGinnis, 352 F.3d 1030 (6th Cir. 2003) 31
Akers v. Watts, 740 F.Supp.2d 83 (D.D.C. 2010). 28, 33, 39
Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2012). 1, 8, 21, 29
Akines v. Shelby County Government, 512 F.Supp.2d 1138
(W.D. Tenn. 2007). 2, 31
Akridge v. Wilkinson, 351 F.Supp.2d 750 (S.D.Ohio 2004).
7, 31
Al Ginco v. Obama, 626 F.Supp.2d 123 (D.D.C. 2009). 7,
22
Al Mutairi v. U.S., 644 F.Supp.2d 78 (D.D.C. 2009). 22
Al Odah v. U.S., 321 F.3d 1134 (D.C.Cir. 2003). 7, 9, 22
Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program v. Wood, 584
F.Supp.2d 1314 (M.D.Ala. 2008). 2, 26, 34
Al-Adahi v. Obama, 596 F.Supp.2d 111 (D.D.C. 2009). 7,
18, 19, 48
Alaka v. Elwood, 225 F.Supp.2d 547 (E.D.Pa. 2002). 6, 22
Al-Alamin v. Gramley, 926 F.2d 680 (7th Cir. 1991). 37
Al-Amin v. Smith, 511 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2008). 1, 19,
28
Al-Amin v. Smith, 637 F.3d 1192 (11th Cir. 2011). 1, 27, 28
Alamo v. Clay, 137 F.3d 1366 (D.C.Cir. 1998). 36
Alba v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2008). 21, 27
Alberson v. Norris, 458 F.3d 762 (8th Cir. 2006). 1, 14,
Alberson v. Norris, 458 F.3d 762 (8th Cir. 2006). 29
Albert v. DePinto, 638 F.Supp. 1307 (D.Conn. 1986). 27,
48
Alberti v. Heard, 600 F.Supp. 443 (S.D. Tex. 1984). 9, 14,
45
Alberti v. Klevenhagen, 46 F.3d 1347 (5th Cir. 1995). 4, 15,
27
Alberti v. Klevenhagen, 606 F.Supp. 478 (S.D. Tex. 1985).
45
Alberti v. Klevenhagen, 790 F.2d 1220 (5th Cir. 1986). 14,
39, 45, 46
Alberti v. Sheriff of Harris Co., 406 F.Supp. 649 (S.D. Tex.
1975). 7, 8, 15, 18, 23, 25, 29, 31, 32, 34, 39, 45, 46
Alberti v. Sheriff of Harris County, Tex., 937 F.2d 984 (5th
Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 1994. 9
Albino v. Baca, 697 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir, 2012). 1, 21
Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014). 14, 21, 32
Albright v. U.S., 10 F.3d 790 (Fed. Cir. 1993). 31
Albro v. Onondaga County, N.Y., 677 F.Supp. 697 (N.D.
N.Y. 1988). 9, 10, 15, 39
Aldape v. Lambert, 34 F.3d 619 (8th Cir. 1994). 29, 41
Aldini v. Johnson, 609 F.3d 858 (6th Cir. 2010). 24, 25, 48

TC-2
XXVI

Alevras v. Snyder, 49 F.Supp.2d 1112 (E.D.Ark. 1999). 22,
35, 43, 50
Alexander S. v. Boyd, 876 F.Supp. 773 (D.S.C. 1995). 26,
34, 44
Alexander v. City of Muscle Shoals, Ala., 766 F.Supp.2d
1214 (N.D.Ala. 2011). 1, 24, 29, 32
Alexander v. Gilmore, 202 F.Supp.2d 478 (E.D.Va. 2002).
11, 13, 27, 38
Alexander v. Hawk, 159 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 1998). 1
Alexander v. Johnson, 217 F.Supp.2d 780 S.D.Tex. 2001).
22, 36
Alexander v. Perrill, 836 F.Supp. 701 (D. Ariz. 1993). 20,
36, 43
Alexander v. Perrill, 916 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir. 1990). 27, 36
Alexander v. Schenk, 118 F.Supp.2d 298 (N.D.N.Y. 2000).
34, 37, 50
Alexander v. State of Conn., 876 F.2d 277 (2nd Cir. 1989),
cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 2831. 1, 22
Alexander v. Tippah County, Miss., 351 F.3d 626 (5th Cir.
2003) 3, 9, 15
Alexander v. U.S. Parole Com'n., 514 F.3d 1083 (10th Cir.
2008). 36
Alexander v. Weiner, 841 F.Supp.2d 486 (D.Mass. 2012).
17, 27, 29
Alfrey v. U.S., 276 F.3d 557 (9th Cir. 2002). 14, 24, 27
Ali v. District of Columbia, 278 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
37, 47
Ali v. U.S., 743 F.Supp. 50 (D.D.C. 1990). 1, 47
Alicea v. Howell, 387 F.Supp.2d 227 (W.D.N.Y. 2005). 11,
41
Alikhani v. Fasano, 70 F.Supp.2d 1124 (S.D.Cal. 1999). 22
Aliwoli v. Gilmore, 127 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 1997). 1, 22
Aliym v. Miles, 679 F.Supp. 1 (W.D. N.Y. 1988). 37, 38
Al-Jundi v. Estate of Rockefeller, 885 F.2d 1060 (2nd Cir.
1989). 27, 48
Al-Jundi v. Mancusi, 926 F.2d 235 (2nd Cir. 1991), cert.
denied, 112 S.Ct. 182. 27, 48
Alkire v. Irving, 305 F.3d 456 (6th Cir. 2002). 1, 32
Allah v. Al-Hafeez, 208 F.Supp.2d 520 (E.D.Pa. 2002). 12,
18, 37, 39
Allah v. Brown, 351 F.Supp.2d 278 (D.N.J. 2004). 1, 24, 28
Allah v. Goord, 405 F.Supp.2d 265 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). 7, 14,
29, 39
Allah v. Menei, 844 F.Supp. 1056 (E.D.Pa. 1994). 37
Allah v. Milling, 982 F.Supp.2d 172 (D.Conn. 2013). 3, 8,
32
Allah v. Poole, 506 F.Supp.2d 174 (W.D.N.Y. 2007). 19,
38, 50
Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220 (3rd Cir. 2000). 1, 3
Allaway v. McGinnis, 473 F.Supp.2d 378 (W.D.N.Y.
2007). 48
Allegheny County Prison Emp. v. County of Allegh., 315
F.Supp.2d 728 (W.D.Pa. 2004). 31, 39, 41
Allen v. Board of Com'rs of County of Wyandotte, 773
F.Supp. 1442 (D. Kan. 1991). 14, 17, 32, 41
Allen v. City & County of Honolulu, 39 F.3d 936 (9th Cir.
1994). 1, 12
Allen v. City and County of Honolulu, 816 F.Supp. 1501
(D.Hawaii 1993). 1, 9, 11, 12, 14
Allen v. City of New York, 480 F.Supp.2d 689 (S.D.N.Y.
2007). 14, 16, 48
Allen v. Clements, 930 F.Supp.2d 1252 (D.Colo. 2013). 1,
7, 34, 43
Allen v. Coughlin, 64 F.3d 77 (2nd. Cir. 1995). 19, 28
Allen v. Cuomo, 100 F.3d 253 (2nd Cir. 1996). 4, 11, 35, 50

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Allen v. Ford, 880 F.Supp.2d 407 (W.D.N.Y. 2012). 15, 27,
29, 50
Allen v. Higgins, 902 F.2d 682 (8th Cir. 1990). 5, 24, 28
Allen v. Iranon, 283 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2002). 31
Allen v. Iranon, 99 F.Supp.2d 1216 (D.Hawai'i 1999). 31
Allen v. Leis, 213 F.Supp.2d 819 (S.D.Ohio 2002). 4, 32
Allen v. Lowder, 875 F.2d 82 (4th Cir. 1989). 27, 36
Allen v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 165 F.3d 405 (6th
Cir. 1999). 31
Allen v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and Corr., 128
F.Supp.2d 483 (S.D.Ohio 2001). 31
Allen v. Sakai, 48 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 1994). 1, 12, 24
Allen v. Schiff, 908 F.Supp.2d 451 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). 2, 31
Allen v. Thomas, 388 F.3d 147 (5th Cir. 2004). 19, 35
Allen v. Toombs, 827 F.2d 563 2 (9th Cir. 1987). 37, 39
Allen v. Wood, 970 F.Supp. 824 (E.D.Wash. 1997). 19, 21,
28, 35
Allen v. Woodford, 543 F.Supp.2d 1138 (E.D.Cal. 2008).
17, 24, 29
Alley v. Angelone, 962 F.Supp. 827 (E.D.Va. 1997). 14, 27,
50
Allison v. GEO Group, Inc., 611 F.Supp.2d 433 (E.D.Pa.
2009). 25, 32, 41
Allison v. Snyder, 332 F.3d 1076 (7th Cir. 2003). 7, 34
Allman v. Koehler, 554 N.Y.S.2d 842 (A.D. 1990). 31
Allred v. U.S. Parole Com’n, 109 F.Supp.2d 390 (E.D.Pa.
2000). 22, 36
Almon v. Reno, 192 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 1999). 22
Almond v. Westchester County Dept. of Corrections, 425
F.Supp.2d 394 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). 31
Alnutt v. Cleary, 913 F.Supp. 160 (W.D.N.Y. 1996). 11, 47
Al-Owhali v. Holder, 687 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2012). 28,
38, 39
Al-Ra'Id v. Ingle, 69 F.3d 28 (5th Cir. 1995). 35, 37
Alsina-Ortiz v. Laboy, 400 F.3d 77 (1st Cir. 2005). 14, 29
Alsobrook v. Alvarado, 986 F.Supp.2d 1312 (S.D.Fla.
2013). 8, 14, 29
Alspaugh v. McConnell, 643 F.3d 162 (6th Cir. 2011). 1, 29,
39, 48
Alston v. Howard, 925 F.Supp. 1034 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). 29
Alston v. Read, 663 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2011). 36, 43
Altizer v. Deeds, 191 F.3d 540 (4th Cir. 1999). 19, 28
Altizer v. Paderick, 569 F.2d 812 (4th Cir. 1978), cert.
denied, 435 U.S. 1009. 8, 50
Altman v. Minnesota Dept. of Corrections, 251 F.3d 1199
(8th Cir. 2001). 31
Al-Turki v. Robinson, 762 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2014). 29
Alvarado v. Battaglia, 539 F.Supp.2d 1022 (N.D.Ill. 2008).
24, 48
Alvarado v. Litscher, 267 F.3d 648 (7th Cir. 2001). 9, 10, 29
Alvarado v. Westchester County, 22 F.Supp.3d 208
(S.D.N.Y. 2014). 21, 29, 44
Alvarado-David v. U.S., 972 F.Supp.2d 210 (D.Puerto Rico
2013). 9, 15, 27, 39
Alvarez Kerkado v. Otero de Ramos, 693 F.Supp. 1366 (D.
Puerto Rico 1988). 14, 24
Alvarez v. Hill, 518 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2008). 37
Alvarez v. Hill, 667 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2012). 13, 27, 37
Alves v. Murphy, 530 F.Supp.2d 381 (D.Mass. 2008). 2, 7,
8, 9
Al-Zahrani v. Rodriguez, 669 F.3d 315 (D.C.Cir. 2012). 7,
22, 27
Amador v. Andrews, 655 F.3d 89 (2nd Cir. 2011). 2, 7, 14,
17, 21
Amatel v. Reno, 156 F.3d 192 (D.C.Cir. 1998). 19, 38

TC-3
XXVI

Ambat v. City and County of San Francisco, 693 F.Supp.2d
1130 (N.D.Cal. 2010). 2, 31, 33, 45
Ambat v. City and County of San Francisco, 757 F.3d 1017
(9th Cir. 2014). 31, 33, 45
Ambrose v. Young, 474 F.3d 1070 (8th Cir. 2007). 10, 38,
50
Amen-Ra v. Department of Defense, 961 F.Supp. 256
(D.Kan. 1997). 1, 7, 36
American Civil Liberties of Missouri Foundation v.
Lombardi, 23 F.Supp.3d 1055 (W.D.Mo. 2014). 7
American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan v.
Livingston County, 796 F.3d 636 (6th Cir. 2015). 1,
19, 28, 32
American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan v.
Livingston County, 23 F.Supp.3d 834 (E.D.Mich.
2014). 1, 19, 27, 28
American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada v. Masto, 670
F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2012). 7, 43
American Fed. of Gov. Emp., Local 2441 v. FLRA, 864
F.2d 178 (D.C. Cir. 1988). 31
American Fed. of Gov. Employees v. Barr, 794 F.Supp.
1466 (N.D.Cal. 1992). 2, 31
American Federation of Gov. Emp. Council 33 v. Meese,
688 F.Supp. 547 (N.D. Cal. 1988). 31, 41
American Federation of Gov. Emp. Council 33 v.
Thornburgh, 720 F.Supp. 154 (N.D. Calif. 1989). 31
American Humanist Ass’n v. U.S., 63 F.Supp.3d 1274
(D.Or. 2014). 37
American Inmate Paralegal Assoc. v. Cline, 859 F.2d 59
(8th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 109 S.Ct. 565. 1
Americans United For Separation of Church and State v.
Prison Fellowship Ministries, 432 F.Supp.2d 862
(S.D.Iowa 2006). 19, 27, 34, 37
Americans United for Separation of Church and State v.
Prison Fellowship Ministries, Inc., 509 F.3d 406 (8th
Cir. 2007). 1, 4, 37
Ames v. Randle, 933 F.Supp.2d 1028 (N.D.Ill. 2013). 9, 15,
23, 24, 27, 40
Ammirato v. Hanberry, 797 F.2d 961 (11th Cir. 1986). 36,
43
Ammons v. Lemke, 426 F.Supp.2d 866 (W.D.Wis. 2006).
29
Amobi v. District of Columbia Government, 882 F.Supp.2d
78 (D.D.C. 2012). 16, 31
Amos v. Higgins, 996 F.Supp.2d 810 (W.D.Mo. 2014). 19,
44
Amrine v. Brooks, 522 F.3d 823 (8th Cir. 2008). 3, 24
Anaya v. Crossroads Managed Care Systems, Inc., 195 F.3d
584 (10th Cir. 1999). 16, 32
Anaya v. New Mexico State Personnel Bd., 762 F.2d 909
(N.M.App. 1988). 31
Andersen v. McCotter, 100 F.3d 723 (10th Cir. 1996). 19,
31
Andersen v. McCotter, 205 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2000). 31
Anderson ex rel. Cain v. Perkins, 532 F.Supp.2d 837
(S.D.Miss. 2007). 17, 29, 30, 32
Anderson v. Angelone, 123 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 1997). 37
Anderson v. Colorado, 887 F.Supp.2d 1133 (D.Colo. 2012).
3, 10, 12, 29, 30
Anderson v. Colorado, Dept. of Corrections, 848 F.Supp.2d
1291 (D.Colo. 2012). 3, 12, 29, 30
Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310 (9th Cir. 1995).
3, 9, 15, 30, 32
Anderson v. D.C. Public Defender Service, 881 F.Supp. 663
(D.D.C. 1995). 1

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Anderson v. Davis, 279 F.3d 674 (9th Cir. 2002). 43
Anderson v. Fiedler, 798 F.Supp. 544 (E.D.Wis. 1992). 35
Anderson v. Gutschenritter, 836 F.2d 346 (7th Cir. 1988).
14, 27, 32
Anderson v. McCotter, 3 F.Supp.2d 1223 (D.Utah 1998). 31
Anderson v. Nassau County Dept. of Corrections, 558
F.Supp.2d 283 (E.D.N.Y. 2008). 2, 31
Anderson v. Nosser, 438 F.2d 183 (5th Cir. 1971), cert.
denied, 409 U.S. 848. 23, 32, 41
Anderson v. Recore, 317 F.3d 194 (2nd Cir. 2003). 36, 50
Anderson v. Redman, 429 F.Supp. 1105 (D. Del. 1977). 8,
15, 29, 40
Anderson v. Romero, 72 F.3d 518 (7th Cir. 1995). 8, 12, 27,
33, 42
Anderson v. Simon, 217 F.3d 472 (7th Cir. 2000). 14, 32
Anderson v. Sullivan, 702 F.Supp. 424 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). 3,
11, 27, 48
Anderson v. Sundquist, 1 F.Supp.2d 828 (W.D.Tenn. 1998).
1, 4, 33
Anderson v. Vasquez, 827 F.Supp. 617 (N.D. Cal. 1992)
modified 28 f.3d 104. 38, 49
Anderson-Bey v. District of Columbia, 466 F.Supp.2d 51
(D.D.C. 2006). 1, 29, 39, 47, 48
Andrews v. Camden County, 95 F.Supp.2d 217 (D.N.J.
2000). 2, 27, 29
Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007). 1, 29
Andrews v. Glenn, 768 F.Supp. 668 (C.D. Ill. 1991). 10, 29
Andrews v. Siegel, 929 F.2d 1326 (8th Cir. 1991). 14
Andujar v. City of Boston, 760 F.Supp. 238 (D. Mass.
1991). 16, 46
Anela v. City of Wildwood, 595 F.Supp. 511 (D. N.J.
1984). 16, 27
Anela v. City of Wildwood, 790 F.2d 1063 (3rd Cir. 1986),
cert. denied, 479 U.S. 949. 6, 9, 17, 27, 32
Anglin v. City of Aspen, 562 F.Supp.2d 1304 (D.Colo.
2008). 17, 29, 46, 48
Anglin v. City of Aspen, Colo., 552 F.Supp.2d 1205
(D.Colo. 2008). 17, 24, 29, 32, 46
Anglin v. City of Aspen, Colo., 552 F.Supp.2d 1229
(D.Colo. 2008). 17, 29, 32
Angulo v. Nassau County, 89 F.Supp.3d 541 (E.D.N.Y.
2015). 1, 21, 28
Annoreno v. Sheriff of Kankakee County, 823 F.Supp.2d
860 (C.D.Ill. 2011). 1, 14, 21, 32
Anthony v. Burkhart, 28 F.Supp.2d 1239 (M.D.Fla. 1998).
7, 21, 24, 50
Anthony v. County of Sacramento Sheriff's Dept., 845
F.Supp. 1396 (E.D. Cal. 1994). 1, 2, 7, 31
Antoine v. County of Sacramento, 566 F.Supp.2d 1045
(E.D.Cal. 2008). 1, 27, 32, 48
Anton v. Sheriff of DuPage County, Ill., 47 F.Supp.2d 993
(N.D.Ill. 1999). 9, 10, 14, 29, 32
Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422 (7th Cir. 1996). 9, 12,
15, 18, 19, 28, 29, 30, 42
Antonelli v. Sheahan, 863 F.Supp. 756 (N.D. Ill. 1994). 37
Antonetti v. Skolnik, 748 F.Supp.2d 1201 (D.Nev. 2010). 1,
9, 10, 12, 18, 23, 28, 29, 30, 33, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41
Arce v. Banks, 913 F.Supp. 307 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). 10, 29
Arce v. O'Connell, 427 F.Supp.2d 435 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). 7,
9, 29
Arce v. Walker, 139 F.3d 329 (2nd Cir. 1998). 3
Arce v. Walker, 58 F.Supp.2d 39 (W.D.N.Y. 1999). 1, 47
Arce v. Walker, 907 F.Supp. 658 (W.D.N.Y. 1995). 3, 12
Archer v. Reno, 877 F.Supp. 372 (E.D. Ky. 1995). 17, 34

TC-4
XXVI

Archuleta v. Wagner, 523 F.3d 1278 (10th Cir. 2008). 17,
24, 25, 32, 41
Ard v. Rushing, 911 F.Supp.2d 425 (S.D.Miss. 2012). 2, 14,
17, 45, 46
Aref v. Holder, 774 F.Supp.2d 147 (D.D.C. 2011). 3, 7, 8,
39, 42, 47, 49
Aref v. Holder, 953 F.Supp.2d 133 (D.D.C. 2013). 1, 9, 19,
27, 39
Arey v. Robinson, 819 F.Supp. 478 (D.Md. 1992). 11, 33,
38
Argyropoulos v. City of Alton, 539 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2008).
2, 31
Arias v. United States Parole Commission, 648 F.2d 196
(3rd Cir. 1981). 36
Arizona ex rel. Horne v. Geo Group, Inc., 816 F.3d 1189
(9th Cir. 2016). 31
Arline v. City of Jacksonville, 359 F.Supp.2d 1300
(M.D.Fla. 2005). 16, 32, 36
Arlt v. Missouri Department of Corrections, 229 F.Supp.2d
938 (D.Mo. 2002). 7, 34, 50
Armato v. Grounds, 944 F.Supp.2d 627 (C.D.Ill. 2013). 16,
36, 43
Arment v. Henry, 658 F.2d 663 (Sup. Ct. Wash. 1983). 11
Armstrong v. Bertrand, 336 F.3d 620 (7th Cir. 2003). 22, 26
Armstrong v. Brown, 103 F.Supp.3d 1070 (N.D. Ca. 2015).
3, 7, 27
Armstrong v. Brown, 732 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2013). 2, 7, 15,
21, 29, 36
Armstrong v. Brown, 857 F.Supp.2d 919 (N.D.Cal. 2012).
9, 15, 21, 27
Armstrong v. Brown, 939 F.Supp.2d 1012 (N.D.Cal. 2013).
9, 15, 29, 34
Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2001). 7, 36
Armstrong v. Davis, 318 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2003). 5
Armstrong v. Guccione, 470 F.3d 89 (2nd Cir. 2006). 7, 22,
27
Armstrong v. Lane, 771 F.Supp. 943 (C.D. Ill. 1991). 34, 47
Armstrong v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, 196
F.Supp.2d 673 (M.D.Tenn. 2002). 27, 44
Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir.
2010). 2, 7, 9, 15, 21, 27
Armstrong v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 976 F.Supp. 17
(D.D.C. 1997). 2, 13, 33
Arney v. Simmons, 26 F.Supp.2d 1288 (D.Kan. 1998). 1,
19, 39
Arney v. Simmons, 923 F.Supp. 173 (D.Kan. 1996). 2, 35,
42
Arney v. Thornburgh, 817 F.Supp. 83 (D.Kan. 1993). 7, 8
Arnold on Behalf of H.B. v. Lewis, 803 F.Supp. 246
(D.Ariz. 1992). 17, 29, 30
Arnold v. Cody, 951 F.2d 280 (10th Cir. 1991). 22, 36
Arnold v. Jones, 891 F.2d 1370 (8th Cir. 1989). 14, 24, 48
Arnold v. South Carolina Dept. of Corrections, 843 F.Supp.
110 (D.S.C. 1994). 10, 39, 50
Arnzen v. Palmer, 713 F.3d 369 (8th Cir 2013). 7, 9, 15, 33,
39, 45
Arpaio v. Obama, 27 F.Supp.3d 185 (D.D.C. 2014). 7, 27
Arrington v. Daniels, 516 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2008). 2, 34,
36
Arroyo Lopez v. Nuttall, 25 F.Supp.2d 407 (S.D.N.Y.
1998). 14, 27, 37
Arroyo v. Schaefer, 548 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1977). 7, 48
Arsberry v. Illinois, 244 F.3d 558 (7th Cir. 2001). 1, 2, 4, 35
Arsberry v. Seilaff, 586 F.2d 37 (7th Cir. 1978). 3, 11
Arteaga v. State, 532 N.Y.S.2d 57 (Ct.App. 1988). 24

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Arthur v. Allen, 574 F.Supp.2d 1252 (S.D.Ala. 2008). 10
Artuz v. Bennett, 121 S.Ct. 361 (2000). 22
Artway v. Scheidemantel, 671 F.Supp. 330 (D. N.J. 1987).
11, 35
Ash v. Reilly, 354 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C. 2004). 22, 36
Ash v. Reilly, 433 F.Supp.2d 37 (D.D.C. 2006). 22, 36
Ashann-Ra v. Com. Of Virginia, 112 F.Supp.2d 559
(W.D.Va. 2000). 9, 10, 21, 33, 45
Ashelman v. Wawrzaszek, 111 F.3d 674 (9th Cir. 1997).
18, 37
Ashford v. Barry, 737 F.Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1990). 35, 38
Ashford v. District of Columbia, 306 F.Supp.2d 8 (D.D.C.
2004). 8, 14, 47
Ashford v. U.S., 511 F.3d 501 (5th Cir. 2007). 8, 14, 25, 27
Ashker v. California Dept. of Corrections, 224 F.Supp.2d
1253 (N.D.Cal. 2002). 19, 28, 39
Ashker v. California Dept. of Corrections, 350 F.3d 917
(9th Cir. 2003) 19, 28, 38, 39
Ashmus v. Calderon, 31 F.Supp.2d 1175 (N.D.Cal. 1998).
22
Askew v. Fairman, 880 F.Supp. 557 (N.D. Ill. 1995). 9
Askew v. Sheriff of Cook County, Ill., 568 F.3d 632 (7th
Cir. 2009). 27, 32, 48
Aspinall v. Thomas, 118 F.Supp.3d 664 (M.D. Pa. 2015).
31
Asquith v. Department of Corrections, 186 F.3d 407 (3rd
Cir. 1999). 34, 36
Asquith v. Volunteers of America, 1 F.Supp.2d 405 (D.N.J.
1998). 11, 35, 36
Associated Press v. Otter, 682 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 2012). 7,
29, 33
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. County of
Los Angeles, 648 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2011). 2, 24, 31
Astrada v. Howard, 979 F.Supp. 90 (D.Conn. 1997). 7, 16,
32
Aswegan v. Bruhl, 965 F.2d 676 (8th Cir. 1992). 29,
Aswegan v. Henry, 49 F.3d 461 (8th Cir. 1995). 10, 29
Aswegan v. Henry, 981 F.2d 313 (8th Cir. 1992). 1, 19
Atchison v. Collins, 288 F.3d 177 (5th Cir.2002). 1, 4, 35
Atkins v. City of Chicago, 441 F.Supp.2d 921 (N.D.Ill.
2006). 7, 13, 16, 25
Atkins v. County of Orange, 372 F.Supp.2d 377 (S.D.N.Y.
2005). 17, 18, 23, 29, 30, 48
Atkinson v. Taylor, 316 F.3d 257 (3rd Cir. 2003). 9, 10, 29,
38
Attorney General v. Sheriff of Suffolk County, 477 N.E.2d
361 (Mass. Sup. Jud.Ct. 1985). 9, 15, 32
Attorney General v. Sheriff of Worcester County, 413
N.E.2d 722 (Mass. 1980). 8, 23, 40
Atwell v. Lavan, 557 F.Supp.2d 532 (M.D.Pa. 2008). 1, 35,
38
Atwood v. Vilsack, 338 F.Supp.2d 985 (S.D.Iowa 2004). 6,
7, 32, 43
Augustin v. Jablonsky, 819 F.Supp.2d 153 (E.D.N.Y.
2011). 25, 27, 32, 41
Aupperlee v. Coughlin, 97 F.Supp.2d 336 (E.D.N.Y. 2000).
36, 50
Austin v. Bell, 126 F.3d 843 (6th Cir. 1997). 22, 43
Austin v. Hamilton, 945 F.2d 1155 (10th Cir. 1991). 16, 32
Austin v. Hopper, 15 F.Supp.2d 1210 (M.D.Ala. 1998). 10,
11, 19, 49, 50
Austin v. Johnson, 328 F.3d 204 (5th Cir. 2003). 9, 26, 29
Austin v. Lehman, 893 F.Supp. 448 (E.D.Pa. 1995). 3, 42
Austin v. Pazera, 779 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2015). 11, 20, 22

TC-5
XXVI

Austin v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections, 876 F.Supp.
1437 (E.D. Pa. 1995). 5, 7, 27
Austin v. Taylor, 604 F.Supp.2d 685 (D.Del. 2009). 24, 27,
29
Austin v. Wilkinson, 189 F.Supp.2d 719 (N.D.Ohio 2002).
3, 7, 8, 10, 38
Austin v. Wilkinson, 372 F.3d 346 (6th Cir. 2004). 3, 8, 9,
27, 39
Austin v. Wilkinson, 502 F.Supp.2d 660 (N.D.Ohio 2006).
8, 39, 47
Austin v. Wilkinson, 502 F.Supp.2d 675 (N.D.Ohio 2006).
8, 39, 47
Avalos v. Baca, 517 F.Supp.2d 1156 (C.D.Cal. 2007). 2, 7,
36
Avalos v. Baca, 596 F.3d 583 (9th Cir. 2010). 7, 16, 27, 32,
36
Averhart v. Shuler, 652 F.Supp. 1504 (N.D. Ind. 1987),
cert. denied, 108 S.Ct. 1045, 484 U.S. 1073, affirmed,
834 F.2d 173. 1, 28
Avratin v. Bermudez, 420 F.Supp.2d 1121 (S.D.Cal. 2006).
10, 14, 48
Awalt v. Marketti, 74 F.Supp.3d 909 (N.D.Ill. 2014). 2, 14,
21, 27, 29, 32, 46
Awalt v. Marketti, 75 F.Supp.3d 777 (N.D.Ill. 2014). 14, 32
Ayers v. Rone, 852 F.Supp. 18 (E.D. Mo. 1994). 49
Ayers v. Ryan, 152 F.3d 77 (2nd Cir. 1998). 11, 27
Ayotte v. Barnhart, 973 F.Supp.2d 70 (D.Me. 2013). 14, 24,
35, 44
Aziz v. Moore, 8 F.3d 13 (8th Cir. 1993). 37
Aziz Zarif Shabazz v. Pico, 994 F.Supp. 460 (S.D.N.Y.
1998). 7, 10, 37, 39, 41, 48
Babcock v. Butler County, 806 F.3d 153 (3d Cir. 2015). 31
Babcock v. White, 102 F.3d 267 (7th Cir. 1996). 8, 47
Bachman v. Jeffes, 488 F.Supp. 107 (M.D. Pa. 1980). 36
Bacon v. Taylor, 414 F.Supp.2d 475 (D.Del. 2006). 1, 9, 19
Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573 (9th Cir. 1991). 22, 34
Bader v. Wren, 532 F.Supp.2d 308, (D.N.H. 2008). 34, 37
Bader v. Wrenn, 675 F.3d 95 (1st Cir. 2012). 37, 47
Baez v. Rapping, 680 F.Supp. 112 (S.D. N.Y. 1988). 8, 24,
29
Bafford v. Nelson, 241 F.Supp.2d 1192 (D.Kan. 2002). 48
Baggett v. Ashe, 41 F.Supp.3d 113 (D.Mass. 2014). 17, 24,
33, 41
Baggett v. Keller, 796 F.Supp.2d 718 (E.D.N.C. 2011). 8,
20, 36
Bagguley v. Barr, 893 F.Supp. 967 (D.Kan. 1995). 1, 28
Bagola v. Kindt, 131 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 1997). 14, 24, 50
Bahl v. County of Ramsey, 597 F.Supp.2d 981 (D.Minn.
2009). 7, 25, 32
Bahrampour v. Lampert, 356 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2004). 19,
24, 28, 38, 39
Bailey v. Feltmann, 810 F.3d 589 (8th Cir. 2016). 25, 29, 32
Bailey v. Gardebring, 940 F.2d 1150 (8th Cir. 1991), cert.
denied, 112 S.Ct. 1516. 29, 34
Bailey v. Hughes, 815 F.Supp.2d 1246 (M.D.Ala. 2011). 9,
10, 15, 41, 48
Bailey v. Pataki, 636 F.Supp.2d 288 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). 7, 24,
30, 47
Bailey v. Pataki, 722 F.Supp.2d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). 7, 36
Bailey v. Shillinger, 828 F.2d 651 (10th Cir. 1987). 8, 9, 10,
12, 39
Bailey v. Wood, 708 F.Supp. 249 (D.Minn. 1989), reversed,
909 F.2d 1197. 5
Bailey v. Wood, 909 F.2d 1197 (8th Cir. 1990). 10, 14, 27
Bailor v. Taylor, 170 F.Supp.2d 466 (D.Del. 2001). 31

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Baird v. Alameida, 407 F.Supp.2d 1134 (C.D.Cal. 2005).
18, 29
Baker County Medical Services, Inc. v. U.S. Atty. Gen.,
763 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2014). 4, 29
Baker v. Blanchette, 186 F.Supp.2d 100 (D.Conn. 2001). 29
Baker v. Cuomo, 842 F.Supp. 718 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). 19
Baker v. Hamilton, 345 F.Supp. 345 (W.D. Ky. 1972). 8,
10, 12, 26, 39
Baker v. Haun, 333 F.Supp.2d 1162 (D.Utah 2004). 15, 27
Baker v. Holden, 787 F.Supp. 1008 (D. Utah 1992). 9
Baker v. Kernan, 795 F.Supp.2d 992 (E.D.Cal. 2011). 8, 10,
39
Baker v. Krieger, 287 F.Supp.2d 207 (W.D.N.Y. 2003) 1,
21
Baker v. Lehman, 932 F.Supp. 666 (E.D.Pa. 1996). 14, 39,
50
Baker v. Lyles, 904 F.2d 925 (4th Cir. 1990). 11, 39
Baker v. McCollan, 99 S.Ct. 2689 (1979). 7, 16
Baker v. McNeil Island Corrections Center, 859 F.2d 124 2
(9th Cir. 1988). 50
Baker v. North Carolina Dept. of Corr., 354 S.E.2d 733
(N.C. App. 1987). 27, 50
Baker v. Piggott, 833 F.2d 1539 (11th Cir. 1987), cert.
denied, 108 S.Ct. 2918. 1, 35, 38
Baker v. RR Brink Locking Systems, Inc., 721 F.3d 716 (5th
Cir. 2013). 14, 15, 32, 39
Baker v. St. Louis Board of Police Commissioners, No. 832536 (8th Cir. 1984). 14
Baker v. State Dept. of Rehabilitation, 502 N.E.2d 261
(Ohio App. 1986). 14, 27
Baker v. U.S., 670 F.3d 448 (3rd Cir. 2012). 9, 27
Baker v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 118 F.Supp.3d 985
(N.D. Ill. 2015). 29
Baker v. Wilkinson, 635 F.Supp.2d 514 (W.D.La. 2009). 9,
27, 29
Baker v. Willett, 42 F.Supp.2d 192 (N.D.N.Y. 1999). 24,
27, 32, 48
Baker v. Zlochowon, 741 F.Supp. 436 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). 1
Balas v. Taylor, 567 F.Supp.2d 654 (D.Del. 2008). 2, 31
Baldwin v. Stalder, 137 F.3d 836 (5th Cir. 1998). 48
Ball v. LeBlanc, 792 F.3d 584 (5th Cir. 2015). 1, 7, 9, 10,
15, 27
Ball v. LeBlanc, 988 F.Supp.2d 639 (M.D.La. 2013). 9, 15,
29
Ball v. Sledd, 814 F.Supp. 48 (D.Kan. 1993). 3
Balla v. Idaho State Bd. of Correction, 119 F.Supp.3d 1271
(D. Idaho 2015). 27
Balla v. Idaho, 677 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2012). 4, 5
Ballance v. Virginia, 130 F.Supp.2d 754 (W.D.Va. 2000).
19, 35, 38, 39, 41
Ballance v. Young, 130 F.Supp.2d 762 (W.D.Va. 2000). 1,
28, 33, 35, 38, 39, 41
Ballard v. Johns, 17 F.Supp.3d 511 (E.D.N.C. 2014). 3, 11,
32, 34, 35, 37, 41
Ballard v. Woodard, 641 F.Supp. 432 (W.D.N.C. 1986). 29,
37, 48
Baltoski v. Pretorius, 291 F.Supp.2d 807 (N.D.Ind. 2003)
21, 37
Bame v. Dillard, 637 F.3d 380 (D.C.Cir. 2011). 24, 25, 32,
41
Bandy-Bey v. Crist, 578 F.3d 763 (8th Cir. 2009). 1, 3, 11
Bane v. Virginia Dept. of Corrections, 267 F.Supp.2d 514
(W.D.Va. 2003). 24, 27, 39, 48
Banker v. County of Livingston, 782 F.Supp.2d 39
(W.D.N.Y. 2011). 9, 17, 33, 36

TC-6
XXVI

Banks v. Annucci, 48 F.Supp.3d 394 (N.D.N.Y. 2014). 1,
18, 35, 37
Banks v. Beard, 399 F.3d 134 (3rd Cir. 2005). 3, 19, 35, 38,
39
Banks v. Fauver, 801 F.Supp. 1422 (D.N.J. 1992). 3, 8
Banks v. Havener, 234 F.Supp. 27 (E.D. Vir. 1964). 37, 38,
39
Banks v. Klapish, 717 F.Supp. 520 (W.D. Mich. 1989). 11,
24
Banks v. Person, 49 F.Supp.2d 119 (E.D.N.Y. 1999). 36, 48
Banks v. Sheahan, 914 F.Supp. 231 (N.D.Ill. 1995). 1
Banks v. United States, 614 F.2d 95 (6th Cir. 1980). 43
Banks v. York, 515 F.Supp.2d 89 (D.D.C. 2007). 1, 2, 9,
15, 21, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 32, 34, 36, 40, 46, 47
Bannan v. Angelone, 962 F.Supp. 71 (W.D.Va. 1996). 1, 35
Banning v. Looney, 213 F.2d 771 1 (10th Cir. 1954). 38
Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232 (5th Cir. 1995). 11, 29,
50
Bao Ge v. Li Peng, 201 F.Supp.2d 14 (D.D.C. 2000). 7, 50
Baptist v. Lane, 708 F.Supp. 920 (N.D. Ill. 1989). 1, 8, 47
Baptist v. O'Leary, 742 F.Supp. 975 (N.D. Ill. 1990). 50
Barajas v. Waters, 815 F.Supp. 222 (E.D.Mich. 1993),
affirmed, 21 F.3d 427. 9
Baraldini v. Thornburgh, 884 F.2d 615 (D.C. Cir. 1989). 8,
17, 47
Baranowski v. Hart, 486 F.3d 112 (5th Cir. 2007). 18, 37
Barbaro v. U.S. ex rel. Federal Bureau of Prisons FCI
Otisville, 521 F.Supp.2d 276, (S.D.N.Y. 2007). 27, 29
Barber v. City of Salem, Ohio, 953 F.2d 232 (6th Cir.
1992). 14, 32,46,
Barber v. Grow, 929 F.Supp. 820 (E.D.Pa. 1996). 14, 50
Barber v. U.S. Attorney General, 458 F.Supp.2d 1378
(S.D.Ga. 2006). 1, 28
Barber v. Wall, 66 Fed.Appx. 215 (1st Cir. 2003).
[unpublished] 4, 11, 35
Barbour v. Haley, 410 F.Supp.2d 1120 (M.D.Ala. 2006). 1
Barbour v. Haley, 471 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir. 2006). 1
Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476 (3rd Cir. 1990). 22, 43
Bardzik v. County of Orange, 635 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2011).
2, 31
Barfield v. Brierton, 883 F.2d 923 (11th Cir. 1989). 8, 47
Barham v. Ramsey, 338 F.Supp.2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). 32,
36
Barker v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections, 513 F.3d 831 (8th
Cir. 2008). 31
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (6th Cir. 1972). 32
Barkes v. First Correctional Medical, Inc., 766 F.3d 307 (3rd
Cir. 2014). 14, 29
Barna v. Travis, 239 F.3d 169 (2nd Cir. 2001). 36
Barnes v. Alves, 10 F.Supp.3d 391 (W.D.N.Y. 2014). 1
Barnes v. Black, 544 F.3d 807 (7th Cir. 2008). 1, 22
Barnes v. Broward County Sheriff's Office, 190 F.3d 1274
(11th Cir. 1999). 5, 31
Barnes v. County of Monroe, 85 F.Supp.3d 696 (W.D.N.Y.
2015). 7, 9, 15, 21, 32, 40, 48
Barnes v. District of Columbia, 793 F.Supp.2d 260 (D.D.C.
2011). 6, 25, 32, 36
Barnes v. District of Columbia, 924 F.Supp.2d 74 (D.D.C.
2013). 1, 36
Barnes v. Fedele, 760 F.Supp.2d 296 (W.D.N.Y. 2011). 18,
37, 38
Barnes v. Gov. of the Virgin Islands, 415 F.Supp. 1218 (D.
V.I. 1976). 8, 12, 18, 25, 29, 30, 32, 37, 38, 50
Barnes v. Parker, 972 F.2d 978 (8th Cir. 1992). 29

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Barnes v. Ross, 926 F.Supp.2d 499 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). 7, 29,
30
Barnes v. Wilson, 110 F.Supp.3d 624 (D. Md. 2015). 28, 48
Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 1994). 1, 8, 49
Barnett v. Rogers, 410 F.2d 995 (D.C. Cir. 1969). 18, 37
Barney v. Pulsipher, 143 F.3d 1299 2 (10th Cir. 1998). 7, 9,
17, 23, 27, 39, 40, 45, 46
Baron v. Hickey, 242 F.Supp.2d 66 (D.Mass. 2003). 31
Baron v. Suffolk County Sheriff’s Dept., 402 F.3d 225 (1st
Cir. 2005). 31
Barone v. Hatcher, 984 F.Supp. 1304 (D.Nev. 1997). 11
Barouch v. United States Department of Justice, 87
F.Supp.3d 10 (D.C.D.C, 2015). 31, 39
Barq v. Daniels, 428 F.Supp.2d 1147 (D.Or. 2006). 22, 34
Barrett v. Belleque, 544 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2008). 11, 20,
28, 38
Barrett v. Coplan, 292 F.Supp.2d 281 (D.N.H. 2003) 29
Barrett v. Premo, 101 F.Supp.3d 980 (D. Or. 2015). 19, 27,
28
Barrett v. U.S., 845 F.Supp. 774 (D.Kan. 1994). 14, 27, 39
Barrie v. Grand County, Utah, 119 F.3d 862 (10th Cir.
1997). 14, 32
Barrington v. New York, 806 F.Supp.2d 730 (S.D.N.Y.
2011). 14, 21, 24, 27, 48
Barron v. Keohane, 216 F.3d 692 (8th Cir. 2000). 22, 29
Barry v. Bergen County Probation Dept., 128 F.3d 152 (3rd
Cir. 1997). 22,43
Barry v. Luzerne County, 447 F.Supp.2d 438 (M.D.Pa.
2006). 31
Barry v. Ratelle, 985 F.Supp. 1235 (S.D.Cal. 1997). 29
Barstow v. Kennebec County Jail, 115 F.Supp.2d 3 (D.Me.
2000). 39, 41
Barstow v. Shea, 196 F.Supp.2d 141 (D.Conn. 2002). 16,
31
Bartholomew v. Reed, 477 F.Supp. 223 (D. Ore. 1979). 3, 8
Bartholomew v. Watson, 665 F.2d 915 (9th Cir. 1982). 11
Bartlett v. Pearson, 406 F.Supp.2d 626 (E.D.Va. 2005). 8,
9, 10, 29, 38
Basciano v. Lindsay, 530 F.Supp.2d 435 (E.D.N.Y. 2008).
8, 22, 32, 39
Baskerville v. Blot, 224 F.Supp.2d 723 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). 1,
21, 29
Bass v. Coughlin, 976 F.2d 98 (2nd Cir. 1992). 18, 37
Bass v. Perrin, 170 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 1999). 11, 12
Bass v. Richards, 308 F.3d 1081 (10th Cir. 2002). 31
Bates v. Wright, 738 F.Supp. 386 (D. Ore. 1990). 11
Batista v. Kelly, 854 F.Supp. 186 (W.D.N.Y. 1994),
affirmed, 50 F.3d 2. 11
Battista v. Clarke, 645 F.3d 449 (1st Cir. 2011). 7, 17, 29
Battle v. A & E Television Networks, LLC, 837 F.Supp.2d
767 (M.D.Tenn. 2011). 19, 33, 49
Battle v. Anderson, 614 F.2d 251 (10th Cir. 1980). 1
Battle v. Barton, 970 F.2d 779 (11th Cir. 1992), cert denied,
113 S.Ct. 1300. 11
Battle v. Central State Hosp., 898 F.2d 126 (11th Cir.
1990). 1, 29
Batton v. State Government of North Carolina, Executive
Branch, 501 F.Supp. 1173 (E.D. N.C. 1980). 36
Batts v. Richards, 4 F.Supp.2d 96 (D.Conn. 1998). 3, 8, 47
Bauer v. Henman, 731 F.Supp. 903 (S.D. Ill. 1990). 1, 22
Baugh v. Woodard, 808 F.2d 333 (4th Cir. 1987). 30, 47
Baum v. Webb, 863 F.Supp. 918 (E.D. Ark. 1994). 31
Baumann v. Walsh, 36 F.Supp.2d 508 (N.D.N.Y. 1999). 14,
29, 39, 50
Bausch v. Cox, 32. F.Supp.2d 1057 (E.D.Wis. 1998). 1

TC-7
XXVI

Bausch v. Sumiec, 139 F.Supp.2d 1029 (E.D.Wis. 2001).
34, 36, 37
Baxter v. Estelle, 614 F.2d 1030 (5th Cir. 1980), cert.
denied, 449 U.S. 1085. 20, 22
Baxter v. Palmigiano, Enomoto v. Clutchette, 425 U.S. 308
(1976). 7, 11, 20
Baxtrom v. Herold, 383 U.S. 107 (1966). 7, 30
Baylis v. Taylor, 475 F.Supp.2d 484 (D.Del. 2007). 1, 29,
30
Bazzetta v. McGinnis, 124 F.3d 774 (6th Cir. 1997). 39, 49
Bazzetta v. McGinnis, 423 F.3d 557 (6th Cir. 2005). 19, 38,
39, 49
Beadle v. Hillsborough County Sheriff's Dept., 29 F.3d 589
(11th Cir. 1994). 31
Beagle v. Schwarzenegger, 107 F.Supp.3d 1056 (E.D. Cal.
2014). 29
Bean v. Cunningham, 650 F.Supp. 709 (D.N.H. 1986). 1,
29, 35, 47, 48
Bear v. Kautzky, 305 F.3d 802 (8th Cir. 2002). 1, 19
Beard v. Livesay, 798 F.2d 874 (6th Cir. 1986). 8, 47
Beardslee v. Woodford, 395 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2005). 10
Beardsley v. Moore, 765 F.Supp. 560 (E.D. Mo. 1991). 8,
18
Beasley v. City of Sugar Land, 410 F.Supp.2d 524
(S.D.Tex. 2006). 17, 32, 41
Beasley v. Duncil, 792 F.Supp. 485 (S.D.W.Va. 1992),
affirmed, 9 F.3d 1107. 50
Beasley v. Konteh, 433 F.Supp.2d 874 (N.D.Ohio 2006).
37, 38
Beasley v. Wharton, 682 F.Supp. 1234 (M.D. Ga. 1988).
19, 38, 49
Beatty v. Davidson, 713 F.Supp.2d 167 (W.D.N.Y. 2010).
27, 29, 32, 46
Beauchamp v. Sullivan, 21 F.3d 789 (7th Cir. 1994). 1, 38
Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017 (8th Cir. 2012). 2, 7,
12, 19, 39, 41, 42, 47, 48
Beck v. Kansas University Psychiatry Foundation, 671
F.Supp. 1552 (D. Kan. 1987). 24, 27, 36
Beck v. Skon, 253 F.3d 330 (8th Cir. 2001). 29
Beck v. Symington, 972 F.Supp. 532 (D.Ariz. 1997). 1, 4
Beckett v. Dept. of Corrections of Delaware, 981 F.Supp.
319 (D.Del. 1997). 31
Beckford v. Department of Corrections, 605 F.3d 951 (11th
Cir. 2010). 2, 31
Beckford v. Irvin, 49 F.Supp.2d 170 (W.D.N.Y. 1999). 7, 8,
9, 10, 12, 23, 27, 29
Beckwith v. Hart, 263 F.Supp.2d 1018 (D.Md. 2003). 27,
48
Bedell v. Schiedler, 770 F.2d 909 (Or. 1989). 15, 22
Bednar v. County of Schuylkill, 29 F.Supp.2d 250 (E.D.Pa.
1998). 27, 29, 31
Bee v. Greaves, 669 F.Supp. 372 (D. Utah 1987). 5
Bee v. Greaves, 910 F.2d 686 (10th Cir. 1990). 27, 29, 30
Bee v. Utah State Prison, 823 F.2d 397 (10th Cir. 1987). 1
Beebe v. Heil, 333 F.Supp.2d 1011 (D.Colo. 2004). 7, 34,
36
Beebe v. Phelps, 650 F.2d 774 (5th Cir. 1981). 17, 36
Beeks v. Hundley, 34 F.3d 658 (8th Cir. 1994). 35, 43
Beerheide v. Suthers, 286 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2002). 4, 18,
37
Beerheide v. Suthers, 82 F.Supp.2d 1190 (D.Colo. 2000). 4,
18, 37
Beeson v. Johnson, 668 F.Supp. 498 (E.D. N.C. 1987). 9,
29

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Bektic-Marrero v. Goldberg, 850 F.Supp.2d 418 (S.D.N.Y.
2012). 14, 18, 27, 29
Belbacha v. Bush, 520 F.3d 452 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 7, 22
Belbachir v. County of McHenry, 726 F.3d 975 (7th Cir.
2013). 2, 8, 14, 17, 25, 29, 30, 32, 46
Belcher v. City of Foley, Ala., 30 F.3d 1390 (11th Cir.
1994). 14, 24, 46
Belcher v. Oliver, 898 F.2d 32 (4th Cir. 1990). 14, 24, 25,
32
Belgard v. State of Hawaii, 883 F.Supp. 510 (D. Hawaii
1995). 37, 38
Belk v. Purkett, 15 F.3d 803 (8th Cir. 1994). 36
Bell v. Johnson, 308 F.3d 594 (6th Cir. 2002). 1, 13, 21, 35
Bell v. Johnson, 404 F.3d 997 (6th Cir. 2005). 1, 13, 27
Bell v. Konteh, 450 F.3d 651 (6th Cir. 2006). 1, 14, 21
Bell v. Lindsay, 116 F.Supp.3d 511 (D. Md. 2015). 9, 15,
32
Bell v. Luna, 856 F.Supp.2d 388 (D.Conn. 2012). 9, 10, 23,
24, 29
Bell v. Manson, 427 F.Supp. 450 (D. Conn. 1976). 32, 39,
41
Bell v. Stalder, 111 F.Supp.2d 796 (W.D.La. 2000). 37, 38
Bell v. Stigers, 937 F.2d 1340 (8th Cir. 1991). 30, 32
Bell v. True, 356 F.Supp.2d 613 (W.D.Va. 2005). 22
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979). 7, 9, 11, 15, 28, 32,
38, 39, 41, 49
Bellamy v. Wells, 548 F.Supp.2d 234 (W.D.Va. 2008). 7,
32, 33
Bell-Bey v. Williams, 87 F.3d 832 (6th Cir. 1996). 1, 19, 28
Belleau v. Wall, 811 F.3d 929 (7th Cir. 2016). 7, 13, 33, 36,
45
Bellis v. Davis, 186 F.3d 1092 (8th Cir. 1999). 22, 34, 43
Bellum v. Vose, 848 F.Supp. 1065 (D.Mass. 1994). 11, 20
Beltran v. O’Mara, 405 F.Supp.2d 140 (D.N.H. 2005). 1,
23, 32, 48
Benavides v. Bureau of Prisons, 771 F.Supp. 426 (D.D.C.
1991). 29, 33
Benavides v. County of Wilson, 955 F.2d 968 (5th Cir.
1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 79. 29, 31, 44, 46
Bender v. Regier, 385 F.3d 1133 (8th Cir. 2004). 29
Benedict v. Southwestern Pennsylvania Human Services,
Inc., 98 F.Supp.3d 809 (W.D. Va. 2015). 14, 34
Benefield v. McDowall, 241 F.3d 1267 (10th Cir. 2001).
14, 24, 27
Benford v. Wright, 782 F.Supp. 1263 (N.D. Ill. 1991). 37
Benglen v. Zavaras, 7 F.Supp.2d 1171 (D.Colo. 1998). 14,
48
Benitez v. Gonda, 778 F.Supp. 200 (S.D.N.Y. 1991),
affirmed, 963 F.2d 1522. 12, 30, 47
Benitez v. Wolff, 907 F.2d 1293 (2nd Cir. 1990). 11
Benitez v. Wolff, 985 F.2d 662 (2nd Cir. 1993). 11
Benjamin v. Coughlin, 905 F.2d 571 (2nd Cir. 1990), cert
denied, 498 US 951. 19, 37, 38
Benjamin v. Fassnacht, 39 F.Supp.3d 635 (E.D.Pa. 2014).
25, 26, 41
Benjamin v. Fraser, 264 F.3d 175 (2nd Cir. 2001). 1, 15, 27,
32, 33, 39, 49
Benjamin v. Jacobsen, 172 F.3d 144 (2nd Cir. 1999). 27, 32
Benjamin v. Jacobson, 124 F.3d 162 (2nd Cir. 1997). 15, 27
Benjamin v. Jacobson, 923 F.Supp. 517 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). 3,
27
Benjamin v. Kerik, 102 F.Supp.2d 157 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). 28,
32
Benjamin v. Koehler, 710 F.Supp. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1989). 9

TC-8
XXVI

Benjamin v. Malcolm, 659 F.Supp. 1006 (S.D. N.Y. 1987).
9, 10, 15
Benner v. McAdory, 165 F.Supp.2d 773 (N.D.Ill. 2001). 14
Bennett v. Duckworth, 909 F.Supp. 1169 (N.D.Ind. 1995).
1, 22
Bennett v. Parker, 898 F.2d 1530 (11th Cir. 1990), cert.
denied, 111 S.Ct. 1003. 48
Bennett v. United States Parole Commission, 41 F.Supp.3d
47 (D.D.C. 2014). 22
Benning v. Georgia, 391 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2004). 37
Benning v. Georgia, 845 F.Supp.2d 1372 (M.D.Ga. 2012).
27, 37, 38
Benning v. Georgia, 864 F.Supp.2d 1358 (M.D.Ga. 2012).
37, 38, 39
Benny v. O'Brien, 736 F.Supp. 242 (D.Kan. 1990). 1, 11
Benson v. County of Orange, 788 F.Supp. 1123 (C.D. Cal.
1992). 1, 49
Benson v. Godinez, 919 F.Supp. 285 (N.D.Ill. 1996). 9, 15
Benter v. Peck, 825 F.Supp. 1411 (S.D.Iowa 1993). 4, 29
Bentley v. Dennison, 852 F.Supp.2d 379 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).
24, 36, 43
Benton v. Rousseau, 940 F.Supp.2d 1370 (M.D.Fla. 2013).
2, 9, 14, 19, 27, 29, 32, 47
Bentsen v. Ralston, 658 F.2d 639 (8th Cir. 1981). 17, 36
Benyi v. Broome County, N.Y., 887 F.Supp. 395 (N.D.N.Y.
1995). 8, 14
Benzel v. Grammer, 869 F.2d 1105 (8th Cir. 1989), cert.
denied, 110 S.Ct. 244. 3, 19
Beo v. District of Columbia, 44 F.3d 1026 (D.C. Cir. 1995).
47
Berch v. Stahl, 373 F.Supp. 412 (W.D. N.C. 1974). 1, 2, 3,
7, 8, 11, 17, 19, 28, 30, 33, 49
Berdine v. Sullivan, 161 F.Supp.2d 972 (E.D.Wis. 2001).
47, 49
Bergemann v. Backer, 157 U.S. 655 (1895). 22
Bergen v. Spaulding, 881 F.2d 719 (9th Cir. 1989). 20, 36,
43
Bergeron v. Cabral, 535 F.Supp.2d 204 (D.Mass. 2008). 2,
31
Berke v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 942 F.Supp.2d 71
(D.D.C. 2013). 4, 5, 42
Berl v. Westchester County, 849 F.2d 712 (2nd Cir. 1988).
31
Bermudez v. Duenas, 936 F.2d 1064 (9th Cir. 1991). 22, 36
Bernadou v. Purnell, 836 F.Supp. 319 (D.Md. 1993). 1, 35
Bernard v. County of Santa Clara, 699 F.2d 1023 (9th Cir.
1983). 16, 32
Bernini v. City of St. Paul, 665 F.3d 997 (8th Cir. 2012). 16,
48
Berrios-Berrios v. Thornburg, 716 F.Supp. 987 (E.D. Ky.
1989). 17, 39, 49
Berry v. Baca, 379 F.3d 764 (9th Cir. 2004). 32, 36
Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504 (5th Cir. 1999). 18, 49
Berry v. Bunnell, 39 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 1994). 11, 29, 50
Berry v. City of Muskogee, 900 F.2d 1489 (10th Cir. 1990).
14, 27, 39
Berry v. City of Phillipsburg, Kan., 796 F.Supp. 1400
(D.Kan. 1992). 27, 48
Berry v. McLemore, 670 F.2d 30 (5th Cir. 1982). 7, 27
Berry v. Oswalt, 143 F.3d 1127 (8th Cir. 1998). 7, 12, 14,
17
Berry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435 (7th Cir. 2010). 29
Berry v. Peterson, 887 F.2d 635 (5th Cir. 1989). 9, 27
Berry v. Sherman, 365 F.3d 631 (8th Cir. 2004). 14
Berry v. State, 400 So.2d 80 (Ct. App. Fla. 1981). 36

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Berryhill v. Schriro, 137 F.3d 1073 (8th Cir. 1998). 7, 14
Berryman v. Epp, 884 F.Supp. 242 (E.D. Mich. 1995). 1, 2,
4
Berwanger v. Cottey, 178 F.3d 834 (7th Cir. 1999). 15, 27
Best v. District of Columbia, 743 F.Supp. 44 (D. D.C.
1990). 7, 33
Best v. Essex County, N.J. Hall of Records, 986 F.2d 54
(3rd Cir. 1993). 9, 14,
Best v. Kelly, 879 F.Supp. 305 (W.D.N.Y. 1995). 37
Best v. New York City Dept. of Correction, 14 F.Supp.3d
341 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). 11, 14, 32, 47
Bettis v. Delo, 14 F.3d 22 (8th Cir. 1994). 3, 37
Betts v. McCaughtry, 827 F.Supp. 1400 (W.D. Wis. 1993),
affirmed, 19 F.3d 21. 7, 35, 38
Betts v. New Castle Youth Development Center, 621 F.3d
249 (3rd Cir. 2010). 12, 24, 26
Beverati v. Smith, 120 F.3d 500 (4th Cir. 1997). 3, 9, 23,
40.
Beville v. Ednie, 74 F.3d 210 (10th Cir. 1996). 1, 28
Bey v. Douglas County Correctional Facility, 540
F.Supp.2d 1194 (D.Kan. 2008). 18, 37
Beyah v. Coughlin, 789 F.2d 986 (2nd Cir. 1986). 37
Beyah v. Putman, 885 F.Supp. 371 (N.D.N.Y. 1995). 1, 11
Beyerbach v. Sears, 49 F.3d 1324 (8th Cir. 1995). 29
Biancone v. Kramer, 513 F.Supp. 908 (E.D. Penn. 1981).
48
Bibbs v. Armontrout, 943 F.2d 26 (8th Cir. 1991), cert.
denied, 112 S.Ct. 1212. 50
Bibbs v. Early, 541 F.3d 267 (5th Cir. 2008). 9, 10, 15, 21
Bibeau v. Pacific Northwest Research Foundation, 188 F.3d
1105 (9th Cir. 1999). 13, 29
Biberdorf v. Oregon, 243 F.Supp.2d 1145 (D.Or. 2002). 16,
36
Bieregu v. Reno, 59 F.3d 1445 (3rd Cir. 1995). 1, 19, 28
Bieros v. Nicola, 857 F.Supp. 445 (E.D. Pa. 1994). 1
Bigbee v. Nalley, 482 F.Supp.2d 1092 (W.D.Wis. 2007). 12
Bigbee v. U.S., 359 F.Supp.2d 806 (W.D.Wis. 2005). 35
Biggs v. Secretary of California Dept. of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, 717 F.3d 678 (9th Cir. 2013). 22, 36
Bihms v. Klevenhagen, 928 F.Supp. 717 (S.D.Tex. 1996).
4, 29, 35
Bijeol v. Nelson, 579 F.2d 423 (7th Cir. 1978). 32, 40, 50
Billops v. Sandoval, 401 F.Supp.2d 766 (S.D.Tex. 2005).
27, 29, 45
Bills v. Dahm, 32 F.3d 333 (8th Cir. 1994). 38, 49
Bills v. Henderson, 631 F.2d 1287 (6th Cir. 1980). 3, 8
Bircoll v. Miami-Dade County, 410 F.Supp.2d 1280
(S.D.Fla. 2006). 7, 16, 25, 32
Bird v. Figel, 725 F.Supp. 406 (N.D. Ind. 1989). 7, 8, 9, 29
Birdine v. Gray, 375 F.Supp.2d 874 (D.Neb. 2005). 32, 33,
39, 48
Birrell v. Brown, 867 F.2d 956 (6th Cir. 1989). 9, 24
Birth v. Crabtree, 996 F.Supp. 1014 (D.Or. 1998). 22, 34,
43
Bishop v. Hackel, 636 F.3d 757 (6th Cir. 2011). 8, 14, 25
Bishop v. Lewis, 155 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 1998). 1, 21
Bismullah v. Gates, 503 F.3d 137 (D.C. Cir. 2007). 7
Bistrian v. Levi, 696 F.3d 352 (3rd Cir. 2012). 3, 14, 27, 32
Bizzarro v. Miranda, 394 F.3d 82 (2nd Cir. 2005). 31
Black v. Callahan, 876 F.Supp. 131 (N.D. Tex. 1995). 1
Black v. Delbello, 575 F.Supp. 28 (S.D. N.Y. 1983). 32, 47
Black v. Lane, 22 F.3d 1395 (7th Cir. 1994). 11, 21
Black v. Selksy, 15 F.Supp.2d 311 (W.D.N.Y. 1998). 11
Blackburn v. Snow, 771 F.2d 556 (1985). 24, 41, 49

TC-9
XXVI

Blackmon v. Crawford, 305 F.Supp.2d 1174 (D.Nev. 2004).
1
Blackmon v. Essary, 850 F.Supp. 814 (E.D. Mo. 1994). 19,
37
Blackmon v. Kukua, 758 F.Supp.2d 398 (S.D.Tex. 2010). 9,
10, 15
Blackmon v. Sutton, 734 F.3d 1237 (10th Cir. 2013). 14, 26,
29, 30, 32, 47, 48
Blackmore v. Kalamazoo County, 390 F.3d 890 (6th Cir.
2004). 29, 32
Blackstock v. Corrections Corp. of America, 660 F.Supp.2d
764 (W.D.La. 2009). 29
Blackston v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc., 499
F.Supp.2d 601 (D.Del. 2007). 29
Blades v. Schuetzle, 302 F.3d 801 (8th Cir. 2002). 7, 14
Blades v. Twomey, 553 N.Y.S.2d 215 (A.D. 3 Dept. 1990).
35
Blagman v. White, 112 F.Supp.2d 534 (E.D.Va. 2000). 21,
37, 42
Blair v. Graham Correctional Center, 782 F.Supp. 411
(C.D. Ill. 1992), affirmed 4 F.3d 996. 31, 37
Blair v. Loomis, 1 F.Supp.2d 769 (N.D.Ohio 1998). 19, 38,
39, 49
Blair-Bey v. Nix, 963 F.2d 162 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied,
113 S.Ct. 620. 37
Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036 (D.C. Cir. 1998). 22
Blair-Bey v. Quick, 159 F.3d 591 (D.C.Cir. 1998). 22, 36,
43
Blair-El v. Tinsman, 666 F.Supp. 1218 (S.D. Ill. 1987). 39,
48
Blaise v. Fenn, 48 F.3d 337 (8th Cir. 1995). 1, 28
Blake v. Berman, 625 F.Supp. 1523 (D. Mass. 1986). 1, 47
Blake v. Berman, 877 F.2d 145 (1st Cir. 1989). 1
Blake v. Pryse, 444 F.2d 218 2 (8th Cir. 1971). 7, 23, 38, 39
Blake v. Ross, 787 F.3d 693 (4th Cir. 2015). 1, 21
Blalock v. Eaker, 845 F.Supp.2d 678 (W.D.N.C. 2012). 1,
28, 32, 44
Blanco v. County of Kings, 142 F.Supp.3d 986 (E.D. Cal.
2015). 17, 32, 33
Blanco v. U.S., 433 F.Supp.2d 190 (D.Puerto Rico 2006).
50
Blandford v. District of Columbia Jail, 593 F.Supp.2d 255
(D.D.C. 2009). 16, 32, 36
Blanken v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation & Correction, 944
F.Supp. 1359 (S.D.Ohio 1996). 31
Blankenship v. Gunter, 707 F.Supp. 1137 (D. Neb. 1988).
35
Blankenship v. Gunter, 898 F.2d 625 (8th Cir. 1990). 35, 37
Blankenship v. Virginia, 432 F.Supp.2d 607 (E.D.Va.
2006). 2, 14, 26, 44
Blanks v. Smith, 790 F.Supp. 192 (E.D. Wis. 1992). 39
Blaylock v. Painter, 901 F.Supp. 233 (W.D.Tex. 1995). 1
Bledsoe v. Biery, 814 F.Supp. 58 (D. Kan. 1993), affirmed,
992 F.2d 1222. 28
Blissett v. Casey, 147 F.3d 218 (2nd Cir. 1998). 5
Blissett v. Casey, 969 F.Supp. 118 (N.D.N.Y. 1997). 5
Blizzard v. Watson, 892 F.Supp. 587 (D.Del. 1995). 3, 12
Block v. Potter, 631 F.2d 233 (3rd Cir. 1980). 36
Block v. Rutherford, 104 S.Ct. 3227 (1984). 32, 41, 49
Bloom v. Toliver, 133 F.Supp.3d 1314 (N.D. Okla. 2015).
8, 11, 14, 32
Blossom v. Dart, 64 F.Supp.3d 1158 (N.D.Ill. 2014). 8, 15,
27, 32
Blumel v. Mylander, 919 F.Supp. 423 (M.D.Fla. 1996). 16,
27

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Blumhagen v. Sabes, 834 F.Supp. 1347 (D.Wyo. 1993). 10,
29
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 116 S.Ct. 1589
(1996). 27
Board of County Com'rs. of Bryan County, Okls. v. Brown,
117 S.Ct. 1382 (1997). 27, 31, 46, 48
Board of Pardons v. Allen, 107 S.Ct. 2415 (1987). 36
Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972). 31
Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett,
531 U.S. 356 (2001). 7, 24, 31
Board v. Farnham, 394 F.3d 469 (7th Cir. 2005). 9, 15, 23,
29, 32
Bobbitt v. Detroit Edison Co., 216 F.Supp.2d 669
(E.D.Mich. 2002). 15, 17, 32, 46
Boblett v. Angelone, 942 F.Supp. 251 (W.D.Va. 1996). 4,
29
Boblett v. Angelone, 957 F.Supp. 808 (W.D.Va. 1997). 8,
10, 29
Boddie v. New York State Div. of Parole, 288 F.Supp.2d
431 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) 1, 22, 36
Boddie v. New York State Division of Parole, 277
F.Supp.2d 280 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). 1, 22, 36
Boddie v. Schnieder, 105 F.3d 857 (2nd Cir. 1997). 7, 11,
48
Bogan v. Stroud, 958 F.2d 180 (7th Cir. 1992). 27, 48
Boivin v. Black, 225 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2000). 5
Bolden v. Alston, 810 F.2d 353 (2nd Cir. 1987), cert.
denied, 108 S.Ct. 229. 3, 8, 11
Bolden v. Stroger, 306 F.Supp.2d 792 (N.D.Ill. 2004). 27,
30, 32
Boles v. Neet, 333 F.Supp.2d 1005 (D.Colo. 2004). 29, 37
Boles v. Neet, 486 F.3d 1177 (10th Cir. 2007). 37
Bolin v. Black, 875 F.2d 1343 (8th Cir. 1989), cert. denied,
110 S.Ct. 542. 27, 48
Bollig v. Fiedler, 863 F.Supp. 841 (E.D. Wis. 1994). 34
Bolton v. Goord, 992 F.Supp. 604 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). 9, 10,
15, 44
Bolton v. U.S., 347 F.Supp.2d 1218 (N.D.Fla. 2004). 7, 17,
27
Bonacci v. Kindt, 868 F.2d 1442 (5th Cir. 1989). 1, 38
Bonadonna v. Grondolsky, 762 F.Supp.2d 311 (D.Mass.
2011). 20, 22, 34
Boncher ex rel. Boncher v. Brown County, 272 F.3d 484
(7th Cir. 2001). 1, 14, 32, 44
Bond v. Aguinaldo, 228 F.Supp.2d 918 (N.D.Ill. 2002). 1
Bond v. Aguinaldo, 256 F.Supp.2d 810 (N.D.Ill. 2003). 29
Bonebrake v. Norris, 417 F.3d 938 (8th Cir. 2005). 22, 43
Bonet v. Khahaifa, 512 F.Supp.2d 141 (W.D.N.Y. 2007). 3,
11, 20
Bonner v. Arizona Dept. of Corrections, 714 F.Supp. 420
(D. Ariz. 1989). 8, 11, 34
Bonner v. Outlaw, 552 F.3d 673 (8th Cir. 2009). 28, 38
Bonner v. Parke, 918 F.Supp. 1264 (N.D.Ind. 1996). 11, 22
Bono v. Benov, 197 F.3d 409 (9th Cir. 1999). 36
Bono v. Saxbe, 450 F.Supp. 934 (E.D. Ill. 1978). 3, 8, 9, 11,
38, 39
Bono v. Saxbe, 620 F.2d 609 (7th Cir. 1980). 2, 8, 9
Bonsol v. Perryman, 240 F.Supp.2d 823 (N.D.Ill. 2003). 22
Bony v. Brandenburg, 735 F.Supp. 913 (S.D. Ind. 1990).
10, 24, 48
Booker-El v. Superintendent, Indiana State Prison, 668 F.3d
896 (7th Cir. 2012). 2, 12, 35
Bookless v. Bruce, 814 F.Supp. 52 (D. Kan. 1993). 1
Boomer v. Deperio, 405 F.Supp.2d 259 (W.D.N.Y. 2005).
1, 21, 29

TC-10
XXVI

Boomer v. Irvin, 919 F.Supp. 122 (W.D.N.Y. 1995). 37
Boomer v. Irvin, 963 F.Supp. 227 (W.D.N.Y. 1997). 37
Booth v. Barton County, KS, 157 F.Supp.2d 1178 (D.Kan.
2001). 5, 7, 13, 17
Booth v. Churner, 206 F.3d 289 (3rd Cir. 2000). 1, 21
Booth v. Churner,121 S.Ct. 1819 (2001). 1, 21, 27
Booth v. King, 346 F.Supp.2d 751 (E.D.Pa. 2004). 1, 7, 10,
14
Booth v. Pence, 354 F.Supp.2d 553 (E.D.Pa. 2005). 29
Booth v. U.S., 996 F.2d 1171 (11th Cir. 1993). 20
Borello v. Allison, 446 F.3d 742 (7th Cir. 2006). 14, 30
Boren v. Deland, 958 F.2d 987 (10th Cir. 1992). 41, 49
Boretti v. Wiscomb, 930 F.2d 1150 (6th Cir. 1991). 29
Borges v. Piatkowski, 337 F.Supp.2d 424 (W.D.N.Y. 2004).
1, 21, 29
Boriboune v. Berge, 391 F.3d 852 (7th Cir. 2004). 1, 4
Boring v. Kozakiewiez, 833 F.2d 468 (3rd Cir. 1987), cert.
denied, 108 S.Ct. 1298. 1, 29
Borkholder v. Lemmon, 983 F.Supp.2d 1013 (N.D.Ind.
2013). 2, 18, 37, 42
Borzych v. Frank, 340 F.Supp.2d 955 (W.D.Wis. 2004). 37
Borzych v. Frank, 439 F.3d 388 (7th Cir. 2006). 19, 37, 38,
39
Bosse v. Baltimore County, 692 F.Supp.2d 574 (D.Md.
2010). 31
Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267 (9th Cir. 1989). 11, 22
Boswell v. Mayer, 169 F.3d 384 (6th Cir. 1999). 1, 28
Botero Gomez v. U.S., 725 F.Supp. 526 (S.D. Fla. 1989).
22, 29, 36
Boudin v. Thomas, 543 F.Supp. 686 (S.D. N.Y. 1982). 3, 8,
17, 22, 32, 49
Boulware v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 518 F.Supp.2d 186
(D.D.C. 2007). 2, 7, 34
Bounds v. O'Dell, 873 F.Supp. 221 (E.D. Mo. 1995). 50
Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977). 1, 7
Bourdon v. Loughren, 386 F.3d 88 (2nd Cir. 2004). 1, 32
Bourgeois v. Hongisto, 488 F.Supp. 304 (S.D. N.Y. 1980).
29
Bout v. Bolden, 22 F.Supp.2d 646 (E.D.Mich. 1998). 8, 10,
29
Boutchee v. Grossheim, 11 F.3d 101 (8th Cir. 1993). 11
Boutwell v. Keating, 399 F.3d 1203 (10th Cir. 2005). 22, 34,
36
Boutwell v. Nagle, 861 F.2d 1530 (11th Cir. 1988), cert.
denied, 109 S.Ct. 2452. 22, 43
Bowdry v. Ochalla, 605 F.Supp.2d 1009 (N.D.Ill. 2009).
13, 36, 43
Bowen v. Hood, 202 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2000). 13, 34, 36
Bowen v. State Com'n of Correction, 461 N.Y.S.2d 668
(App. 1983). 15
Bowens v. City of Atmore, 171 F.Supp.2d 1244 (S.D.Ala.
2001). 14
Bowers v. Pollard, 602 F.Supp.2d 977 (E.D.Wis. 2009). 3,
9, 23, 39, 48
Bowling v. Enomoto, 514 F.Supp. 201 (N.D. Calif. 1981).
17, 33
Bowman v. Campbell, 850 F.Supp. 144 (N.D.N.Y. 1994).
29
Bowman v. City of Middletown, 91 F.Supp.2d 644
(S.D.N.Y. 2000). 21, 32, 39, 42
Bowman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 188 F.Supp.2d
870 (M.D.Tenn. 2000). 4, 7, 27, 29
Bowman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 350 F.3d 537
(6th Cir. 2003) 5, 27, 29
Bowrin v. U.S. I.N.S., 194 F.3d 483 (4th Cir. 1999). 22

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Bowring v. Godwin, 551 F.2d 44 (4th Cir. 1977). 29, 30
Bowser v. Vose, 968 F.2d 105 (lst Cir. 1992). 36
Boxer X v. Harris, 437 F.3d 1107 (11th Cir. 2006). 7, 14
Boyce v. Fairman, 24 F.Supp.2d 880 (N.D.Ill. 1998). 14,
27, 29
Boyce v. Moore, 314 F.3d 884 (7th Cir. 2002). 14
Boyd v. Anderson, 265 F.Supp.2d 952 (N.D.Ind. 2003). 1,
3, 23, 39, 40, 49, 50
Boyd v. Arnone, 48 F.Supp.3d 210 (D.Conn. 2014). 37
Boyd v. Corrections Corp. of America, 380 F.3d 989 (6th
Cir. 2004). 1, 27
Boyd v. Coughlin, 914 F.Supp. 828 (N.D.N.Y. 1996). 37,
34
Boyd v. Driver, 579 F.3d 513 (5th Cir. 2009). 1, 14, 27
Boyd v. Harper, 702 F.Supp. 578 (E.D. Va. 1988). 14, 25,
32
Boyd v. Knox, 47 F.3d 966 (8th Cir. 1995). 27, 29
Boyd v. Nichols, 616 F.Supp.2d 1331 (M.D.Ga. 2009). 7,
14, 17, 24, 27, 31, 45, 46
Boyd v. Rhode Island Dept. of Corrections, 160 F.Supp.2d
213 (D.R.I. 2001). 29
Boyd v. Selmer, 842 F.Supp. 52 (N.D.N.Y. 1994). 48
Boyer v. City of Mansfield, 3 F.Supp.2d 843 (N.D.Ohio
1998). 29, 32, 48
Bozeman v. Orum, 199 F.Supp.2d 1216 (M.D.Ala. 2002).
2, 25, 29, 30, 32, 46, 48
Bozeman v. Orum, 422 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2005). 14, 29,
32, 39, 48
Brace v. Massachusetts, 673 F.Supp.2d 36 (D.Mass. 2009).
14, 17, 29, 32
Bracewell v. Lobmiller, 938 F.Supp. 1571 (M.D.Ala. 1996).
3, 9
Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S.
484 (1973). 22
Bradley v. Fairfax, 634 F.2d 1126 (8th Cir. 1980). 36
Bradley v. Hall, 64 F.3d 1276 (9th Cir. 1995). 11, 19, 21
Bradley v. Mason, 833 F.Supp.2d 763 (N.D.Ohio 2011). 1,
9, 15, 32, 33
Bradley v. Puckett, 157 F.3d 1022 (5th Cir. 1998). 7, 23, 29
Bradshaw v. Lappin, 738 F.Supp.2d 1143 (D.Colo. 2010).
2, 4, 35
Brady-Lunny v. Massey, 185 F.Supp.2d 928 (C.D.Ill.
2002). 19, 33
Bragado v. City of Zion/Police Dept., 788 F.Supp. 366
(N.D. Ill. 1992). 14, 17, 32
Bragado v. City of Zion/Police Dept., 839 F.Supp. 551
(N.D.Ill. 1993). 14, 25, 39, 45
Bragdon v. Abbott, 118 S.Ct. 2196 (1998). 7, 29
Braham v. Clancy, 425 F.3d 177 (2nd Cir. 2005). 1, 14, 21
Braithwaite v. Hinkle, 752 F.Supp.2d 692 (E.D.Va. 2010).
23, 37, 38
Brancaccio v. Reno, 964 F.Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1997). 47
Brand v. Motley, 526 F.3d 921 (6th Cir. 2008). 7, 8
Brandon v. Allen, 516 F.Supp. 1355 (1981). 7, 14, 27, 31,
46, 48
Brannum v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections, 518 F.3d 542
(8th Cir. 2008). 31
Branton v. City of Moss Point, 503 F.Supp.2d 809
(S.D.Miss. 2007). 14, 25, 29, 32, 45, 46
Brashear v. Simms, 138 F.Supp.2d 693 (D.Md. 2001). 1, 9,
10, 38
Brass v. County of Los Angeles, 328 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir.
2003). 2, 32, 36
Brassfield v. County of Cook, 701 F.Supp. 679 (N.D. Ill.
1988). 27, 29, 45

TC-11
XXVI

Brathwaite v. Correctional Medical Services, 630 F.Supp.2d
413 (D.Del. 2009). 29
Braun v. Maynard, 652 F.3d 557 (4th Cir. 2011). 24, 31, 41
Brauner v. Coody, 793 F.3d 493 (5th Cir. 2015). 23, 29, 40,
46
Brawley v. Washington, 712 F.Supp.2d 1208 (W.D.Wash.
2010). 10, 13, 17, 24, 29, 48
Brazier v. Oxford County, 575 F.Supp.2d 265 (D.Me.
2008). 2, 17, 32, 41
Breads v. Moehrle, 781 F.Supp. 953 (W.D.N.Y. 1991). 29,
30
Breakiron v. Neal, 166 F.Supp.2d 1110 (N.D.Tex. 2001). 4,
29, 35
Breazil v. Bartlett, 998 F.Supp. 236 (W.D.N.Y. 1998). 11,
18
Bredbenner v. Malloy, 925 F.Supp.2d 649 (D.Del. 2013).
29
Breest v. Moran, 571 F.Supp. 343 (D. R.I. 1983). 22, 47
Breiner v. Nevada Dept. of Corrections, 610 F.3d 1202 (9th
Cir. 2010). 2, 31
Brennan v. Hendrigan, 888 F.2d 189 (1st Cir. 1989). 31
Brenneman v. Madigan, 343 F.Supp. 128 (N.D. Ca. 1972).
1, 2, 32, 34
Bressette v. New York State Div. of Parole, 2 F.Supp.2d
383 (W.D.N.Y. 1998). 22, 36
Bressman v. Farrier, 825 F.Supp. 231 (N.D.Iowa 1993). 11,
28
Brewer v. Blackwell, 836 F.Supp. 631 (S.D. Iowa 1993)
dismissed 43 F.3d 1476. 29
Brewer v. City of Daphne, 111 F.Supp.2d 1299 (S.D.Ala.
1999). 14, 29, 30, 46
Brewer v. Parkman, 918 F.2d 1336 (8th Cir. 1990). 31
Brewer v. Perrin, 349 N.W.2d 198 (Mich. App. 1984). 14,
25, 27, 45
Brewer v. Seiter, 838 F.Supp. 340 (S.D. Ohio 1993). 11, 24
Brewer v. Wilkinson, 3 F.3d 816 (5th Cir. 1993), cert,
denied, 114 S.Ct. 1081. 1, 28
Brewster v. Nassau County, 349 F.Supp.2d 540 (E.D.N.Y.
2004). 1, 27, 32
Brewster v. Pike, 608 F.Supp. 1163 (W.D. Vir. 1985). 31
Brewton v. Hollister, 948 F.Supp. 244 (W.D.N.Y. 1996). 3
Brian B. ex rel. Lois B. v. Com. Dept. of Educ., 230 F.3d
582 (3rd Cir. 2000). 26, 34
Brian B. v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Educ., 51 F.Supp.2d 611
(E.D.Pa. 1999). 26, 34
Brickell v. Clinton County Prison Bd., 658 F.Supp.2d
621(M.D.Pa. 2009). 2, 13, 17, 27, 29, 50
Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541 (7th Cir. 2009). 1, 19
Bridges v. Rhodes, 41 Fed.Appx. 902 (8th Cir. 2002). 29
Bridgewater v. Taylor, 832 F.Supp.2d 337 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).
14, 39, 45, 48
Briggs v. Waters, 484 F.Supp.2d 466 (E.D.Va. 2007). 31
Brinson v. McKeeman, 992 F.Supp. 897 (W.D.Tex. 1997).
1
Briscoe v. Klaus, 538 F.3d 252 (3rd Cir. 2008). 1
Briscoe-King v. Terhune, 43 Fed.Appx. 45 (9th Cir. 2002)
[unpublished]. 31
Britt v. Garcia, 457 F.3d 264 (2d Cir. 2006). 14, 27
Brock v. Carroll, 107 F.3d 241 (4th Cir. 1997). 37, 39
Brock v. Warren County, Tenn., 713 F.Supp. 238 (E.D.
Tenn. 1989). 9, 14, 29, 46
Brock v. Wright, 315 F.3d 158 (2nd Cir. 2002). 29
Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262 (9th Cir. 2009). 21
Brodheim v. Rowland, 783 F.Supp. 1245 (N.D. Cal. 1991),
modified, 993 F.2d 716. 20, 22, 36, 43

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Brody v. McMahon, 684 F.Supp. 354 (N.D. N.Y. 1988). 9,
27
Broner v. Flynn, 311 F.Supp.2d 227 (D.Mass. 2004). 14, 24
Brookins v. Kolb, 990 F.2d 308 (7th Cir. 1993). 1, 47
Brookins v. Williams, 402 F.Supp.2d 508 (D.Del. 2005). 9,
29, 32
Brooks v. Andolina, 826 F.2d 1266 (3rd Cir. 1987). 8, 11,
19, 50
Brooks v. Arthur, 685 F.3d 367 (4th Cir. 2012). 31
Brooks v. Austin, 720 F.Supp.2d 715 (E.D.Pa. 2010). 32, 48
Brooks v. Berg, 289 F.Supp.2d 286 (N.D.N.Y. 2003) 29, 30
Brooks v. Buscher, 62 F.3d 176 (7th Cir. 1995). 1, 3
Brooks v. Difasi, 112 F.3d 46 (2nd Cir. 1997). 11
Brooks v. George County, Miss., 84 F.3d 157 (5th Cir.
1996). 27, 50
Brooks v. Kleiman, 743 F.Supp. 350 (E.D. Pa. 1989). 11,
12, 18
Brooks v. Prack, 77 F.Supp.3d 301 (W.D.N.Y. 2014). 11,
20
Brooks v. Roy, 776 F.3d 957 (8th Cir. 2015). 34, 37
Brooks v. Roy, 881 F.Supp.2d 1034 (D.Minn. 2012). 27,
34, 37
Brooks v. State of Okl., 862 F.Supp. 342 (W.D. Okl. 1994).
43
Brooks v. State, 529 So.2d 313 (Fla.App. 1 Dist. 1988). 39
Brooks v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 959 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C.
2013). 2, 8, 33
Brothers v. Klevenhagen, 28 F.3d 452 2 (5th Cir. 1994). 39,
48
Broulette v. Starns, 161 F.Supp.2d 1021 (D.Ariz. 2001). 19,
28, 38, 46
Broussard v. Johnson, 253 F.3d 874 (5th Cir. 2001). 11, 22
Broussard v. Johnson, 918 F.Supp. 1040 (E.D.Tex. 1996).
11, 20, 22
Brown Ex Rel. Indigenous Inmates v. Schuetzle, 368
F.Supp.2d 1009 (D.N.D. 2005). 19, 37
Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443 (1953). 22
Brown v. Angelone, 938 F.Supp. 340 (W.D.Va. 1996). 11
Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863 (6th Cir. 2000). 15
Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863 (6th Cir. 2000). 15, 32
Brown v. Beard, 492 F.Supp.2d 474 (E.D.Pa. 2007). 1, 29
Brown v. Beck, 481 F.Supp. 723 (S.D. Ga. 1980). 29
Brown v. Benton, 452 F.Supp. 28 (W.D. Okl. 1978). 31
Brown v. Braxton, 373 F.3d 501 (4th Cir. 2004). 11, 20, 22
Brown v. Briscoe, 998 F.2d 201 (4th Cir. 1993). 29
Brown v. Budz, 398 F.3d 904 (7th Cir. 2005). 7, 14
Brown v. Callahan, 623 F.3d 249 (5th Cir. 2010). 14, 29, 32,
46
Brown v. Carpenter, 889 F.Supp. 1028 (W.D.Tenn. 1995).
11, 19, 21
Brown v. City of Chicago, 573 F.Supp. 1375 (N.D. Ill.
1983). 27, 48
Brown v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 603 F.Supp.2d 73 (D.D.C.
2009). 2, 31
Brown v. Corsini, 657 F.Supp.2d 296 (D.Mass. 2009). 14,
21, 47, 50
Brown v. Coughlin, 758 F.Supp. 876 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). 10,
29
Brown v. Croak, 312 F.3d 109 (3rd Cir. 2002). 1, 14, 21, 38
Brown v. Crowley, 312 F.3d 782 (6th Cir. 2002). 2, 11, 21,
35
Brown v. Cunningham, 730 F.Supp. 612 (D. Del. 1990). 3,
8, 47
Brown v. District of Columbia, 514 F.3d 1279 (D.C. Cir.
2008). 27, 29

TC-12
XXVI

Brown v. District of Columbia, 66 F.Supp.2d 41 (D.D.C.
1999). 3, 11, 13
Brown v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 602 F.Supp.2d 173
(D.D.C. 2009). 2, 33
Brown v. Fortner, 518 F.3d 552 (8th Cir. 2008). 14, 24, 39,
47
Brown v. Frey, 889 F.2d 159 (8th Cir. 1989), cert. denied,
110 S.Ct. 1156. 3, 11, 24
Brown v. Hannah, 850 F.Supp.2d 471 (M.D.Pa. 2012). 7, 8,
11, 19, 21
Brown v. Harris, 240 F.3d 383 (4th Cir. 2001). 14, 29, 32
Brown v. Hilton, 492 F.Supp. 771 (D. N.J. 1980). 11, 19,
28, 39, 41
Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2004). 29
Brown v. Livingston, 17 F.Supp.3d 616 (S.D.Tex. 2014).
27, 37, 38
Brown v. Massachusetts, 950 F.Supp.2d 274 (D.Mass.
2013). 8, 14, 21
Brown v. McBride, 929 F.Supp. 1132 (N.D.Ind. 1996). 34
Brown v. McElroy, 160 F.Supp.2d 699 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). 9,
15, 23, 24, 40
Brown v. McFadden, 416 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 2005). 20,
22
Brown v. McNeil, 591 F.Supp.2d 1245 (M.D.Fla. 2008).
22, 36
Brown v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections, 353 F.3d 1038 (8th
Cir. 2004). 14, 29, 39, 47
Brown v. Mitchell, 327 F.Supp.2d 615 (E.D.Va. 2004). 9,
15, 27, 29, 40, 46
Brown v. Montoya, 662 F.3d 1152 (10th Cir. 2011). 7, 16,
34, 36, 43
Brown v. Moore, 93 F.Supp.3d 1032 (W.D. Ark. 2015). 8,
18, 19, 29, 44
Brown v. Neagle, 486 F.Supp. 364 (S.D. W.V. 1979). 3, 8,
20, 39
Brown v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Services,
583 F.Supp.2d 404 (W.D.N.Y. 2008). 2, 31
Brown v. North Carolina Dept. of Corrections, 612 F.3d
720 (4th Cir. 2010). 14, 27, 45
Brown v. Oregon Dept. of Corrections, 751 F.3d 983 (9th
Cir. 2014). 8, 9, 11
Brown v. Pepe, 42 F.Supp.3d 310 (D.Mass. 2014). 33, 38
Brown v. Quigley, 853 F.Supp. 325 (N.D. Cal. 1994). 1, 28
Brown v. Scott, 329 F.Supp.2d 905 (E.D.Mich. 2004). 14
Brown v. Sheridan, 894 F.Supp. 66 (N.D.N.Y. 1995). 29,
45
Brown v. Smith, 813 F.2d 1187 (11th Cir. 1987). 7, 10, 27,
48
Brown v. State of Tennessee, 693 F.2d 600 (6th Cir. 1982).
31
Brown v. Sumner, 701 F.Supp. 762 (D. Nev. 1988). 7, 34,
50
Brown v. Thompson, 868 F.Supp. 326 (S.D. Ga. 1994). 10,
24, 27, 29
Brown v. Wallace, 957 F.2d 564 (8th Cir. 1992). 17, 29
Brown v. Williams, 36 Fed.Appx. 361 (10th Cir. 2002). 1,
28, 33
Brown v. Williams, 399 F.Supp.2d 558 (D.Del. 2005). 9,
23, 32, 40
Brown v. Youth Services Intern. of South Dakota, 89
F.Supp.2d 1095 (D.S.D. 2000). 2, 14, 26, 27
Browne v. San Francisco Sheriff's Dept., 616 F.Supp.2d
975 (N.D.Cal. 2009). 29, 32, 48
Brown-El v. Delo, 969 F.2d 644 (8th Cir. 1992). 3
Brown-El v. Harris, 26 F.3d 68 (8th Cir. 1994). 18, 37

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Brown-El v. Virginia Parole Bd., 948 F.Supp. 558 (E.D.Va.
1996). 20, 36
Brownell v. Figel, 950 F.2d 1285 (7th Cir. 1991). 29, 48
Browning v. Pennerton, 633 F.Supp.2d 415 (E.D.Ky. 2009).
14, 29
Browning v. Vernon, 44 F.3d 818 (9th Cir. 1995). 27, 34,
36
Brownlee v. Conine, 957 F.2d 353 (7th Cir. 1992). 1, 22,
29, 32
Brownlow v. Chavez, 871 F.Supp. 1061 (S.D. Ind. 1994).
10, 29
Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283 (9th Cir. 2003) 1, 21, 47
Brumfield v. Hollins, 551 F.3d 322 (5th Cir. 2008). 2, 14,
24, 29, 32, 45, 46
Bruner v. Rasmussen, 792 F.Supp. 731 (D.Utah 1992). 11
Bruner-McMahon v. Hinshaw, 846 F.Supp.2d 1177 (D.Kan.
2012). 2, 14, 27, 29
Bruns v. Halford, 913 F.Supp. 1295 (N.D.Iowa 1996). 3, 11
Bruscino v. Carlson, 654 F.Supp. 609 (S.D. Ill. 1987), cert.
den., 491 U.S. 907, aff’d, 854 F.2d 162. 1, 8, 11, 12,
41, 48
Bruscino v. Carlson, 854 F.2d 162 (7th Cir. 1988), cert.
denied, 109 S.Ct. 3193. 10, 39, 41, 47, 48, 49
Bryan v. Administrative of F.C.I. Otisville, 897 F.Supp. 134
(S.D.N.Y. 1995). 3, 37
Bryan v. Endell, 141 F.3d 1290 (8th Cir. 1998). 29
Bryan v. Jones, 530 F.2d 1210 (5th Cir. 1976), cert. denied,
429 U.S. 865. 16, 27
Bryan v. Werner, 516 F.2d 233 (3rd Cir. 1975). 1, 28
Bryant v. City of New York, 404 F.3d 128 (2nd Cir. 2005).
32, 36
Bryant v. Cortez, 536 F.Supp.2d 1160 (C.D.Cal. 2008). 3,
11, 19, 42
Bryant v. Gomez, 46 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 1995). 37
Bryant v. Madigan, 84 F.3d 246 (7th Cir. 1996). 15, 29
Bryant v. Maffucci, 729 F.Supp. 319 (S.D.N.Y. 1990),
affirmed, 923 F.2d 979. 17, 29, 33
Bryant v. Maffucci, 923 F.2d 979 (2nd Cir. 1991), cert.
denied, 112 S.Ct. 152. 17, 29
Bryant v. Muth, 994 F.2d 1082 (4th Cir. 1993), cert. denied,
114 S.Ct. 559. 1, 35
Bryant v. Rich, 530 F.3d 1368 (11th Cir. 2008). 1, 21
Bryant v. Winston, 750 F.Supp. 733 (E.D. Va. 1990). 28
Buchanan v. Maine, 417 F.Supp.2d 24 (D.Me. 2006). 46, 48
Buchignani v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County
Government, 632 S.W.2d 465 (Ky. App. 1982). 2, 42
Buckley v. Barbour County, Ala., 624 F.Supp.2d 1335
(M.D.Ala. 2008). 14, 27, 46, 50
Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494 (8th Cir. 1993). 11, 21, 35
Buckley v. Gomez, 36 F.Supp.2d 1216 (S.D.Cal. 1997). 7,
21, 28, 29
Buckley v. Rogerson, 133 F.3d 1125 (8th Cir. 1998). 3, 29,
39, 48
Buckley v. State Correctional Institution-Pine Grove, 98
F.Supp.3d 704 (M.D. Pa. 2015). 7, 34
Buckner v. Hollins, 983 F.2d 119 (8th Cir. 1993). 14
Budd v. Motley, 711 F.3d 840 (7th Cir. 2013). 7, 9, 12, 15,
23, 29, 32
Buffington v. O'Leary, 748 F.Supp. 633 (N.D. Ill. 1990). 9,
12, 34, 40
Bukhari v. Hutto, 487 F.Supp. 1162 (E.D. Vir. 1980). 3, 8,
9, 11,17,34,39
Bullion v. Buonaiuto, 524 F.Supp. 159 (S.D. N.Y. 1981). 36
Bullock v. Barham, 23 F.Supp.2d 883 (N.D.Ill. 1998). 8, 14

TC-13
XXVI

Bullock v. Dart, 599 F.Supp.2d 947 (N.D.Ill. 2009). 33, 36,
39, 41
Bullock v. Gomez, 929, F.Supp. 1299 (C.D.Cal. 1996). 7,
49
Bullock v. Sheahan, 519 F.Supp.2d 760 (N.D.Ill. 2007). 1,
7, 15, 36, 41
Bullock v. Sheahan, 519 F.Supp.2d 763 (N.D.Ill. 2007). 33,
36, 41
Bullock v. Sheahan, 568 F.Supp.2d 965 (N.D.Ill. 2008). 24,
33, 36, 39, 41, 44
Bumgarner v. Lockhart, 920 F.2d 510 (8th Cir. 1990), cert.
denied, 111 S.Ct. 2898. 1, 3
Bumpus v. Canfield, 495 F.Supp.2d 316 (W.D.N.Y. 2007).
21, 29
Bunch v. Smith, 685 F.3d 546 (6th Cir. 2012). 22, 26
Bundrick v. Hammond, 817 F.Supp. 470 (D.Del. 1993). 29
Bunyon v. Burke County, 306 F.Supp.2d 1240 (S.D.Ga.
2004). 1, 6, 32, 36
Burciaga v. County of Lenawee, 123 F.Supp.2d 1076
(E.D.Mich. 2000). 8, 14, 32
Burd v. Sessler, 702 F.3d 429 (7th Cir. 2012). 1, 22, 27
Burella v. City of Philadelphia, 501 F.3d 134 (3rd Cir.
2007). 7, 14
Burgardt v. Davies, 804 F.Supp. 180 (D. Kan. 1992). 11, 29
Burger v. Bloomberg, 418 F.3d 882 (8th Cir. 2005). 7, 29
Burgess v. Fischer, 735 F.3d 462 (6th Cir. 2013). 1, 14, 25,
29, 32, 48
Burgess v. Lowery, 201 F.3d 942 (7th Cir. 2000). 41, 49
Burgin v. Iowa Dept. of Corrections, 923 F.2d 637 (8th Cir.
1991). 48
Burgin v. Nix, 899 F.2d 733 (8th Cir. 1990). 18
Burgos v. Alves, 418 F.Supp.2d 263 (W.D.N.Y. 2006). 29
Burgos v. Kuhlmann, 523 N.Y.S.2d 367 (Sup. 1987). 11, 38
Burgos v. Philadelphia Prison System, 760 F.Supp.2d 502
(E.D.Pa. 2011). 29, 32
Burgos v. Thompson, 879 F.Supp. 37 (N.D. W.Va. 1995).
43
Burke v. Comm. of Virginia, 938 F.Supp. 320 (E.D.Va.
1996). 31
Burke v. North Dakota Corrections and Rehabilit., 294 F.3d
1043 (8th Cir. 2002). 1, 29
Burke v. North Dakota Dept. of Correction and
Rehabilitation, 620 F.Supp.2d 1035 (D.N.D. 2009). 2,
11, 14, 21, 29, 30, 37, 38, 50
Burke-Fowler v. Orange County, Fla., 447 F.3d 1319 (11th
Cir. 2006). 31
Burke-Fowler v. Orange County, Florida, 390 F.Supp.2d
1208 (M.D.Fla. 2005). 19, 31
Burkett v. Wicker, 435 F.Supp.2d 875 (N.D.Ind. 2006). 27,
29, 32
Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592 (7th Cir. 2009). 21, 29
Burks v. Walsh, 461 F.Supp. 454 (W.D. Mo. 1978). 9, 10,
15, 33, 40, 44
Burks-Bey v. Stevenson, 328 F.Supp.2d 928 (N.D.Ind.
2004). 37
Burleson v. Glass, 268 F.Supp.2d 699 (W.D.Tex. 2003). 29,
50
Burleson v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, 393 F.3d 577
(5th Cir. 2004). 29, 50
Burnell v. Coughlin, 975 F.Supp. 473 (W.D.N.Y. 1997). 11,
20, 22
Burnette v. Fahey, 687 F.3d 171 (4th Cir. 2012). 2, 36, 44
Burnette v. Taylor, 533 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2008). 14, 25,
29, 32

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Burnham v. Oswald, 333 F.Supp. 1128 (W.D. N.Y. 1971).
19, 39
Burns v. City of Galveston, Tex., 905 F.2d 100 (5th Cir.
1990). 25, 30, 32, 46
Burns v. Eaton, 752 F.3d 1136 (8th Cir. 2014). 48
Burns v. PA Dept. of Correction, 544 F.3d 279 (3rd Cir.
2008). 2, 4, 11, 35
Burns v. Town of Leesville, 383 So.2d 109 (Ct. App. La.
1980). 14, 25, 27, 29
Burnsworth v. Gunderson, 179 F.3d 771 (9th Cir. 1999). 11
Burr v. Snider, 234 F.3d 1052 (8th Cir. 2000). 22, 43
Burrell v. Datta, 17 F.Supp.2d 810 (C.D.Ill. 1998). 29
Burrell v. Hampshire County, 307 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002). 8,
14, 15, 32
Burris v. Kirkpatrick, 649 F.Supp. 740 (N.D. Ind. 1986). 27,
48
Burroughs v. Petrone, 138 F.Supp.3d 182 (N.D.N.Y. 2015).
21, 35
Burt v. Carlson, 752 F.Supp. 346 (C.D. Cal. 1990). 24, 28
Burton v. Armontrout, 975 F.2d 543 (8th Cir. 1992), cert.
denied, 113 S.Ct. 2960. 10, 40, 50
Burton v. Cameron County, Tex., 884 F.Supp. 234 (S.D.
Tex. 1995). 1, 9, 23, 27, 29, 32
Burton v. City of Philadelphia, 121 F.Supp.2d 810 (E.D.Pa.
2000). 13, 29
Burton v. Downey, 805 F.3d 776 (7th Cir. 2015). 9, 29, 32
Burton v. Foltz, 599 F.Supp. 114 (E.D. Mich. 1984). 28
Burton v. Livingston, 791 F.2d 97 (8th Cir. 1986). 27, 48
Burton v. Lynch, 664 F.Supp.2d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). 21,
29
Burton v. Nault, 902 F.2d 4 (6th Cir. 1990), cert. denied,
111 S.Ct. 198. 1, 28, 33
Burton v. U.S. Parole Com'n., 751 F.Supp. 194 (D. Kan.
1990). 36
Bush v. Butler, 521 F.Supp.2d 63 (D.D.C. 2007). 7, 27
Bush v. Ware, 589 F.Supp. 1454 (E.D. Wisc. 1984). 27, 48
Bussey v. Phillips, 419 F.Supp.2d 569 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). 38,
50
Bustetter v. Armor Correctional Health Services, Inc.. 919
F.Supp.2d 1282 (M.D.Fla. 2013). 2, 29, 36
Bustos v. A & E Television Networks, 646 F.3d 762 (10th
Cir. 2011). 19, 39
Butera v. Cottey, 285 F.3d 601 (7th Cir. 2002). 14, 32
Butler v. Adams, 397 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2005). 1
Butler v. Coitsville Tp. Police Dept., 93 F.Supp.2d 862
(N.D.Ohio 2000). 25, 29, 32
Butler v. Fletcher, 465 F.3d 340 (8th Cir. 2006). 29, 32
Butler v. Snyder, 106 F.Supp.2d 589 (D.Del. 2000). 36, 37
Butler-Bay v. Frey, 811 F.2d 449 (8th Cir. 1987). 19, 37,
38, 39
Button v. Kibby-Brown, 970 F.Supp. 649 (C.D.Ill. 1997).
31
Byar v. Lee, 336 F.Supp.2d 896 (W.D.Ark. 2004). 13, 32,
37, 38
Bynum v. District of Columbia, 412 F.Supp.2d 73 (D.D.C.
2006). 5, 27, 32, 36
Byrd v. Abate, 945 F.Supp. 581 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). 14, 45
Byrd v. Hasty, 142 F.3d 1395 (11th Cir. 1998). 22, 39, 43
Byrd v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Dept., 629 F.3d 1135
(9th Cir. 2011). 32, 33, 41
Byrd v. Moseley, 942 F.Supp. 642 (D.D.C. 1996). 1, 27, 34
Byrd v. Stirling, 144 F.Supp.3d 803 (D.S.C. 2015). 18, 21
Byrd v. Wilson, 701 F.2d 592 (6th Cir. 1983). 7, 18, 29
Byron v. Dart, 825 F.Supp.2d 958 (N.D.Ill. 2011). 14, 15,
32, 39

TC-14
XXVI

C.H. v. Sullivan, 718 F.Supp. 726 (D. Minn. 1989),
affirmed, 920 F.2d 483. 9, 10, 11, 39
C.H. v. Sullivan, 920 F.2d 483 (8th Cir. 1990). 9, 10
Cabral v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 587 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2009).
2, 27, 31
Cabrales v. County of Los Angeles, 864 F.2d 1454 2 (9th
Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1091. 5, 27, 29, 30,
32
Cabrales v. County of Los Angeles, 935 F.2d 1050 (9th Cir.
1991). 5
Caddell v. Allenbrand, 804 F.Supp. 200 (D.Kan. 1992). 1
Cadwell v. NYC Dept. of Corr., 750 F.Supp. 140 (S.D.N.Y.
1990). 31
Cady v. Walsh, 753 F.3d 348 (1st Cir. 2014). 14, 29, 32
Caffey v. Johnson, 883 F.Supp. 128 (E.D. Tex. 1995). 27,
36, 37
Cagle v. Hutto, 177 F.3d 253 (4th Cir. 1999). 27
Cagle v. Sutherland, 334 F.3d 980 (11th Cir. 2003). 14, 32,
39, 45
Cain v. Rock, 67 F.Supp.2d 544 (D.Md. 1999). 7, 17, 45
Caiozzo v. Koreman, 581 F.3d 63 (2nd Cir. 2009). 29, 32
Calderon v. Thompson, 118 S.Ct. 1489 (1998). 22
Calderon v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of CA., 127 F.3d
782 (9th Cir. 1997) cert. denied 118 S.Ct. 1395. 22
Calderon-Ortiz v. Laboy-Alvarado, 300 F.3d 60 (1st Cir.
2002). 14, 32, 45
Caldwell v. District of Columbia, 201 F.Supp.2d 27
(D.D.C. 2001). 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 27, 29, 40
Caldwell v. District of Columbia, 901 F.Supp. 7 (D.D.C.
1995). 14, 29, 46
Caldwell v. Hammonds, 53 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C. 1999). 1,
9, 21, 27, 29
Caldwell v. Luzerne County Corrections Facility
Management Employees, 732 F.Supp.2d 458
(M.D.Pa. 2010). 9, 21, 48
Caldwell v. Moore, 968 F.2d 595 (6th Cir. 1992). 48
Caldwell v. Quinlan, 729 F.Supp. 4 (D. D.C. 1990),
affirmed, 923 F.2d 200. 9, 10
Caldwell v. Warden, FCI Talladega, 748 F.3d 1090 (11th.
Cir. 2014). 8, 14
Caley v. Hudson, 759 F.Supp. 378 (E.D. Mich. 1991). 1, 22
Calhoun v. Detella, 319 F.3d 936 (7th Cir. 2003). 7, 10, 33,
41
Calhoun v. Hargrove, 312 F.3d 730 (5th Cir. 2002). 7, 29,
50
Calhoun v. New York State Div. of Parole Officers, 999
F.2d 647 (2nd Cir. 1993). 43
Calhoun v. Ramsey, 408 F.3d 375 (7th Cir. 2005). 2, 13, 29
Calhoun v. Thomas, 360 F.Supp.2d 1264 (M.D.Ala. 2005).
9, 23, 32, 48
Calhoun v. Volusia County, 499 F.Supp.2d 1299 (M.D.Fla.
2007).29
Calia v. Werholtz, 426 F.Supp.2d 1210 (D.Kan. 2006). 19,
24, 38
California First Amendment Coalition v. Woodford, 299
F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2002). 2, 19, 38, 39
Callahan v. Poppell, 471 F.3d 1155 (10th Cir. 2006). 29
Callaway v. Smith County, 991 F.Supp. 801 (E.D.Tex.
1998). 27, 29
Calloway v. City of New Orleans, 524 So.2d 182 (La. App.
4 Cir. 1988). 14, 27, 29
Calvi v. Knox County, 470 F.3d 422 (1st Cir. 2006). 17, 25,
32, 48
Calvin v. Kansas Parole Bd., 993 F.Supp. 1366 (D.Kan.
1998). 24, 36

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Calvin v. Sheriff of Will County, 405 F.Supp.2d 933
(N.D.Ill. 2005). 25, 32, 41
Camarillo v. McCarthy, 998 F.2d 638 (9th Cir. 1993). 8, 29
Camberos v. Branstad, 73 F.3d 174 (8th Cir. 1995). 29
Cameron v. Allen, 525 F.Supp.2d 1302 (M.D.Ala. 2007). 1,
21, 29
Cameron v. Hendricks, 942 F.Supp. 499 (D.Kan. 1996). 41
Cameron v. Metcuz, 705 F.Supp. 454 (N.D. Ind. 1989). 14,
24
Cameron v. Myers, 569 F.Supp.2d 762 (N.D.Ind. 2008). 27,
29
Cameron v. Sarraf, 128 F.Supp.2d 906 (E.D.Va. 2000). 29
Cameron v. Tomes, 783 F.Supp. 1511 (D. Mass. 1992),
modified 990 F.2d 14. 9, 29, 30, 39
Camp v. Oliver, 798 F.2d 434 (11th Cir. 1986). 1, 2
Campbell v. Arkansas Dept. of Correction, 155 F.3d 950
(8th Cir. 1998). 31
Campbell v. Bergeron, 486 F.Supp. 1246 (M.D. La. 1980).
8, 14, 32, 39
Campbell v. Cauthron, 623 F.2d 503 (8th Cir. 1980). 9, 12,
15, 18, 27, 37
Campbell v. Clarke, 481 F.3d 967 (7th Cir. 2007). 1, 4
Campbell v. Cornell Corrections of Rhode Island, Inc., 564
F.Supp.2d 99 (D.R.I. 2008). 13, 18, 37
Campbell v. Credit Bureau Systems, Inc., 655 F.Supp.2d
732 (E.D.Ky. 2009). 4, 29
Campbell v. Crist, 491 F.Supp. 586 (D. Mont. 1980). 43
Campbell v. Emory Clinic, 166 F.3d 1157 (11th Cir. 1999).
14
Campbell v. Grammer, 889 F.2d 797 (8th Cir. 1989). 10,
39, 48
Campbell v. Henman, 931 F.2d 1212 (7th Cir. 1991). 11, 22
Campbell v. Johnson, 586 F.3d 835 (11th Cir. 2009). 6, 36
Campbell v. McGruder, 416 F.Supp. 100 (D. D.C. 1975).
12, 23, 29, 30, 40, 48
Campbell v. McGruder, 554 F.Supp. 562 (D.C. D.C. 1982).
15, 32, 45
Campbell v. McGruder, 580 F.2d 521 (D.C. Cir. 1978). 29,
30
Campbell v. Miller, 499 F.3d 711 (7th Cir. 2007). 33, 41
Campbell v. Purkett, 957 F.2d 535 (8th Cir. 1992). 37, 38
Campbell v. Sikes, 169 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 1999). 29, 30,
48
Campbell v. Williamson, 783 F.Supp. 1161 (C.D. Ill. 1992).
11, 22, 36
Campbell-El v. District of Columbia, 874 F.Supp. 403
(D.D.C. 1994). 37, 39
Campbell-El v. District of Columbia, 881 F.Supp. 42
(D.D.C. 1995). 10, 42, 50
Camper v. Benov, 966 F.Supp. 951 (C.D.Cal. 1997). 22, 36
Campise v. Hamilton, 382 F.Supp. 172 (S.D. Tex. 1974),
cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1102. 9, 27, 44
Campiti v. Walonis, 611 F.2d 387 (1st Cir. 1979). 19, 33
Campo v. Keane, 913 F.Supp. 814 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). 11, 24
Campos v. Correction Officer Smith, 418 F.Supp.2d 277
(W.D.N.Y. 2006). 1, 21
Campos v. Coughlin, 854 F.Supp. 194 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). 37
Camps v. City of Warner Robins, 822 F.Supp. 724
(M.D.Ga. 1993). 2, 14, 27, 32
Canadian Coalition Against Death Penalty v. Ryan, 269
F.Supp.2d 1199 (D.Ariz. 2003). 19, 28
Canales v. Gabry, 844 F.Supp. 1167 (E.D. Mich. 1994). 36,
43
Canales v. Gatzunis, 979 F.Supp.2d 164 (D.Mass. 2013). 9,
13, 14, 24, 27, 29

TC-15
XXVI

Candelaria v. Coughlin, 787 F.Supp. 368 (S.D.N.Y. 1992),
affirmed, 979 F.2d 845. 29, 47
Candelaria v. Griffin, 641 F.2d 868 (10th Cir. 1981). 36
Canedy v. Boardman, 16 F.3d 183 (7th Cir. 1994). 33, 45
Canedy v. Boardman, 801 F.Supp. 254 (W.D.Wis. 1992),
reversed, 16 F.3d 183. 31, 33, 41
Canedy v. Boardman, 91 F.3d 30 (7th Cir. 1996). 24, 3, 37,
41
Canell v. Armenikis, 840 F.Supp. 783 (D.Or. 1993). 33, 45
Canell v. Beyers, 840 F.Supp. 1378 (D.Or. 1993). 27, 33,
41
Canell v. Bradshaw, 840 F.Supp. 1382 (D. Or. 1993). 1, 15
Canell v. Lightner, 143 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir. 1998). 32, 37,
46
Canell v. Multnomah County, 141 F.Supp.2d 1046 (D.Or.
2001). 4, 8, 9, 14, 25, 29, 50
Cannon v. Washington, 418 F.3d 714 (7th Cir. 2005). 1, 21,
28, 35
Cano v. City of New York, 119 F.Supp.3d 65 (E.D.N.Y.
2015). 8, 9, 15, 23, 32, 40
Cano v. City of New York, 44 F.Supp.3d 324 (E.D.N.Y.
2014). 9, 23, 32, 40
Cano v. Taylor, 739 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2014). 1, 13, 21, 29,
30
Cansler v. State, 34 CrL 2372 (Kansas Sup. Ct. 1984). 27,
43
Canterino v. Wilson, 644 F.Supp. 738 (W.D. Ky. 1986),
cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 539. 1, 9, 17, 34
Canterino v. Wilson, 869 F.2d 948 (6th Cir. 1989). 7, 9, 17,
34, 50
Cantley v. West Virginia Reg. Jail and Corr. Facility
Authority, 771 F.3d 201 (4th Cir. 2014). 25, 32, 39, 41
Cantley v. West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional
Facility Authority, 728 F.Supp.2d 803 (S.D.W.Va.
2010). 21, 25, 32, 41
Cantu v. Jones, 293 F.3d 839 (5th Cir. 2002). 14, 27
Cantu v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 653 F.Supp.2d 726
(E.D.Mich. 2009). 2, 31
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940). 37
Capitol City Lodge v. Ingham County, 399 N.W.2d 463
(Mich. App. 1986). 2, 31
Capps v. Atiyeh, 495 F.Supp. 802 (D. Ore. 1980). 9, 15
Capps v. Sullivan, 921 F.2d 260 (10th Cir. 1990). 22
Caputo v. Fauver, 800 F.Supp. 168 (D.N.J. 1992), affirmed,
995 F.2d 216. 1
Caraballo-Sandoval v. Honsted, 35 F.3d 521 (11th Cir.
1994). 3, 8, 49
Carafas v. Lavallee, 88 S.Ct. 1556 (1968). 22
Carapellucci v. Town of Winchester, 707 F.Supp. 611 (D.
Mass. 1989). 25, 29, 32, 44, 45
Carbe v. Lappin, 492 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. 2007). 1, 21
Card v. Dugger, 709 F.Supp. 1098 (M.D. Fla. 1988),
affirmed, 871 F.2d 1023. 37, 49
Cardenas v. Lewis, 66 Fed.Appx. 86 (9th Cir. 2003).
[unpublished] 8, 11, 14, 32
Cardenas v. Wigen, 921 F.Supp. 286 (E.D. Pa. 1996). 11,
22
Cardinal v. Metrish, 564 F.3d 794 (6th Cir. 2009). 18, 24,
29, 37
Cardona v. Bledsoe, 681 F.3d 533 (3rd Cir. 2012). 3, 20, 22
Carl v. Angelone, 883 F.Supp. 1433 (D.Nev. 1995). 2, 41
Carl v. Muskegon County, 763 F.3d 592 (6th Cir. 2014). 30,
32
Carlin v. Manu, 72 F.Supp.2d 1177 (D.Or. 1999). 17, 41

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Carlin v. Wong, 552 F.Supp.2d 1023 (N.D.Cal. 2008). 22,
36
Carlsen v. U.S, 521 F.3d 1371 (Fed Cir. 2008). 2, 31
Carlson v. Conklin, 813 F.2d 769 (6th Cir. 1987). 27, 36, 45
Carlson v. Green, 100 S.Ct. 1468 (1980). 10, 14, 27, 29
Carlyle v. Aubrey, 189 F.Supp.2d 660 (W.D.Ky. 2001). 9,
15,18, 29, 32, 40
Carman v. Burgess, 763 F.Supp. 419 (W.D. Mo. 1991). 1,
48
Carmel v. Thomas, 510 F.Supp. 784 (S.D. N.Y. 1981). 36
Carmichael v. City of Cleveland, 881 F.Supp.2d 833
(N.D.Ohio 2012).7, 14, 36
Carmichael v. Richards, 307 F.Supp.2d 1014 (S.D.Ind.
2004). 8, 14, 25, 32, 39
Carmon v. Duveal, 554 F.Supp.2d 281 (D.Conn. 2008). 1, 3
Carney v. Craven, 40 Fed.Appx. 48 (6th Cir. 2002). 10, 15
Carothers v. County of Cook, 808 F.3d 1140 (7th Cir. 2015).
31
Carothers v. Follette, 314 F.Supp. 1014 (S.D. N.Y. 1970).
1, 3, 11, 28, 38
Carpenter v. King, 792 F.Supp.2d 29 (D.D.C. 2011). 19
Carpenter v. South Dakota, 536 F.2d 759 (8th Cir. 1976),
cert. denied, 431 U.S. 931. 19, 28
Carpenter v. Wilkinson, 946 F.Supp. 522 (N.D.Ohio 1996).
19, 37
Carper v. Deland, 54 F.3d 613 2 (10th Cir. 1995). 1
Carper v. DeLand, 851 F.Supp. 1506 (D.Utah 1994). 1
Carr v. Whittenburg, 462 F.Supp.2d 925 (S.D.Ill. 2006). 18,
21, 40
Carrascosa v. McGuire, 520 F.3d 249 (3rd Cir. 2008). 17,
22, 32
Carrasquillo v. City of New York, 324 F.Supp.2d 428
(S.D.N.Y. 2004). 14
Carrigan v. Davis, 70 F.Supp.2d 448 (D.Del. 1999). 7, 14,
17
Carrigan v. State of Del., 957 F.Supp. 1376 (D.Del. 1997).
8, 14, 17, 27, 46
Carrion v. Wilkinson, 309 F.Supp.2d 1007 (N.D.Ohio
2004). 18, 29
Carroll v. Detella, 255 F.3d 470 (7th Cir. 2001). 9, 10, 40
Carroll v. City of Quincy, 441 F.Supp.2d 215 (D.Mass.
2006). 2, 14, 25, 32
Carroll v. Yates, 362 F.3d 984 (7th Cir. 2004). 1, 21
Carruthers v. Jenne, 209 F.Supp.2d 1294 (S.D.Fla. 2002). 5,
27
Carson v. Johnson, 112 F.3d 818 (5th Cir. 1997). 1, 22
Carter v. Carriero, 905 F.Supp. 99 (W.D.N.Y. 1995). 3, 11
Carter v. Fagin, 348 F.Supp.2d 159 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). 29
Carter v. Fagin, 363 F.Supp.2d 661 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). 29
Carter v. Fair, 786 F.2d 433 (1st Cir. 1986). 1
Carter v. Fairman, 675 F.Supp. 449 (N.D. Ill. 1987). 11
Carter v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 579 F.Supp.2d 798
(W.D.Tex. 2008). 39, 49
Carter v. Galloway, 352 F.3d 1346 (11th Cir. 2003) 14
Carter v. James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, 134
F.Supp.3d 794 (D. Del. 2015). 1, 2, 12, 42, 45
Carter v. Kane, 938 F.Supp. 282 (E.D.Pa. 1996). 11, 27
Carter v. McCaleb, 29 F.Supp.2d 423 (W.D.Mich. 1998).
43, 50
Carter v. McGrady, 292 F.3d 152 (3rd Cir. 2002). 1, 41
Carter v. Newland, 441 F.Supp.2d 208 (D.Mass. 2006). 29
Carter v. O'Sullivan, 924 F.Supp. 903 (C.D.Ill. 1996). 1, 19
Carter v. Thompson, 808 F.Supp. 1548 (M.D.Fla. 1992). 11
Carty v. Farrelly, 957 F.Supp. 727 (D.Virgin Islands 1997).
1, 5, 8, 9, 25, 27, 29, 30, 32

TC-16
XXVI

Carty v. Nelson, 426 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2005). 7, 22, 36
Carty v. Turnbull, 144 F.Supp.2d 395 (D.Virgin Islands
2001). 27, 32
Caruso v. City of New York, 973 F.Supp.2d 430 (S.D.N.Y.
2013). 31
Carver v. Knox County, Tenn., 753 F.Supp. 1370 (E.D.
Tenn. 1989). 9, 12, 23
Carver v. Lehman, 558 F.3d 869 (9th Cir. 2009). 13, 20, 36
Carwile v. Ray, 481 F.Supp. 33 (E.D. Wash. 1979). 1, 27,
28
Casaburro v. Giuliani, 986 F.Supp. 176 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).
32, 39, 48
Case v. Ahitow, 301 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2002). 14
Case v. Andrews, 603 P.2d 623 (1979). 1, 33
Casey v. Lewis, 773 F.Supp. 1365 (D. Ariz. 1991),
reversed, 4 F.3d 1516. 1, 8, 49, 50
Casey v. Lewis, 834 F.Supp. 1477 (D. Ariz. 1993). 10, 17,
30
Casey v. Lewis, 834 F.Supp. 1553 (D. Ariz. 1992). 1, 33
Casey v. Lewis, 834 F.Supp. 1569 (D. Ariz. 1993). 7, 9
Casey v. Lewis, 837 F.Supp. 1009 (D. Ariz. 1993). 3, 8
Cash v. County of Erie, 654 F.3d 324 (2nd Cir. 2011). 14,
17, 27, 32
Cash v. Wetzel, 8 F.Supp.3d 644 (E.D. Pa. 2014). 19, 27,
35
Cason v. District of Columbia, 580 F.Supp.2d 76 (D.D.C.
2008). 29, 50
Cassels v. Stalder, 342 F.Supp.2d 555 (M.D.La. 2004). 19,
38
Cassidy v. Indiana Dept. of Correction, 59 F.Supp.2d 787
(S.D.Ind. 1999). 7, 27, 50
Cassidy v. Indiana Dept. of Corrections, 199 F.3d 374 (7th
Cir. 2000). 7, 27, 34
Casteel v. Pieschek, 3 F.3d 1050 (7th Cir. 1993). 1
Casteel v. Pieschek, 944 F.Supp. 748 (E.D.Wis. 1996). 1,
32
Castellini v. Lappin, 365 F.Supp.2d 197 (D.Mass. 2005). 4,
43
Castillo v. Bobelu, 1 F.Supp.3d 1190 (W.D.Okla. 2014). 14,
17, 34, 36, 45, 50
Castillo v. Bowles, 687 F.Supp. 277 (N.D. Tex. 1988). 9
Castillo v. Cameron County, Tex., 238 F.3d 339 (5th Cir.
2001). 27, 32
Castillo v. Cook County Mail Room Dept., 990 F.2d 304
(7th Cir. 1993). 1, 28
Castillo v. Gardner, 854 F.Supp. 725 (E.D. Wash. 1994). 41
Castle v. Clymer, 15 F.Supp.2d 640 (E.D.Pa. 1998). 19, 27,
47, 50
Castle v. Eurofresh, Inc., 731 F.3d 901 (9th Cir. 2013). 7, 50
Castle v. Eurofresh, Inc., 734 F.Supp.2d 938 (D.Ariz.
2010). 24, 34, 50
Castor v. U.S., 883 F.Supp. 344 (S.D. Ind. 1995). 1
Castro v. City of Hanford, 546 F.Supp.2d 822 (E.D.Cal.
2008). 16, 25, 32
Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 797 F.3d 654 (9th Cir.
2015). 8, 14, 15, 25, 27, 32
Castro v. Melchor, 760 F.Supp.2d 970 (D.Hawai‘i 2010).
17, 29, 32, 39, 46, 48
Castro v. Terhune, 712 F.3d 1304 (9th Cir. 2013). 8, 39
Catanzaro v. Harry, 848 F.Supp.2d 780 (W.D.Mich. 2012).
1, 9, 34, 36, 37
Catapano v. Smith, 495 N.Y.S.2d 856 (A.D. 4 1985). 11
Catletti Ex Rel. Estate of Catletti v. Rampe, 334 F.3d 225
(2nd Cir. 2003). 2, 31
Cato v. Rushen, 824 F.2d 703 (9th Cir. 1987). 3, 11

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Caudell v. Rose, 378 F.Supp.2d 725 (W.D.Va. 2005). 1
Caudle-El v. Peters, 727 F.Supp. 1175 (N.D. Ill. 1989). 7,
23
Cavalieri v. Shepard, 321 F.3d 616 (7th Cir. 2003). 14, 25,
32, 39, 45
Cavanagh v. Taranto, 95 F.Supp.3d 220 (D. Mass. 2015). 1,
14, 17, 25, 32, 39, 45
Cawthon v. City of Greenville, 745 F.Supp. 377 (N.D.
Miss. 1990). 14, 31, 48
Ceballos de Leon v. Reno, 58 F.Supp.2d 463 (D.N.J. 1999).
22
Cello-Whitney v. Hoover, 769 F.Supp. 1155 (W.D. Wash.
1991). 1
Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. Los Angeles County
Sheriff Dept., 533 F.3d 780 (9th Cir. 2008). 16, 19, 32
Cephas v. Truitt, 940 F.Supp. 674 (D.Del. 1996). 3, 11, 14,
32
Cepulonis v. Fair, 563 F.Supp. 659 (D. Mass. 1983). 1
Cerka v. Salt Lake County, 988 F.Supp. 1420 (D.Utah
1997). 31
Cerniglia v. County of Sacramento, 566 F.Supp.2d 1034
(E.D.Cal. 2008). 3, 7, 9
Chacon v. U.S., 48 F.3d 508 (Fed. Cir. 1995). 50
Chairs v. Burgess, 25 F.Supp.2d 1333 (N.D.Ala. 1998). 5,
27
Chambers v. Colorado Dept. of Corrections, 205 F.3d 1237
(10th Cir. 2000). 8, 20, 34
Chambers v. NH Prison, 562 F.Supp.2d 197 (D.N.H. 2007).
2, 29, 45
Chance v. Compton, 873 F.Supp. 82 (W.D. Tenn. 1994). 3,
11
Chance v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, 730 F.3d 404
(5th Cir. 2013). 37, 38
Chandler v. Baird, 926 F.2d 1057 (11th Cir. 1991). 3
Chandler v. Coughlin, 733 F.Supp. 641 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). 1,
28
Chandler v. Crosby, 379 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2004). 1, 9,
10, 15
Chao v. Ballista, 630 F.Supp.2d 170 (D.Mass. 2009). 13,
14, 17, 27
Chao v. Ballista, 772 F.Supp.2d 337 (D.Mass. 2011). 14, 17
Chao v. Ballista, 806 F.Supp.2d 358 (D.Mass. 2011). 7, 14,
17, 27
Chapman v. Guessford, 924 F.Supp. 30 (D.Del. 1996). 8, 32
Chapman v. Nichols, 989 F.2d 393 (10th Cir. 1993). 27, 41,
32
Chapman v. Pickett, 491 F.Supp. 967 (C.D. Ill. 1980). 3, 8,
11, 37, 38
Chapman v. Pickett, 801 F.2d 912 (7th Cir. 1986). 11, 27,
37
Chappell v. Helder, 696 F.Supp.2d 1021 (W.D.Ark. 2010).
37, 38, 39
Chappell v. Mandeville, 706 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2013). 9,
10,39, 41, 49
Chapple v. Keane, 903 F. Supp. 583 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). 21
Charles v. Coughlin, 985 F.Supp. 88 (E.D.N.Y. 1997). 11
Charles v. United States, 278 F.2d 386 (9th Cir. 1960). 41
Charles v. Verhagen, 220 F.Supp.2d 937 (W.D.Wis. 2002).
24, 37, 38
Charles v. Verhagen, 220 F.Supp.2d 955 (W.D.Wis. 2002).
37
Charles v. Verhagen, 348 F.3d 601 (7th Cir. 2003) 37
Charles W. v. Maul, 214 F.3d 350 (2nd Cir. 2000). 30, 32
Charron v. Medium Sec. Inst., 730 F.Supp. 987 (E.D. Mo.
1989). 7, 8, 11, 24, 32, 49, 50

TC-17
XXVI

Charry v. State of Cal., 13 F.3d 1386 (9th Cir. 1994). 26, 43
Chase v. District of Columbia, 723 F.Supp.2d 130 (D.D.C.
2010). 17, 32, 33
Chatin v. Coombe, 186 F.3d 82 (2nd Cir. 1999). 5, 19, 37,
39
Chauvin v. Erickson, 998 F.2d 617 (8th Cir. 1993). 20, 50
Chavarriaga v. New Jersey Dept. of Corrections, 806 F.3d
210 (3d Cir. 2015). 17, 29, 33, 40, 41, 47, 48
Chavers v. Abrahamson, 803 F.Supp. 1512 (E.D.Wis.
1992). 1, 35
Chavez v. Cady, 207 F.3d 901 (7th Cir. 2000). 2, 29, 32,44
Chavez v. County of Bernalillo, 3 F.Supp.3d 936 (D.N.M.
2014). 16, 25, 32, 36
Chavis v. Rowe, 643 F.2d 1281 (7th Cir. 1981). 9, 10, 11
Chavis v. Smith, 834 F.Supp. 153 (D.Md. 1993). 43
Chavis v. Struebel, 317 F.Supp.2d 232 (W.D.N.Y. 2004).
13, 21
Chehade Refai v. Lazaro, 614 F.Supp.2d 1103 (D.Nev.
2009). 7, 25, 27, 32, 41
Chennault v. Mitchell, 923 F.Supp.2d 765 (E.D.Va. 2013).
14, 17, 29, 32, 48
Cherry v. Crow, 845 F.Supp. 1520 (M.D. Fla. 1994). 14, 29
Chess v. U.S., 836 F.Supp.2d 742 (N.D.Ill. 2011). 8, 14, 24,
25, 27, 30
Chesson v. Jaquez, 986 F.2d 363 (10th Cir. 1993). 11
Chester v. Beard, 657 F.Supp.2d 534 (M.D.Pa. 2009). 10,
27, 46
Chestnut v. Magnusson, 942 F.2d 820 (1st Cir. 1991). 20,
32, 36
Chilcote v. Mitchell, 166 F.Supp.2d 1313 (D.Or. 2001). 9,
15, 32
Childers v. Maloney, 247 F.Supp.2d 32 (D.Mass. 2003). 11,
47, 50
Childress v. Delo, 820 F.Supp. 458 (E.D.Mo. 1993). 12, 29,
35, 37
Childress v. Walker, 787 F.3d 433 (7th Cir. 2015). 1, 34, 36
Childs v. Duckworth, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983). 37, 38,
39
Childs v. Miller, 713 F.3d 1262 (10th Cir. 2013). 1, 21
Childs v. Pellegrin, 822 F.2d 1382 (6th Cir. 1987). 1, 3, 48
Chilton v. Atwood, 769 F.Supp. 267 (M.D. Tenn. 1991). 1,
28
Chimurenga v. City of New York, 45 F.Supp.2d 337
(S.D.N.Y. 1999). 16, 49
Chinchello v. Fenton, 763 F.Supp. 793 (M.D. Pa. 1991). 28
Chinchello v. Fenton, 805 F.2d 126 (3rd Cir. 1986). 27, 28,
46
Ching v. Lewis, 895 F.2d 608 (9th Cir. 1990). 1, 49
Chisolm v. McManimon, 275 F.3d 315 (3rd Cir. 2001). 7, 8,
25, 29, 32
Chitwood v. Dowd, 889 F.2d 781 (8th Cir. 1989), cert.
denied, 110 S.Ct. 2219. 22, 47
Choate v. Lockhart, 7 F.3d 1370 (8th Cir. 1993). 27, 50
Choate v. Lockhart, 779 F.Supp. 987 (E.D. Ark. 1991),
reversed, 7 F.3d 1370. 50
Choate v. Merrill, 685 F.Supp.2d 146 (D.Me. 2010). 14, 29
Choquette v. City of New York, 839 F.Supp.2d 692
(S.D.N.Y. 2012). 17, 25, 27, 29, 32
Chortek v. City of Milwaukee, 356 F.3d 740 (7th Cir.
2004). 25, 32
Chow v. Reno, 193 F.3d 892 (7th Cir. 1999). 22
Chriceol v. Phillips, 169 F.3d 313 (5th Cir. 1999). 1, 19, 28,
35, 37
Christian By and Through Jett v. Stanczak, 769 F.Supp. 317
(E.D. Mo. 1991). 14, 25, 30, 32

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Christian v. Wagner, 611 F.Supp.2d 958 (S.D.Iowa 2009).
29, 32
Christian v. Wagner, 623 F.3d 608 (8th Cir. 2010). 29, 32,
39, 50
Christiansen v. Clarke, 147 F.3d 655 (8th Cir. 1998). 4, 35,
50
Christianson v. Clarke, 932 F.Supp. 1178 (D.Neb. 1996). 3,
8
Christie ex rel. estate of Christie v. Scott, 923 F.Supp.2d
1308 (M.D.Fla. 2013). 14, 29, 32, 45, 46, 48
Christina A. Ex Rel. Jennifer A. v. Bloomberg, 315 F.3d
990 (8th Cir. 2003). 5, 26
Christman v. Skinner, 468 F.2d 723 (2nd Cir. 1972). 1, 3, 8,
19, 27, 28, 39, 41
Christopher v. Buss, 384 F.3d 879 (7th Cir. 2004). 10, 14
Christy v. Robinson, 216 F.Supp.2d 398 (D.N.J. 2002). 29
Church v. Hegstrom, 416 F.2d 449 (2nd Cir. 1969). 29
Church v. Maryland, 180 F.Supp.2d 708 (D.Md. 2002). 31
Ciaprazi v. County of Nassau, 195 F.Supp.2d 398
(E.D.N.Y. 2002). 5, 27
Ciempa v. Jones, 745 F.Supp.2d 1171 (N.D.Okla. 2010).
18, 19, 37, 39
Cirilla v. Kankakee County Jail, 438 F.Supp.2d 937
(C.D.Ill. 2006). 14, 29, 32
Citizens Advy. Comm. on Priv. Pris. v. U.S. D.O.J., 197
F.Supp.2d 226 (W.D.Pa. 2001). 2, 15
Citrano v. Allen Correctional Center, 891 F.Supp. 312
(W.D.La. 1995). 2, 24, 27
City of Boerne v. Flores, 117 S.Ct. 2157 (1997). 37
City of Revere v. Massachusetts General Hospital, 103
S.Ct. 2979 (1983). 4, 29
City of Riverside v. Rivera, 106 S.Ct. 2686 (1986). 5
City of Shepherdsville, Kentucky v. Rymer, 105 S.Ct. 3518
(6th Cir. 1985). 7, 27, 46, 48
Civil Service Employees Ass'n, Local 1000, AFSCME v.
N.L.R.B., 569 F.3d 88 (2nd Cir. 2009). 2, 31
Clanton v. Glover, 280 F.Supp.2d 1360 (M.D.Fla. 2003).
34, 37
Clapper v. Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections, 946 F.Supp.
672 (E.D.Wis. 1996). 36
Clappier v. Flynn, 605 F.2d 519 (10th Cir. 1979). 14, 27, 45
Clark v. Alston, 442 F.Supp.2d 395 (E.D.Mich. 2006). 31
Clark v. California, 739 F.Supp.2d 1168 (N.D.Cal. 2010). 7,
27, 34
Clark v. Conahan, 737 F.Supp.2d 239 (M.D.Pa. 2010). 9,
24, 26
Clark v. Evans, 840 F.2d 876 (11th Cir. 1988). 10, 14, 24,
48
Clark v. Groose, 36 F.3d 770 (8th Cir. 1994). 3
Clark v. Long, 255 F.3d 555 (8th Cir. 2001). 37, 50
Clark v. McMillin, 932 F.Supp. 789 (S.D.Miss. 1996). 14,
32, 45
Clark v. Neal, 890 F.Supp. 345 (D.Del. 1995). 11, 36
Clark v. Prichard, 812 F.2d 991 (5th Cir. 1987). 43
Clark v. State of GA. Pardons and Paroles Bd., 915 F.2d
636 (11th Cir. 1990). 36
Clark v. Williams, 619 F.Supp.2d 95 (D.Del. 2009). 21, 29
Clarke v. Blais, 473 F.Supp.2d 124 (D.Me. 2007), 29, 32,
48
Clarke v. Stalder, 121 F.3d 222 (5th Cir. 1997). 1, 19, 20,
22, 38
Clarke v. Thornton, 515 F.Supp.2d 435 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). 21
Clark-Murphy v. Foreback, 439 F.3d 280 (6th Cir. 2006). 8,
14, 24, 29, 30

TC-18
XXVI

Clarkson v. Coughlin, 783 F.Supp. 789 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). 7,
9, 17, 34
Clarkson v. Coughlin, 898 F.Supp. 1019 (S.D.N.Y. 1955).
7, 8, 9, 11, 15, 17, 29, 33, 34, 36
Clay v. Woodbury County, Iowa, 982 F.Supp.2d 904
(N.D.Iowa 2013). 1, 17, 25, 32, 33, 39, 41, 48
Clayton v. Tansy, 26 F.3d 980 (10th Cir. 1993). 1
Clayton v. Thurman, 775 F.2d 1096 (1985). 5
Cleavinger v. Saxner, 106 S.Ct. 496 (1986). 11, 24
Clem v. Lomeli, 566 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2009). 14, 27
Clement v. California Dept. of Corrections, 220 F.Supp.2d
1098 (N.D.Cal. 2002). 19, 28
Clement v. California Dept. of Corrections, 364 F.3d 1148
(9th Cir. 2004). 7, 19, 27, 28, 38
Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2002). 15, 29, 48
Clemmons v. Armontrout, 477 F.3d 962 (8th Cir. 2007). 11
Clemmons v. Bohannon, 918 F.2d 858 (10th Cir. 1990). 9,
10, 29
Clemmons v. Bohannon, 956 F.2d 1523 (10th Cir. 1992). 9,
10
Cleveland v. Goin, 703 F.2d 204 (Ore. Sup. Ct., 1985). 9,
32, 47
Cleveland-Perdue v. Brutsche, 881 F.2d 427 (7th Cir.
1989), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 368. 27, 29
Clifton v. Craig, 924 F.2d 182 (10th Cir. 1991), cert.
denied, 116 LE2d 69. 37
Clifton v. Eubank, 418 F.Supp.2d 1243 (D.Colo. 2006). 17,
27, 29
Cline v. Fox, 319 F.Supp.2d 685 (N.D.W.Va. 2004). 19, 38,
42
Cloaninger ex rel. Estate of Cloaninger v. McDevitt, 555
F.3d 324 (4th Cir. 2009). 16, 30
Clone v. Presley, 640 F.2d 271 (10th Cir. 1981). 36
Closs v. Weber, 238 F.3d 1018 (8th Cir. 2001). 20, 36
Clouthier v. County of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232 (9th
Cir. 2010). 8, 14, 29, 30, 32, 45
Clynch v. Chapman, 285 F.Supp.2d 213 (D.Conn. 2003) 6,
32
Coades v. Jeffes, 822 F.Supp. 1189 (E.D.Pa. 1993). 29
Coakley v. Murphy, 884 F.2d 1218 (9th Cir. 1989). 34, 47,
50
Coakley v. Oregon State Corr. Inst., 730 P.2d 622 (1986).
11, 38
Coalition for Gov. Procurement v. Federal Prison, 365 F.3d
435 (6th Cir. 2004). 50
Cobb v. Atych, 643 F.2d 946 (3rd Cir. 1981). 1, 6, 32, 47
Cobb v. Marshall, 481 F.Supp.2d 1248 (M.D.Ala. 2007).
27, 31
Cobb v. Pozzi, 352 F.3d 79 (2nd Cir. 2003) 31
Cobb v. Pozzi, 363 F.3d 89 (2nd Cir. 2004). 31
Cobbs v. Superintendent, 821 F.Supp.2d 1071 (N.D.Ind.
2011). 11, 22
Cobige v. City of Chicago, Ill., 651 F.3d 780 (7th Cir.
2011). 14, 17, 27, 29, 32
Cochran v. Morris, 73 F.3d 1310 (4th Cir. 1996)1, 47
Cochran v. Pinchak, 401 F.3d 184 (3rd Cir. 2005). 9, 24
Cochrane v. Quattrocchi, 949 F.2d 11 (1st Cir. 1991), cert.
denied, 112 S.Ct. 2965. 41
Cockcroft v. Kirkland, 548 F.Supp.2d 767 (N.D.Cal. 2008).
1, 9, 15, 40
Cockrell v. Sparks, 510 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2007). 48
Cockrell-El v. District of Columbia, 937 F.Supp. 18
(D.D.C. 1996). 11, 37, 48
Codd v. Brown, 949 F.2d 879 (6th Cir. 1991). 50
Cody v. Hillard, 304 F.3d 767 (8th Cir. 2002). 5

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Cody v. Hillard, 830 F.2d 912 (8th Cir. 1987), cert. denied,
108 S.Ct. 1078. 9, 15, 44
Cody v. Jones, 895 F.Supp. 431 (N.D.N.Y. 1995). 3, 8, 9
Cofer v. Schriro, 176 F.3d 1082 (8th Cir. 1999). 19, 37
Coffey v. Cox, 218 F.Supp.2d 997 (C.D.Ill. 2002). 31
Coffey v. U.S., 870 F.Supp.2d 1202 (D.N.M. 2012). 14, 27,
29, 47
Coffey v. U.S., 906 F.Supp.2d 1114 (D.N.M. 2012). 14, 27,
29, 47
Coffin v. Reichard, 143 F.2d 443 (6th Cir. 1944). 7, 9
Coffman v. Trickey, 884 F.2d 1057 (8th Cir. 1989), cert.
denied 110 S.Ct. 1523. 11, 24
Cofield v. Ala. Public Service Com'n., 936 F.2d 512 (11th
Cir. 1991). 1
Cohen v. Corrections Corp. of America, 588 F.3d 299 (6th
Cir. 2008). 1, 21
Cokeley v. Endell, 27 F.3d 331 (8th Cir. 1994). 1, 50
Colburn v. Upper Darby Township, 838 F.2d 663 (3rd Cir.
1988), cert. denied, 109 S.Ct. 1338. 14, 27, 32, 45
Colburn v. Upper Darby Tp., 946 F.2d 1017 (3rd Cir.
1991). 14, 29, 32
Cole v. Snow, 586 F.Supp. 655 (D. Mass. 1984). 27, 41
Cole v. Taber, 587 F.Supp.2d 856 (W.D.Tenn. 2008). 31
Coleman Ex Rel. Coleman v. Parkman, 349 F.3d 534 (8th
Cir. 2003) 14, 32
Coleman v. Brown, 28 F.Supp.3d 1068 (E.D.Cal. 2014). 3,
12, 27, 30, 48
Coleman v. Brown, 922 F.Supp.2d 1004 (E.D.Cal. 2013).
7, 9, 15, 27, 29, 30, 39, 40
Coleman v. Brown, 938 F.Supp.2d 955 (E.D.Cal. 2013). 7,
15, 30
Coleman v. Brown, 960 F.Supp.2d 1057 (E.D.Cal. 2013). 9,
10, 15, 27, 29, 30, 39
Coleman v. District of Columbia Commissioners, 234
F.Supp. 408 (E.D. Vir. 1964). 37, 38
Coleman v. Dretke, 395 F.3d 216 (5th Cir. 2004). 36
Coleman v. Lappin, 535 F.Supp.2d 96 (D.D.C. 2008). 2
Coleman v. Lappin, 607 F.Supp.2d 15 (D.D.C. 2009). 2
Coleman v. Reno, 91 F.Supp.2d 130 (D.D.C. 2000). 47
Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, 922 F.Supp.2d 882 (E.D.Cal.
2009). 9, 15, 29, 30
Coleman v. Turner, 838 F.2d 1004 (8th Cir. 1988). 5, 17,
28, 49
Coleman v. Wilson, 912 F.Supp. 1282 (E.D.Cal. 1995). 2,
3, 10, 27, 29, 30, 46, 47, 48
Coleman-Bey v. U.S., 512 F.Supp.2d 44 (D.D.C. 2007). 29
Coley v. Grant County, 36 Fed.Appx. 242 (9th Cir. 2002).
31
Coley v. Harris, 30 F.Supp.3d 428 (D.Md. 2014). 41, 48
Coley v. Lucas County, Ohio, 799 F.3d 530 (6th Cir. 2015).
14, 24, 25, 27, 29, 32, 39, 46, 48
Collazo-Leon v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 51 F.3d 315 (1st
Cir. 1995). 11, 22, 32
Collazo-Leon v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 855 F.Supp. 530
(D. Puerto Rico 1994). 11, 32
Collazo-Perez v. Puerto Rico, 100 F.Supp.3d 88 (D.P.R.
2015). 24, 47
Collignon v. Milwaukee County, 163 F.3d 982 (7th Cir.
1998). 14, 29, 30, 32, 36
Collins v. Ainsworth, 382 F.3d 529 (5th Cir. 2004). 32
Collins v. Bopson, 816 F.Supp. 335 (E.D.Pa. 1993). 48
Collins v. County of Kern, 390 F.Supp.2d 964 (E.D.Cal.
2005). 14, 32, 39
Collins v. Cundy, 603 F.2d 825 (10th Cir. 1979). 48

TC-19
XXVI

Collins v. Ferguson, 804 F.Supp.2d 134 (W.D.N.Y. 2011).
3, 11
Collins v. Goord, 581 F.Supp.2d 563 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). 1
Collins v. Graham, 377 F.Supp.2d 241 (D.Me. 2005). 7, 27
Collins v. Hannigan, 14 F.Supp.2d 1239 (D.Kan. 1998). 8,
29, 47, 50
Collins v. Hendrickson, 371 F.Supp.2d 1326 (M.D.Fla.
2005). 22, 36
Collins v. Kahelski, 828 F.Supp. 614 (E.D. Wis. 1993). 48
Collins v. Kearney, 495 F.Supp.2d 466 (D.Del. 2007). 1,
29, 48
Collins v. Knox County, 569 F.Supp.2d 269 (D.Me. 2008).
17, 25, 33, 39, 41
Collins v. Montgomery Cty Bd. Of Prison Inspectors, 176
F.3d 679 (3rd Cir. 1999). 5
Collins v. Palczewski, 841 F.Supp. 333 (D. Nev. 1993). 50
Collins v. Romer, 962, F.2d 1508 (10th Cir. 1992). 4, 5
Collins v. Schoonfield, 344 F.Supp. 257 (D. Md. 1972). 1,
11, 19, 28, 29, 30, 32, 37, 38, 39, 48, 49
Collins v. Schoonfield, 363 F.Supp. 1152 (D. Md. 1973). 3,
7, 8, 26, 27, 48
Collins v. Scott, 961 F.Supp. 1009 (E.D.Tex. 1997). 37, 41,
48
Collins v. Seeman, 462 F.3d 757 (7th Cir. 2006). 14
Collins v. Thompson, 8 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 1993), cert.
denied, 114 S.Ct. 2133. 15
Collins v. Ward, 652 F.Supp. 500 (S.D. N.Y. 1987). 9, 10,
39, 48
Collins v. Williams, 575 F.Supp.2d 610 (D.Del. 2008). 29
Colman v. Vasquez, 142 F.Supp.2d 226 (D.Conn. 2001).
14, 17, 41
Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865 (2nd Cir. 1995). 1, 11
Colon v. Schneider, 899 F.2d 660 (7th Cir. 1990). 39, 41,
48
Colon v. Sullivan, 681 F.Supp. 222 (S.D. N.Y. 1988). 36,
38
Colton v. Ashcroft, 299 F.Supp.2d 681 (E.D.Ky. 2004). 8,
22, 27
Colvin v. Caruso, 605 F.3d 282 (6th Cir. 2010). 2, 18, 24,
37, 38, 47
Colvin v. Caruso, 852 F.Supp.2d 862 (W.D.Mich. 2012). 2,
18, 24, 27, 37
Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2014). 29, 50
Combs v. Corrections Corp. of America, 977 F.Supp. 799
(W.D.La. 1997). 7, 37, 38
Combs v. Wilkinson, 315 F.3d 548 (6th Cir. 2002). 39, 48
Comm. Dept. of Corrections v. Powell, 347 S.E.2d 532
(Va.App. 1986). 31
Commonwealth v. Dugger, 486 A.2d 382 (Pa. Sup. Ct.,
1985). 41
Commonwealth v. Lapia, 457 A.2d 877 (Penn. App. 1983).
41, 49
Commonwealth v. McBride, 433 A.2d 509 (Super. Ct. Pa.
1981). 43
Comstock v. McCrary, 273 F.3d 693 (6th Cir. 2001). 14, 29,
30
Concepcion v. Morton, 306 F.3d 1347 (3rd Cir. 2002). 1, 21
Conklin v. Hancock, 334 F.Supp. 1119 (D. N.H. 1971). 1,
3, 8, 19, 28, 32
Conklin v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 514 F.Supp.2d 1
(D.D.C. 2007). 2, 33
Conley v Very, 450 F.3d 786 (8th Cir. 2006). 14
Conley v. Birch, 796 F.3d 742 (7th Cir. 2015). 14, 29
Conley v. Brewer, 652 F.Supp. 106 (W.D. Wis. 1986). 20,
22

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Conner v. Donnelly, 42 F.3d 220 (4th Cir. 1994). 2, 27, 29
Conner v. Sakaj, 994 F.2d 1408 (9th Cir. 1993). 11, 37, 38
Connolly v. County of Suffolk, 533 F.Supp.2d 236
(D.Mass. 2008). 10, 15
Connor v. Clinton County Prison, 963 F.Supp. 442
(M.D.Pa. 1997). 19, 31, 33
Conseillant v. Alves, 599 F.Supp.2d 367 (W.D.N.Y. 2009).
10, 29
Conway v. Purves, 963 F.Supp.2d 708 (E.D.Mich. 2013).
18, 27, 37
Conyers v. Abitz, 416 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 2005). 1, 33, 37, 41
Cook Ex Rel. Tessier v. Sheriff of Monroe County, 402
F.3d 1092 (11th Cir. 2005). 14, 27, 29, 30, 32
Cook v. Boyd, 881 F.Supp. 171 (E.D. Pa. 1995). 1, 19
Cook v. Brockway, 424 F.Supp. 1046 (N.D. Tex. 1977). 27
Cook v. City of New York, 578 F.Supp. 179 (S.D. N.Y.
1984). 41
Cook v. Housewright, 611 F.Supp. 828 (D. Nev. 1985). 27,
29
Cook v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections, 736 F.Supp.2d 1190
(S.D.Ill. 2010). 2, 31
Cook v. Lehman, 863 F.Supp. 207 (E.D. Pa. 1994). 11
Cook v. Pueppke, 421 F.Supp.2d 1201 (E.D.Mo. 2006). 29
Cook v. Wiley, 208 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2000). 34, 43
Cooke v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 926 F.Supp.2d 720
(E.D.N.C. 2013). 15, 21, 29, 32, 33, 37
Cookish v. Cunningham, 787 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1986). 1, 29
Cookish v. Powell, 945 F.2d 441 (1st Cir. 1991). 33, 41
Cooper v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 836 F.2d 1544 (10th
Cir. 1988). 31
Cooper v. Delo, 997 F.2d 376 (8th Cir. 1993). 1
Cooper v. Ellsworth Correctional Work Facility, 817
F.Supp. 84 (D.Kan. 1993), affirmed, 2 F.3d 1160. 47,
48
Cooper v. Garcia, 55 F.Supp.2d 1090 (S.D.Cal. 1999). 8, 49
Cooper v. Morin, 424 N.Y.2d 168 (1979), cert. denied, 100
S.Ct. 2965. 32, 49
Cooper v. Noble, 33 F.3d 540 (5th Cir. 1994), modified, 41
F.3d 212. 15, 27
Cooper v. Office of Sheriff of Will County, 333 F.Supp.2d
728 (N.D.Ill. 2004). 14, 27, 29, 32
Cooper v. Rimmer, 379 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2004). 10
Cooper v. Rogers, 788 F.Supp. 255 (D. Md. 1991). 18, 37
Cooper v. Rogers, 968 F.Supp.2d 1121 (M.D.Ala. 2013).
14, 17, 29
Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781 (8th Cir. 1999). 21, 29
Cooper v. Sedgwick County, Kansas, 206 F.Supp.2d 1126
(D.Kan. 2002). 31
Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock County, Tex., 929 F.2d 1078
(5th Cir. 1991). 1, 18, 38
Cooper v. Smith, 855 F.Supp. 1276 (S.D. Ga. 1994). 31
Cooper v. Sumner, 672 F.Supp. 1361 (D. Nev. 1987).1, 3,
47, 50
Cooper v. Tard, 855 F.2d 125 (3rd Cir. 1988). 37, 39
Copeland v. County of Macon, Ill., 403 F.3d 929 (7th Cir.
2005). 7, 14, 27, 32
Copeland v. Matthews, 768 F.Supp. 779 (D.Kan. 1991). 20,
36
Coppage v. Mann, 906 F.Supp. 1025 (E.D.Va 1995). 27, 29,
45
Corbin v. Gillen, 839 F.Supp.2d 376 (D.Mass. 2011). 2, 31
Corby v. Conboy, 457 F.2d 251 (2nd Cir. 1972). 1
Cordell v. Howard, 879 F.Supp.2d 145 (D.Mass. 2012). 29
Cordell v. McKinney, 759 F.3d 573 (6th Cir. 2014). 48
Cordero v. Coughlin, 607 F.Supp. 9 (S.D. N.Y. 1984). 8, 29

TC-20
XXVI

Cornelia v. Laib, 117 F.Supp.2d 754 (N.D.Ill. 2000). 29, 32
Cornelius v. Town of Highland Lake, Ala., 880 F.2d 348
(11th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 1784. 36, 50
Cornell v. Nix, 921 F.2d 769 (8th Cir. 1990), cert. denied,
113 S.Ct. 1820. 22
Cornell v. Woods, 69 F.3d 1383 (8th Cir. 1995). 5, 11, 47
Coronel v. Paul, 316 F.Supp.2d 868 (D.Ariz. 2004). 37, 38
Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61
(2001). 24, 27
Corrections U.S.A. v. McNany, 892 F.Supp.2d 626
(M.D.Pa. 2012). 2, 31
Corrente v. State of R.I., Dept. of Corrections, 759 F.Supp.
73 (D. R.I. 1991). 7, 27, 31
Corso v. Fischer, 983 F.Supp.2d 320 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). 2,
19, 31, 49
Cort v. Crabtree, 113 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 1997). 22, 36, 43
Cortes v. City of New York, 700 F.Supp.2d 474 (S.D.N.Y.
2010). 31
Cortes v. Johnson, 114 F.Supp.2d 182 (W.D.N.Y. 2000).
29, 33
Cortes-Quinones v. Jimenez-Nettleship, 842 F.2d 556 (1st
Cir. 1988), cert. den., 109 S.Ct. 68. 14, 27, 29, 30, 39,
45
Cortez v. Skol, 776 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2015). 5, 14, 27, 39
Coscia v. Town of Pembroke, Mass., 659 F.3d 37 (1st Cir.
2011). 14, 25, 27, 29, 32, 36, 46
Cosco v. Uphoff, 195 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 1999). 1, 35, 38
Cossette v. Poulin, 573 F.Supp.2d 456 (D.N.H. 2008). 50
Costa v. County of Burlington, 566 F.Supp.2d 360 (D.N.J.
2008). 14, 29
Costa v. County of Burlington, 584 F.Supp.2d 681 (D.N.J.
2008). 17, 29
Cotta v. County of Kings, 79 F.Supp.3d 1148 (E.D.Cal.
2015). 8, 14, 39, 45
Cotton v. Lockhart, 476 F.Supp. 956 (E.D. Ark. 1979). 19,
28
Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352 (11th Cir. 2003). 14, 32,
45, 46
Cottrell v. Kaysville City, Utah, 801 F.Supp. 572 (D.Utah
1992), reversed, 994 F.2d 730. 17, 41
Couch v. Jabe, 679 F.3d 197 (4th Cir. 2012). 37, 38
Couch v. Jabe, 737 F.Supp.2d 561 (W.D.Va. 2010). 19, 27,
38, 39, 42
Counce v. Goings, 816 F.Supp. 674 (D.Kan. 1993). 14
Counts v. Newhart, 951 F.Supp. 579 (E.D.Va. 1996). 1, 47
Covarrubias v. Wallace, 907 F.Supp.2d 808 (E.D.Tex.
2012). 11, 14, 21, 27, 48
Covell v. Arpaio, 662 F.Supp.2d 1146 (D.Ariz. 2009). 1,
28, 38
Covillion v. Alsop, 145 F.Supp.2d 75 (D.Me. 2001). 9, 15,
32
Covington v. District of Columbia, 839 F.Supp. 894
(D.D.C. 1993). 5
Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73 (2nd Cir. 1992). 41
Covino v. Vermont Dept. of Corrections, 933 F.2d 128 (2nd
Cir. 1991). 1, 3, 47
Cowans v. Warren, 150 F.3d 910 (8th Cir. 1998). 21
Cowans v. Wyrick, 862 F.2d 697 (8th Cir. 1988). 10, 39
Cox v. Ashcroft, 603 F.Supp.2d 1261 (E.D.Cal. 2009). 1,
11, 33, 35, 38, 39, 41, 42, 50
Cox v. DeSoto County, Miss., 564 F.3d 745 (5th Cir. 2009).
2, 31
Cox v. District of Columbia, 834 F.Supp. 439 (D.D.C.
1992). 29
Cox v. Embly, 784 F.Supp. 685 (E.D. Mo. 1992). 28, 38

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Cox v. Hartshorn, 503 F.Supp.2d 1078 (C.D.Ill. 2007). 29,
32
Cox v. LNU, 924 F.Supp.2d 1269 (D.Kan. 2013). 1, 7
Cox v. Malone, 199 F.Supp.2d 135 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). 1, 13
Cox v. Massachusetts Dept. of Correction, 18 F.Supp.3d 38
(D.Mass. 2014). 1, 8, 14, 21, 29, 30
Cozine v. Crabtree, 15 F.Supp.2d 997 (D.Or. 1998). 16, 36
Crabbs v. Scott, 786 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2015). 24, 33, 41
Craft v. County of San Bernardino, 624 F.Supp.2d 1113
(C.D.Cal. 2008). 1, 4, 5, 27, 32, 41
Craig v. Eberly, 164 F.3d 490 (10th Cir. 1998). 9, 12, 15, 32
Craig v. Floyd County, Ga., 643 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2011).
25, 29, 32
Craig v. Hocker, 405 F.Supp. 656 (D. Nev. 1975). 1, 8, 9,
10, 11, 30
Crane v. Logli, 992 F.2d 136 (7th Cir. 1993), cert. denied,
114 S.Ct. 245. 8, 47
Craven County Hosp. Corp. v. Lenoir County, 331 S.E.2d
690 (N.C. App. 1985). 4, 27
Craven v. Richmond City, (Superior Court of CA. #207934,
1983). 18, 27, 29
Craw v. Gray, 159 F.Supp.2d 679 (N.D.Ohio 2001). 32, 45,
46, 48
Crawford v. Artuz, 143 F.Supp.2d 249 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). 9,
15
Crawford v. Clarke, 578 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2009). 1, 3, 27, 37
Crawford v. Cuomo, 796 F.3d 252 (2nd Cir. 2015). 7, 10,
14, 49
Crawford v. Doe, 484 F.Supp.2d 446 (E.D.Va.2007). 1, 13
Crawford v. Indiana Dept. of Corrections, 115 F.3d 481
(7th Cir. 1997). 7, 15, 29
Crawford-El v. Britton, 93 F.3d 813 (D.C. Cir. 1996). 19,
28
Crayton v. Graffeo, 10 F.Supp.3d 888 (N.D. Ill. 2014). 1,
21, 32, 48
Creed v. Virginia, 596 F.Supp.2d 930 (E.D.Va. 2009). 29,
48
Crenshaw v. Herbert, 445 F.Supp.2d 301 (W.D.N.Y. 2006).
19, 21, 50
Crime, Justice & America, Inc. v. Honea, 110 F.Supp.3d
1027 (E.D. Cal. 2015). 19, 32, 38, 39, 42
Crocker v. County of Macomb, 285 F.Supp.2d 971
(E.D.Mich. 2003) 14, 32
Crocker v. Durkin, 159 F.Supp.2d 1258 (D.Kan. 2001). 37
Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999). 19, 28, 39
Cromwell v. Coughlin, 773 F.Supp. 606 (S.D.N.Y. 1991).
49
Cronn v. Buffington, 150 F.3d 538 (5th Cir. 1998). 16, 24,
36
Crooks v. Nix, 872 F.2d 800 (8th Cir. 1989). 2, 27, 29
Crosby v. Reynolds, 763 F.Supp. 666 (D. Me. 1991). 8, 17,
38
Cross v. Powers, 328 F.Supp. 899 (W.D. Wisc. 1971). 1
Crow v. Montgomery, 403 F.3d 598 (8th Cir. 2005). 2, 14,
32, 45
Crow v. Washington Co. Bd. of Prison Inspectors, 504
F.Supp. 412 (W.D. Penn. 1980). 14, 29
Crowder v. Kelly, 928 F.Supp. 2 (D.D.C. 1996). 9, 10, 29
Crowder v. True, 74 F.3d 812 (7th Cir. 1996). 7, 29
Crowder v. True, 845 F.Supp. 1250 (N.D.Ill. 1994). 3
Crowell v. Walsh, 151 F.3d 1050 (D.C. Cir. 1998). 20, 22
Crozier v. Shillinger, 710 F.Supp. 760 (D. Wyo. 1989). 8,
10, 49
Cruise v. Marino, 404 F.Supp.2d 656 (M.D.Pa. 2005). 14,
17, 29, 32, 45

TC-21
XXVI

Crump v. Kansas, 143 F.Supp.2d 1256 (D.Kan. 2001). 36
Crutcher-Sanchez v. County of Dakota, 687 F.3d 979 (8th
Cir. 2012). 2, 31
Cruz v. Beto, 329 F.Supp. 443 (S.D. Tex. 1970), affirmed,
445 F.2d 1801. 1
Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972). 7, 11, 28, 37
Cruz v. Hauck, 404 U.S. 59 (1971). 1, 19, 38
Cruz v. Hauck, 627 F.2d 710 (5th Cir. 1980). 1, 42
Cruz v. Sielaff, 767 F.Supp. 547 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). 36
Cryer v. Massachusetts Dept. of Correction, 763 F.Supp.2d
237 (D.Mass. 2011). 24, 37, 38, 44
Cryer v. Spencer, 934 F.Supp.2d 323 (D.Mass. 2013). 37,
38
Csizmadia v. Fauver, 746 F.Supp. 483 (D. N.J. 1990). 31,
33
Cucciniello v. Keller, 137 F.3d 721 (2nd Cir. 1998). 6, 22,
32, 36
Cuebas v. Davila, 618 F.Supp.2d 124 (D.Puerto Rico 2009).
8, 14, 30, 32
Cuesta v. School Bd. of Miami-Dade County, Fla., 285 F.3d
962 (11th Cir. 2002). 17, 25, 32, 41
Culbert v. Young, 834 F.2d 624 (7th Cir. 1987), cert.
denied, 108 S.Ct. 1296 (1988). 11
Culton v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections, 515 F.3d 828 (8th
Cir. 2008). 31
Culver By and Through Bell v. Fowler, 862 F.Supp. 369
(M.D. Ga. 1994). 27, 48
Culver v. Town of Torrington, Wyo., 930 F.2d 1456 (10th
Cir. 1991). 48
Cummings v. Caspari, 797 F.Supp. 747 (E.D.Mo. 1992) and
821 F.Supp. 1291 (E.D.Mo. 1993). 11, 29, 48
Cummings v. Harrison, 695 F.Supp.2d 1263 (N.D.Fla.
2010). 9, 14, 21, 45, 48
Cummings v. McCarter, 826 F.Supp. 299 (E.D.Mo. 1993).
3, 29
Cummings v. Roberts, 628 F.2d 1065 (8th Cir. 1980). 3, 8,
29
Cunningham v. David Special Commitment Center, 158
F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 1998). 17, 34
Cunningham v. Jones, 667 F.2d 565 (6th Cir. 1982). 10, 18
Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99 (2nd Cir. 2000). 17, 29
Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82 (5th Cir. 1987). 1, 29, 32
Curley v. Perry, 246 F.3d 1278 (10th Cir. 2001). 14, 19, 38,
39
Curran v. Cousins, 482 F.Supp.2d 36 (D.Mass. 2007). 31
Curran v. Cousins, 509 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2007). 31
Currie v. Chhabra, 728 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 2013). 14, 29, 32
Currie v. Cundiff, 870 F.Supp.2d 581 (S.D.Ill. 2012). 14,
27, 29, 32
Curry v. Crist, 226 F.3d 974 (8th Cir. 2000). 8, 14, 50
Curry v. Hall, 839 F.Supp. 1437 (D. Or. 1993). 21, 38
Curry v. Kerik, 163 F.Supp.2d 232 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). 32, 40
Curry v. Scott, 249 F.3d 493 (6th Cir. 2001). 1, 14, 21
Curry v. South Carolina, 518 F.Supp.2d 661 (D.S.C. 2007).
24, 26
Curtis v. Curtis, 37 Fed.Appx. 141 (6th Cir. 2002). 23
Curtis v. Everette, 489 F.2d 516 (3rd Cir. 1973), cert.
denied, 416 U.S. 995. 14
Curtis v. TransCor America, LLC, 877 F.Supp.2d 578
(N.D.Ill. 2012). 14, 27, 47
Cusamano v. Alexander, 691 F.Supp.2d 312 (N.D.N.Y.
2009). 7, 36
Cusamano v. Sobek, 604 F.Supp.2d 416 (N.D.N.Y. 2009).
1, 9, 11, 13, 14, 23, 35, 48
Cutter v. Wilkinson, 423 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 2005). 7, 37

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Cuyahoga County Hospital v. City of Cleveland, 472
N.E.2d 757 (Ohio App. 1984). 4, 29
Cygan v. Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections, 388 F.3d 1092
(7th Cir. 2004). 19, 31
Czajka v. Caspari, 995 F.2d 870 (8th Cir. 1993). 29
Czajka v. Moore, 708 F.Supp. 253 (E.D. Mo. 1989). 11, 49
D.B., et al. v. Graham Tewksbury, et al., 545 F.Supp. 896
(1982). 9, 26, 32
D.M. v. Terhune, 67 F.Supp.2d 401 (D.N.J. 1999). 5, 30
Dabney v. Anderson, 92 F.Supp.2d 801 (N.D.Ind. 2000). 1,
11
Dace v. Mickelson, 797 F.2d 574 (8th Cir. 1986). 36
Dace v. Smith-Vasquez, 658 F.Supp.2d 865 (S.D.Ill. 2009).
1, 9, 15, 21
Dahl v. Weber, 580 F.3d 730 (8th Cir. 2009). 20, 24, 36
Daily v. Byrnes, 605 F.2d 858 (5th Cir. 1979). 27, 29, 48
Daker v. Ferrero, 506 F.Supp.2d 1295 (N.D.Ga. 2007). 1,
19, 21, 38
Daker v. Wetherington, 469 F.Supp.2d 1231 (N.D.Ga.
2007). 19, 37, 38
Dale v. Poston, 548 F.3d 563 (7th Cir. 2008). 3, 14, 27
Dallas v. Haley, 228 F.Supp.2d 1317 (M.D.Ala 2002). 22
Dancy v. Simms, 116 F.Supp.2d 652 (D.Md. 2000). 29, 30
Danese v. Asman, 875 F.2d 1239 (6th Cir. 1989), cert.
denied, 110 S.Ct. 1473. 7, 14, 25, 27, 30, 32, 45, 46
Daniel v. Fulwood, 893 F.Supp.2d 42 (D.D.C. 2012). 36
Daniel v. Rolfs, 29 F.Supp.2d 1184 (E.D.Wash. 1998). 49
Daniels v. Aikens, 755 F.Supp. 239 (N.D. Ind. 1991). 47
Daniels v. Anderson, 237 N.W.2d 397 (Neb. Sup. Ct.
1975). 45
Daniels v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc., 380
F.Supp.2d 379 (D.Del. 2005). 29
Daniels v. Crosby, 444 F.Supp.2d 1220 (N.D.Fla. 2006).
34, 35, 47, 50
Daniels v. Delaware, 120 F.Supp.2d 411 (D.Del. 2000). 14,
17, 27, 44, 46
Daniels v. McKinney, 193 Cal. Rptr. 842 (App. 1983). 5,
12, 17, 27
Daniels v. Williams, 106 S.Ct. 662 (1986). 7, 14, 27
Daniels v. Woodside, 396 F.3d 730 (6th Cir. 2005). 26, 32,
43
Danley v. Allen, 540 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2008). 29, 32, 48
Danley v. Allyn, 485 F.Supp.2d 1260 (N.D.Ala. 2007). 27,
29, 32, 48
Danser v. Stansberry, 772 F.3d 340 (4th Cir. 2014). 8, 14,
39, 45
Dantone v. Bhaddi, 570 F.Supp.2d 167 (D.Mass. 2008). 14,
29, 47
Dare v. Knox County, 465 F.Supp.2d 17 (D.Me. 2006). 25,
32, 41
Dargis v. Sheahan, 526 F.3d 981 (7th Cir. 2008). 2, 31
Darring v. Kincheloe, 783 F.2d 874 (9th Cir. 1986). 1
Darul-Islam v. Dubois, 997 F.Supp. 176 (D.Mass. 1998).
37, 39
Darwin v. Carlson, 714 F.Supp. 34 (Civ. Div. Dist. Col.
1989). 35, 38
Daskalea v. District of Columbia, 227 F.3d 433 (D.C.Cir.
2000). 14, 17, 27, 32, 46
Daugherty v. Campbell, 33 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 1994). 41, 49
Daugherty v. Campbell, 935 F.2d 780 (6th Cir. 1991), cert.
denied, 112 S.Ct. 939. 24, 41
Daugherty v. Harris, 476 F.2d 292 (10th Cir. 1973), cert.
denied, 414 U.S. 872. 41, 49
Davenport v. DeRobertis, 653 F.Supp. 649 (N.D. Ill. 1987),
cert. denied, 488 U.S. 908. 3, 10, 12, 23, 24

TC-22
XXVI

Davenport v. DeRoberts, 844 F.2d 1310 (7th Cir. 1988),
cert. denied, 109 S.Ct. 260. 9, 10, 12, 23, 40
David B. v. McDonald, 156 F.3d 780 (7th Cir. 1998). 26
David K. v. Lane, 839 F.2d 1265 (7th Cir. 1988). 7, 8, 11,
39
Davidson v. Bureau of Prisons, 931 F.Supp.2d 770
(E.D.Ky. 2013). 2, 4, 19, 44
Davidson v. Cannon, 106 S.Ct. 668 (1986). 7, 14, 27
Davidson v. City of Cranston, R.I., 42 F.Supp.3d 325
(D.R.I. 2014). 7
Davidson v. Conway, 318 F.Supp.2d 60 (W.D.N.Y. 2004).
9, 23
Davidson v. Coughlin, 920 F.Supp. 305 (N.D.N.Y. 1996).
9, 10, 29
Davidson v. Coughlin, III, 968 F.Supp. 121 (S.D.N.Y.
1997). 3, 10, 12
Davidson v. Desai, 817 F.Supp.2d 166 (W.D.N.Y. 2011). 9,
29, 33
Davidson v. Flynn, 32 F.3d 27 (2nd Cir. 1994). 1, 10, 29, 48
Davidson v. Goord, 259 F.Supp.2d 238 (W.D.N.Y. 2003). 1
Davidson v. Mann, 129 F.3d 700 (2nd Cir. 1997). 3, 19, 28
Davidson v. Murray, 371 F.Supp.2d 361 (W.D.N.Y. 2005).
1, 3, 23
Davidson v. Riley, 45 F.3d 625 (2nd Cir. 1995). 1, 39
Davidson v. Scully, 694 F.2d 50 (2nd Cir. 1982). 1, 28
Davidson v. Scully, 914 F.Supp. 1011 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). 1,
9, 12, 15, 18, 37
Davie v. Wingard, 958 F.Supp. 1244 (S.D.Ohio 1997). 37,
38
Davies v. Valdes, 462 F.Supp.2d 1084 (C.D.Cal. 2006). 3,
11, 21, 33
Davignon v. Hodgson, 524 F.3d 91 (1st Cir. 2008). 2, 5, 31
Davila v. Gladden, 777 F.3d 1198 (11th Cir. 2015). 37, 38
Davis El v. O'Leary, 668 F.Supp. 1189 (N.D. Ill. 1987). 7,
22, 24, 36
Davis ex rel. Davis v. Borough of Norristown, 400
F.Supp.2d 790 (E.D.Pa. 2005). 2, 16, 26, 46, 48
Davis v. Abercrombie, 903 F.Supp.2d 975 (D.Hawai’I
2012). 21, 27, 35, 37, 38
Davis v. Barrett, 576 F.3d 129 (2nd Cir. 2009). 3, 11, 21
Davis v. Beeler, 966 F.Supp. 483 (E.D.Ky. 1997). 22, 36
Davis v. Bowen, 825 F.2d 799 (4th Cir. 1987), cert. denied,
108 S.Ct. 1036. 7, 35
Davis v. Brady, 143 F.3d 1021 (6th Cir. 1998). 14, 32, 36
Davis v. Carlson, 837 F.2d 1318 (5th Cir. 1988). 10, 47, 49,
50
Davis v. Carroll, 390 F.Supp.2d (D.Del. 2005). 14, 27, 29,
45, 48
Davis v. Carter, 452 F.3d 686 (7th Cir. 2006). 29, 32
Davis v. Castleberry, 364 F.Supp.2d 319 (W.D.N.Y. 2005).
21, 41
Davis v. City of Camden, 657 F.Supp. 396 (D. N.J. 1987).
17, 27, 32, 41
Davis v. City of Ellensburg, 869 F.2d 1230 (9th Cir. 1989).
27, 45, 46, 48
Davis v. City of New York, 142 F.Supp.2d 461 (S.D.N.Y.
2001). 13, 25, 37
Davis v. Correctional Medical Services, 760 F.Supp.2d 469
(D.Del. 2011). 1, 21, 29, 30
Davis v. County of Nassau, 355 F.Supp.2d 668 (E.D.N.Y.
2005). 29
Davis v. Crabtree, 923 F.Supp. 166 (D.Or. 1996). 43
Davis v. D.C. Dept. of Corrections, 623 F.Supp.2d 77
(D.D.C. 2009). 21

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Davis v. Dallas County, Tex., 541 F.Supp.2d 844 (N.D.Tex.
2008). 2, 36
Davis v. District of Columbia, 158 F.3d 1342 (D.C.Cir.
1998). 1, 27, 33
Davis v. Dorsey, 167 F.3d 411 (8th Cir. 1999). 29, 32
Davis v. First Correctional Medical, 530 F.Supp.2d 657
(D.Del. 2008). 29
Davis v. First Correctional Medical, 589 F.Supp.2d 464
(D.Del. 2008). 29
Davis v. Fulton County, Ark., 90 F.3d 1346 (8th Cir. 1996).
8, 14, 27, 36
Davis v. Gunter, 771 F.Supp.2d 1068 (D.Neb. 2011). 27
Davis v. Hall, 375 F.3d 703 (8th Cir. 2004). 13, 16, 24, 36
Davis v. Hall, 992 F.2d 151 (8th Cir. 1993). 29, 32
Davis v. Hill, 173 F.Supp.2d 1136 (D.Kan. 2001). 32, 48
Davis v. Hubbard, 506 F.Supp. 915 (N.D. Ohio 1980). 29,
30
Davis v. Jones, 936 F.2d 971 (7th Cir. 1991). 29, 32
Davis v. Kelly, 981 F.Supp. 178 (W.D.N.Y. 1997). 1, 47
Davis v. Lindsay, 321 F.Supp. 1134 (S.D. N.Y. 1970). 3, 8,
9, 10, 27, 32
Davis v. Locke, 936 F.2d 1208 (11th cir. 1991). 5, 48
Davis v. Milwaukee County, 225 F.Supp.2d 967 (E.D.Wis.
2002). 1, 11, 21, 32
Davis v. Moss, 841 F.Supp. 1193 (M.D. Ga. 1994). 4, 10,
27, 48
Davis v. Muscarella, 615 F.Supp.2d 296 (D.Del. 2009). 14
Davis v. New York, 316 F.3d 93 (2nd Cir. 2002). 9, 10, 29,
38
Davis v. NYS Dept. of Corrections Attica Correctional
Facility, 110 F.Supp.3d 458 (W.D.N.Y. 2015). 31
Davis v. Oregon County, Missouri, 607 F.3d 543 (8th Cir.
2010). 2, 14, 15, 27, 32, 38, 39, 46
Davis v. Parratt, 608 F.2d 717 (8th Cir. 1979). 5
Davis v. Peters, 566 F.Supp.2d 790 (N.D.Ill. 2008). 1, 7, 9,
15, 39, 41, 48, 49
Davis v. Pickell, 939 F.Supp.2d 771 (E.D.Mich. 2013). 8,
25, 32, 48
Davis v. Powell, 901 F.Supp.2d 1196 (S.D.Cal. 2012). 24,
37, 38, 39
Davis v. Prison Health Services, 679 F.3d 433 (6th Cir.
2012). 29, 41, 50
Davis v. Reilly, 324 F.Supp.2d 361 (E.D.N.Y. 2004). 14,
29, 32
Davis v. Sancegraw, 850 F.Supp. 809 (E.D. Mo. 1993). 48
Davis v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1003 (5th Cir. 1998). 9, 10
Davis v. Scott, 94 F.3d 444 (8th Cir. 1996). 14
Davis v. Silva, 511 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2008). 11, 20, 21, 22
Davis v. Township of Paulsboro, 421 F.Supp.2d 835
(D.N.J. 2006). 29, 32, 48
Davis v. U.S., 474 F.Supp.2d 829 (N.D.Tex. 2007). 14, 17,
27
Davis v. Vermont, Dept. of Corrections, 868 F.Supp.2d 313
(D.Vt. 2012). 2, 31
Davis v. Village of Calumet Park, 737 F.Supp. 1039 (N.D.
Ill. 1990), reversed, 936 F.2d 971. 27, 29, 32
Davis v. Wessel, 792 F.3d 793 (7th Cir. 2015). 32, 39, 48
Davis v. Williams, 495 F.Supp.2d 453 (D.Del. 2007). 21
Davis v. Williams, 572 F.Supp.2d 498 (D.Del. 2008). 14,
29
Davis v. Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections, 445 F.3d 971 (7th
Cir. 2006). 2, 31
Davis v. Woehrer, 32 F.Supp.2d 1078 (E.D.Wis. 1999). 1,
21, 50

TC-23
XXVI

Davis v. Zahradnick, 600 F.2d 458 (4th Cir. 1979). 14, 27,
29, 45
Dawes v. Carpenter, 899 F.Supp. 892 (N.D.N.Y. 1995). 19,
28
Dawes v. Coughlin, 964 F.Supp. 652 (N.D.N.Y. 1997). 12,
29, 39, 48
Dawes v. Walker, 239 F.3d 489 (2nd Cir. 2001). 1, 11, 21
Dawson v. Burnett, 631 F.Supp.2d 878 (W.D.Mich. 2009).
18, 37
Dawson v. County of Westchester, 351 F.Supp.2d 176
(S.D.N.Y. 2004). 31
Dawson v. Newman, 419 F.3d 656 (7th Cir. 2005). 24, 36,
43
Dawson v. Scott, 50 F.3d 884 (11th Cir. 1995). 43
Dawson v. Smith, 719 F.2d 896 (7th Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 466 U.S. 929, 104 S.Ct. 1714. 11
Day v. Johnson, 119 F.3d 650 (8th Cir. 1997). 31
Days v. Johnson, 322 F.3d 863 (5th Cir. 2003). 1
de Jesus Benavides v. Santos, 883 F.2d 385 (5th Cir. 1989).
14, 31, 39
De La Paz v. Peters, 959 F.Supp. 909 (N.D.Ill. 1997). 7, 8,
29
De Luna v. Hidalgo County, Tex., 853 F.Supp.2d
623(S.D.Tex. 2012). 2, 4, 27, 36
Dean v. City of Fresno, 546 F.Supp.2d 798 (E.D.Cal. 2008).
14, 24, 25, 29, 32, 46
Dean v. Corrections Corp. of America, 540 F.Supp.2d 691
(N.D.Miss. 2008). 18, 37
Dean v. Corrections Corporation of America, 108
F.Supp.3d 702 (D. Ariz. 2014). 18, 37, 47
Dean v. Olibas, 129 F.3d 1001 (8th Cir. 1997). 6, 16
Dean v. Thomas, 933 F.Supp. 600 (S.D.Miss 1996). 4, 11,
27
Dean v. Walker, 743 F.Supp.2d 605 (S.D.Miss. 2010). 7,
14, 27, 39
Dean v. Walker, 764 F.Supp.2d 824 (S.D.Miss. 2011). 7,
27, 39
Dearth v. State, 390 So.2d 108 (Ct. App. Fla. 1980). 43
Deary v. Three Un-Named Police Officers, 746 F.2d 185
(3rd Cir. 1984). 16, 24
DeBlasio v. Gilmore, 313 F.3d 396 (4th Cir. 2003). 1, 4, 13
Deblasio v. Johnson, 128 F.Supp.2d 315 (E.D.Va. 2000). 7,
10, 11, 19, 23, 37, 38, 40
DeBow v. City of East St. Louis, 510 N.E.2d 895 (Ill. App.
1987), cert. denied, 116 Il2d 552. 8, 14, 25, 32, 44
DeBrew v. Atwood, 792 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015). 2, 4, 7,
29, 42
Decker v. Dunbar, 633 F.Supp.2d 317 (E.D.Tex. 2008).
Affirmed 358 Fed.Appx. 509. 1, 9, 10, 29
Dees v. Murphy, 794 F.2d 1543 (11th Cir. 1986). 22
DeFlumer v. Dalsheim, 505 N.Y.S.2d 919 (A.D. 2 Dept.
1986). 29, 38
DeGenova v. Sheriff of DuPage County, 18 F.Supp.2d 848
(N.D.Ill. 1998). 24
DeGenova v. Sheriff of DuPage County, 209 F.3d 973 (7th
Cir. 2000). 24, 29, 32
DeGidio v. Pung, 704 F.Supp. 922 and 723 F.Supp. 135 (D.
Minn. 1989), affirmed, 920 F.2d 525. 5, 27, 29
DeGidio v. Pung, 920 F.2d 525 (8th Cir. 1990). 5, 29
Degrafinreid v. Ricks, 417 F.Supp.2d 403 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).
7, 24, 29, 35
DeHart v. Horn, 390 F.3d 262 (3rd Cir. 2004). 18, 37
DeHart v. Lehman, 9 F.Supp.2d 539 (E.D.Pa. 1998). 18, 37
Dekoven v. Bell, 140 F.Supp.2d 748 (E.D.Mich. 2001). 1,
27, 37

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Del Carmen Molina v. I.N.S., 170 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir.
1999). 22, 36
Del Guzzi v. U.S., 980 F.2d 1269 (9th Cir. 1992). 43
Del Raine v. Bureau of Prisons, 989 F.Supp. 1373 (D.Kan.
1997). 50
Del Raine v. Williford, 32 F.3d 1024 (7th Cir. 1994). 9, 35,
41
Delancy v. Crabtree, 131 F.3d 780 (9th Cir. 1997). 7, 36
Delaney v. Detella, 123 F.Supp.2d 429 (N.D.Ill. 2000). 9,
12, 27
Delaney v. District of Columbia, 659 F.Supp.2d 185
(D.D.C. 2009). 1, 7, 27, 49
Delaney V. Selsky, 899 F.Supp. 923 (N.D.N.Y. 1995). 3, 11
Delaware County Prison v. Com. Unemp. Comp. Bd., 455
A.2d 790 (Penn. App. 1983). 2, 31, 45
Deleon v. Doe, 361 F.3d 93 (2nd Cir. 2004). 1, 28
Delgado v. New York City Dept. of Correction, 842
F.Supp. 711 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). 11
Delgado v. Sheriff of Milwaukee Co. Jail, 487 F.Supp. 649
(E.D. Wisc. 1980). 1, 32
Delgado-Brunet v. Clark, 93 F.3d 339 (7th Cir. 1996). 14
Delker v. Maass, 843 F.Supp. 1390 (D. Or. 1994). 24, 29
Dellairo v. Garland, 222 F.Supp.2d 86 (D.Me. 2002). 29
De'Lonta v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630 (4th Cir. 2003). 17, 29
De'lonta v. Johnson, 708 F.3d 520 (4th Cir. 2013). 17, 29, 30
Delph v. Trent, 86 F.Supp.2d 572 (E.D.Va. 2000). 14
Delverne v. Klevenhagen, 888 F.Supp. 64 (S.D.Tex. 1995).
4, 29, 35
Demaio v. Mann, 877 F.Supp. 89 (N.D.N.Y. 1995). 10, 11,
15
DeMallory v. Cullen, 855 F.2d 442 (7th Cir. 1988). 1
Demarest v. Manspeaker, 111 S.Ct. 599 (1991). 1
Demery v. Arpaio, 378 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2004). 19, 32, 33
DeMier v. Gondles, 676 F.2d 92 (4th Cir. 1982). 5, 41
DeMoss v. Crain, 636 F.3d 145 (5th Cir. 2011). 19, 37
Dennis v. Nevada, 282 F.Supp.2d 1177 (D.Nev. 2003) 31
Dennis v. Thurman, 959 F.Supp. 1253 (C.D.Cal. 1997). 9,
10, 48
Dennison v. Osp, 715 P.2d 88 (Ore. 1986). 38, 39
Dennison v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections, 268
F.Supp.2d 387 (M.D.Pa. 2003). 2, 31, 33
Denny v. Schultz, 708 F.3d 140 (3rd Cir. 2013). 11, 20, 22,
39
Denson v. Marshall, 44 F.Supp.2d 400 (D.Mass. 1999). 18,
37, 42
Denson v. Marshall, 59 F.Supp.2d 156 (D.Mass. 1999). 37
Denz v. Clearfield County, 712 F.Supp. 65 (W.D. Pa.
1989). 9, 10
Department of Corrections v. Colbert, 391 S.E.2d 759 (Ga.
1990). 31
Department of Corrections v. Dixon, 436 So.2d 320 (Fla.
App. 1983). 31
Dept. of Corr. v. Corr. Officer, 514 A.2d 405 (1986). 2, 31
Dept. of Corrections v. Helton, 477 So.2d 14 (Fla. App. 1
Dist. 1985). 2, 31, 39
Dept. of Corrections v. Local No. 246, 554 A.2d 319 (D.C.
App. 1989). 31
Dept. of Corrections v. Piccirillo, 474 So.2d 1199 (Fla.
App. 1 Dist. 1985). 38
Dept. of Health & Rehab. Serv. v. Whaley, 531 So.2d 723
(Fla.App. 4 Dist. 1988). 8, 14, 26, 27
Derby Industries, Inc. v. Chestnut Ridge Foam, 202
F.Supp.2d 818 (N.D.Ind. 2002). 15, 39
DeSouto v. Cooke, 751 F.Supp. 794 (E.D. Wis. 1990). 35

TC-24
XXVI

Despain v. Uphoff, 264 F.3d 965 (10th Cir. 2001). 9, 27, 40,
48
Desroche v. Strain, 507 F.Supp.2d 571 (E.D.La. 2007). 9,
23, 29, 32, 33, 40
DesRosiers v. Moran, 949 F.2d 15 (1st Cir. 1991). 29
DeToledo v. County of Suffolk, 379 F.Supp.2d 138
(D.Mass. 2005). 16, 24, 49
DeTomaso v. McGinnis, 970 F.2d 211 (7th Cir. 1992). 36,
50
Dettmer v. Landon, 617 F.Supp. 592 (D.C. Va. 1985), cert.
denied, 107 S.Ct. 3234. 37, 38, 39
Deutsch v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 737 F.Supp. 261
(S.D.N.Y. 1990), affirmed, 930 F.2d 909. 8, 24
Devbrow v. Gallegos, 735 F.3d 584 (7th Cir. 2013). 1, 2, 35,
38, 39
DeVonish v. Scully, 496 N.Y.S.2d 485 (A.D. 2 Dept. 1985).
31
DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607 (7th Cir. 2000). 7, 11, 22, 50
Dewees v. Haste, 620 F.Supp.2d 625 (M.D.Pa. 2009). 2, 24,
31
Dewitt v. Wall, 41 Fed.Appx. 481 (1st Cir. 2002). 19, 49
Dhiab v. Obama, 952 F.Supp.2d 154 (D.D.C. 2013). 9, 19,
29
Diamond v. Thompson, 364 F.Supp. 659 (M.D. Ala. 1973).
3, 19
Diamontiney v. Borg, 918 F.2d 793 (9th Cir. 1990). 19, 28
Dias v. Vose, 865 F.Supp. 53 (D.Mass. 1994), affirmed, 50
F.3d 1. 29
Diaz v. Collins, 872 F.Supp. 353 (E.D.Tex. 1994). 37, 39
Diaz v. Davidson, 799 F.3d 722 (7th Cir. 2015). 9, 10, 12
Diaz v. Kinkela, 253 F.3d 241 (6th Cir. 2001). 11, 22, 36,
43
Diaz v. Ward, 506 F.Supp. 226 (S.D. N.Y. 1980). 36
Diaz-Romero v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 115 (1st Cir. 2008). 31
Dible v. Scholl, 506 F.3d 1106 (8th Cir. 2007). 11, 13
Dickens v. District of Columbia, 502 F.Supp.2d 90 (D.D.C.
2007). 14, 30, 36
Dickens v. Taylor, 464 F.Supp.2d 341 (D.Del. 2006). 3, 8,
12, 18
Diercks v. Durham, 959 F.2d 710 (8th Cir. 1992). 11, 27
DiFebo v. Keve, 395 F.Supp. 1350 (D. Del. 1975). 7, 27, 29
DiGiovanni v. City of Philadelphia, 531 F.Supp. 141 (E.D.
Penn. 1982). 7, 24, 27
Dillard v. Pitchess, 399 F.Supp. 1225 (C.D. Calif. 1975). 5,
9, 18, 32
Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365 (9th Cir. 1995). 1, 27, 47
Dillon v. Director, Dept. of Corrections, 552 F.Supp. 30
(W.D. Vir. 1982). 8, 14, 26, 27, 44
Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260 (5th Cir. 2010). 1, 21, 32
DiLoreto v. Borough of Oaklyn, 744 F.Supp. 610 (D.N.J.
1990). 17, 32, 33, 41
Dilworth v. Goldberg, 3 F.Supp.3d 198 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). 1,
15, 39
Dilworth v. Goldberg, 914 F.Supp.2d 433 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).
9, 29, 32
Dimanche v. Brown, 783 F.3d 1204 (11th Cir. 2015). 1, 11,
21, 29, 48
Dimas v. County of Quay, New Mexico, 730 F.Supp. 373
(D.N.M. 1990). 14, 36
Dinger v. City v. New Albany, 662 F.Supp. 929 (S.D. Ind.
1987). 7, 8, 10, 29
Diouf v. Napolitano, 634 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2011). 6, 7, 22,
36
Dipace v. Goord, 308 F.Supp.2d 274 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). 14,
29

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

DiRose v. McClennan, 26 F.Supp.2d 550 (W.D.N.Y. 1998).
28, 38
Disability Advocates, Inc. v. McMahon, 279 F.Supp.2d 158
(N.D.N.Y. 2003). 16, 30, 32
Disability Law Center v. Massachusetts Dept. of
Correction, 960 F.Supp.2d 271 (D.Mass. 2012). 3, 8,
14, 27, 30
Dismas Charities v. U.S. Dept., Just., Bur., Pris., 287
F.Supp.2d 741 (W.D.Ky. 2003) 2
District of Columbia v. Anderson, 597 A.2d 1295 (D.C.
App. 1991). 29
Divers v. Department of Corrections, 921 F.2d 191 (8th Cir.
1990). 1, 3
Dixon v. Fox, 893 F.2d 1556 (8th Cir. 1990), cert. denied,
111 S.Ct. 262. 11, 18
Dixon v. Godinez, 114 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 1997). 3, 9, 10, 15
Dixon v. Goord, 224 F.Supp.2d 739 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). 11
Dixon v. Kirby, 210 F.Supp.2d 792 (S.D.W.Va. 2002). 28,
38
Dixon v. Page, 291 F.3d 485 (7th Cir. 2002). 13
Dizak v. State, 508 N.Y.S.2d 290 (A.D. 3 Dept. 1986). 14,
45, 46
Doan v. I.N.S., 311 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2002). 6, 36
Doan v. Watson, 168 F.Supp.2d 932 (S.D.Ind. 2001). 13,
25, 32, 41
Dobbey v. Mitchell-Lawshea, 806 F.3d 938 (7th Cir. 2015).
29
Dobbin v. Artuz, 143 F.Supp.2d 292 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). 8, 29
Dobrek v. Phelan, 419 F.3d 259 (3rd Cir. 2005). 6, 32
Dobson v. Magnusson, 923 F.2d 229 (1st Cir. 1991). 8, 14
Doby v. Hickerson, 120 F.3d 111 (8th Cir. 1997). 27, 29, 30
Dockerty-Bostron v. Waukesha County, 744 F.Supp. 877
(E.D. Wis. 1990). 29
Dodds v. Richardson, 614 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 2010). 2, 6,
36
Dodge v. County of Orange, 282 F.Supp.2d 41 (S.D.N.Y.
2003). 32, 41
Dodge v. Shoemaker, 695 F.Supp.2d 1127 (D.Colo. 2010).
3, 8, 14, 17, 24
Dodson v. Reno, 958 F.Supp. 49 (D.Puerto Rico 1997). 1,
32, 47
Doe By and Through Doe v. Washington County, 150 F.3d
920 (8th Cir. 1998). 1, 5, 14, 26, 32
Doe No. 1 v. Balaam, 494 F.Supp.2d 1173 (D.Nev. 2007).
25, 32, 36, 41
Doe v. Balaam, 524 F.Supp.2d 1238 (D.Nev. 2007). 25, 32,
41
Doe v. Beard, 63 F.Supp.3d 1159 (C.D.Cal. 2014). 29, 33
Doe v. Caldwell, 913 F.Supp.2d 262 (E.D.La.2012). 7, 36,
44
Doe v. City of Cleveland, 788 F.Supp. 979 (N.D. Ohio
1991). 32, 33
Doe v. Cook County, Illinois, 798 F.3d 558 (7th Cir. 2015).
7, 26, 27, 31, 32, 44
Doe v. Coughlin, 509 N.Y.S.2d 209 (A.D. 3 Dept. 1986),
cert. denied, 109 S.Ct. 196. 29, 49
Doe v. Coughlin, 697 F.Supp. 1234 (N.D.N.Y. 1988). 8, 33
Doe v. Gangland Productions, Inc., 730 F.3d 946 (9th Cir.
2013). 19, 33
Doe v. Heil, 781 F.Supp.2d 1134 (D.Colo. 2011). 1, 7, 34
Doe v. Jindal, 851 F.Supp.2d 995 (E.D.La. 2012). 19, 34,
36, 44
Doe v. Jindal, 853 F.Supp.2d 596 (M.D.La. 2012). 19, 44
Doe v. Lally, 467 F.Supp. 1339 2 (D. Md. 1979). 7, 8, 9, 14
Doe v. McFaul, 599 F.Supp. 1421 (E.D. Ohio 1984). 26

TC-25
XXVI

Doe v. Moore, 410 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2005). 7, 33, 41
Doe v. Nebraska, 898 F.Supp.2d 1086 (D.Neb. 2012). 7, 36,
44
Doe v. New York, 97 F.Supp.3d 5 (E.D.N.Y. 2015). 13, 27,
29
Doe v. Pataki, 427 F.Supp.2d 398 (S.D.N.Y. 2006.) 7, 13
Doe v. Public Health Trust of Dade Co., 696 F.2d 901 (11th
Cir. 1983). 26, 30
Doe v. Raemisch, 895 F.Supp.2d 897 (E.D.Wis. 2012). 7,
36, 44
Doe v. Schwarzenegger, 476 F.Supp.2d 1178 (E.D.Cal.
2007). 7, 13, 36
Doe v. Simon, 221 F.3d 137 (2nd Cir. 2000). 36
Doe v. Sparks, 733 F.Supp. 227 (W.D. Pa. 1990). 17, 19, 49
Doe v. Sullivan County, Tenn., 956 F.2d 545 (6th Cir.
1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 187. 14
Doe v. Swinson, 20 Crim. L. Rptr. 2272 (E.D. Vir. 1976). 8,
27
Doe v. United Social and Mental Health Services, 670
F.Supp. 1121 (D. Conn. 1987). 24, 27, 36
Doe v. Ward, 124 F.Supp.2d 900 (W.D.Pa. 2000). 7, 33, 47
Doe v. Wigginton, 21 F.3d 733 (6th Cir. 1994). 29, 33
Dohner v. McCarthy, 635 F.Supp. 408 (C.D. Cal. 1985). 9,
10, 15
Dolan v. Connolly, 794 F.3d 290 (2nd Cir. 2015). 19, 21
Dolberry v. Levine, 567 F.Supp.2d 413 (W.D.N.Y. 2008).
1, 14, 28, 40
Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804 (7th Cir. 2006). 1, 21
Dollar v. Gutierrez, 111 F.Supp.3d 1114 (D. Nev. 2015). 29
Dominguez v. Correctional Medical Services, 555 F.3d 543
(6th Cir. 2009). 29
Dominguez v. Figel, 626 F.Supp. 368 (N.D. Ind. 1986). 1,
12, 37
Dominguez-Estrella v. U.S. I.N.S., 71 F.Supp.2d 578
(W.D.La. 1999). 22
Dominique v. Weld, 880 F.Supp. 928 (D.Mass. 1995). 34,
36, 50
Domino v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, 239 F.3d 752
(5th Cir. 2001). 14, 29, 30
Domka v. Portage County, Wis., 523 F.3d 776 (7th Cir.
2008). 13, 36, 50
Donahoe v. Arpaio, 869 F.Supp.2d 1020 (D.Ariz. 2012). 2,
24, 27
Donahoe v. Arpaio, 986 F.Supp.2d 1091 (D.Ariz. 2013). 1,
7, 16, 41
Donhauser v. Goord, 314 F.Supp.2d 139 (N.D.N.Y. 2004).
7, 27, 34
Donnell C. v. Illinois State Bd. of Educ., 829 F.Supp. 1016
(N.D.Ill. 1993). 32, 34
Dorman v. District of Columbia, 888 F.2d 159 (D.C. Cir.
1989). 14, 25, 27, 32, 46
Dormire v. Wilkinson, 249 F.3d 801 (8th Cir. 2001). 19, 35,
38
Dorr v. County of Butte, 795 F.2d 875 (9th Cir. 1986). 2, 31
Dorsey v. Givens, 209 F.Supp.2d 850 (N.D.Ill. 2001). 14,
17
Dorsey v. St. Joseph Co. Jail Officials, 910 F.Supp. 1343
(N.D.Ind, 1996). 14, 29, 32, 48
Doss v. Gilkey, 649 F.Supp.2d 905 (S.D.Ill. 2009). 7, 19,
28, 38
Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977). 7, 31
Dotson v. Chester, 937 F.2d 920 (4th Cir. 1991). 4, 5
Dotson v. Maschner, 764 F.Supp. 163 (D. Kan. 1991). 11
Doty v. County of Lassen, 37 F.3d 540 (9th Cir. 1994). 5

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Doty v. Doyle, 182 F.Supp.2d 750 (E.D.Wis. 2002). 2, 4,
35, 47
Doty v. Lewis, 995 F.Supp. 1081 (D.Ariz. 1998). 37
Doucette v. Morrison County, Minn., 763 F.3d 978 (8th Cir.
2014). 31
Doughty v. Bd. of County Com'rs for County of Weld, 731
F.Supp. 423 (D. Colo. 1989). 10
Douglas v. DeBruyn, 936 F.Supp. 572 (S.D.Ind. 1996). 1, 8,
34, 42, 50
Douglas v. Gusman, 567 F.Supp.2d 877 (E.D.La. 2008). 1,
7, 12, 29, 42
Douglas v. Murphy, 6 F.Supp.2d 430 (E.D.Pa. 1998). 16, 36
Douglas v. Stanwick, 93 F.Supp.2d 320 (W.D.N.Y. 2000).
29, 32
Douglas v. Yates, 535 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2008). 1, 45
Dowdy v. Johnson, 510 F.Supp. 836 (E.D. Vir. 1981). 11
Dowling v. Hannigan, 995 F.Supp. 1188 (D.Kan. 1998). 14
Downey v. Crabtree, 100 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 1996). 22, 43
Downey v. Denton County, Tex., 119 F.3d 381 (5th Cir.
1997). 7, 14, 17, 27
Downey v. Sheahan, 136 F.Supp.3d 472 (W.D.N.Y. 2015).
36
Dowty v. Tarrell, 368 F.Supp.2d 1024 (D.S.D. 2005). 29
Doyle v. Coombe, 976 F.Supp. 183 (W.D.N.Y. 1997). 9, 50
Doyle v. Elsea, 658 F.2d 512 (7th Cir. 1981). 36
Drake ex rel. Cotton v. Koss, 393 F.Supp.2d 756 (D.Minn.
2005). 14, 27, 29, 30, 32, 45
Drake ex rel. Cotton v. Koss, 445 F.3d 1038 (8th Cir.
2006). 8, 14, 30, 32, 45
Drake v. Velasco, 207 F.Supp.2d 809 (N.D.Ill. 2002). 9, 18,
32, 45
Draper v. Walsh, 790 F.Supp. 1553 (W.D.Okl. 1991). 32,
41
Drayton v. Robinson, 719 F.2d 1214 (3rd Cir. 1983). 3, 8,
32
Driver v. Groose, 273 F.3d 811 (8th Cir. 2001). 7, 19, 38
Drogosch v. Metcalf, 557 F.3d 372 (6th Cir. 2009). 16, 24,
32, 36
Drumgold v. Callahan, 806 F.Supp.2d 405 (D.Mass. 2011).
16, 24, 27
Drumgold v. Callahan, 806 F.Supp.2d 428 (D.Mass. 2011).
5, 16
Drummer v. Luttrell, 75 F.Supp.2d 796 (W.D.Tenn. 1999).
1, 4, 17, 39, 41, 43, 48
Dry v. CFR Court of Indian Offenses, 168 F.3d 1207 (10th
Cir. 1999). 22
Dry v. U.S., 235 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2000). 16, 32
Duamutef v. Fial, 922 F.Supp. 807 (W.D.N.Y. 1996). 14,
48
Duamutef v. Hollins, 297 F.3d 108 (2nd Cir. 2002). 19, 28
Duamutef v. O'Keefe, 98 F.3d 22 (2nd Cir. 1996). 1, 19, 21,
38
Duane v. Lane, 959 F.2d 673 (7th Cir. 1992). 10
Duberry v. District of Columbia, 106 F.Supp.3d 245
(D.D.C. 2015). 31
DuBerry v. District of Columbia, 582 F.Supp.2d 27 (D.D.C.
2008). 2, 31
Ducally v. Rhode Island Dept. of Corrections, 160
F.Supp.2d 220 (D.R.I. 2001). 10, 29, 48
Duckworth v. Ahmad, 532 F.3d 675 (7th Cir. 2008). 29
Duckworth v. St. Louis Metropolitan Police Dept., 491 F.3d
401 (8th Cir. 2008). 31
Dudley v. Shaver, 770 S.W.2d 712 (Mo.App. 1989). 47
Duenas v. Nagle, 765 F.Supp. 1393 (W.D. Wis. 1991). 10,
11

TC-26
XXVI

Duffield v. Jackson, 545 F.3d 1234 (10th Cir. 2008). 29
Duffy v. County of Bucks, 7 F.Supp.2d 569 (E.D.Pa. 1998).
16, 32, 41, 43
Duffy v. Riveland, 88 F.3d 1525 (9th Cir. 1996). 7, 11
Duffy v. Riveland, 98 F.3d 447 (9th Cir. 1996). 7, 11
Dufrin v. Spreen, 712 F.2d 1084 (6th Cir. 1983). 41
Dugas v. Jefferson County, 931 F.Supp. 1315 (E.D.Tex.
1996). 17, 27, 32, 41
Duhon v. Calcasieu Parish Police Jury, 517 So.2d 1016 (La.
App. 3 Cir. 1987). 27, 50
Dukes v. Georgia, 428 F.Supp.2d 1298 (N.D.Ga. 2006). 29,
32, 47
Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234 (8th Cir. 1997). 17, 29
Dunavant v. Moore, 907 F.2d 77 (8th Cir. 1990). 19,
37,38,39
Dunbar v. County of Saratoga, 358 F.Supp.2d 115
(N.D.N.Y. 2005). 24, 27, 31
Duncan v. County of Dakota, Neb., 687 F.3d 955 (8th Cir.
2012). 2, 31
Duncan v. Wisconsin Dept. of Health & Family Serv., 166
F.3d 930 (7th Cir. 1999). 31
Dunigan ex rel. Nyman v. Winnebago County, 165 F.3d
587 (7th Cir. 1999). 29. 32
Dunn v. Castro, 621 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2010). 11, 24, 38,
49
Dunn v. Killingsworth, 984 F.Supp.2d 811 (M.D.Tenn.
2013). 3, 8, 14, 39
Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188 (10th Cir. 1989), cert.
denied, 110 S.Ct. 871. 11, 33, 41
Dunne v. Keohane, 14 F.3d 335 (7th Cir. 1994), cert.
denied, 114 S.Ct. 2182. 22, 36
Duplantis v. Carmona, 85 Fed.Appx. 397 (5th Cir. 2004)
[unpublished]. 35
Dupont v. Saunders, 800 F.2d 8 (1st Cir. 1986). 1, 11, 50
Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2002). 1
Duquin v. Dean, 423 F.Supp.2d 411 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). 7, 9,
15, 29, 39
Duran v. Anaya, 642 F.Supp. 510 (D.N.M. 1986). 2, 29, 30,
31, 39, 45
Duran v. Elrod, 542 F.2d 998 (7th Cir. 1976). 32
Duran v. Elrod, 760 F.2d 756 (7th Cir. 1985). 9, 15
Duran v. Merline, 923 F.Supp.2d 702 (D.N.J.,2013). 1, 2, 9,
14, 15, 18, 23, 27, 28, 29, 32, 39, 40
Durmer v. O'Carroll, 991 F.2d 64 (3rd Cir. 1993). 29
Durrenberger v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, 757
F.Supp.2d 640 (S.D.Tex. 2010). 7, 24, 27, 49
Dusenbery v United States, 534 U.S. 161 (2002). 7, 35
Duvall v. Dallas County, Tex., 631 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2010).
2, 15, 29, 40
Duvall v. Keating, 162 F.3d 1058 (10th Cir. 1998). 43
Dye v. Lomen, 40 Fed.Appx. 993 (7th Cir. 2002). 23, 33,
41, 48
Dzana v. Foti, 829 F.2d 558 (5th Cir. 1987). 11
E.A.F.F. v. U.S., 955 F.Supp.2d 707 (W.D.Tex. 2013). 9,
14, 26, 27, 32, 39
E.E.O.C. v. GEO Group, Inc., 616 F.3d 265 (3rd Cir. 2010).
2, 31, 37
E.E.O.C. v. Ithaca Industries, Inc., 829 F.2d 519 (4th Cir.
1987), cert. denied, 109 S.Ct. 306. 31
Eads v. Hanks, 280 F.3d 728 (7th Cir. 2002). 11, 22
Earl v. Norris, 884 F.2d 362 (8th Cir. 1989). 11
Earl v. Racine County Jail, 718 F.3d 689 (7th Cir. 2013). 9,
18, 23, 29, 30, 35, 39, 45
Earrey v. Chickasaw County, Miss., 965 F.Supp. 870
(N.D.Miss. 1997). 14, 32, 45

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Eason v. Frye, 972 F.Supp.2d 935 (S.D.Miss. 2013). 21, 27,
29, 32, 46, 48
Eason v. Nicholas, 847 F.Supp. 109 (C.D. Ill. 1994). 1, 4,
23
Eason v. Thaler, 73 F.3d 1322 (5th Cir. 1996). 1, 18, 37, 39
Eastman v. Walker, 895 F.Supp. 31 (N.D.N.Y. 1995). 3
Eastwood v. Dept. of Corrections of State of Okl., 846 F.2d
627 (10th Cir. 1988). 27, 31
Eberle v. City of Newton, 289 F.Supp.2d 1269 (D.Kan.
2003) 32, 48
Ebrahime v. Dart, 899 F.Supp.2d 777 (N.D.Ill. 2012). 14,
32
Echevarria v. Dept. of Correct. Services of N.Y., 48
F.Supp.2d 388 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). 14
Eckford-El v. Toombs, 760 F.Supp. 1267 (W.D. Mich.
1991). 28
Edgington v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections, 52 F.3d 777
(8th Cir. 1995). 1
Edmond v. Clements, 896 F.Supp.2d 960 (D.Colo. 2012). 7,
24, 34, 36, 45, 46
Edmondson v. Fremgen, 17 F.Supp.3d 833 (E.D.Wis.
2014). 1, 2, 4, 35
Edmonson v. Coughlin, 21 F.Supp.2d 242 (W.D.N.Y.
1998). 3
Edmonson v. State, 504 N.Y.S.2d 979 (Ct. Cl. 1986). 11, 16
Edney v. Karrigan, 69 F.Supp.2d 540 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). 14,
39
Edwards v. Byrd, 750 F.3d 728 (8th Cir. 2014). 14, 32, 48
Edwards v. Dept. of Corrections, 615 F.Supp. 804 (D. Ala.
1985). 2, 17, 31
Edwards v. District of Columbia, 616 F.Supp.2d 112
(D.D.C. 2009). 14, 17, 27, 29, 30
Edwards v. Gilbert, 867 F.2d 1271 (11th Cir. 1989). 8, 14,
24, 26
Edwards v. Johnson, 209 F.3d 772 (5th Cir. 2000). 11, 19,
32
Edwards v. Oberndorf, 309 F.Supp.2d 780 (E.D.Va. 2003).
25, 32
Edwards v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 523 F.Supp.2d 462
(E.D.Pa. 2007). 7, 36, 43, 44
Edwards v. U.S., 41 F.3d 154 (3rd Cir. 1994). 43
Edwards v. Washington, 661 F.Supp.2d 13 (D.D.C. 2009).
2, 31
Egan v. Hawk, 983 F.Supp. 858 (D.Minn. 1997). 22, 43
Egerton v. Cockrell, 334 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 2003). 1, 22
Eggleton v. Gluch, 717 F.Supp. 1230 (E.D. Mich. 1989),
affirmed, 916 F.2d 712. 3, 24
Eichelman v. Lancaster County, 510 F.Supp.2d 377
(E.D.Pa. 2007). 14, 32
El Tabech v. Gunter, 922 F.Supp. 244 (D.Neb. 1996). 8, 9,
10, 14
Elam v. Henderson, 472 F.2d 582 (5th Cir. 1973), cert.
denied, 414 U.S. 868. 18, 37
El-Amin v. Tirey, 817 F.Supp. 694 (W.D.Tenn. 1993),
affirmed, 35 F.3d 565. 11
Eldridge v. Morrison, 970 F.Supp. 928 (M.D.Ala. 1996). 7,
31
Elie v. Henderson, 340 F.Supp. 958 (E.D. La. 1972). 1, 39,
49
Elkin v.Fauver, 969 F.2d 48 (3rd Cir. 1992), cert. denied,
113 S.Ct. 473. 11, 27
Elliott v. Byers, 975 F.2d 1375 (8th Cir. 1992). 14, 50
Elliott v. Cheshire County, N.H., 750 F.Supp. 1146 (D.
N.H. 1990). 14, 29, 32

TC-27
XXVI

Elliott v. Cheshire County, N.H., 940 F.2d 7 (1st Cir. 1991).
14, 32, 46
Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188 (5th Cir. 1994). 33, 41
Ellis ex rel. Lanthorn v. Jamerson, 174 F.Supp.2d 747
(E.D.Tenn. 2001). 14, 32
Ellis v. Butler, 890 F.2d 1001 (8th Cir. 1989). 29
Ellis v. CCA of Tennessee LLC, 650 F.3d 640 (7th Cir.
2011). 31
Ellis v. Houston, 742 F.3d 307 (8th Cir. 2014). 2, 24, 31
Ellis v. Meade, 887 F.Supp. 324 (D.Me. 1995). 7, 32, 33, 41
Ellis v. Vadlamudi, 568 F.Supp.2d 778 (E.D.Mich. 2008).
21, 29
Ellis v. Washington County and Johnson City, Tenn., 198
F.3d 225 (6th Cir. 1999). 14, 32, 46
Ellis v. Washington County, Tenn., 80 F.Supp.2d 791
(E.D.Tenn. 1998). 14, 25, 32
Ellison v. Scheipe, 570 F.Supp. 1361 (E.D. Penn. 1983). 29
Elmore v. Sinclair, 799 F.3d 1238 (9th Cir. 2015). 1, 22
El-Tabech v. Clarke, 616 F.3d 834 (8th Cir. 2010). 5, 44
Elwell v. Dobucki, 224 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2000). 24, 31
Ely-El v Godinez, 8 F.Supp.2d 776 (N.D.Ill. 1998). 29
Emerson-West v. Redman, 574 F.Supp.2d 433 (D.Del.
2008). 11, 27
Emmett v. Johnson, 532 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. 2008). 10
Endl v. New Jersey, 5 F.Supp.3d 689 (D.N.J. 2014). 10, 14,
27, 29
Engebretson v. Mahoney, 724 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2013). 13,
24, 36
Engel v. Wendl, 921 F.2d 148 (8th Cir. 1990). 11, 24
Engelleiter v. Brevard County Sheriff’s Dept., 290
F.Supp.2d 1300 (M.D.Fla. 2003) 29, 32
Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107 (1982). 22
English v. District of Columbia, 815 F.Supp.2d 254 (D.D.C.
2011). 2, 4, 35
Ennis v. Teague, 882 F.Supp. 1023 (M.D. Ala. 1995). 2
Enriquez v. Kearney, 694 F.Supp.2d 1282 (S.D.Fla. 2010).
32, 39, 48
Entertainment Network, Inc. v. Lappin, 134 F.Supp.2d 1002
(S.D.Ind. 2001). 19, 38, 39
Ephraim v. Angelone, 313 F.Supp.2d 569 (E.D.Va. 2003).
18, 19, 37
Epps v. Levine, 484 F.Supp. 474 (D. Md. 1980). 32, 42, 47
Erickson v. Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections, 469 F.3d 600
(7th Cir. 2006). 14, 31
Ervin v. Busby, 992 F.2d 147 (8th Cir. 1993), cert. denied,
114 S.Ct. 220. 29, 47
Erwin v. County of Manitowoc, 872 F.2d 1292 (7th Cir.
1989). 27, 46
Escalera v. Lunn, 354 F.3d 198 (2nd Cir. 2004). 16, 31
Esmont v. City of New York, 371 F.Supp.2d 202 (E.D.N.Y.
2005). 8, 17, 25, 32
Espinal v. Goord, 180 F.Supp.2d 532 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). 11
Espinal v. Goord, 558 F.3d 119 (2nd Cir. 2009). 1, 21
Espinoza v. Peterson, 283 F.3d 949 (8th Cir. 2002). 11, 20,
22
Espinoza v. Sabol, 558 F.3d 83 (1st Cir. 2009). 22, 43
Espinoza v. Wilson, 814 F.2d 1093 (6th Cir. 1987). 7, 19
Esposito v. Leddy, 618 F.Supp. 1362 (D.C. Ill. 1985). 28,
38
Essex County Jail Annex Inmates v. Treffinger, 18
F.Supp.2d 445 (D.N.J. 1998). 2, 8, 15, 23, 27, 39, 45,
46
Essex County Jail Inmates v. Amato, 726 F.Supp. 539 (D.
N.J. 1989). 6, 9, 12, 15

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Estate of Adbollahi v. County of Sacramento, 405
F.Supp.2d 1194 (E.D.Cal. 2005). 2, 14, 25, 29, 30,
32, 45, 46
Estate of Allen v. City of Rockford, 349 F.3d 1015 (7th Cir.
2003) 14, 32, 41
Estate of Amaro v. City of Oakland, 653 F.3d 808 (9th Cir.
2011). 14, 32
Estate of Booker v. Gomez, 745 F.3d 405 (10th Cir. 2014).
14, 24, 29, 32, 48
Estate of Bradich v. City of Chicago, 413 F.3d 688 (7th Cir.
2005). 14, 29, 32, 45
Estate of Brooks Ex Rel. Brooks v. U.S., 197 F.3d 1245
(9th Cir. 1999). 16, 32
Estate of Brown v. Barian, 43 F.Supp.2d 1008 (E.D.Wis.
1999). 14, 36
Estate of Carter v. City of Detroit, 408 F.3d 305 (6th Cir.
2005). 29, 32
Estate of Cartwright v. City of Concord, Cal., 618 F.Supp.
722 (U.S.D.C. N.D. Cal. 1985). 14, 25, 27
Estate of Cartwright v. City of Concord, Cal., 856 F.2d
1437 (9th Cir. 1988). 2, 8, 14, 32, 46
Estate of Chance v. First Correctional Medical Inc., 579
F.Supp.2d 583 (D.Del. 2008). 29
Estate of Cills v. Kaftan, 105 F.Supp.2d 391 (D.N.J. 2000).
2, 14, 29, 30
Estate of Cole by Pardue v. Fromm, 94 F.3d 254 (7th Cir.
1996). 14, 29, 30, 32
Estate of Crouch v. Madison County, 682 F.Supp.2d 862
(S.D.Ind. 2010). 14, 27, 29, 46
Estate of Davis by Ostenfeld, v. Delo, 115 F.3d 1388 (8th
Cir. 1997). 14, 27, 48
Estate of Davis v. Johnson, 745 F.2d 1066 (7th Cir. 1984).
14, 27
Estate of Enoch ex rel. Enoch v. Tienor, 570 F.3d 821 (7th
Cir. 2009). 4, 5, 14, 17, 27
Estate of Ford v. Ramirez-Palmer, 301 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir.
2002). 8, 14
Estate of Frank v. City of Beaver Dam, 921 F.Supp. 590
(E.D.Wis 1996). 14, 32
Estate of Gaither ex rel. Gaither v. District of Columbia,
655 F.Supp.2d 69 (D.D.C. 2009). 2, 8, 14, 39, 45, 46
Estate of Gaither ex rel. Gaither v. District of Columbia,
833 F.Supp.2d 110 (D.D.C. 2011). 2, 14, 32, 45
Estate of Hampton v. Androscoggin County, 245 F.Supp.2d
150 (D.Me. 2002). 25, 29, 45
Estate of Harvey ex rel. Dent v. Roanoke City Sheriff's
Office, 585 F.Supp.2d 844 (W.D.Va. 2008). 14, 29,
32, 47, 48
Estate of Henson v. Wichita County, 988 F.Supp.2d 726
(N.D.Tex. 2013). 2, 14, 27, 29
Estate of Henson v. Wichita County, Tex., 652 F.Supp.2d
730 (N.D.Tex. 2009). 14, 27, 29, 32
Estate of Henson v. Wichita County, Tex., 795 F.3d 456 (5th
Cir. 2015). 29, 32
Estate of Hill v. Richards, 525 F.Supp.2d 1076 (W.D.Wis.
2007. 1, 14, 17, 29, 30
Estate of Hocker By Hocker v. Walsh, 22 F.3d 995 (10th
Cir. 1994). 14, 25, 29
Estate of Johnson v. Weber, 785 F.3d 267 (8th Cir. 2015). 8,
14, 50
Estate of Miller, ex rel. Bertram v. Tobiasz, 680 F.3d 984
(7th Cir. 2012). 14, 24, 29, 30, 45
Estate of Moreland v. Dieter, 395 F.3d 747 (7th Cir. 2005).
14, 27, 32, 48

TC-28
XXVI

Estate of Novack Ex Rel. Turbin v. County of Wood, 226
F.3d 525 (7th Cir. 2000). 14, 32
Estate of Prasad ex rel. Prasad v. County of Sutter, 958
F.Supp.2d 1101 (E.D.Cal. 2013). 2, 14, 27, 29, 32,
45, 47
Estate of Puza v. Carbon County, 586 F.Supp.2d 271
(M.D.Pa. 2007). 14, 15, 25, 29, 32
Estate of Reynolds v. Greene County, 163 F.Supp.2d 890
(S.D.Ohio 2001). 1, 5
Estate of Rice ex rel. Rice v. Correctional Medical Services,
596 F.Supp.2d 1208 (N.D.Ind. 2009). 29, 30, 32
Estate of Schroeder v. Gillespie County, 23 F.Supp.3d 775
(W.D.Tex. 2014). 14, 32
Estate of Sisk v. Manzanares, 262 F.Supp.2d 1162 (D.Kan.
2002). 14, 29
Estate of Stevens ex rel. Collins v. Board of Com’rs. of
County of San Juan, 53 F.Supp.3d 1368 (D.N.M.
2014). 14, 32
Estate of Trentadue v. U.S., 560 F.Supp.2d 1124
(W.D.Okla. 2008). 9, 14, 27
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976), cert. denied, 429
U.S. 1066. 7, 10, 29
Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (1981). 1, 43
Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (1976), reh'g. denied, 426
U.S. 954. 1, 6, 32
Estep v. Dent, 914 F.Supp. 1462 (W.D.Ky. 1996). 8, 12, 27,
37, 38
Estevez-Yalcin v. Children’s Village, 331 F.Supp.2d 170
(S.D.N.Y. 2004). 2, 26, 31, 38
Estrada v. Reed, 508 F.Supp.2d 699 (W.D.Wis. 2007). 1, 29
Evans v. Bonner, 196 F.Supp.2d 252 (E.D.N.Y. 2002). 29
Evans v. Deuth, 8 F.Supp.2d 1135 (N.D.Ind. 1998). 11, 22
Evans v. Dillahunty, 662 F.2d 522 (8th Cir. 1981). 36
Evans v. Hennessy, 934 F.Supp. 127 (D.Del. 1996). 8, 19,
27, 48
Evans v. Holm, 114 F.Supp.2d 706 (W.D.Tenn. 2000). 22,
47
Evans v. Jeff D., 106 S.Ct. (1986), reh'g. denied, 106 S.Ct.
2909. 5
Evans v. Jenne, 660 F.Supp. 426 (S.D. Miss. 1986). 19, 28
Evans v. Manos, 336 F.Supp.2d 255 (W.D.N.Y. 2004). 29
Evans v. Saar, 412 F.Supp.2d 519 (D.Md 2006). 10
Evans v. Vare, 402 F.Supp.2d 1188 (D.Nev. 2005). 1, 19,
28, 38
Everson v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 391 F.3d 737
(6th Cir. 2004). 31, 45
Everson v. Nelson, 941 F.Supp. 1048 (D.Kan. 1996). 3
Evicci v. Baker, 190 F.Supp.2d 233 (D.Mass. 2002). 1, 14,
29, 48
Ewell v. Murray, 11 F.3d 482 (4th Cir. 1993), cert. denied,
114 S.Ct. 2112. 20, 36
Ewell v. Murray, 813 F.Supp. 1180 (W.D.Va. 1993). 36, 41
Ewell v. Murray, 813 F.Supp. 1213 (M.D. Ga. 1988). 20,
25, 35, 38
Ewing v. Cumberland County, 152 F.Supp.3d 269 (D. N.J.
2015). 14, 27, 32, 46, 48
Ex Parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546 (1941). 1, 22
Ex Parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241 (1886). 22
Ex Parte Watkins, 28 U.S. 193 (1830). 22
Ezell v. Darr, 951 F.Supp.2d 1316 (M.D.Ga. 2013). 2, 31,
44
Facey v. Dickhaut, 892 F.Supp.2d 347 (D.Mass. 2012). 8,
10, 14, 24, 39, 45, 46
Facey v. Dickhaut, 91 F.Supp.3d 12 (D.Mass. 2014). 8, 14,
39

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Faheem-el v. Klincar, 38 CrL 3178 (N.D. Ill. 1985). 6, 36
Fair v. Givan, 509 F.Supp. 1086 (N.D. Ind. 1981). 1
Fairley v. Andrews, 578 F.3d 518 (7th Cir. 2009). 2, 31
Fairley v. Luman, 281 F.3d 913 (9th Cir. 2002). 5, 7, 16, 25
Fairman v. Konteh, 361 F.Supp.2d 704 (N.D.Ohio 2005).
31
Falcon v. Knowles, 807 F.Supp. 1531 (S.D.Fla. 1992). 47,
Fallis v. United States, 476 F.2d 619 (5th Cir. 1973). 37, 39,
49
Fallon v. Lockhart, 919 F.2d 1304 (8th Cir. 1990). 28
Falzerano v. Collier, 535 F.Supp. 800 (D.C. N.J. 1982). 1
Fambro v. Fulton County, Ga., 713 F.Supp. 1426 (N.D. Ga.
1989). 9, 23, 29, 40
Families for Freedom v. Napolitano, 628 F.Supp.2d 535
(S.D.N.Y. 2009). 2, 9, 32
Fant v. City of Ferguson, 107 F.Supp.3d 1016 (E.D. Mo.
2015). 1, 6, 7, 9, 15, 23, 27, 29, 32, 36, 40
Fantone v. Latini, 780 F.3d 184 (3rd Cir. 2015). 11, 36
Farabee v. Rider, 995 F.Supp. 1398 (M.D.Fla. 1998). 14,
16, 32, 46, 48
Farag v. U.S., 587 F.Supp.2d 436 (E.D.N.Y. 2008). 7, 16,
32
Farid v. Ellen, 593 F.3d 233 (2nd Cir. 2010). 19, 38, 39
Farid v. Goord, 200 F.Supp.2d 220 (W.D.N.Y. 2002). 11,
19, 21, 41
Farley v. Andrews, 430 F.Supp.2d 786 (N.D. Ill. 2006). 31
Farmer v. Brennan, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994). 8, 14, 27
Farmer v. Crews, 804 F.Supp. 1516 (M.D.Fla. 1992). 36
Farmer v. Haas, 990 F2d 319 (7th Cir. 1993). 1
Farmer v. Hawk-Sawyer, 69 F.Supp.2d 120 (D.D.C. 1999).
17, 29, 30
Farmer v. Kavanagh, 494 F.Supp.2d 345 (D.Md. 2007). 7,
8, 17, 29, 47
Farmer v. Loving, 392 F.Supp. 27 (W.D. Vir. 1975). 13, 19,
28, 49
Farmer v. Moritsugu, 742 F.Supp. 525 (W.D. Wis. 1990). 8,
50
Farmer v. Perrill, 288 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2002). 17, 33, 41
Farnam v. Walker, 593 F.Supp.2d 1000 (C.D.Ill. 2009). 29
Farrakhan v. Gregoire, 623 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2010). 7, 13,
19, 44
Farrell v. Burke, 449 F.3d 470 (2nd Cir. 2006). 36
Farrell v. Peters, 951 F.2d 862 (7th Cir. 1992). 19, 28
Farrish v. Mississippi State Parole Board, 836 F.2d 969 (5th
Cir. 1988). 27, 36
Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2003). 29
Farver v. Schwartz, 255 F.3d 473 (8th Cir. 2001). 11, 21, 47
Faulcon v. City of Philadelphia, 18 F.Supp.2d 537 (E.D.Pa.
1998). 8, 14, 32, 44, 45, 46
Faulder v. Johnson, 99 F.Supp.2d 774 (S.D.Tex. 1999). 10,
43
Faulkner v. McLochlin, 732 F.Supp. 945 (N.D. Ind. 1990).
5
Faulkner v. McLocklin, 727 F.Supp. 486 (N.D. Ind. 1989).
28, 32
Fawaad v. Herring, 874 F.Supp. 350 (N.D. Ala. 1995). 19,
28, 37
Fawaad v. Jones, 81 F.3d 1084 (11th Cir. 1996). 19, 37
Feagin v. Broglin, 693 F.Supp. 741 (N.D. Ind. 1988). 11
Fear v. Diboll Correctional Center, 582 F.Supp.2d 841
(E.D.Tex. 2008). 29
Federal Bureau of Prisons v. Federal Labor Relations
Authority, 654 F.3d 91 (D.C. Cir. 2011). 2, 31
Federal CURE v. Lappin, 602 F.Supp.2d 197 (D.D.C.
2009). 2, 49

TC-29
XXVI

Feeley v. Sampson, 570 F.2d 364 (1st Cir. 1978). 28
Feeney v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc., 464 F.3d 158
(1st Cir. 2006). 13, 29
Fegans v. Norris, 537 F.3d 897 (8th Cir. 2008). 1, 18, 27, 37,
38, 39
Feigley v. Fulcomer, 720 F.Supp. 475 (M.D. Pa. 1989). 10,
14, 27, 29, 46
Felce v. Fiedler, 974 F2d 1484 (7th Cir. 1992). 30, 36
Felder v. Johnson, 204 F.3d 168 (5th Cir. 2000). 1, 22
Feliciano v. Barcelo, 497 F.Supp. 14 (D. P.R. 1979). 9, 15,
25, 29, 30
Feliciano v. Colon, 672 F.Supp. 627 (D. P.R. 1987). 9, 15
Felix v. McCarthy, 939 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1991), cert.
denied, 112 S.Ct. 1165. 27, 48
Felix v. Rolan, 833 F.2d 517 (5th Cir. 1987). 1, 37, 39
Felix-Torres v. Graham, 521 F.Supp.2d 157, (N.D.N.Y.
2007). 8, 29
Felker v. Turpin, 116 S.Ct. 2333 (1996). 22, 43
Felton v. Lincoln, 429 F.Supp.2d 226 (D.Mass. 2006). 1,
11, 24, 28, 35
Fenelon v. Riddle, 34 Fed.Appx. 265 (9th Cir. 2002). 37, 50
Fennell v. Gilstrap, 559 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir. 2009). 24, 32,
48
Fenner v. Moran, 772 F.Supp. 59 (D. R.I. 1991). 10, 29
Fenner v. Suthers, 194 F.Supp.2d 1146 (D.Colo. 2002). 29
Ferencz v. Medlock, 905 F.Supp.2d 656 (W.D.Pa. 2012). 2,
8, 14, 25, 29, 32, 39, 44, 45
Ferguson v. Cape Girardeau County, 88 F.3d 647 (8th Cir.
1996). 9, 15
Ferguson v. Cape Girardeau County, 883 F.Supp. 431 (E.D.
Mo. 1995). 29
Ferguson v. New Mexico Corrections Dept., 38 Fed.Appx.
561 (10th Cir. 2002). 1,
Fermin-Rodriguez v. Westchester County Jail Med., 191
F.Supp.2d 358 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). 47
Fernandez v. Rapone, 926 F.Supp. 255 (D.Mass. 1996). 41,
49
Ferola v. Moran, 622 F.Supp. 814 (D.C. R.I. 1985). 27, 30,
48
Ferranti v. Moran, 618 F.2d 888 (1st Cir. 1980). 1, 47, 49
Ferreira v. Dubois, 963 F.Supp. 1244 (D.Mass. 1996). 11
Ferreira v. Duval, 887 F.Supp. 374 (D.Mass. 1995). 1, 3, 11
Ferrington v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections, 315 F.3d 529
(5th Cir. 2002). 1, 21
Ferris v. County of Kennebec, 44 F.Supp.2d 62 (D.Me.
1999). 17, 29, 32
Fickes v. Jefferson County, 900 F.Supp. 84 (E.D.Tex.
1995). 14, 32, 48
Fielder v. Bosshard, 590 F.2d 105 (5th Cir. 1979). 10, 14,
27, 29
Fields v. Abbott, 652 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2011). 2, 15, 31, 39
Fields v. Department of Public Safety, 911 F.Supp.2d 373
(M.D.La. 2012). 31
Fields v. Gander, 734 F.2d 1313 (8th Cir. 1984). 29
Fields v. Henry County, Tenn., 701 F.3d 180 (6th Cir.
2012). 6, 32, 36, 44
Fields v. Oklahoma State Penitentiary, 511 F.3d 1109 (10th
Cir. 2007). 1, 21
Fields v. Roswarski, 572 F.Supp.2d 1015 (N.D.Ind. 2008).
21, 48
Fields v. Smith, 653 F.3d 550 (7th Cir. 2011). 17, 29, 44
Fields v. Smith, 712 F.Supp.2d 830 (E.D.Wis. 2010). 8, 17,
29, 44
Fields v. State Dept. of Corrections, 498 So.2d 174 (La.
App. 1 Cir. 1986). 31, 39

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Fields v. Wharrie, 740 F.3d 1107 (7th Cir. 2014). 1, 7, 13,
24
Fierro v. Gomez, 865 F.Supp. 1387 (N.D. Cal. 1994). 10,
43
Fiesel v. Cherry, 294 F.3d 664 (5th Cir. 2002). 31
Figg v. Russell, 433 F.3d 593 (8th Cir. 2006). 16, 24
Figueroa v. Dean, 425 F.Supp.2d 448 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). 1, 7,
9, 15, 29, 39
Fillmore v. Eichkorn, 891 F.Supp. 1482 (D.Kan. 1995). 16,
30, 32, 37, 48
Fillmore v. Page, 358 F.3d 496 (7th Cir. 2004). 48
Finch v. Miller, 491 F.3d 424 (8th Cir. 2007). 1, 22
Finn v. Warren County, Kentucky, 768 F.3d 441 (6th Cir.
2014). 14, 29, 45, 46
Finnegan v. Maire, 405 F.3d 694 (8th Cir. 2005). 29
Finney v. Arkansas Board of Corrections, 505 F.2d 194 (8th
Cir. 1974). 28, 38
Finney v. Mabry, 458 F.Supp. 720 (E.D. Ark. 1978). 3, 29,
31
Finnie v. Lee County, Miss., 907 F.Supp.2d 750 (N.D.Miss.
2012). 2, 31
Fiorenzo v. Nolan, 755 F.Supp. 801 (N.D. Ill. 1991),
affirmed, 965 F.2d 348. 31
Fiorillo v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, 795
F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1986). 2, 19, 31
Fisher v. Goord, 981 F.Supp. 140 (W.D.N.Y. 1997). 7, 17,
47
Fisher v. King, 232 F.3d 391 (4th Cir. 2000). 19
Fisher v. Koehler, 718 F.Supp. 1111 (S.D.N.Y. 1989). 10,
15, 45
Fisher v. Lovejoy, 414 F.3d 659 (7th Cir. 2005). 14, 32, 45
Fisher v. Miami-Dade County, 114 F.Supp.3d 1247 (S.D.
Fla. 2015). 7, 14, 29, 32
Fitts v. Witkowski, 920 F.Supp. 679 (D.S.C. 1996). 39, 48
Fitzgerald v. Corrections Corp. of America, 403 F.3d 1134
(10th Cir. 2005). 29
Fitzgerald v. Procunier, 393 F.Supp. 335 (N.D. Calif. 1975).
2, 11
Fitzke v. Shappell, 468 F.2d 1072 (6th Cir. 1972). 29
Fitzpatrick v. State, 439 N.W.2d 663 (Iowa 1989). 36
Flagner v. Wilkinson, 241 F.3d 475 (6th Cir. 2001). 37, 38
Flanagan v. Warden, U.S. Penitentiary, 784 F.Supp. 178
(M.D. Pa. 1992), affirmed, 6 F.3d 779. 11, 22
Flanory v. Bonn, 604 F.3d 249 (6th Cir. 2010). 23, 29
Flanyak v. Hopta, 410 F.Supp.2d 394 (M.D.Penn. 2006). 1,
21, 29, 44, 50
Flechsig v. U.S., 786 F.Supp. 646 (E.D. Ky. 1991),
affirmed, 986 F.2d 1421 and 991 F.2d 300. 14, 27
Fleming v. LeFevere, 423 F.Supp.2d 1064 (C.D.Cal. 2006).
29
Fleming v. Oregon Bd. of Parolee, 998 F.2d 721 (9th Cir.
1993). 36
Fleming v. Sharma, 605 F.Supp.2d 399 (N.D.N.Y. 2009).
14, 24, 29
Fleming v. South Carolina Dept. of Corrections, 952
F.Supp. 283 (D.S.C. 1996). 7, 31
Fletcher v. Butts, 994 F.2d 548 (8th Cir. 1993). 29
Fletcher v. Little, 5 F.Supp.3d 655 (D.Del. 2013). 7, 8, 14
Fletcher v. Menard Correctional Center, 623 F.3d 1171 (7th
Cir. 2010). 1, 4, 14, 21, 48
Fletcher v. State, 405 So.2d 748 (Ct. App. Fla. 1981). 43
Flint ex rel. Flint v. KY Dept. of Corrections, 270 F.3d 340
(6th Cir. 2001). 14, 50
Flittie v. Solem, 827 F.2d 276 (8th Cir. 1987). 1, 50
Flood v. Lane, 638 F.Supp. 677 (N.D. Ill. 1986). 24, 26, 36

TC-30
XXVI

Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of
Burlington, 595 F.Supp.2d 492 (D.N.J. 2009)
Reversed and remanded 621 F.3d 296 (3rd Cir. 2010);
aff’d S.Ct. 1510. 25, 32
Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of
Burlington, 621 F.3d 296 (3rd Cir. 2010). Affirmed
132 S.Ct. 1510 (2012). 2, 25, 27, 32, 41
Florer v. Bales-Johnson, 752 F.Supp.2d 1185 (W.D.Wash.
2010). 18, 37
Florer v. Congregation Pidyon Shevuyim, N.A., 639 F.3d
916 (9th Cir. 2011). 2, 27, 37
Flores v. O’Donnell, 36 Fed.Appx. 204 (7th Cir. 2002). 9,
10, 15
Flores v. San Diego County, 206 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2000).
31
Florio v. Canty, 954 F.Supp.2d 227 (S.D.N.Y.2013). 9, 15,
23, 39, 40
Flournoy v. Fairman, 897 F.Supp. 350 (N.D.Ill. 1995). 32,
49
Flournoy v. Ghosh, 881 F.Supp.2d 980 (N.D.Ill. 2012). 29
Flowers v. Bennett, 135 F.Supp.2d 1150 (N.D.Ala. 2000).
29
Flowers v. Dalsheim, 826 F.Supp. 772 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). 1
Flowers v. Fauver, 683 F.Supp. 981 (D. N.J. 1988). 50
Flowers v. Phelps, 956 F.2d 488 (5th Cir. 1992), modified,
964 F.2d 400. 14, 48
Flowers v. Smith, 496 N.Y.S.2d 149 (A.D. 4 Dept 1985). 2,
4, 28
Floyd v. Ortiz, 300 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir. 2002). 2, 27, 35, 42
Fluker v. County of Kankakee, 741 F.3d 787 (7th Cir. 2013).
1, 14, 21, 39
Fluker v. County of Kankakee, 945 F.Supp.2d 972 (C.D.Ill.
2013). 14, 29, 39, 47
Flynn v. Doyle, 630 F.Supp.2d 987 (E.D.Wis. 2009). 29, 30
Flynn v. Doyle, 672 F.Supp.2d 858 (E.D.Wis. 2009). 17,
29, 30, 45
Flynn v. Sandahl, 58 F.3d 283 (7th Cir. 1995). 31, 33
Foelker v. Outagamie County, 394 F.3d 510 (7th Cir. 2005).
29
Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2006). 3, 9, 10,
12
Folk v. Atty. Gen. of Commonwealth of Pa., 425 F.Supp.2d
663 (W.D.Pa. 2006). 7, 22, 34, 36
Fontroy v. Beard, 485 F.Supp.2d 592 (E.D.Pa. 2007). 1, 28
Fontroy v. Beard, 559 F.3d 173 (3rd Cir. 2009). 1, 28
Foote v. Spiegel, 118 F.3d 1416 (10th Cir. 1997). 32, 41
Foote v. Spiegel, 995 F.Supp. 1347 (D.Utah 1998). 17, 25,
32, 41
Forbes v. Edgar, 112 F.3d 262 (7th Cir. 1997). 1, 29
Forchion v. Intensive Supervised Parole, 240 F.Supp.2d 302
(D.N.J. 2003). 19, 36
Ford v. Beister, 657 F.Supp. 607 (M.D. Pa. 1986). 19, 49
Ford v. Bender, 768 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2014). 5, 9, 11, 12, 15,
32
Ford v. Bender, 903 F.Supp.2d 90 (D.Mass. 2012). 4, 5
Ford v. City of Yakima, 706 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 2013). 16,
19, 24
Ford v. Clarke, 746 F.Supp.2d 273 (D.Mass. 2010). 8, 32
Ford v. County of Grand Traverse, 535 F.3d 483 (6th Cir.
2008). 1, 2, 17, 27, 29
Ford v. County of Oakland, 35 Fed.Appx. 393 (6th Cir.
2002). 13, 14, 17
Ford v. Dowd, 931 F.2d 1286 (8th Cir. 1991). 2, 31
Ford v. McGinnis, 352 F.3d 582 (2nd Cir. 2003) 27, 37

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Ford v. Nassau County Executive, 41 F.Supp.2d 392
(E.D.N.Y. 1999). 7, 32, 50
Ford v. Wainwright, 106 S.Ct. 2595 (1986). 30, 43
Forde v. Baird, 720 F.Supp.2d 170 (D.Conn. 2010). 17, 22,
37, 39, 41, 45
Forde v. Zickefoose, 612 F.Supp.2d 171 (D.Conn. 2009).
17, 22, 33, 37, 39, 41
Ford-Sholebo v. U.S., 980 F.Supp.2d 917 (N.D.Ill. 2013). 1,
14, 27, 29, 32
Forgan v. Howard County, Tex., 494 F.3d 518 (5th Cir.
2007).14, 25, 32, 45
Forrest v. Prine, 620 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2010). 32, 41, 48
Forter v. Geer, 868 F.Supp.2d 1091 (D.Or. 2012). 21, 28,
37, 38, 39
Fortner v. Thomas 983 F.2d 1024 (11th Cir, 1993). 33
Forton v. County of Ogemaw, 435 F.Supp.2d 640
(E.D.Mich. 2006). 14, 17, 29
Forts v. Malcolm, 426 F.Supp. 464 (S.D. N.Y. 1977). 8, 17,
32, 38, 49
Fortune Society v. McGinnis, 319 F.Supp. 901 (S.D. N.Y.
1970). 19, 28
Foster v. Basham, 932 F.2d 732 (8th Cir. 1991). 1, 24, 28
Foster v. Elyea, 496 F.Supp.2d 951 (N.D.Ill. 2007). 18, 29
Foster v. Fulton County, 223 F.Supp.2d 1301 (N.D.Ga.
2002). 1, 6, 32, 36
Foster v. Fulton County, Georgia, 223 F.Supp.2d 1292
(N.D.Ga. 2002). 9, 29, 32, 45, 46
Foster v. Ghosh, 4 F.Supp.3d 974 (N.D.Ill. 2013). 4, 27, 29
Foster v. Hughes, 979 F.2d 130 (8th Cir. 1992). 35
Foster v. Lawson, 291 F.3d 1050 (8th Cir. 2002). 1, 41
Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 807 (9th Cir. 2009). 10, 11, 17,
18
Foster v. United States Parole Comm'n., 515 F.Supp. 541
(S.D. Ohio 1981). 36
Foster v. Wyrick, 823 F.2d 218 (8th Cir. 1987). 7, 50
Fouch v. District of Columbia, 10 F.Supp.3d 45 (D.D.C.
2014). 14, 24, 32, 47
Foulk v. Charrier, 262 F.3d 687 (8th Cir. 2001). 1, 5, 27, 29,
48
Foulks v. Cole County, Mo. 991 F.2d 454 (8th Cir 1993).
29
Fournier v. Reardon, 160 F.3d 754 (1st Cir. 1998). 31. 46
Fourte v. Faulkner County, Ark., 746 F.3d 384 (8th Cir.
2014). 25, 29, 32
Fowler v. Crawford, 534 F.3d 931 (8th Cir. 2008). 37, 39
Fowler v. Cross, 635 F.2d 476 (5th Cir. 1981). 36
Fowler v. Vincent, 452 F.Supp. 449 (S.D. N.Y. 1978). 7,
27, 48
Fowlkes v. Thomas, 667 F.3d 270 (2nd Cir. 2012). 4, 35
Fox v. Lappin, 409 F.Supp.2d 79 (D.Mass. 2006). 8, 34, 36,
44
Fox v. United States Parole Comm'n., 517 F.Supp. 855 (D.
Kan. 1981). 36
Fraise v. Terhune, 283 F.3d 506 (3rd Cir. 2002). 3, 8, 37, 39
Frake v. City of Chicago, 210 F.3d 779 (7th Cir. 2000). 14,
25, 32, 44
Fraley v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 1 F.3d 924 (9th Cir.
1993). 43
Francis ex rel. Estate of Francis v. Northumberland County,
636 F.Supp.2d 368 (M.D.Pa. 2009). 2, 14, 25, 29, 30,
32, 46
Francis v. Carroll, 773 F.Supp.2d 483 (D.Del. 2011). 13, 29
Francis v. Fox, 838 F.2d 1147 (11th Cir. 1988). 36, 50
Francis v. Pike County, Ohio, 708 F.Supp. 170 (S.D. Ohio
1988). 14, 27, 32, 45, 48

TC-31
XXVI

Francisco v. Correctional Medical System, 548 F.Supp.2d
128 (D.Del. 2008). 29
Franco-Gonzales v. Holder, 767 F.Supp.2d 1034 (C.D.Cal.
2010). 1, 7, 22
Franco-Gonzales v. Holder, 828 F.Supp.2d 1133 (C.D.Cal.
2011). 1, 7, 27, 32
Frank v. County of Ontario, 884 F.Supp.2d 11 (W.D.N.Y.
2012). 29, 32
Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309 (1915). 22
Frank v. Schultz, 808 F.3d 762 (9th Cir. 2015). 11, 20
Frank v. United States, 515 F.Supp. 703 (W.D. Pa. 1981).
43
Franklin v. Banks, 979 F.2d 1375 (8th Cir. 1992). 50
Franklin v. Barry, 909 F.Supp. 21 (D.D.C. 1995). 7, 8
Franklin v. City of Slidell, 936 F.Supp.2d 691 (E.D.La.
2013). 31
Franklin v. Curry, 738 F.3d 1246 (11th Cir. 2013). 14, 17,
32
Franklin v. District of Columbia, 163 F.3d 625 (D.C.Cir.
1998). 8, 11, 29, 33, 36
Franklin v. District of Columbia, 960 F.Supp. 394 (D.D.C.
1997). 2, 7, 11, 29, 33, 34
Franklin v. Fox, 312 F.3d 423 (9th Cir. 2002). 49
Franklin v. Lockhart, 890 F.2d 96 (8th Cir. 1989). 10, 37,
50
Franklin v. Lynaugh, 108 S.Ct. 2320 (1988), reh'g. denied,
109 S.Ct. 25. 43
Franklin v. Pocono Ranch Lands Property Owners Ass'n,
484 F.Supp.2d 286 (D.Del. 2007). 1
Franks v. Oklahoma State Industries, 7 F.3d 971 (10th Cir.
1993). 50
Frary v. County of Marin, 81 F.Supp.3d 811 (N.D.Cal.
2015). 29, 32, 45
Fraternal Order of Police Barkley Lod. v. Fletcher, 618
F.Supp.2d 712, (W.D.Ky. 2008). 27, 31, 44
Fraternal Order of Police v. Williams, 263 F.Supp.2d 45
(D.D.C. 2003). 2, 31
Fraternal Order of Police v. Williams, 375 F.3d 1141
(D.C.Cir. 2004). 31
Fraternal Order of Police/Dept. v. Washington, 394
F.Supp.2d 7 (D.D.C. 2005). 2, 31, 39, 41
Fratus v. Deland, 49 F.3d 673 (10th Cir. 1995). 1
Frazier v. Coughlin, 81 F.3d 313 (2nd Cir. 1996). 3, 11, 50
Frazier v. Diguglielmo, 640 F.Supp.2d 593 (E.D.Pa. 2008).
1, 28, 35
Frazier v. Dubois, 922 F.2d 560 (10th Cir. 1990). 47
Frazier v. Forgione, 881 F.Supp. 879 (W.D.N.Y. 1995). 1,
27
Frazier v. Harrison, 537 F.Supp. 17 (E.D. Tenn. 1981). 22
Frazier v. Hesson, 40 F.Supp.2d 957 (W.D.Tenn. 1999). 8,
20, 22, 36
Frazier v. King, 873 F.2d 820 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied,
110 S.Ct. 502. 24, 29, 31
Frazier v. Ward, 528 F.Supp. 80 (N.D. N.Y. 1981). 41, 49
Fredericks v. Huggins, 711 F.2d 31 (4th Cir. 1983). 29, 32
Free v. State, 392 So.2d 857 (Ct. Crim. App. Ala. 1980),
cert. denied, 451 U.S. 990, reh'g. denied, 452 U.S.
973. 43
Free v. U.S., 879 F.2d 1535 (7th Cir. 1989). 1, 27, 35, 41
Freedman v. City of Allentown, Pa., 853 F.2d 1111 (3rd
Cir. 1988). 14, 27, 46
Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. McCallum, 179
F.Supp.2d 950 (W.D.Wis. 2002). 34, 37
Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. McCallum, 324
F.3d 880 (7th Cir. 2003). 34, 37

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Olson, 566
F.Supp.2d 980 (D.N.D. 2008). 34, 37
Freeland v. Ballard, 6 F.Supp.3d 683 (S.D.W.Va. 2014). 14,
15, 39
Freeman v. Abdullah, 925 F.2d 266 (8th Cir. 1991). 1, 37
Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732 (9th Cir. 1997). 7, 37
Freeman v. Berge, 283 F.Supp.2d 1009 (W.D.Wis. 2003) 3,
9, 10, 11, 12
Freeman v. Berge, 441 F.3d 543 (7th Cir. 2006). 3, 9 , 38,
39
Freeman v. Fairman, 916 F.Supp. 786 (N.D.Ill. 1996). 27,
29
Freeman v. Franzen, 695 F.2d 485 (7th Cir. 1982), cert.
denied, 103 S.Ct. 3553, 463 U.S. 1214. 27, 48
Freeman v. Fuller, 623 F.Supp. 1224 (D.C. Fla. 1985). 8
Freeman v. Godinez, 996 F.Supp. 822 (N.D.Ill. 1998). 14,
21
Freeman v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, 369 F.3d 854
(5th Cir. 2004). 19, 37
Freeman v. Watkins, 479 F.3d 1257 (10th Cir. 2007). 1
Freitag v. Ayers, 468 F.3D 528 (9th Cir. 2006). 31
Freitas v. Ault, 109 F.3d 1335 (8th Cir. 1997). 7, 47
French v. Adams County Detention Center, 379 F.3d 1158
(10th Cir. 2004). 36
French v. Heyne, 547 F.2d 994 (7th Cir. 1977). 8, 34, 38
Friedl v. City of New York, 210 F.3d 79 (2nd Cir. 2000). 36
Friedland v. Fauver, 6 F.Supp.2d 292 (D.N.J. 1998). 4, 36
Friedman v. State of Arizona, 912 F.2d 328 (9th Cir. 1990),
cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 996. 37, 39
Friend v. Kolodzieczak, 923 F.2d 126 (9th Cir. 1991). 37
Friends v. Moore, 776 F.Supp. 1382 (E.D. Mo. 1991). 10,
29, 39, 48
Frink v. Arnold, 842 F.Supp. 1184 (S.D. Iowa 1994),
affirmed, 43 F.3d 673. 19, 35
Fristoe v. Thompson, 144 F.3d 627 (10th Cir. 1998). 22, 43
Froehlich v. State of Wis., Dept. of Corrections, 196 F.3d
800 (7th Cir. 1999). 47
Frohmader v. Wayne, 958 F.2d 1024 (10th Cir. 1992). 29,
48
Fromer v. Scully, 649 F.Supp. 512 (S.D. N.Y. 1986). 19,
23, 37, 38
Fromer v. Scully, 874 F.2d 69 (2nd Cir. 1989). 37, 38, 39
Fross v. County of Allegheny, 612 F.Supp.2d 651 (W.D.Pa.
2009). 7, 27, 44
Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 1998). 7, 8, 12, 18,
29, 30, 32
Frost v. Symington, 197 F.3d 348 (9th Cir. 1999). 19, 28,
35, 38
Fruit v. Norris, 905 F.2d 1147 (8th Cir. 1990). 11, 20, 27,
36, 50
Frye v. Henderson, 474 F.2d 1263 (5th Cir. 1973). 19, 28
Frye v. Pettis County Sheriff Dept., 41 Fed.Appx. 906 (8th
Cir. 2002). 9, 32, 40
Fuentes v. Wagner, 206 F.3d 335 (3rd Cir. 2000). 32, 39, 48
Fugate v. Phoenix Civil Service Board, 791 F.2d 736 (9th
Cir. 1986). 2, 31, 33
Fuller v. Dillon, 236 F.3d 876 (7th Cir. 2001). 29, 30
Fuller v. Georgia State Bd. of Pardons and Paroles, 851
F.2d 1307 (11th Cir. 1988). 7, 24, 36
Fuller v. Lane, 686 F.Supp. 686 (C.D. Ill. 1988). 36, 50
Fuller v. Oregon, 417 U.S. 40 (1974). 1, 4, 43
Fuller v. Rich, 925 F.Supp. 459 (N.D.Tex 1995). 8, 50
Fulwood v. Clemmer, 206 F.Supp. 370 (D. D.C. 1962). 10,
11

TC-32
XXVI

Furgan v. Ga. St. Bd. of Offender Rehabilitation, 554
F.Supp. 873 (N.D. Ga. 1982). 37, 38
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), reh'g. denied, 409
U.S. 902. 43
Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2013). 18, 37,
48
Furnari v. U.S. Parole Com'n, 531 F.3d 241 (3rd Cir. 2008).
22, 36
Furnari v. Warden, Allenwood Federal Corr. Inst., 218 F.3d
250 (3rd Cir. 2000). 22, 36
Furtado v. Bishop, 604 F.2d 80 (1st Cir. 1979), cert. denied,
444 U.S. 1035. 5
Gabai v. Jacoby, 800 F.Supp. 1149 (A.D.N.Y. 1992). 29, 48
Gabby v. Meyer, 390 F.Supp.2d 801 (E.D.Wis. 2005). 1,
21, 29
Gabel v. Estelle, 677 F.Supp. 514 (S.D. Tex. 1987). 9, 18,
39, 50
Gabel v. Lynaugh, , 835 F.2d 124 (5th Cir. 1988). 1
Gabriel v. Corrections Corp. of America, 211 F.Supp.2d
132 (D.D.C. 2002). 27, 29
Gabriel v. County of Herkimer. 889 F.Supp.2d 374
(N.D.N.Y. 2012). 2, 14, 27, 29, 32
Gabriel v. Hamlin, 514 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2008). 29, 50
Gagne v. City of Galveston, 671 F.Supp. 1130 (S.D. Tex.
1987). 14, 32
Gagon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973). 1, 36, 43
Gailor v. Armstrong, 187 F.Supp.2d 729 (W.D.Ky. 2001).
14, 32, 46, 48
Gaines v. Choctaw County Com'n., 242 F.Supp.2d 1153
(S.D.Ala. 2003). 27, 29, 32, 45
Gaines v. Lane, 790 F.2d 1299 (7th Cir. 1986). 1, 19, 28
Gaither v. Anderson, 236 F.3d 817 (7th Cir. 2000). 11, 22
Galeas v. Inpold, 845 F.Supp.2d 685 (W.D.N.C. 2012). 1,
28
Galen v. County of Los Angeles, 322 F.Supp.2d 1045
(C.D.Cal. 2004). 6, 32
Galen v. County of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652 (9th Cir.
2007). 5, 6, 32
Gallagher v. Shelton, 587 F.3d 1063 (10th Cir. 2009). 18, 37
Gallardo v.Dicarlo, 203 F.Supp.2d 1160 (C.D.Cal. 2002).
14, 17, 48
Gallipeau v. Berard, 734 F.Supp. 48 (D. R.I. 1990),
modified, 971 F.2d 744. 1
Galloway v. State of Louisiana, 817 F.2d 1154 (5th Cir.
1987). 14, 39
Galloway v. Suffolk County Correctional Facility, 232
F.Supp.2d 4 (E.D.N.Y. 2002). 30, 34
Galvan v. Bexar County, Texas, 785 F.2d 1298 (5th Cir.
1986). 2, 31
Galvan v. Carothers, 855 F.Supp. 285 (D.Alaska 1994). 8,
17, 24
Gambino v. Gerlinski, 96 F.Supp.2d 456 (M.D.Pa. 2000).
36, 44
Gamble v. Calbone, 375 F.3d 1021 (10th Cir. 2004). 11, 22
Ganey v. Edwards, 759 F.2d 337 (4th Cir. 1985). 5, 27
Gangloff v. Poccia, 888 F.Supp. 1549 (M.D.Fla. 1995). 11,
14
Gannaway v. Prime Care Medical, Inc., 150 F.Supp.3d 511
(E.D. Pa. 2015). 1, 4, 7, 29
Garcia Rodriguez v. Andreu Garcia, 403 F.Supp.2d 174
(D.Puerto Rico 2005). 16, 32
Garcia Rodriguez v. Laboy, 598 F.Supp.2d 186 (D.Puerto
Rico 2008). 2, 31
Garcia v. Burns, 787 F.Supp. 948 (D. Nev. 1992). 3, 8

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Garcia v. City of Boston, 115 F.Supp.2d 74 (D.Mass. 2000).
14, 29, 30, 32, 48
Garcia v. Condarco, 114 F.Supp.2d 1158 (D.N.M. 2000). 7,
17, 27
Garcia v. District of Columbia, 56 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C.
1998). 7, 11, 21
Garcia v. Lemaster, 439 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir. 2006). 7, 8,
12, 47
Garcia v. Neagle, 660 F.2d 983 (4th Cir. 1981), cert.
denied, 454 U.S. 1153. 36
Garcia v. Reeves County, Tex., 32 F.3d 200 (5th Cir. 1994).
31
Garcia v. Salt Lake County, 768 F.2d 303 (10th Cir. 1985).
14, 25, 29, 32
Garcia-Feliciano v. U.S., 101 F.Supp.3d 142 (D.P.R. 2015).
14, 27
Gardner v. Beale, 780 F.Supp. 1073 (E.D.Va. 1991),
affirmed, 998 F.2d 1008. 10, 18
Gardner v. California, 393 U.S. 367 (1969). 22
Gardner v. Cato, 841 F.2d 105 (5th Cir. 1988). 8, 14, 27,
29, 39
Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427 (8th Cir. 1997). 1, 28
Gardner v. Wilson, 959 F.Supp. 1224 (C.D.Cal. 1997). 4,
29, 35, 43
Garmong v. Montgomery County, 668 F.Supp. 1000 (S.D.
Tex. 1987). 5, 14
Garner v. Caulfield, 584 F.Supp.2d 167 (D.D.C. 2008). 22,
36, 43
Garner v. Jones, 120 S.Ct. 1362 (2000). 36
Garner v. Kennedy, 713 F.3d 237 (5th Cir. 2013). 37, 38, 39
Garnica v. Washington Dept. of Corrections, 965
F.Supp.2d 1250 (W.D. Wash. 2013). 18, 29, 37
Garraghty v. Jordan, 830 F.2d 1295 (4th Cir. 1987). 31
Garretson v. City of Madison Heights, 407 F.3d 789 (6th
Cir. 2005). 25, 29, 32
Garrett v. Angelone, 940 F.Supp. 933 (W.D.Va. 1996). 7, 8,
27, 36
Garrett v. Department of Corrections, 589 F.Supp.2d 1289
(M.D.Fla. 2007). 3
Garrett v. Gilmore, 926 F.Supp. 554 (W.D.Va. 1996). 1, 35
Garrett v. Okaloosa County, 734 F.2d 621 (11th Cir. 1984).
31
Garrett v. United States, 501 F.Supp. 337 (N.D. Ga. 1980).
8, 13, 14, 27
Garrison v. Department of Justice, 72 F.3d 1566 (Fed.Cir.
1995). 31, 41
Garrity v. Fiedler, 850 F.Supp. 777 (E.D. Wis. 1994). 11,
36
Garson v. Perlman, 541 F.Supp.2d 515 (E.D.N.Y. 2008). 6,
22
Gartrell v. Ashcroft, 191 F.Supp.2d 23 (D.D.C. 2002). 19,
37, 38
Garvin v. Armstrong, 236 F.3d 896 (7th Cir. 2001). 29
Garvin v. Terhune, 157 F.Supp.2d 416 (D.N.J. 2001). 34,
37
Garvin v. U.S., 882 F.Supp. 68 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). 43
Gary v. Floyd, 582 F.Supp.2d 741 (D.S.C. 2007). 16, 32, 36
Garza v. Carlson, 877 F.2d 14 (8th Cir. 1989). 3, 18, 29, 37,
39
Gaskins v. Dickhaut, 881 F.Supp.2d 223 (D.Mass. 2012). 1,
28
Gaskins v. Johnson, 443 F.Supp.2d 800 (E.D.Va. 2006). 8,
20, 22
Gaspers v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services, 648 F.3d 400 (6th
Cir. 2011). 31

TC-33
XXVI

Gassler v. Rayl, 862 F.2d 706 (8th Cir. 1988). 1, 47
Gassler v. Wood, 14 F.3d 406 (8th Cir. 1994). 19, 28, 33
Gaston v. Coughlin, 249 F.3d 156 (2nd Cir. 2001). 9, 15, 40
Gaston v. Coughlin, 81 F.Supp.2d 381 (N.D.N.Y. 1999).
11, 27, 44, 50
Gaston v. Coughlin, 861 F.Supp. 199 (W.D.N.Y. 1994). 3,
7, 11, 47
Gaston v. Taylor, 918 F.2d 25 (4th Cir. 1990). 11, 38
Gaston v. Taylor, 946 F.2d 340 (4th Cir. 1991). 38
Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir. 1974). 14, 45
Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323 (5th Cir. 2004). 9, 10, 15, 23,
30, 40, 44
Gatlin Ex Rel. Gatlin v. Green, 227 F.Supp.2d 1064
(D.Minn. 2002). 14, 19, 28, 32, 46
Gatlin ex rel. Gatlin v. Green, 362 F.3d 1089 (8th Cir.
2004). 14, 46
Gaudreault v. Municipality of Salem, Mass., 923 F.2d 203
(1st Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 2266. 14, 29,
48
Gauthier v. Dexter, 573 F.Supp.2d 1282 (C.D.Cal. 2008).
11, 20, 22
Gavin v. Branstad, 122 F.3d 1081 2 (8th Cir. 1997). 27
Gavin v. McGinnis, 788 F.Supp. 1012 (N.D. Ill. 1992). 7,
49
Gavin v. McGinnis, 866 F.Supp. 1107 (N.D. Ill. 1994). 24,
49
Gay v. Chandra, 652 F.Supp.2d 959 (S.D.Ill. 2009). 9, 10,
18, 30
Gay v. Chandra, 682 F.3d 590 (7th Cir. 2012). 1, 6, 7
Gay v. Turner, 994 F.2d 425 (8th Cir. 1993). 17, 47
Gayle v. Gonyea, 313 F.3d 677 (2nd Cir. 2002). 3, 11, 21
Gayle v. Johnson, 4 F.Supp.3d 692 (D.N.J. 2014). 1, 6, 7,
32
Gayle v. Lucas, 133 F.Supp.2d 266 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
11,13,21
Gayton v. McCoy, 593 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 2010). 1, 14, 17,
25, 29, 32
Geddes v. Cox, 880 F.Supp. 767 (D.Kan. 1995). 7, 29
Geder v. Godinez, 875 F.Supp. 1334 (N.D. Ill. 1995). 3, 9,
10, 11, 40
Geder v. Lane, 745 F.Supp. 538 (C.D. Ill. 1990). 41
Geder v. Roth, 765 F.Supp. 1357 (N.D. Ill. 1991). 1
Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178 (10th Cir. 2010). 12, 19, 23,
28, 38, 42
Gentry v. Duckworth 65 F.3d 555 (7th Cir. 1995). 1
George v. City of Wichita, 348 F.Supp.2d 1232 (D.Kan.
2004). 32, 41
George v. King, 837 F.2d 705 (5th Cir. 1988), cert. denied,
106 S.Ct. 1975. 1, 10, 18,
George v. SC Data Center, Inc., 884 F.Supp. 329 (W.D.
Wis. 1995). 50
George v. Smith, 467 F.Supp.2d 906 (W.D.Wis. 2006). 9,
19, 28, 29, 38
George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007). 18, 19, 40
George v. Sonoma County Sheriff's Dept., 732 F.Supp.2d
922 (N.D.Cal. 2010). 27, 29
George v. Sullivan, 896 F.Supp. 895 (W.D.Wis. 1995). 19,
37
Gerakaris v. Champagne, 913 F.Supp. 646 (D.Mass. 1996).
1, 6, 25, 29, 32
Gerber v. Hickman, 103 F.Supp.2d 1214 (E.D.Cal. 2000).
19, 49
Gerber v. Hickman, 291 F.3d 617 (9th Cir. 2002). 7, 19, 38,
49

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Gerber v. Sweeney, 292 F.Supp.2d 700 (E.D.Pa. 2003) 12,
23, 42
Gerhardt v. Lazaroff, 221 F.Supp.2d 827 (S.D.Ohio 2002).
24, 37
Germano v. Winnebago County, Ill., 403 F.3d 926 (7th Cir.
2005). 31
Getch v. Rosenbach, 700 F.Supp. 1365 (D. N.J. 1988). 47
Geter v. Wille, 846 F.2d 1352 (11th Cir. 1988), cert. denied,
109 S.Ct. 870. 14
Gethers v. Harrison, 27 F.Supp.3d 644 (E.D.N.C. 2014). 2,
31, 33, 45
Gettleman v. Werner, 377 F.Supp. 445 (W.D. Penn. 1974).
31, 41
Getz v. Board of County Com'rs. 194 F.Supp.2d 1154
(D.Kan. 2002). 31
Gevas v. Ghosh, 566 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 2009). 1, 27
Gevas v. McLaughlin, 798 F.3d 475 (7th Cir. 2015). 14
Gholson v. Murry, 953 F.Supp. 709 (E.D.Va. 1997). 3, 12,
37, 40, 50
Giakoumelos v. Coughlin, 88 F.3d 56 (2nd Cir. 1996). 11
Giampetruzzi v. Malcolm, 406 F.Supp. 836 (S.D. N.Y.
1975). 1, 3, 12, 19, 32, 37, 38, 41, 45, 49
Giano v. Goord, 380 F.3d 670 (2nd Cir. 2004). 1
Giano v. Selsky, 238 F.3d 223 (2nd Cir. 2001). 3, 47
Giano v. Senkowski, 54 F.3d 1050 (2nd Cir. 1995). 19, 38
Giano v. Sullivan, 709 F.Supp. 1209 (S.D.N.Y. 1989). 11,
22
Giarratano v. Johnson, 456 F.Supp.2d 747 (W.D.Va. 2006).
2, 19, 44
Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298 (4th Cir. 2008). 1, 19,
44
Giarratano v. Murray, 836 F.2d 1421 (4th Cir. 1988). 1, 43
Giba v. Cook, 232 F.Supp.2d 1171 (D.Or. 2002). 1, 38, 35,
41
Gibbs v. Franklin, 18 F.3d 521 (7th Cir. 1994). 14
Gibbs v. Franklin, 49 F.3d 1206 (7th Cir. 1995). 14
Gibbs v. Hopkins, 10 F.3d 373 (6th Cir. 1993). 1, 11
Gibbs v. King, 779 F.2d 1040 (5th Cir. 1986). 11, 38
Gibeau v. Nellis, 18 F.3d 107 (2nd Cir. 1994). 27, 48
Gibson v. Babcock, 601 F.Supp. 1156 (N.D. Ill. 1984). 27,
29, 32, 48
Gibson v. Brooks, 335 F.Supp.2d 325 (D.Conn. 2004). 14
Gibson v. City Municipality of New York, 692 F.3d 198
(2nd Cir. 2012). 1, 7
Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nev., 290 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir.
2002). 25, 29, 32
Gibson v. Foltz, 963 F.2d 851 (6th Cir. 1992). 9, 14
Gibson v. Matthews, 715 F.Supp. 181 (E.D. Ky. 1989),
affirmed, 926 F.2d 532. 17, 24, 29
Gibson v. Matthews, 926 F.2d 532 (6th Cir. 1991). 17, 29
Gibson v. McEvers, 631 F.2d 95 (7th Cir. 1980). 11, 29
Gibson v. Milwaukee County, 95 F.Supp.3d 1061 (E.D.
Wis. 2015). 31
Gibson v. Moskowitz, 523 F.3d 657 (6th Cir. 2008). 9, 10,
14, 27, 29, 30
Gibson v. Scheidemantel, 805 F.2d 135 (3rd Cir. 1986). 22
Giddings v. Joseph Coleman Center, 473 F.Supp.2d 617
(E.D.Pa. 2007). 29, 30, 36
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963). 22
Gil v. Reed, 535 F.3d 551 (7th Cir. 2008). 29
Gilanian v. City of Boston, 431 F.Supp.2d 172 (D.Mass.
2006). 17, 32, 41
Gilbert v. Collins, 905 F.2d 61 2 (5th Cir. 1990). 48
Gilbert v. Frazier, 931 F.2d 1581 (7th Cir. 1991). 11
Gilbert v. Peters, 55 F.3d 237 (7th Cir. 1995). 33, 41, 43

TC-34
XXVI

Gilbert v. Selsky, 867 F.Supp. 159 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). 11, 27,
46
Gilbertson v. Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, 993 F.2d
74 (5th Cir. 1993). 36
Gilchrist v. Kane County Correctional Center, 48 F.Supp.2d
809 (N.D.Ill. 1999). 29
Giles v. Ackerman, 559 F.Supp. 226 (D. Ida. 1983), reh'g.
denied, 746 F.2d 614, cert. denied, 105 S.Ct. 2114.
17, 41
Giles v. Henry, 841 F.Supp. 270 (S.D. Iowa 1993). 7, 11
Giles v. Kearney, 516 F.Supp.2d 362 (D.Del.2007). 29, 48
Giles v. Kearney, 571 F.3d 318 (3rd Cir. 2009). 29, 48
Giles v. Tate, 907 F.Supp. 1135 (S.D.Ohio 1995). 1
Gill v. Mooney, 824 F.2d 192 (2nd Cir. 1987). 1, 10, 27, 29,
50
Gill v. Neaves, 657 F.Supp. 1394 (W.D. Tex. 1987). 1, 27
Gill v. Smith, 283 F.Supp.2d 763 (N.D.N.Y. 2003) 9, 10
Gilland v. Owens, 718 F.Supp. 665 (W.D. Tenn. 1989). 1,
9, 12, 29, 35
Gillespie v. Brewer, 602 F.Supp. 218 (N.D. W.Va. 1985). 5
Gillespie v. Crawford, 833 F.2d 47 (5th Cir. 1987). 9, 10
Gillet v. Anderson, 577 F.Supp.2d 828 (W.D.La. 2008). 21
Gillihan v. Shillinger, 872 F.2d 935 (10th Cir. 1989). 4, 27,
35, 47
Gillis v. Litscher, 468 F.3d 488 (7th Cir. 2006). 9, 10, 11,
18
Gillman v. Okaloosa County Florida, 58 F.Supp.3d 1305
(N.D. Fla. 2014). 31
Gilman v. Schwarzenegger, 638 F.3d 1101(9th Cir. 2011).
27, 36, 44
Gilmore v. Bostic, 636 F.Supp.2d 496 (S.D.W.Va. 2009).
7, 8, 24, 27, 34, 43
Gilmore v. County of Douglas, State of Neb., 406 F.3d 935
(8th Cir. 2005). 2, 7, 19, 42
Gilmore v. Goord, 415 F.Supp.2d 220 (W.D.N.Y. 2006). 3,
47
Gilmore v. Hodges, 738 F.3d 266 (11th Cir. 2013). 29, 32
Gilmore v. Jeffes, 675 F.Supp. 219 (M.D. Pa. 1987). 11
Gilmore v. Lynch, 319 F.Supp. 105 (N.D. Calif. 1970). 1
Gilmore v. People of the State of California, 220 F.3d 987
(9th Cir. 2000). 27
Gilmore-Bey v. Coughlin, 929 F.Supp. 146 (S.D.N.Y.
1996). 37
Gilreath v. State Bd. of Pardons and Paroles, 273 F.3d 932
(11th Cir. 2001). 43
Gilson v. Cox, 711 F.Supp. 354 (E.D. Mich. 1989). 7, 14,
23
Gilty v. Village of Oak Park, 919 F.2d 1247 (7th Cir. 1990).
31
Gindraw v. Dendler, 967 F.Supp. 833 (E.D.Pa. 1997). 29
Ginest v. Board of County Com’rs. of Carbon County, 333
F.Supp.2d 1190 (D.Wyo. 2004). 2, 27, 29, 32, 46
Ginest v. Board of County Com'rs of Carbon County, 423
F.Supp.2d 1237 (W.D.Wyo. 2006). 5, 27
Ginest v. Board of County Com'rs. of Carbon County, 306
F.Supp.2d 1158 (D.Wyo. 2004). 2, 27
Gipson v. Cochran, 90 F.Supp.3d 1285 (S.D.Ala. 2015). 31
Giron v. Corrections Corp. of America, 14 F.Supp.2d 1245
(D.N.M. 1998). 14, 17, 27
Giron v. Corrections Corp. of America, 14 F.Supp.2d 1252
(D.N.M. 1998). 15, 17, 30
Giron v. Corrections Corp. of America, 191 F.3d 1281
(10th Cir. 1999). 14, 17
Giroux v. Sherman, 807 F.Supp. 1182 (E.D.Pa. 1992). 27,
48

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Giroux v. Somerset County, 178 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 1999). 8,
14, 32, 45
Gittens v. Lefevre, 891 F.2d 38 (2nd Cir. 1989). 3, 8, 24
Gittens v. Sullivan, 848 F.2d 389 (2nd Cir. 1988). 1
Gittlemacker v. Prasse, 428 F.2d 1 (3rd Cir. 1970). 37
Givens v. Alabama Dept. of Corrections, 381 F.3d 1064
(11th Cir. 2004). 2, 13, 35, 50
Givens v. Jones, 900 F.2d 1229 (8th Cir. 1990). 9, 10, 29
Gladson v. Iowa Dept. of Corrections, 551 F.3d 825 (8th
Cir. 2009). 37
Gladson v. Rice, 862 F.2d 711 (8th Cir. 1988). 8, 9
Glascoe v. U.S., 358 F.3d 967 (D.C.Cir. 2004). 20, 22
Glaspy v. Malicoat, 134 F.Supp.2d 890 (W.D.Mich. 2001).
27, 38, 39, 49
Glass v. Rodriguez, 417 F.Supp.2d 943 (N.D.Ill. 2006). 29,
32
Glasshofer v. Thornburgh, 514 F.Supp. 1242 (E.D. Penn.
1981). 37, 38
Glauner v. Miller, 184 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 1999). 8, 34, 36
Glaze v. Byrd, 721 F.3d 528 (8th Cir. 2013). 14, 24, 27, 32
Gleave v. Graham, 4 F.Supp.2d 163 (W.D.N.Y. 1998). 4,
36
Gleave v. Graham, 954 F.Supp. 599 (W.D.N.Y. 1997). 4
Glenn v. Berndt, 289 F.Supp.2d 1120 (N.D.Cal. 2003) 14,
39
Glick v. Henderson, 855 F.2d 536 (8th Cir. 1988). 8, 14, 29,
39
Glick v. Lockhart, 769 F.2d 471 (8th Cir. 1985), cert.
denied, 106 S.Ct. 523. 1
Glick v. Walker, 834 F.2d 709 (8th Cir. 1987). 11
Glidden v. Atkinson, 750 F.Supp. 25 (D. Me. 1990). 34
Glisson v. Sangamon County Sheriff’s Department, 408
F.Supp.2d 609 (C.D.Ill. 2006). 1, 30, 32, 33
Glover v. Gartman, 899 F.Supp.2d 1115 (D.N.M. 2012). 8,
14, 24, 29, 32
Glover v. Johnson, 198 F.3d 557 (6th Cir. 1999). 17, 27
Glover v. Johnson, 35 F.Supp.2d 1010 (E.D.Mich. 1999). 7,
17, 27, 34
Glover v. Johnson, 75 F.3d 264 (6th Cir. 1996). 1, 17
Glover v. Johnson, 850 F.Supp. 592 (E.D. Mich. 1994). 1,
17
Glover v. Johnson, 879 F.Supp. 752 (E.D. Mich. 1995). 17,
27, 34
Glover v. Johnson, 931 F.Supp. 1360 (E.D.Mich. 1996). 1,
3, 4, 17, 34, 27, 50
Glover v. Johnson, 934 F.2d 703 (6th Cir. 1991). 17, 34
Glumb v. Honsted, 891 F.2d 872 (11th Cir. 1990). 22, 36
Gluth v. Kangas, 773 F.Supp. 1309 (D. Ariz. 1988),
affirmed, 951 F.2d 1504. 1
Glynn v. Auger, 678 F.2d 760 (8th Cir. 1982). 9, 10, 15
Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339 (5th Cir. 2006). 29, 50
Godbolt v. Commissioner, Dept. Corr. Servs., 524 F.Supp.
21 (S.D. N.Y. 1981). 36
Goebert v. Lee County, 510 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2007). 17,
21, 20, 32
Goetz v. Ricketts, 632 F.Supp. 926 (D. Colo. 1986). 5
Goff v. Bechtold, 632 F.Supp. 697 (S.D. W.Va. 1986). 29
Goff v. Burton, 7 F.3d 734 (8th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114
S.Ct. 2684. 1, 11, 47
Goff v. Burton, 91 F.3d 1188 (8th Cir. 1996). 1, 11, 27, 47
Goff v. Dailey, 991 F.2d 1437 (8th Cir. 1993). 38
Goff v. Graves, 362 F.3d 543 (8th Cir. 2004). 18, 37
Goff v. Nix, 113 F.3d 887 (8th Cir. 1997). 1, 28
Goffman v. Gross, 59 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 1995). 8, 29
Goguen v. Allen, 780 F.3d 437 (1st Cir. 2015). 8, 21, 32

TC-35
XXVI

Goka v. Bobbitt, 862 F.2d 646 (7th Cir. 1988). 14
Golberg v. Hennepin County, 417 F.3d 808 (8th Cir. 2005).
25, 32, 36
Goldberg v. Beeler, 82 F.Supp.2d 302 (D.N.J. 1999). 22, 43
Golden v. McCaughtry, 937 F.Supp. 818 (E.D.Wis. 1995).
19. 35
Goldhaber v. Higgins, 576 F.Supp.2d 694 (W.D.Pa. 2007).
36, 50
Goldsby v. Carnes, 365 F.Supp. 395 (W.D. Mo. 1973). 2, 3,
8, 11, 12, 18, 23, 25, 35, 38, 40, 42
Goldsby v. Carnes, 429 F.Supp. 370 (W.D. Mo. 1977). 8,
11, 18, 23, 26, 29, 31, 37, 39, 40, 41, 45, 46
Goldsmith v. White, 357 F.Supp.2d 1336 (N.D.Fla. 2005). 1
Golub v. Coughlin, 885 F.Supp. 42 (N.D.N.Y. 1995). 3, 8
Gometz v. Henman, 807 F.2d 113 (7th Cir. 1986). 1
Gomez v. Grossheim, 901 F.2d 686 (8th Cir. 1990). 8, 29,
47
Gomez v. Kaplan, 964 F.Supp. 830 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). 11
Gomez v. Randle, 680 F.3d 859 (7th Cir. 2012). 21, 29, 47,
48
Gomez v. Vernon, 962 F.Supp. 1296 (D.Idaho 1997). 1
Gomm v. DeLand, 729 F.Supp. 767 (D. Utah 1990),
affirmed, 931 F.2d 62. 10, 29
Gonyer v. McDonald, 874 F.Supp. 464 (D. Mass. 1995). 9
Gonzales Rodriguez v. Alvarado, 134 F.Supp.2d 451
(D.Puerto Rico 2001). 14
Gonzales v. Brevard, 531 F.Supp.2d 1019 (W.D.Wis.
2008). 29
Gonzales v. Martinez, 403 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2005). 14,
17, 32
Gonzales-Perez v. Harper, 241 F.3d 633 (8th Cir. 2001). 11,
20
Gonzalez v. Angelilli, 40 F.Supp.2d 615 (E.D.Pa. 1999). 2,
14, 27, 36, 46
Gonzalez v. Cecil County, Maryland, 221 F.Supp.2d 611
(D.Md. 2002). 14, 27, 29, 32
Gonzalez v. City of Schenectady, 141 F.Supp.2d 304
(N.D.N.Y. 2001). 17, 32, 41
Gonzalez v. Feinerman, 663 F.3d 311 (7th Cir. 2011). 29
Gonzalez v. Litscher, 230 F.Supp.2d 950 (W.D.Wis. 2002).
37
Gonzalez v. Monty, 89 F.Supp.2d 1347 (S.D.Fla. 2000). 29
Gonzalez v. Narcato, 363 F.Supp.2d 486 (E.D.N.Y. 2005).
3, 21, 37, 41
Gonzalez v. New York State Dept. of Correct. Ser., 122
F.Supp.2d 335 (N.D.N.Y. 2000). 31
Gonzalez v. O'Connell, 355 F.3d 1010 (7th Cir. 2004). 22
Gonzalez v. Seal, 702 F.3d 785 (5th Cir. 2012). 1, 21
Gonzalez v. U.S., 681 F.3d 949 (8th Cir. 2012). 7, 27, 29
Gonzalez-Fuentes v. Molina, 607 F.3d 864 (1st Cir. 2010).
1, 22, 34, 36, 43, 44
Gonzalez-Jimenez De Ruiz v. U.S., 231 F.Supp.2d 1187
(M.D.Fla. 2002). 7, 27, 29, 47, 49
Gonzalez-Mercado v. Municipality of Guaynabo, 206
F.Supp.2d 257 (D.Puerto Rico 2002). 29, 32
Goode v. Correctional Medical Services, 168 F.Supp.2d
289 (D.Del. 2001). 14, 17, 29
Goodell v. Anthony, 157 F.Supp.2d 796 (E.D.Mich. 2001).
1
Gooden v. Crain, 405 F.Supp.2d 714 (E.D.Tex. 2005). 37,
38
Gooding v. Ketcher, 838 F.Supp.2d 1231(N.D.Okla. 2012).
7, 16, 19, 27, 33, 46
Goodman v. Kimbrough, 718 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2013).
14, 15, 27, 30, 32, 39, 45

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Goodman v. Wagner, 553 F.Supp. 255 (E.D. Penn. 1982).
29
Goodnow v. Palm, 264 F.Supp.2d 125 (D.Vt. 2003). 29
Goodson v. City of Atlanta, 763 F.2d 1381 (11th Cir. 1985).
9, 27, 32, 40
Goodson v. United States, 472 F.Supp. 1211 (E.D. Mich.
1979). 19, 28
Goodson v. Willard Drug Treatment Campus, 615
F.Supp.2d 100 (W.D.N.Y. 2009). 7, 8, 29
Goodvine v. Ankarlo, 9 F.Supp.3d 899 (W.D.Wis. 2014).
14, 30, 45
Goodvine v. Swiekatowski, 594 F.Supp.2d 1049 (W.D.Wis.
2009). 18, 37, 38
Goodwin v. State of Okl., 923 F.2d 156 (10th Cir. 1991). 22
Goodwin v. Turner, 702 F.Supp. 1452 (W.D. Mo. 1988).
22, 38
Goodwin v. Turner, 908 F.2d 1395 (8th Cir. 1990). 38
Goosby v. Osser, 409 U.S. 512 (1973). 6, 19
Gordon ex rel. Gordon v. Frank, 454 F.3d 858 (8th Cir.
2006). 29
Gordon v. Alexander, 592 F.Supp.2d 644 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
36
Gordon v. Caruso, 720 F.Supp.2d 896 (W.D.Mich. 2010).
37, 38, 39
Gordon v. City of New York, 517 N.E.2d 1331 (N.Y.
1987). 14, 25, 30, 32
Gordon v. Johnson, 991 F.Supp.2d 258 (D.Mass. 2013). 1,
6, 7, 22, 32, 36
Gordon v. U.S. Parole Com'n., 841 F.Supp. 176 (E.D. Va.
1994). 22, 36,
Gordon v. Woodbourne Correctional Facility, 481
F.Supp.2d 263 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). 49
Gorman v. Moody, 710 F.Supp. 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1989). 9,
29
Gorman v. Rensselaer County, 98 F.Supp.3d 498 (N.D.N.Y.
2015). 2, 31
Gorski v. New Hampshire Dept. of Corrections, 290 F.3d
466 (1st Cir. 2002). 31
Goss v. Sullivan, 839 F.Supp. 1532 (D. Wyo. 1993). 8, 14
Govan v. Campbell, 289 F.Supp.2d 289 (N.D.N.Y. 2003) 9,
15, 40, 45
Grace v. Wainwright, 761 F.Supp. 1520 (M.D. Fla. 1991).
3, 12, 29
Graham ex rel. Estate v. County of Washtenaw, 358 F.3d
377 (6th Cir. 2004). 14, 32
Graham v. Bowen, 648 F.Supp. 298 (S.D. Tex. 1986). 4
Graham v. Broglin, 922 F.2d 379 (7th Cir. 1991). 22, 34
Graham v. Henderson, 89 F.3d 75 (2nd Cir. 1996). 11, 21,
50
Graham v. Hodge, 69 F.Supp.3d 618 (S.D.Miss. 2014). 14,
29, 32, 46
Graham v. Lanfong, 25 F.3d 203 (3rd Cir. 1994). 20, 43
Graham v. Perez, 121 F.Supp.2d 317 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). 3,
10, 15
Graham v. Poole, 476 F.Supp.2d 257 (W.D.N.Y. 2007). 15,
39
Graham v. Sheriff of Logan County, 741 F.3d 1118 (10th
Cir. 2013). 14, 17
Graham v. Van Dycke, 564 F.Supp.2d 1305 (D.Kan. 2008).
17, 29, 30, 33, 41
Grand Jury Subpoena John Doe v. U.S., 150 F.3d 170 (2nd
Cir. 1998). 18, 19
Grandberry v. Keever, 735 F.3d 616 (7th Cir. 2013). 11, 20,
22

TC-36
XXVI

Grandberry v. Smith, 754 F.3d 425 (7th Cir. 2014). 11, 20,
22
Grandison v. Cuyler, 774 F.2d 598 (1985). 11
Graning v. Sherburne County, 172 F.3d 611 (8th Cir. 1999).
31
Grantham v. Dept. of Corrections, 522 So.2d 219 (Miss.
1988). 27, 36
Granville v. United States, 613 F.2d 125 (5th Cir. 1980). 36
Grass v. Sargent, 903 F.2d 1206 (8th Cir. 1990). 38, 49
Gravely v. Madden, 142 F.3d 345 (6th Cir. 1998). 48
Graves v. Arpaio, 48 F.Supp.3d 1318 (D.Ariz. 2014). 5, 27,
29, 30, 32
Graves v. Arpaio, 623 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2010). 5, 7, 9, 15,
18, 27, 29, 32
Graves v. Arpaio, 633 F.Supp.2d 834 (D.Ariz. 2009). 2, 5,
9, 12, 15, 27, 32, 40
Graves v. North Dakota State Penitentiary, 325 F.Supp.2d
1009 (D.N.D. 2004). 7
Gray v. Cannon, 974 F.Supp.2d 1150 (N.D.Ill. 2013). 19,
21, 28, 38, 39
Gray v. City of Detroit, 399 F.3d 612 (6th Cir. 2005). 14, 29,
32, 45, 46
Gray v. Creamer, 465 F.2d 179 (3rd Cir. 1972). 3, 8, 19
Gray v. Farley, 13 F.3d 142 (4th Cir. 1993). 29
Gray v. Hernandez, 651 F.Supp.2d 1167 (S.D.Cal. 2009). 3,
9, 12, 21, 23, 40
Gray v. Johnson, 436 F.Supp.2d 795 (W.D.Va. 2006). 19,
20, 34, 37
Gray v. Tunica County, Mississippi, 279 F.Supp.2d 789
(N.D.Miss. 2003). 14, 32, 45
Grayson v. Peed, 195 F.3d 692 (4th Cir. 1999). 14, 25, 32,
44, 46, 48
Grayson v. Rison, 945 F.2d 1064 (9th Cir. 1991). 8, 47
Grayson v. Ross, 454 F.3d 802 (8th Cir. 2006). 14, 25, 29,
32, 44
Grayson v. Schuler, 666 F.3d 450 (7th Cir. 2012). 24, 37,
38, 39
Greason v. Kemp, 891 F.2d 829 (11th Cir. 1990). 14, 24, 30
Greaves v. State of N.Y., 958 F.Supp. 142 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).
11, 36
Greco v. County of Nassau, 146 F.Supp.2d 232 (E.D.N.Y.
2001). 31
Greear v. Loving, 391 F.Supp. 1269 (W.D. Vir. 1975). 48
Green v. Baca, 306 F.Supp.2d 903 (C.D.Cal. 2004). 14, 32,
36
Green v. Baron, 879 F.2d 305 (8th Cir. 1989). 30, 32
Green v. Bauvi, 46 F.3d 189 (2nd Cir. 1995). 11, 24
Green v. Berge, 354 F.3d 675 (7th Cir. 2004). 41
Green v. Carlson, 581 F.2d 669 (7th Cir. 1978), affirmed,
100 S.Ct. 1468. 29
Green v. Ferrell, 500 F.Supp. 870 (S.D. Miss. 1980). 9, 11,
29
Green v. Floyd County, Ky., 803 F.Supp.2d 652 (E.D.Ky.
2011). 7, 9, 10, 14
Green v. Khrisnaswamy, 328 F.Supp.2d 417 (W.D.N.Y.
2004). 29
Green v. McCall, 636 F.Supp. 101 (D. Conn. 1986). 36
Green v. McGinnis, 515 F.Supp.2d 379 (W.D.N.Y. 2007).
29
Green v. Polunsky, 229 F.3d 486 (5th Cir. 2000). 37, 38
Green v. Thoryk, 30 F.Supp.2d 862 (E.D.Pa. 1998). 7, 14
Green v. Tudor, 685 F.Supp.2d 678 (W.D.Mich. 2010). 1,
18, 21, 37, 39
Green v. White, 525 F.Supp. 81 (E.D. Mo. 1981), cert.
denied, 103 S.Ct. 2464. 37

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Green v. Young, 454 F.3d 405 (4th Cir. 2006). 1
Greene v. Bowles, 361 F.3d 290 (6th Cir. 2004). 14, 17
Greene v. Esgrow, 686 F.Supp.2d 240 (W.D.N.Y. 2010). 3,
10, 11, 18
Greene v. Furman, 610 F.Supp.2d 234 (W.D.N.Y. 2009). 3,
10, 11, 12, 23, 30, 32
Greene v. Mazzuca, 485 F.Supp.2d 447 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). 7,
10
Greene v. Meese, 875 F.2d 639 (7th Cir. 1989). 22
Greene v. Solano County Jail, 513 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2008).
13, 37, 38, 39
Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates, 442 U.S. 1 (1979).
36
Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2005). 1, 29
Greer v. Shoop, 141 F.3d 824 (8th Cir. 1998). 24, 36
Greffey v. State of Ala. Dept. of Corrections, 996 F.Supp.
1368 (N.D.Ala. 1998). 14, 29, 30
Gregg v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services, 661 F.Supp.2d 842
(S.D.Ohio 2009). 14, 26, 48
Gregoire v. Class, 236 F.3d 413 (8th Cir. 2000). 14, 29
Gregory v. Auger, 768 F.2d 287 (8th Cir. 1985), cert.
denied, 106 S.Ct. 601. 11, 28
Gregory v. State of New York Parole Comm'n., 496 F.Supp.
748 (M.D. Pa. 1980). 36
Gregory v. Weigler, 873 F.Supp. 1189 (C.D. Ill. 1995). 5
Grenemyer v. Gunter, 770 F.Supp. 1432 (D. Colo. 1991),
affirmed, 968 F.2d 20. 22, 36
Grennier v. Frank, 453 F.3d 442 (7th Cir. 2006). 36
Grenning v. Klemme, 34 F.Supp.3d 1144 (E.D.Wash.
2014). 1, 19, 21, 28, 33
Grenning v. Miller-Stout, 739 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 2014). 3,
9, 10, 15, 45
Grenning v. Stout, 144 F.Supp.3d 1241 (E.D. Wash. 2015).
3, 9, 10, 15
Greybuffalo v. Kingston, 581 F.Supp.2d 1034 (W.D.Wis.
2007). 11, 19, 35, 39
Grieveson v. Anderson, 538 F.3d 763 (7th Cir. 2008). 14,
29, 32
Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2009). 1, 8, 9, 21,
29
Griffin v. Coughlin, 743 F.Supp. 1006 (N.D.N.Y. 1990). 1,
3, 10, 34, 37, 42
Griffin v. DeTella, 21 F.Supp.2d 843 (N.D.Ill. 1998). 1, 35
Griffin v. Gomez, 741 F.3d 10 (9th Cir. 2014). 8, 22, 39, 47
Griffin v. Hardrick, 604 F.3d 949 (6th Cir. 2010). 25, 32, 48
Griffin v. Lombardi, 946 F.2d 604 (8th Cir. 1991). 19, 28
Griffin v. Smith, 493 F.Supp. 129 (W.D. N.Y. 1980). 8, 11,
12, 18, 23, 34, 40, 42, 45, 48, 49
Griffin v. Spratt, 768 F.Supp. 153 (E.D. Pa. 1991), reversed,
969 F.2d 16. 11
Griffin v. Vaughn, 112 F.3d 703 (3rd Cir. 1997). 3
Griffin-El v. Delo, 34 F.3d 602 (8th Cir. 1994). 8
Griffin-El v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 835 F.Supp.
1114 (E.D.Mo. 1993), affirmed, 43 F.3d 1476. 2, 19,
33, 42
Grillo v. Coughlin, 31 F.3d 53 (2nd Cir. 1994). 11
Grim v. Moore, 745 F.Supp. 1280 (S.D. Ohio 1988). 32, 35
Grimes v. District of Columbia, 923 F.Supp.2d 196 (D.D.C.
2013). 1, 2, 14, 26, 27, 45
Grimm v. Jackson, 845 F.Supp. 383 (W.D.Va. 1994). 7, 36
Grimsley v. MacKay, 93 F.3d 676 (10th Cir. 1996). 14, 46
Grinter v. Knight, 532 F.3d 567 (6th Cir. 2008). 1, 21, 29,
48
Griswold v. Morgan, 378 F.Supp.2d 328 (W.D.N.Y. 2005).
29

TC-37
XXVI

Groceman v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 354 F.3d 411 (5th Cir.
2004). 41
Grochulski v. Kuhlmann, 575 N.Y.S.2d 722 (A.D. 1991).
11
Grohs v. Yatauro, 984 F.Supp.2d 273 (D.N.J. 2013). 8, 9,
15, 23, 24, 32
Gross v. Buescher, 791 F.Supp. 796 (E.D.Mo. 1992). 29
Gross v. Henderson, 435 N.Y.S.2d 823 (App. Div. 1981).
11
Gross v. Tazewell County Jail, 533 F.Supp. 413 (W.D. Vir.
1982). 9, 15
Grossman v. Bruce, 447 F.3d 801 (10th Cir. 2006). 11, 22
Grove v. Kadlic, 968 F.Supp. 510 (D.Nev. 1997). 4, 13
Grubbs v. Bradley, 552 F.Supp. 1052 (M.D. Tenn. 1982). 8,
9, 10, 12, 15, 44
Gruenberg v. Gempeler, 697 F.3d 573 (7th Cir. 2012). 1, 9,
23, 33, 39, 40, 48
Gruenberg v. Gempeler, 740 F.Supp.2d 1018 (E.D.Wis.
2010). 9, 39
Grummett v. Rushen, 587 F.Supp. 913 (N.D. Ca. 1984). 33,
45
Grune v. Rodriguez, 176 F.3d 27 (2rd Cir. 1999). 36
Guajardo v. Estelle, 568 F.Supp. 1354 (S.D. Tex. 1983). 11,
28
Guajardo v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, 363 F.3d 392
(5th Cir. 2004). 27
Guarneri v. West, 518 F.Supp.2d 514 (W.D.N.Y. 2007). 24
Guarneri v. West, 782 F.Supp.2d 51 (W.D.N.Y. 2011). 1
Guerra v. Drake, 371 F.3d 404 (8th Cir. 2004). 27, 32, 39,
48
Gulett v. Haines, 229 F.Supp.2d 806 (S.D.Ohio 2002). 14,
19, 32
Gulley v. Ghosh, 864 F.Supp.2d 725 (N.D.Ill. 2012). 29
Gullick v. Ott, 517 F.Supp.2d 1063 (W.D.Wis. 2007). 19,
31
Gunther v. Iowa State Men's Reformatory, 462 F.Supp. 952
(N.D. Iowa, 1979). 31
Gutierrez v. Joy, 502 F.Supp.2d 352 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). 34,
36
Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d 1364 (7th Cir. 1997). 29
Gutierrez-Perez v. Fasano, 37 F.Supp.2d 1166 (S.D.Cal.
1999). 22
Guy v. State, 396 N.W.2d 197 (Iowa App. 1986). 11, 19, 38
Guy v. United States, 492 F.Supp. 571 (N.D. Calif. 1980).
14, 27
Guzman v. Sheahan, 495 F.3d 852 (7th Cir. 2007). 8, 14, 32
Guzzi v. Thompson, 470 F.Supp.2d 17 (D.Mass. 2007). 18,
37
Gwathney v. Warren, 930 F.Supp.2d 1313 (M.D.Ala.
2013). 24, 41, 48
Gwin v. Snow, 870 F.2d 616 (11th Cir. 1989). 22, 36
Gwynn v. Transcor America, Inc., 26 F.Supp.2d 1256
(D.Colo. 1998). 7, 14, 17, 27, 47
H.C. by Hewett v. Jarrard, 786 F.2d 1080 (11th Cir. 1986).
8, 11, 26, 27, 29, 32, 48
Haas v. Burlington County, 955 F.Supp.2d 334 (D.N.J.
2013). 25, 27, 32, 41
Hadi v. Horn, 830 F.2d 779 (7th Cir. 1987). 37, 39
Hadix v. Caruso, 461 F.Supp.2d 574 (W.D.Mich. 2006). 3,
29, 30, 48
Hadix v. Caruso, 492 F.Supp.2d 743 (W.D.Mich. 2007). 9,
15, 27
Hadix v. Johnson, 230 F.3d 840 (6th Cir. 2000). 5
Hadix v. Johnson, 367 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 2004). 15, 27, 39
Hadix v. Johnson, 712 F.Supp. 550 (E.D. Mich. 1989). 1

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Hadley v. Peters, 841 F.Supp. 850 (C.D. Ill. 1994). 3, 10,
11, 50
Haff. v. Cooke, 923 F.Supp. 1104 (E.D.Wis. 1996). 19, 37
Hagan v. Rogers, 570 F.3d 146 (3rd Cir. 2009). 1, 27, 29
Hagan v. Tirado, 896 F.Supp. 990 (C.D.Cal. 1995). 3
Hahn v. City of Kenner, 984 F.Supp. 424 (E.D.La. 1997).
25, 32
Hahn v. Walsh, 762 F.3d 617 (7th Cir. 2014). 14, 17, 29, 32
Hahn v. Walsh, 915 F.Supp.2d 925 (C.D.Ill. 2013). 17, 18,
29, 30, 32, 45
Haight v. Thompson, 763 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2014). 37
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), reh'g. denied, 405
U.S. 948. 7, 11, 14
Haitian Centers Council, Inc. v. Sale, 817 F.Supp. 336
(E.D.N.Y. 1993). 29
Hake v. Manchester Township, 486 A.2d 836 (N.J. 1985).
14, 29, 46
Hakim v. Hicks, 223 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2000). 19, 37
Hale v. Mann, 219 F.3d 61 (2nd Cir. 2000). 31
Hale v. Rao, 768 F.Supp.2d 367 (N.D.N.Y. 2011). 1, 9, 21,
29
Hale v. Scott, 252 F.Supp.2d 728 (C.D.Ill. 2003). 1, 21
Hale v. Scott, 371 F.3d 917 (7th Cir. 2004). 19, 21
Hale v. State of Ariz., 993 F.2d 1387 (9th Cir. 1993). 50
Hale v. Tallapoosa County, 50 F.3d 1579 (11th Cir. 1995).
8, 14, 27, 46
Haley v. Gross, 86 F.3d 630 (7th Cir. 1996). 14, 27, 29, 39,
44
Haley v. Tryon, 12 F.Supp.3d 573 (W.D.N.Y. 2014). 14,
24, 32
Halikipoulos v. Dillion, 139 F.Supp.2d 312 (E.D.N.Y.
2001). 6
Halkett v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc., 763
F.Supp.2d 205 (D.Me. 2011). 2, 31
Hall v. Artuz, 954 F.Supp. 90 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). 29
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991). 35, 37
Hall v. Bennett, 379 F.3d 462 (7th Cir. 2004). 14, 39, 50
Hall v. California Dept. of Corrections, 835 F.Supp. 522
(N.D. Cal. 1993). 31
Hall v. Conklin, 966 F.Supp. 546 (W.D.Mich. 1996). 1, 28
Hall v. County of Nemaha, Neb., 509 F.Supp.2d 821
(D.Nev. 2007). 25, 29, 32
Hall v. Eichenlaub, 559 F.Supp.2d 777 (E.D.Mich. 2008).
22, 36, 44
Hall v. Griego, 896 F.Supp. 1043 (D.Colo. 1995). 8, 37, 47
Hall v. Johnson, 224 F.Supp.2d 1058 (E.D.Va. 2002). 28,
39
Hall v. Ryan, 957 F.2d 402 (7th Cir. 1992). 14, 29, 30, 32
Hall v. Singletary, 999 F.2d 1537 (11th Cir. 1993). 19, 28
Hall v. Terrell, 648 F.Supp.2d 1229 (D.Colo. 2009). 5, 14,
17, 27
Hall v. Thomas, 190 F.3d 693 (5th Cir. 1999). 29, 32
Hallal v. Hopkins, 947 F.Supp. 978 (S.D.Miss. 1995). 1, 35,
49
Hallett v. Morgan, 287 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2002). 17, 27, 30
Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732 (9th Cir. 2002). 17, 27, 29,
30
Hallett v. New York State Dept. of Correct. Serv., 109
F.Supp.2d 190 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). 7, 8, 13, 29, 36
Hallmark v. Johnson, 118 F.3d 1073 (5th Cir. 1997). 1, 21,
22
Hallstrom v. City of Garden City, 991 F.2d 1473 (9th Cir.
1993). l, 32
Halpin v. Simmons, 33 Fed.Appx. 961 (10th Cir. 2002). 29,
47

TC-38
XXVI

Halvorsen v. Baird, 146 F.3d 680 (9th Cir. 1998). 19, 27, 32
Hameed v. Coughlin, 37 F.Supp.2d 133 (N.D.N.Y. 1999). 3
Hameed v. Mann, 849 F.Supp. 169 (N.D.N.Y. 1994). 11
Hamilton v. Covington, 445 F.Supp. 195 (W.D. Ark. 1978).
14, 27, 39, 45
Hamilton v. Endell, 981 F.2d 1062 (9th Cir. 1992). 29
Hamilton v. Hall, 790 F.Supp.2d 1368 (N.D.Fla. 2011). 19,
28
Hamilton v. Lajoie, 660 F.Supp.2d 261 (D.Conn. 2009). 2,
27, 29, 46, 48
Hamilton v. Landrieu, 351 F.Supp. 549 (E.D. La. 1972). 2,
9, 17, 23, 25, 29, 30, 32, 34, 38, 40, 41, 42, 50
Hamilton v. Love, 328 F.Supp. 1182 (E.D. Ark. 1971). 10,
14, 32, 45
Hamilton v. Love, 358 F.Supp. 338 (E.D. Ark. 1973). 12,
17, 23, 27, 45
Hamilton v. Lyons, 74 F.3d 99 (5th Cir. 1996). 9, 32
Hamilton v. Peters, 919 F.Supp. 1168 (N.D.Ill. 1996). 36
Hamilton v. Roth, 624 F.2d 1204 (3rd Cir. 1980). 29
Hamilton v. Schiro, 338 F.Supp. 1016 (E.D. La. 1970). 9,
18, 23, 25, 29, 30, 40
Hamilton v. Schriro, 74 F.3d 1545 (8th Cir. 1996). 37, 38
Hamilton v. Schriro, 863 F.Supp. 1019 (W.D. Mo. 1994).
37
Hamilton v. Scott, 762 F.Supp. 794 (N.D. Ill. 1991),
affirmed, 976 F.2d 341. 11, 20
Ha'min v. Lewis, 440 F.Supp.2d 715 (M.D.Tenn. 2006). 32,
37
Hamlin v. Kennebec County Sheriff's Dept., 728 F.Supp.
804 (D. Me. 1990). 14, 25, 32
Hamlin v. Vaudenberg, 95 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 1996). 11, 20,
43
Hamm v. DeKalb County, 774 F.2d 1567 (11th Cir. 1985),
cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1096. 9, 32
Hamm v. Groose, 15 F.3d 110 (8th Cir. 1994). 1
Hammer v. Ashcroft, 570 F.3d 798 (7th Cir. 2009). 3, 7, 19,
38, 39
Hammond v. Gordon County, 316 F.Supp.2d 1262
(N.D.Ga. 2002). 14, 17, 32
Hammond v. Rector, 123 F.Supp.3d 1076 (S.D. Ill. 2015).
29
Hampton Co. Nat. Sur., LLC v. Tunica County, Miss., 543
F.3d 221 (5th Cir. 2008). 6, 27
Hampton v. Holmesburg Prison Officials, 546 F.2d 1077
(3rd Cir. 1976). 10, 32
Hampton v. Sabie, 891 F.Supp.2d 1014 (N.D.Ill. 2012). 13,
14, 26, 44
Hampton v. Schauer, 361 F.Supp. 641 (D. Colo. 1973). 1,
38
Hancock v. Thalacker, 933 F.Supp. 1449 (N.D.Iowa 1996).
11, 21, 27
Handberry v. Thompson, 436 F.3d 52 (2nd Cir. 2006). 26,
27, 34
Handberry v. Thompson, 446 F.3d 335 (2nd Cir. 2006). 26,
27, 34
Handberry v. Thompson, 92 F.Supp.2d 244 (S.D.N.Y.
2000). 24, 36
Handt v. Lynch, 681 F.3d 939 (8th Cir. 2012). 24, 25, 32, 36
Hanks v. Prachar, 457 F.3d 774 (8th Cir. 2006). 11, 15, 26,
32, 39, 48
Hannah v. U.S., 523 F.3d 597 (5th Cir. 2008). 1, 29
Hannon v. Allen, 241 F.Supp.2d 71 (D.Mass. 2003). 1, 47
Hannon v. Beard, 524 F.3d 275 (1st Cir. 2008). 1, 21, 47
Hannon v. Beard, 645 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2011). 2, 19, 47

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Hannon v. Beard, 979 F.Supp.2d 136 (D.Mass. 2013). 9, 24,
39
Hansard v. Barrett, 980 F.2d 1059 (6th Cir. 1992). 50
Hanselman v. Fiedler, 822 F.Supp. 1342 (E.D.Wis. 1993).
38
Hansen v. California Dept. of Corrections, 868 F.Supp. 271
(N.D. Cal. 1994). 31, 33
Hansen v. California Dept. of Corrections, 920 F.Supp.
1480 (N.D.Cal. 1996). 31, 33
Hansen v. Rimel, 104 F.3d 189 (8th Cir. 1997). 7, 29
Hansley v. Ryan, 482 F.Supp.2d 383 (D.Del. 2007). 22
Hanson v. Sangamon County Sheriff's Dept., 991 F.Supp.
1059 (C.D.Ill. 1998). 7, 19, 25, 32, 33
Hanson v. U.S., 712 F.Supp.2d 321 (D.N.J. 2010). 27, 39,
41, 48
Hanuman v. Groves, 41 Fed.Appx. 7 (8th Cir. 2002). 32
Hanvey v. Blakenship, 474 F.Supp. 1349 (W.D. Vir. 1979).
11, 35
Harbeck v. Smith, 814 F.Supp.2d 608 (E.D.Va. 2011). 16,
24, 27, 32, 36
Harbin-Bey v. Rutter, 420 F.3d 571 (6th Cir. 2005). 8, 19,
28, 39
Harbison v. Little, 571 F.3d 531 (6th Cir. 2009). 7, 10
Hardaway v. Kerr, 573 F.Supp. 419 (W.D. Wisc. 1983). 38,
49
Hardaway v. Meyerhoff, 734 F.3d 740 (7th Cir. 2013). 3, 8,
9, 11, 12, 23
Harden-Bey v. Rutter, 524 F.3d 789 (6th Cir. 2008). 3, 11
Hardiman v. Hartley, 842 F.Supp. 1128 (N.D. Ind. 1993).
1, 11, 35
Hardin v. Hayes, 957 F.2d 845 (11th Cir. 1992). 14, 17
Hardin v. Straub, 109 S.Ct. 1998 (1989). 1, 7
Hardin v. Straub, 954 F.2d 1193 (6th Cir. 1992). 3, 27
Hardin v. Stynchcomb, 691 F.2d 1364 (11th Cir. 1982). 31,
33
Harding v. Jones, 768 F.Supp. 275 (E.D. Mo. 1991). 8, 14
Hardy v. 3 Unknown Agents, 690 F.Supp.2d 1074
(C.D.Cal. 2010). 24, 29
Hardy v. City of New York, 732 F.Supp.2d 112 (E.D.N.Y.
2010). 29
Hardy v. District of Columbia, 601 F.Supp.2d 182 (D.D.C.
2009). 14, 24, 32, 45, 46
Hardy v. Town of Hayneville, 50 F.Supp.2d 1176
(M.D.Ala. 1999). 16, 32, 46, 48
Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss., 814 F.Supp. 1312
(N.D.Miss. 1993). 17, 32
Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss., 949 F. Supp. 456 (N.D.
Miss. 1996). 14, 32
Hare v. City of Corinth, MS, 36 F.3d 412 (5th Cir. 1994).
14, 29, 32
Hare v. City of Corinth, MS, 74 F.3d 633 (5th Cir. 1996).
14, 29, 32
Hare v. City of Corinth, MS., 22 F.3d 612 (5th Cir. 1994).
14, 17, 25, 29, 32, 45
Harford v. County of Broome, 102 F.Supp.2d 85 (N.D.N.Y.
2000). 31
Hargis v. Foster, 312 F.3d 404 (9th Cir. 2002). 19, 38
Harksen v. Garratt, 29 F.Supp.2d 265 (E.D.Va. 1998). 21,
35
Harmelin v. Michigan, 111 S.Ct. 2680 (1991). 43
Harms v. Godinez, 829 F.Supp. 259 (N.D. Ill. 1993). 11
Harnett v. Barr, 538 F.Supp.2d 511 (N.D.N.Y. 2008). 27,
37
Harper v. Albert, 400 F.3d 1052 (7th Cir. 2005). 48

TC-39
XXVI

Harper v. Kemp, 677 F.Supp. 1213 (M.D. Ga. 1988). 25,
35, 38
Harper v. Lawrence County, Ala., 592 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir.
2010). 14, 24, 25, 27, 29, 32
Harper v. Sheriff of Cook County, 581 F.3d 511 (7th Cir.
2009). 6, 13, 25, 27, 36
Harper v. State, 397 N.W.2d 740 (Iowa 1986). 11
Harper v. State, 759 P.2d 358 (Wash. 1988). 29
Harper v. Wallingford, 877 F.2d 728 (9th Cir. 1989). 19,
28, 38, 39
Harper v. Young, 64 F.3d 563 (10th Cir. 1995). 22, 36
Harrell v. Keohane, 621 F.2d 1059 (10th Cir. 1980). 1
Harrell v. Sheahan, 937 F.Supp. 754 (N.D.Ill. 1996). 14, 16,
36, 46
Harrelson v. Dupnik, 970 F.Supp.2d 953 (D.Ariz. 2013). 2,
3, 14, 26, 27, 29, 30
Harrelson v. Elmore County, Ala., 859 F.Supp. 1465 (M.D.
Ala. 1994). 7, 24, 27
Harriman v. Hancock County, 627 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2010).
9, 14, 29
Harrington v. City of Nashua, 610 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2010).
16, 32, 36
Harrington v. Garyson, 764 F.Supp. 464 (E.D. Mich. 1991).
24
Harrington v. Scribner, 785 F.3d 1299 (9th Cir. 2015). 8, 9,
39
Harris by and Through Harris v. Maynard, 843 F.2d 414
(10th Cir. 1988). 8, 14, 27
Harris County v. Jenkins, 678 S.W.2d 639 (Tex. App.
1984). 25, 27, 29
Harris v. Angelina County, Tex., 31 F.3d 331 (5th Cir.
1994). 9, 15
Harris v. Bolin, 950 F.2d 547 (8th Cir. 1991). 19, 28
Harris v. Brewington-Carr, 49 F.Supp.2d 378 (D.Del.
1999). 9, 15, 23, 32, 33, 40
Harris v. Campbell, 804 F.Supp. 153 (D.Kan. 1992). 29
Harris v. Chanclor, 537 F.2d 203 (5th Cir. 1976). 10, 14,
27, 48
Harris v. Chapman, 97 F.3d 499 (11th Cir. 1996). 27, 37,
38, 48
Harris v. City of Circleville, 583 F.3d 356 (6th Cir. 2009). 7,
29, 32, 48
Harris v. City of New York, 44 F.Supp.2d 510 (S.D.N.Y.
1999). 36, 43
Harris v. City of New York, 607 F.3d 18 (2nd Cir. 2010). 1
Harris v. City of Philadelphia, 47 F.3d 1311 and 1333 (3rd
Cir. 1995). 15
Harris v. City of Philadelphia, 47 F.3d 1311 and 1333 and
1342 (3rd Cir. 1995). 2, 27, 44
Harris v. Curtin, 656 F.Supp.2d 732 (W.D.Mich. 2009). 48
Harris v. Davis, 874 F.2d 461 (7th Cir. 1989), cert. denied,
110 S.Ct. 735. 10, 11
Harris v. Day, 649 F.2d 755 (10th Cir. 1981). 36
Harris v. Doe, 78 F.Supp.3d 894 (N.D. Ill. 2015). 1, 35
Harris v. Dugger, 757 F.Supp. 1359 (S.D. Fla. 1991). 37, 38
Harris v. Evans, 920 F.2d 864 (11th Cir. 1991), cert. denied,
115 S.Ct. 641. 19, 36
Harris v. Fleming, 839 F.2d 1232 (7th Cir. 1988), affirmed,
993 F.2d 1549. 9, 10, 12, 23, 40
Harris v. Ford, 32 F.Supp.2d 1109 (D.Alaska 1999). 1
Harris v. Hammon, 914 F.Supp.2d 1026 (D.Minn. 2012). 9,
16, 36, 45, 46
Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153 (5th Cir. 1999). 29
Harris v. Johnson, 323 F.Supp.2d 797 (S.D.Tex. 2004). 10
Harris v. Keane, 962 F.Supp. 397 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). 11, 41

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Harris v. Lord, 957 F.Supp. 471 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). 1, 10, 30,
37
Harris v. MacDonald, 532 F.Supp. 36 (N.D. Ill. 1982). 11,
20
Harris v. Martin, 792 F.2d 52 (3rd Cir. 1986). 22, 36
Harris v. Meulemans, 389 F.Supp.2d 438 (D.Conn. 2005).
8, 20
Harris v. Morales, 69 F.Supp.2d 1319 (D.Colo. 1999). 29,
32, 48
Harris v. Murray, 758 F.Supp. 1114 (E.D. Va. 1991). 3, 9,
29
Harris v. Murray, 761 F.Supp. 409 (E.D. Va. 1990). 9, 15,
18, 29
Harris v. Ostrout, 65 F.3d 912 (11th Cir. 1995). 7, 11
Harris v. Powers, 520 F.Supp. 111 (W.D. Wis. 1981). 43
Harris v. Thigpen, 727 F.Supp. 1564 (M.D. Ala. 1990),
modified, 941 F.2d 1495. 8, 29, 33, 41
Harris v. Thigpen, 941 F.2d 1495 (11th Cir. 1991). 1, 8, 29,
33
Harris v. U.S., 677 F.Supp. 403 (W.D.N.C. 1988). 27
Harris v. Warrick County Sheriff's Dept., 666 F.3d 444 (7th
Cir. 2012). 2, 31
Harrison Memorial Hospital v. Kitsap County, 700 P.2d
732 (Wash. Sup.Ct. 1985). 4, 29
Harrison v. Ash, 539 F.3d 510 (6th Cir. 2008). 24, 29
Harrison v. Barkley, 219 F.3d 132 (2nd Cir. 2000). 29
Harrison v. Culliver, 746 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2014). 14, 34,
39, 45
Harrison v. Dahm, 911 F.2d 37 (8th Cir. 1990). 11, 24
Harrison v. Dretke, 865 F.Supp. 385 (W.D. Tex. 1994). 11,
39
Harrison v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 464 F.Supp.2d 552
(E.D.Va. 2006). 2, 7, 42
Harrison v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 611 F.Supp.2d 54
(D.D.C. 2009). 2, 7, 42
Harrison v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 681 F.Supp.2d 76
(D.D.C. 2010). 4, 7, 42
Harrison v. Michigan, 722 F.3d 768 (6th Cir. 2013). 1, 27,
43
Harrison v. Moketa/Motycka, 485 F.Supp.2d 652 (D.S.C.
2007). 1, 18, 32
Harrison v. Raney, 837 F.Supp. 875 (W.D. Tenn. 1993). 8,
47
Harrison v. Watts, 609 F.Supp.2d 561 (E.D.Va. 2009). 37
Hart v. Bertsch, 529 F.Supp.2d 1032 (D.N.D. 2008). 9, 10,
29
Hart v. Celaya, 548 F.Supp.2d 789 (N.D.Cal. 2008). 3, 29,
41, 48
Hart v. Curry, 716 F.Supp.2d 863 (N.D.Cal. 2010). 22, 36
Hart v. Hodges, 587 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2009). 24, 43, 47
Hart v. Sheahan, 396 F.3d 887 (7th Cir. 2005). 17, 32, 39,
45
Harter v. Vernon, 980 F.Supp. 162 (M.D.N.C. 1997). 31
Hartline v. Gallo, 546 F.3d 95 (2nd Cir. 2008). 17, 33, 41
Hartmann v. California Dept. of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, 707 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2013). 2, 27,
37
Hartmann v. Carroll, 719 F.Supp.2d 366 (D.Del. 2010). 29,
47
Hartmann v. Carroll, 882 F.Supp.2d 742 (D.Del. 2012). 1,
29
Hartry v. County of Suffolk, 755 F.Supp.2d 422
(E.D.N.Y.2010). 1, 14, 21, 39
Hartsfield v. Colburn, 371 F.3d 454 (8th Cir. 2004). 29, 32
Hartsfield v. Colburn, 491 F.3d 394 (8th Cir. 2007). 29, 32

TC-40
XXVI

Hartsfield v. Nichols, 511 F.3d 826 (8th Cir. 2008). 1, 11
Hartsfield v. Vidor, 199 F.3d 305 (6th Cir. 1999). 39, 48
Harvey v. Clay County Sheriff's Department, 473 F.Supp.
741 (W.D. Mo. 1979). 14
Harvey v. County of Ward, 352 F.Supp.2d 1003 (D.N.D.
2005). 14, 25, 32, 44, 46
Harvey v. Jordan, 605 F.3d 681 (9th Cir. 2010). 21, 41, 48
Harvey v. Schoen, 245 F.3d 718 (8th Cir. 2001). 1, 27
Hasenmeier-McCarthy v. Rose, 986 F.Supp. 464
(S.D.Ohio1998). 29, 37, 48
Haslar v. Megerman, 104 F.3d 178 (8th Cir. 1997). 29, 32,
39
Hastings v. Marciulionis, 434 F.Supp.2d 585 (W.D.Wis.
2006). 37, 38
Haston v. Tatham, 842 F.Supp. 483 (D. Utah 1994). 27, 50
Hatch v. Sharp, 919 F.2d 1266 (7th Cir. 1990), cert. denied,
111 S.Ct. 1693. 38, 39
Hatfield v. Scott, 306 F.3d 223 (5th Cir. 2002). 2, 35
Hatori v. Haga, 751 F.Supp. 1401 (D. Hawaii 1989). 3
Hatten v. White, 275 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir. 2002). 35
Hattermann v. U.S., 743 F.Supp. 578 (C.D. Ill. 1990). 36,
43
Hattie v. Hallock, 8 F.Supp.2d 685 (N.D.Ohio 1998). 21
Haury v. Lemmon, 656 F.3d 521 (7th Cir. 2011). 1, 28
Hause v. Vaught, 993 F.2d 1079 (4th Cir. 1993), cert.
denied, 114 S.Ct. 702. 19, 32
Havard v. Puntuer, 600 F.Supp.2d 845 (E.D.Mich. 2009).
17, 24, 29
Haverda v. Hays County, 723 F.3d 586 (5th Cir. 2013). 31
Hawkins v. Brooks, 694 F.Supp.2d 434 (W.D.Pa. 2010.) 8,
14, 17, 27, 28, 45, 47
Hawkins v. Comparet-Cassani, 251 F.3d 1230 (9th Cir.
2001). 1, 27, 32, 39, 48
Hawkins v. County of Lincoln, 785 F.Supp.2d 781 (D.Neb.
2011). 2, 14, 29, 32, 45
Hawkins v. County of Oneida, N.Y., 497 F.Supp.2d 362
(N.D.N.Y. 2007). 31
Hawkins v. Freeman, 195 F.3d 732 (4th Cir. 1999). 36
Hawks v. Timms, 35 F.Supp.2d 464 (D.Md. 1999). 1
Hawley v. Evans, 716 F.Supp. 601 (N.D. Ga. 1989). 29
Hay v. Waldron, 834 F.2d 481 (5th Cir. 1987). 3, 39, 41
Haybarger v. Lawrence County Adult Probation and Parole,
551 F.3d 193 (3rd Cir. 2008). 24, 31
Hayden v. Keller, 134 F.Supp.3d 1000 (E.D.N.C. 2015). 7,
26, 36
Hayden v. Pataki, 449 F.3d 305 (2nd Cir. 2006). 7, 19
Hayes v. Dovey, 914 F.Supp.2d 1125 (S.D.Cal. 2012). 12,
39
Hayes v. Faulkner County, Ark., 285 F.Supp.2d 1132
(E.D.Ark. 2003) 1, 27, 32
Hayes v. Faulkner County, Ark., 388 F.3d 669 (8th Cir.
2004). 1, 32
Hayes v. Florida, 105 S.Ct. 1643 (1985). 16
Hayes v. Garcia, 461 F.Supp.2d 1198 (S.D.Cal. 2006). 12,
39
Hayes v. Long, 72 F.3d 70 (8th Cir. 1995). 7, 11, 27, 37
Hayes v. Marriott, 70 F.3d 1144 (10th Cir. 1995). 33, 41
Hayes v. McBride, 965 F.Supp. 1186 (N.D.Ill. 1997). 11,
20, 22
Hayes v. North State Law Enforcement Officers Ass'n., 10
F.3d 207 (4th Cir. 1993). 2, 31
Hayes v. Snyder, 546 F.3d 516 (7th Cir. 2008). 13, 29
Hayes v. Vessey, 777 F.2d 1149 (6th Cir. 1985). 2, 14, 27,
31
Haynes v. Lambor, 785 F.Supp. 754 (N.D. Ill. 1992). 11

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Haynes v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 760 F.Supp. 124
(E.D. Mich. 1991), affirmed, 945 F.2d 1404. 14, 39
Haynes v. Stephenson, 588 F.3d 1152 (8th Cir. 2009). 21, 27
Hayward v. United States Parole Commission, 659 F.2d
857 (8th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 102 S.Ct. 1991. 36,
43
Hazen Ex Rel. LeGear v. Reagen, 208 F.3d 697 (8th Cir.
2000). 27
Hazen v. Pasley, 768 F.2d 226 (8th Cir. 1985). 2, 9, 18, 35,
48
Hazen v. Reagen, 16 F.3d 921 (8th Cir. 1994). 19, 47
Hazle v. Crofoot, 727 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2013). 2, 27, 34,
36, 37
Health and Hosp. Corp. v. Marion County, 470 N.E.2d
1348 (Ind. App. 2 Dist. 1984). 4
Heard v. Tilden, 809 F.3d 974 (7th Cir. 2016). 27, 29
Hearn v. Morris, 526 F.Supp. 267 (E.D. Calif. 1981). 19, 28
Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2005). 9, 10,
14, 15, 23, 37, 40, 45
Heath v. DeCourcy, 704 F.Supp. 799 (S.D. Ohio 1988). 9,
27
Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (9th Cir. 2010). 1, 3, 12
Hebshi v. U.S., 32 F.Supp.3d 834 (E.D.Mich. 2014). 16, 32,
41
Hechavarria v. Quick, 670 F.Supp. 456 (D. R.I. 1987). 8, 11
Heckenlaible v. Virginia Peninsula Regional Jail Authority,
491 F.Supp.2d 544 (E.D.Va. 2007). 14, 17, 27, 31
Hedgepeth v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 386
F.3d 1148 (D.C.Cir. 2004). 7, 26, 32
Hedgepeth v. Washington Metro. Area Transit, 284
F.Supp.2d 145 (D.D.C. 2003) 16, 26, 32
Hedin v. OSP, 760 P.2d 901 (Or.App. 1988). 3
Hedrick v. Roberts, 183 F.Supp.2d 814 (E.D.Va. 2001). 14,
32
Heflin v. Stewart County, Tenn., 958 F.2d 709 (6th Cir.
1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 598. 14, 24, 29
Heft v. Carlson, 489 F.2d 268 (5th Cir. 1973). 1
Heggen v. Lee, 284 F.3d 675 (6th Cir. 2002). 31
Heidelberg v. Illinois Prisoner Review Bd., 163 F.3d 1025
(7th Cir. 1998). 22, 36
Heideman v. Wirsing, 840 F.Supp. 1285 (W.D. Wis. 1992).
19, 31
Heimerle v. Atty. Gen. U.S.A., 558 F.Supp. 1292 (S.D.
N.Y. 1983). 28
Heimermann v. McCaughtry, 855 F.Supp. 1027 (E.D. Wis.
1994). 11
Heine v. Receiving Area Personnel, 711 F.Supp. 178 (D.
Del. 1989). 14, 27, 45
Heisler v. Kralik, 981 F.Supp. 830 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). 14, 32
Heitman v. Gabriel, 524 F.Supp. 622 (W.D. Mo. 1981). 9,
12, 15, 23, 40, 44
Helling v. McKinney, 113 S.Ct. 2475 (1993). 9, 10, 29
Helton v. U.S., 191 F.Supp.2d 179 (D.D.C. 2002). 17, 25,
27, 32, 41
Hemmings v. Gorczyk, 134 F.3d 104 (2nd Cir. 1998). 29
Hemphill v. Kincheleo, 987 F.2d 589 (9th Cir. 1993). 27, 41
Hemphill v. New York, 198 F.Supp.2d 546 (S.D.N.Y.
2002). 1, 21
Henderson v. Ayers, 476 F.Supp.2d 1168 (C.D.Cal. 2007).
1, 21, 37, 50
Henderson v. Belfueil, 354 F.Supp.2d 889 (W.D.Wis.
2005). 33, 41
Henderson v. Berge, 362 F.Supp.2d 1030 (W.D.Wis. 2005).
12, 19, 37

TC-41
XXVI

Henderson v. DeRobertis, 940 F.2d 1055 (7th Cir. 1991),
cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 1578. 9, 27
Henderson v. Ghosh, 755 F.3d 559 (7th Cir. 2014). 1, 29
Henderson v. Glanz, 813 F.3d 938 (10th Cir. 2015). 14, 17
Henderson v. Harris, 672 F.Supp. 1054 (W.D. Ill. 1987). 2,
24, 29
Henderson v. Lane, 979 F.2d 466 (7th Cir. 1992). 9, 12, 27
Henderson v. New York, 423 F.Supp.2d 129 (S.D.N.Y.
2006). 31
Henderson v. Ricketts, 499 F.Supp. 1066 (D. Colo. 1980).
1, 28
Henderson v. Sheahan, 196 F.3d 839 (7th Cir. 1999) cert.
den. 120 S.Ct. 1269. 9, 10, 29, 32
Henderson v. Simms, 223 F.3d 267 (4th Cir. 2000). 36
Henderson v. Simms, 54 F.Supp.2d 499 (D.Md. 1999). 13,
36
Henderson v. Terhune, 379 F.3d 709 (9th Cir. 2004). 37, 38
Henderson v. Thomas, 891 F.Supp.2d 1296 (M.D.Ala.
2012). 3, 27, 29, 34
Henderson v. Thomas, 913 F.Supp.2d 1267
(M.D.Ala.2012). 2, 7, 8, 17, 18, 29, 34, 38, 50
Henderson v. U.S. Parole Com'n., 13 F.3d 1073 (7th Cir.
1994), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 314. 11, 22
Hendking v. Smith, 781 F.2d 850 (11th Cir. 1986). 8, 35,
36, 38
Hendon v. Ramsey, 528 F.Supp.2d 1058 (S.D.Cal. 2007).
24, 29, 30, 44
Hendrick v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 141 F.Supp.3d
393 (D. Md. 2015). 8, 29
Hendricks v. Coughlin, 114 F.3d 390 (2nd Cir. 1997). 1, 47
Hendricks v. Coughlin, 942 F.2d 109 (2nd Cir. 1991). 14
Hendrickson v. Branstad, 740 F.Supp. 636 (N.D. Iowa
1990), modified, 934 F.2d 158. 5, 26
Hendrickson v. Branstad, 934 F.2d 158 (8th Cir. 1991). 5
Hendrickson v. Cooper, 589 F.3d 887 (7th Cir. 2009). 27, 48
Hendrix v. Evans, 715 F.Supp. 897 (N.D. Ind. 1989),
affirmed 972 F.2d 351. 12, 19, 34, 35
Hendrix v. Faulkner, 525 F.Supp. 435 (N.D. Ind. 1981),
cert. denied, 104 SCt. 3587. 9, 10, 12, 15
Hennagir v. Utah Dept. of Corrections, 587 F.3d 1255 (10th
Cir. 2009). 2, 31
Henry v. Coughlin, 940 F.Supp. 639 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). 49
Henry v. Milwaukee County, 539 F.3d 573 (7th Cir. 2008).
2, 26, 31, 33
Henry v. Perry, 866 F.2d 657 (3rd Cir. 1989). 24, 39, 48
Henry v. Ryan, 775 F.Supp. 247 (N.D. Ill. 1991). 29, 41
Henry v. Van Cleve, 469 F.2d 687 (5th Cir. 1972). 7, 49
Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345 (1973). 22, 36
Hensley v. Wilson, 850 F.2d 269 (6th Cir. 1988). 11
Henson v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 213 F.3d 897 (5th Cir.
2000). 11, 20, 22
Henthorn v. Swinson, 955 F.2d 351 (5th Cir. 1992), cert.
denied, 112 S.Ct. 974. 28
Heredia v. Doe, 473 F.Supp.2d 462 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). 27,
29, 39
Hereford v. Jefferson County, 586 So.2d 209 (Ala. 1991).
14, 36
Herlein v. Higgins, 172 F.3d 1089 (8th Cir. 1999). 19, 38
Herman v. Clearfield County, PA, 836 F.Supp. 1178 (W.D.
Pa. 1993), affirmed, 30 F.3d 1486. 14, 25, 27, 46
Herman v. County of York, 482 F.Supp.2d 554 (M.D.Pa.
2007). 7, 29, 32, 34
Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660 (5th Cir. 2001). 15, 18,
23, 40

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Hermanowski v. Farquharson, 39 F.Supp.2d 148 (D.R.I.
1999). 22, 36
Hernandez v. Carbone, 567 F.Supp.2d 320 (D.Conn. 2008).
6, 32
Hernandez v. Cate, 918 F.Supp.2d 987 (C.D.Cal. 2013). 7,
8, 27
Hernandez v. Coffey, 582 F.3d 303 (2nd Cir. 2009). 1, 21
Hernandez v. Cook County Sheriff's Office, 634 F.3d 906
(7th Cir. 2011). 2, 31
Hernandez v. Coughlin, 18 F.3d 133 (2nd Cir. 1994), cert.
denied, 115 S.Ct. 117. 49
Hernandez v. County of Monterey, 110 F.Supp.3d 929
(N.D. Cal. 2015). 7, 27, 29, 30, 44
Hernandez v. County of Monterey, 70 F.Supp.3d 963
(N.D.Cal. 2014). 2, 9, 27, 29, 32, 44, 45, 46
Hernandez v. Dart, 814 F.3d 836 (7th Cir. 2016). 21, 29, 32
Hernandez v. Denton, 929 F.2d 1374 (9th Cir. 1990). 1
Hernandez v. Estelle, 788 F.2d 1154 (5th Cir. 1986). 24, 28,
38
Hernandez v. Goord, 312 F.Supp.2d 537 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
1, 7, 27
Hernandez v. Johnston, 833 F.2d 1316 (9th Cir. 1987). 2, 8,
34
Hernandez v. Montanez, 36 F.Supp.3d 202 (D.Mass. 2014).
41, 49
Hernandez v. Selsky, 572 F.Supp.2d 446 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
11
Hernandez v. Sheahan, 455 F.3d 772 (7th Cir. 2006). 16,
24, 25, 32
Hernandez v. U.S. Parole Com'n, 1 F.Supp.2d 1262 (D.Kan.
1998). 22, 36
Hernandez v. Velasquez, 522 F.3d 556 (5th Cir. 2008). 3,
10, 29
Hernandez v. Whiting, 881 F.2d 768 (9th Cir. 1989). 1
Hernandez-Cuevas v. Taylor, 723 F.3d 91 (1st Cir. 2013). 7,
16, 32
Herndon v. Whitworth, 924 F.Supp. 1171 (N.D.Ga. 1995).
29
Herrera v. County of Santa Fe, 213 F.Supp.2d 1288
(D.N.M. 2002). 27, 48
Herrera v. Scully, 815 F.Supp. 713 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). 1, 28
Herrin v. Treon, 459 F.Supp.2d 525 (N.D.Tex. 2006). 3, 14,
45
Herring v. Keenan, 218 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2000). 29, 33
Herring v. Singletary, 879 F.Supp. 1180 (N.D. Fla. 1995).
36, 43
Hershberger v. Scaletta, 861 F.Supp. 1470 (N.D. Iowa
1993). 1, 12, 28, 38
Hervey v. County of Koochiching, 527 F.3d 711 (8th Cir.
2008). 2, 31, 44
Hester v. McBride, 966 F.Supp. 765 (N.D.Ind. 1997). 11,
20, 22
Hetzel v. Swartz, 31 F.Supp.2d 444 (M.D.Pa. 1998). 29, 30,
33
Hewes v. Magnusson, 350 F.Supp.2d 222 (D.Me. 2004). 1,
3, 14
Hewitt v. Helms, 103 S.Ct. 864 (1983). 3
Heyerman v. County of Calhoun, 680 F.3d 642 (6th Cir.
2012). 2, 32
Hickey v. Reeder, 12 F.3d 754 (8th Cir. 1993). 10, 48
Hickombottom v. McGuire, 765 F.Supp. 950 (N.D. Ill.
1991). 22, 32
Hicks v. Brysch, 989 F.Supp. 797 (W.D.Tex. 1997). 1
Hicks v. Erie County, New York, 65 Fed.Appx. 746 (2nd
Cir. 2003). [unpublished] 1

TC-42
XXVI

Hicks v. Garner, 69 F.3d 22 (5th Cir. 1995). 37
Hicks v. Moore, 422 F.3d 1246 (11th Cir. 2005). 32, 39, 41
Hicks v. Norwood, 640 F.3d 839 (8th Cir. 2011). 25, 32, 48
Hicks v. St. Mary's Honor Center, 756 F.Supp. 1244 (E.D.
Mo. 1991), affirmed, 113 S.Ct 954. 31
Hickson v. Coughlin, 454 N.Y.S.2d 368 (App. Div. 1982).
19, 49
Hickson v. Kellison, 296 S.E.2d 855 (W.Vir. 1982). 9, 40,
44
Hidalgo v. F.B.I., 541 F.Supp.2d 250 (D.D.C. 2008). 2
Higdon v. United States, 627 F.2d 893 (9th Cir. 1980). 43
Higgason v. Farley, 83 F.3d 807 (7th Cir. 1996). 14, 32, 48
Higgenbottom v. McManus, 840 F.Supp. 454 (W.D. Ky.
1994). 1
Higgins v. Beyer, 293 F.3d 683 (3rd Cir. 2002). 4, 35, 43
Higgins v. Burroughs, 834 F.2d 76 (3rd Cir. 1987). 37, 38,
39
Higgins v. Correctional Medical Services of Ill., 8
F.Supp.2d 821 (N.D.Ill. 1998). 29, 32, 47
Higgins v. Jefferson County, Ky., 344 F.Supp.2d 1004
(W.D.Ky. 2004). 31
Higgs v. Bland, 888 F.2d 443 (6th Cir. 1989). 11
Higgs v. Carver, 286 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2002). 3, 11, 32
Hightower v. Nassau County Sheriff’s Dept., 343 F.Supp.2d
191 (E.D.N.Y. 2004). 5
Hikel v. King, 659 F.Supp. 337 (E.D. N.Y. 1987). 1, 35, 41
Hili v. Sciarrotta, 140 F.3d 210 (2nd Cir. 1998). 24, 43
Hill v. Blackwell, 774 F.2d 338 (8th Cir. 1985). 37, 38
Hill v. Blum, 916 F.Supp. 470 (E.D.Pa. 1996). 21. 37. 41
Hill v. Com., Bureau of Corrections, 555 A.2d 1362 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1989). 27
Hill v. Cowin, 717 F.Supp.2d 268 (N.D.N.Y. 2010). 20, 22,
36
Hill v. Davidson, 844 F.Supp. 237 (E.D. Pa. 1994). 1, 8, 50
Hill v. Donoghue, 815 F.Supp.2d 583 (E.D.N.Y. 2011). 1,
24, 33, 42
Hill v. Franklin County, Ky., 757 F.Supp. 29 (E.D. Ky.
1991), affirmed, 948 F.2d 1289. 14, 36
Hill v. Goord, 63 F.Supp.2d 254 (E.D.N.Y. 1999). 36, 43
Hill v. Hoisington, 28 F.Supp.3d 725 (E.D.Mich. 2014). 32,
36, 48
Hill v. Koon, 732 F.Supp. 1076 (D. Nev. 1990), modified,
977 F.2d 589. 41
Hill v. Marshall, 962 F.2d 1209 (6th Cir. 1992), cert.
denied, 113 S.Ct. 2992. 4, 27, 29
Hill v. McKinley, 311 F.3d 899 (8th Cir. 2002). 17, 32, 33,
45, 48
Hill v. Shelander, 992 F.2d 714 (7th Cir. 1993). 48
Hill v. State, 721 S.W.2d 953 (Tex. App. 1986). 43
Hill v. Terrell, 846 F.Supp.2d 488 (W.D.N.C. 2012). 1, 28
Hill v. Thalacker, 399 F.Supp.2d 925 (W.D.Wis. 2005). 7,
50
Hill v. U.S., 922 F.Supp.2d 174 (D.Mass. 2013). 14, 27
Hill v. Washington State Dept. of Corrections, 628
F.Supp.2d 1250 (W.D.Wash. 2009). 7, 38, 49
Hilliard v. Scully, 667 F.Supp. 96 (S.D. N.Y. 1987). 1
Hills v. Kentucky, 457 F.3d 583 (6th Cir. 2006). 30, 32
Hilton v. Wright, 673 F.3d 120 (2nd Cir. 2012). 5, 24, 27
Hilton v. Wright, 928 F.Supp.2d 530 (N.D.N.Y. 2013). 4, 5,
24, 27, 29, 34
Hinderlitter v. Hungerford, 814 F.Supp. 66 (D. Kan. 1993).
28
Hinebaugh v. Wiley, 137 F.Supp.2d 69 (N.D.N.Y. 2001).
20, 22
Hines v. Anderson, 547 F.3d 915 (8th Cir. 2008). 27, 29

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Hines v. Crabtree, 935 F.Supp. 1104 (D.Or. 1996). 22, 43
Hines v. Sheahan, 845 F.Supp. 1265 (N.D.Ill. 1994). 9, 32
Hines v. South Carolina Dept. Of Corrections, 148 F.3d 353
(4th Cir. 1998). 19, 37, 38
Hinkfuss v. Shawano County, 772 F.Supp. 1104 (E.D. Wis.
1991). 14, 29, 32, 46
Hinojosa v. Davey, 803 F.3d 412 (9th Cir. 2015). 20, 22, 39,
43
Hinojosa v. Livingston, 807 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 2015). 9, 10,
14, 15, 29
Hinojosa v. Livingston, 994 F.Supp.2d 840 (S.D.Tex.
2014). 9, 14, 15, 25, 29
Hinson v. Edmond, 192 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir. 1999). 27, 29
Hinton v. Corrections Corp. of America, 623 F.Supp.2d 61
(D.D.C. 2009). 1, 21
Hinton v. Corrections Corp. of America, 624 F.Supp.2d 45
(D.D.C. 2009). 27, 29
Hinton v. Moritz, 11 F.Supp.2d 272 (W.D.N.Y. 1998). 16,
36
Hirsch v. Burke, 40 F.3d 900 (7th Cir. 1994). 16, 27, 46
Hirschberg v. Commodity Futures Trading, 414 F.3d 679
(7th Cir. 2005). 13, 43
Hirschfeld v. New Mexico Corrections Dept., 916 F.2d 572
(10th Cir. 1990). 2, 31
Hirst v. Gertzen, 676 F.2d 1252 (9th Cir. 1982). 27, 31
Hluchan v. Fauver, 482 F.Supp. 1155 (D. N.J. 1980). 8, 38,
44
Hoang v. Comfort, 282 F.3d 1247 (10th Cir. 2002). 22
Hobbs v. Evans, 924 F.2d 774 (8th Cir. 1991). 9, 14
Hobbs v. Pennell, 754 F.Supp. 1040 (D. Del. 1991). 37
Hobbs v. Powell, 138 F.Supp.3d 1328 (N.D. Ala. 2015). 14,
24, 29
Hodge v. Murphy, 808 F.Supp.2d 405 (D.R.I. 2011). 29, 32
Hodge v. Prince, 730 F.Supp. 747 (N.D. Tex. 1990). 1
Hodge v. Ruperto, 739 F.Supp. 873 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). 9, 18,
32
Hodges v. Com. of Virginia, 871 F.Supp. 873 (W.D. Va.
1994). 19, 28
Hodges v. Jones, 873 F.Supp. 737 (N.D.N.Y. 1995). 1, 11,
50
Hodges v. Klein, 412 F.Supp. 896 (D. N.J. 1976). 41
Hodges v. Stanley, 712 F.2d 34 (2nd Cir. 1983). 41
Hogan v. Carter, 85 F.3d 1113 (4th Cir. 1996). 24, 29, 30
Hogan v. Fischer, 738 F.3d 509 (2nd Cir. 2013). 7, 10
Hogan v. Russ, 890 F.Supp. 146 (N.D.N.Y. 1995). 4, 29
Holden v. Hirner, 663 F.3d 336 (8th Cir. 2011). 8, 14, 29, 32
Holguin v. Lopez, 584 F.Supp.2d 921 (W.D.Tex. 2008). 16
Holifield v. Reno, 115 F.3d 1555 (11th Cir. 1997). 31
Holland v. City of Atmore, 168 F.Supp.2d 1303 (S.D.Ala.
2001). 14, 25, 32
Holland v. Goord, 758 F.3d 215 (2nd Cir. 2014). 11, 37, 41
Holland v. Morgan, 6 F.Supp.2d 827 (E.D.Wis. 1998). 48
Holland v. Taylor, 604 F.Supp.2d 692 (D.Del. 2009). 8, 47,
50
Hollenbaugh v. Maurer, 397 F.Supp.2d 894 (N.D.Ohio
2005). 14, 29, 32
Holley v. Deal, 948 F.Supp. 711 (M.D.Tenn. 1996). 29
Hollimon v. DeTella, 6 F.Supp.2d 968 (N.D.Ill. 1998). 41
Holloman v. Nelson, 817 F.Supp. 88 (D.Kan. 1993). 29
Holloway v. Alexander, 957 F.2d 529 (8th Cir. 1992). 7
Holloway v. Bizzaro, 571 F.Supp.2d 1270 (S.D.Fla. 2008).
18, 37
Holloway v. Delaware County Sheriff, 700 F.3d 1063 (7th
Cir. 2012). 1, 6, 16, 32, 36
Holloway v. Hornsby, 23 F.3d 944 (5th Cir. 1994). 1, 21

TC-43
XXVI

Holloway v. Lockhart, 813 F.2d 874 (8th Cir. 1987). 10, 39,
48
Holloway v. Pigman, 884 F.2d 365 (8th Cir. 1989). 28, 37
Holloway v. Wittry, 842 F.Supp. 1193 (S.D.Iowa 1994).
10, 27
Holly v. Rapone, 476 F.Supp. 226 (E.D. Penn. 1979). 25,
29, 44
Holly v. Woolfolk, 415 F.3d 678 (7th Cir. 2005). 3, 32
Holm v. Haines, 734 F.Supp. 366 (W.D. Wis. 1990). 1, 11,
41
Holman v. Central Arkansas Broadcasting Co., 610 F.2d
542 (5th Cir. 1979). 33
Holman v. Gilmore, 126 F.3d 876 (7th Cir. 1997). 1, 22
Holman v. Hilton, 712 F.2d 854 (3rd Cir. 1983). 1, 27
Holmes v. Cooper, 872 F.Supp. 298 (W.D. Va. 1995). 20
Holmes v. Crosby, 418 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2005). 16, 24,
36
Holmes v. Fischer, 764 F.Supp.2d 523 (W.D.N.Y. 2011). 3,
9, 10, 21, 29
Holmes v. Sheahan, 930 F.2d 1196 (7th Cir. 1991), cert.
denied, 112 S.Ct. 423. 29, 46
Holscher v. Mille Lacs County, 924 F.Supp.2d 1044
(D.Minn. 2013). 2, 14, 25, 29, 32, 46
Holt Bonding Co., Inc. v. Nichols, 988 F.Supp. 1232
(W.D.Ark. 1997). 6, 27
Holt v. Caspari, 923 F.2d 103 (8th Cir. 1991). 1, 11
Holt v. Caspari, 961 F.2d 1370 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied,
113 S.Ct. 190. 11
Holt v. Pitts, 702 F.2d 639 (6th Cir. 1983). 1
Holt v. Sarver, 309 F.Supp. 362 (E.D. Ark. 1970). 7, 8, 9,
10, 15, 34, 50
Holton v. Conrad, 24 F.Supp.3d 624(E.D.Ky. 2014). 2, 32,
48
Holton v. Fields, 638 F.Supp. 1319 (S.D. W.Va. 1986). 17,
36, 50
Hood v. Itawamba County Miss., 819 F.Supp. 556
(N.D.Miss. 1993). 2, 14, 32, 46
Hook v. State of Ariz., 907 F.Supp. 1326 (D.Ariz. 1995). 27
Hoover v. Keating, 59 Fed.Appx. 288 (10th Cir. 2003)
[unpublished]. 8
Hope v. Pelzer, 122 S.Ct. 2508 (2002). 7, 10, 11, 27, 48
Hopkins v. Campbell, 870 F.Supp. 316 (D.Kan. 1994). 12
Hopkins v. Collins, 548 F.2d 503 (4th Cir. 1977). 19, 28
Hopkins v. Grondolsky, 759 F.Supp.2d 97 (D.Mass. 2010).
11, 22, 42
Hopkins v. Pusey, 475 F.Supp.2d 479 (D.Del. 2007). 7
Hopkins v. Stice, 916 F.2d 1029 (5th Cir. 1990). 24, 31
Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237 (9th Cir. 1982). 9, 10
Hoptowit v. Spellman, 753 F.2d 779 (9th Cir. 1985). 9, 10,
15, 18, 23, 39, 40
Horn by Parks v. Madison County Fiscal Court, 22 F.3d
653 (6th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 199. 14,
25, 26, 39
Horne v. Beason, 331 S.E.2d 342 (S.C. 1985). 14, 24, 25,
26
Horne v. Coughlin, 795 F.Supp. 72 (N.D.N.Y. 1991). 11, 30
Horne v. Coughlin, 949 F. Supp. 112 (N.D.N.Y. 1996). 11
Horton v. Cockrell, 70 F.3d 397 (5th Cir. 1995). 1, 14
Hoskins v. Dart, 633 F.3d 541 (7th Cir. 2011). 1
Hoskins v. McBride, 202 F.Supp.2d 839 (N.D.Ind. 2002).
11, 20, 22
Hoskins v. Oakland County Sheriff's Dept., 227 F.3d 719
(6th Cir. 2000). 31
Hosna v. Groose, 80 F.3d 298 (8th Cir. 1996). 3, 12, 34, 39
Hossie v. U.S., 682 F.Supp. 23 (M.D. Pa. 1987). 14, 39, 45

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1 (1978). 19, 39
Houghton v. Shafer, 392 U.S. 639 (1968). 1, 38
House v. Nelson, 210 F.Supp.2d 993 (N.D.Ill. 2002). 36
Houseknecht v. Doe, 653 F.Supp.2d 547 (E.D.Pa. 2009). 3,
8, 37, 38
Houskins v. Sheahan, 549 F.3d 480 (7th Cir. 2008). 31
Housley v. Dodson, 41 F.3d 597 (10th Cir. 1994). 1, 10, 12,
27
Housley v. Killinger, 747 F.Supp. 1405 (D. Or. 1990),
affirmed, 972 F.2d 1339. 1
Houston v. Cotter, 7 F.Supp.3d 283 (E.D.N.Y. 2014). 3, 7,
8, 9, 18, 30, 42
Howard v. Adkison, 887 F.2d 134 (8th Cir. 1989). 9, 10, 27,
40
Howard v. Barnett, 21 F.3d 868 (8th Cir. 1994). 10, 48
Howard v. Cronk, 526 F.Supp. 1227 (S.D. N.Y. 1981). 1,
39, 49
Howard v. Headly, 72 F.Supp.2d 118 (E.D.N.Y. 1999). 10,
29, 50
Howard v. Keohane, 898 F.Supp. 459 (E.D.Ky. 1995). 19
Howard v. Leonardo, 845 F.Supp. 943 (N.D.N.Y. 1994). 1,
3, 21, 35
Howard v. Pierce, 981 F.Supp. 190 (W.D.N.Y. 1997). 11
Howard v. Snyder, 389 F.Supp.2d 589 (D.Del. 2005). 1, 35,
38, 39
Howard v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 487 F.3d 808 (10th Cir.
2007). 11, 22
Howard v. U.S., 864 F.Supp. 1019 (D. Colo. 1994). 37
Howard v. Waide, 534 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir. 2008). 8, 14, 39
Howard v. Wilkerson, 768 F.Supp. 1002 (S.D.N.Y. 1991).
11
Howe v. Civiletti, 625 F.2d 454 (2nd Cir. 1980). affirmed,
101 S.Ct. 2468. 47
Howell v. Evans, 922 F.2d 712 (11th Cir. 1991). 24, 29
Hrbek v. Farrier, 787 F.2d 414 (8th Cir. 1986). 2, 4, 50
Hrbek v. Nix, 12 F.3d 777 (8th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 115
S.Ct. 313. 1, 11
Hrdlicka v. Reniff, 631 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2011). 19, 28,
38, 39
Hron v. Jenkins, 15 F.Supp.2d 1082 (D.Kan. 1998). 8, 29
Huang v. Johnson, 251 F.3d 65 (2nd Cir. 2001). 26
Hubbard v. Haley, 262 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2001). 1
Hubbard v. Taylor, 399 F.3d 150 (3rd Cir. 2005). 15, 32
Hubbard v. Taylor, 452 F.Supp.2d 533 (D.Del. 2006). 9, 29,
32
Hubbard v. Taylor, 538 F.3d 229 (3rd Cir. 2008). 9, 23, 24,
32, 40
Hubbs v. Alamao, 360 F.Supp.2d 1073 (C.D.Cal. 2005). 29,
30, 33
Hubbs v. County of San Bernardino, CA, 538 F.Supp.2d
1254 (C.D.Cal. 2008). 7, 9, 23, 29
Hubbs v. Suffolk County Sheriff’s Dept., 788 F.3d 54 (2nd
Cir. 2015). 1, 7, 21, 32, 44
Huddleston v. Shirley, 787 F.Supp. 109 (N.D. Miss. 1992).
43, 50
Hudgins v. DeBruyn, 922 F.Supp. 144 (S.D.Ind. 1996). 2,
4, 29, 42
Hudson v. Dennehy, 538 F.Supp.2d 400 (D.Mass. 2008).
18, 37, 38
Hudson v. Dennehy, 568 F.Supp.2d 125 (D.Mass. 2008). 5
Hudson v. Hedgepeth, 92. F.3d 748 (8th Cir. 1996). 11, 22
Hudson v. Johnson, 242 F.3d 534 (5th Cir. 2001). 11, 22
Hudson v. MacEachern, 94 F.Supp.3d 59 (D. Mass. 2015).
11, 21

TC-44
XXVI

Hudson v. Maloney, 326 F.Supp.2d 206 (D.Mass. 2004).
18, 37, 38
Hudson v. McHugh, 148 F.3d 859 (7th Cir. 1998). 29, 47
Hudson v. McMillian, 112 S.Ct. 995 (1992). 10, 48
Hudson v. McMillian, 962 F.2d 522 (5th Cir. 1992). 48
Hudson v. Norris, 227 F.3d 1047 (8th Cir. 2000). 31
Hudson v. Thornburgh, 770 F.Supp. 1030 (W.D. Pa. 1991),
affirmed, 980 F.2d 723. 7, 11, 19
Huff v. Sanders, 632 F.Supp.2d 903 (E.D.Ark. 2008). 22,
43
Huffman v. Fiola, 850 F.Supp. 833 (N.D. Cal. 1994). 1, 14,
23, 33, 39, 45, 48
Huffman v. McBride, 853 F.Supp. 1095 (N.D. Ind. 1994).
11
Hughbanks v. Dooley, 788 F.Supp.2d 988 (D.S.D. 2011). 2,
27, 28, 39
Hughes v. Bedsole, 48 F.3d 1376 (4th Cir. 1995). 31
Hughes v. Bedsole, 913 F.Supp. 420 (E.D.N.C. 1994). 7,
31, 19
Hughes v. Colorado Dept. of Corrections, 594 F.Supp.2d
1226 (D.Colo. 2009). 24, 30, 36
Hughes v. Farris, 809 F.3d 330 (7th Cir. 2015). 7, 14
Hughes v. Joliet Correctional Center, 931 F.2d 425 (7th Cir.
1991). 1, 29
Hughes v. Judd, 108 F.Supp.3d 1167 (M.D. Fla. 2015). 9,
26, 29, 45, 48
Hughes v. Lee County Dist. Court, Iowa, 9 F.3d 1366 (8th
Cir. 1993). 11
Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5 (1980). 3, 5, 11
Hughes v. Savell, 902 F.2d 376 (5th Cir. 1990). 14
Hughes v. Scott, 816 F.3d 955 (7th Cir. 2016). 21, 32
Hughes v. Slade, 347 F.Supp.2d 821 (C.D.Cal. 2004). 22,
43
Huguet v. Barnett, 900 F.2d 838 (5th Cir. 1990). 48
Hummel v. McCotter, 28 F.Supp.2d 1322 (D.Utah 1998).
31
Humphrey v. Cady, 405 U.S. 504 (1972). 22
Hunafa v. Murphy, 907 F.2d 46 (7th Cir. 1990). 11, 18, 37
Hundley v. McBride, 908 F.Supp. 601 (N.D.Ind. 1995). 11,
21, 22
Hunt ex rel. Chiovari v. Dart, 612 F.Supp.2d 969 (N.D.Ill.
2009). 1, 14
Hunt ex rel. Chiovari v. Dart, 754 F.Supp.2d 962 (N.D.Ill.
2010). 1, 14, 32
Hunt v. Dental Dept., 865 F.2d 198 (9th Cir. 1989). 27, 29
Hunt v. Polk County, 551 F.Supp. 339 (S.D. Iowa 1982). 6,
32, 41
Hunt v. Reynolds, 974 F.2d 734 (6th Cir. 1992), cert.
denied, 114 S.Ct. 709. 9, 10, 29
Hunt v. Sapien, 480 F.Supp.2d 1271 (D.Kan. 2007). 3
Hunt v. State of Missouri, Dept. of Corrections, 297 F.3d
735 (8th Cir. 2002). 2, 5, 31
Hunt v. Uphoff, 199 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 1999). 29
Hunter v. Amin, 583 F.3d 486 (7th Cir. 2009). 2, 29, 30, 32,
33
Hunter v. Auger, 672 F.2d 668 (1982). 41, 49
Hunter v. Ayers, 336 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2003). 7, 20, 22,
36
Hunter v. County of Albany, 834 F.Supp.2d 86 (N.D.N.Y.
2011). 2, 31
Hunter v. County of Sacramento, 652 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir.
2011). 13, 14, 48
Hunter v. Quinlan, 815 F.Supp. 273 (N.D.Ill. 1993). 28
Hunter v. Samples, 15 F.3d 1011 (11th Cir. 1994). 22, 47

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Hurd v. Garcia, 454 F.Supp.2d 1032 (S.D.Cal. 2006). 10,
12, 39
Hurley v. Ward, 584 F.2d 609 (2d Cir. 1978). 41
Hurst v. Lee County, Miss., 764 F.3d (5th Cir. 2014). 31
Hurst v. Snyder, 63 Fed.Appx. 240 (7th Cir. 2003)
[unpublished]. 9, 10, 15, 44
Hurt v. Birkett, 566 F.Supp.2d 620 (E.D.Mich. 2008). 7, 29,
48
Hurtado v. Reno, 34 F.Supp.2d 1261 (D.Colo. 1999). 7
Husayn v. Gates, 588 F.Supp.2d 7 (D.D.C. 2008). 7, 29
Husbands v. McClellan, 957 F.Supp. 403 (W.D.N.Y. 1997).
11, 20
Husbands v. McClellan, 990 F.Supp. 214 (W.D.N.Y. 1998).
3, 11, 20
Huskey v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc., 632 F.Supp.
1282 (N.D. Ill. 1986). 19, 33
Hutchings v. Corum, 501 F.Supp. 1276 (W.D. Mo. 1980).
1, 9, 10, 12, 15, 19, 23, 27, 32, 40
Hutchings v. U.S. Parole Com'n, 201 F.3d 1006 (8th Cir.
2000). 36, 43
Hutchins v. McDaniels, 512 F.3d 193 (5th Cir. 2007). 27,
41
Hutchinson v. Belt, 957 F.Supp. 97 (W.D.La. 1996). 4, 29
Hutto v. Davis, 972 F.Supp. 1372 (W.D.Okl. 1997). 25, 29,
45, 46
Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678 (1978), reh'g. denied, 439
U.S. 1122. 5, 9, 11
Hvorcik v. Sheahan, 847 F.Supp. 1414 (N.D. Ill. 1994). 16,
27
Hyde v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, 948 F.Supp. 625
(S.D.Tex. 1996). 37
Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2007). 7, 9, 29,
41, 48
Hydrick v. Hunter, 669 F.3d 937 (9th Cir. 2012). 7, 9, 24
Hyson v. Neubert, 820 F.Supp. 184 (D.N.J. 1993). 11
Iglesia v. Wells, 441 N.E.2d 1017 (Ind. App. 1982). 14, 27,
36
Iko v. Shreve, 535 F.3d 225 (4th Cir. 2008). 14, 24, 29, 46,
48
Ilina v. Zickefoose, 591 F.Supp.2d 145 (D.Conn. 2008). 17,
22, 29
Illinois v. Gates, 103 S.Ct. 2317 (1983), reh'g. denied, 104
S.Ct. 33. 41
Illinois v. Lafayette, 103 S.Ct. 2605 (1983). 25, 41
Imhoff v. Temas, 67 F.Supp.3d 700 (W.D.Pa. 2014). 9, 23,
27, 29, 32, 40, 48
Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Ridge, 169 F.3d 178 2 (3rd
Cir. 1999). 1, 27
In Matter of Miner v. N.Y. State Dept. of Correctional
Services, 524 N.Y.S.2d 390 (N.Y. 1987), cert. denied,
109 S.Ct. 364, reh'g. denied, 109 S.Ct. 825. 19, 38,
49
In re Alea, 286 F.3d 378 (6th Cir. 2002). 1, 4, 35
In Re Bayside Prison Litigation, 190 F.Supp.2d 755 (D.N.J.
2002). 1, 7, 21, 38, 39
In re Cook, 928 F.2d 262 (8th Cir. 1991). 1
In re Epps, 888 F.2d 964 (2nd Cir. 1989). 1
In re Extradition of Chapman, 459 F.Supp.2d 1024
(D.Hawai’i 2006). 6
In re Gaines, 932 F.2d 729 (8th Cir. 1991). 21
In re Grimes, 256 Cal.Rptr. 690 (Cal.App. 1 Dist. 1989). 1,
19
In re Guantanamo Bay Detainee Continued Access to
Counsel, 892 F.Supp.2d 8 (D.D.C. 2012). 1, 22

TC-45
XXVI

In re Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litigation, 577 F.Supp.2d
312 (D.D.C. 2008). 7, 22
In re Head, 228 Cal. Rptr. 184 (Cal. 1986). 5, 22
In re Jonathan M., 172 Cal. Rptr. 833 (Ct. App. 1981). 43
In re Morgan, 713 F.3d 1365 (11th Cir. 2013). 26, 43
In re Nassa County Strip Search Cases, 12 F.Supp.3d 485
(E.D.N.Y. 2014). 1, 4, 25, 27, 32, 41
In re Nassau County Strip Search Cases, 461 F.3d 219 (2d
Cir. 2006). 27, 32, 41
In re Nassau County Strip Search Cases, 742 F.Supp.2d 304
(E.D.N.Y. 2010). 2, 25, 27, 41
In re Nassau County Strip Search Cases, 958 F.Supp.2d 339
(E.D.N.Y. 2013). 25, 32, 41
In re Ohio Execution Protocol Litigation, 906 F.Supp.2d
759 (S.D.Ohio 2012). 2, 7, 10
In re Ohio Execution Protocol Litigation, 994 F.Supp.2d
906 (S.D.Ohio 2014). 7, 10
In re Pendleton, 732 F.3d 280 (3rd Cir. 2013). 22, 26, 43
In re Smith, 114 F.3d 1247 (D.C.Cir. 1997). 1, 4, 36
In re T.W., 652 F.Supp. 1440 (E.D. Wis. 1987). 26
In re Terrence G., 37 CrL 2413 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 1985). 26,
41
In re Tyler, 839 F.2d 1290 (8th Cir. 1988). 1
In Re Wilkinson, 137 F.3d 911 (6th Cir. 1998). 1, 39
Incumaa v. Ozmint, 507 F.3d 281 (4th Cir. 2007). 3, 28
Incumaa v. Stirling, 791 F.3d 517 (4th Cir. 2015). 3, 8, 9,
11, 12, 15, 34, 37, 38
Ind. Dept. of Correction v. Ind. Civ. Rights, 486 N.E.2d 612
(Ind. App. 1 Dist. 1985). 2, 31
Indian Inmates of NE Penitentiary v. Grammer, 649 F.Supp.
1374 (D. Neb. 1986). 37, 38
Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Com'n v.
Commissioner, Indiana Dept. of Correction, 642
F.Supp.2d 872 (S.D.Ind. 2009) 7, 9, 30
Indreland v. Yellowstone County Bd. of Comr's, 693
F.Supp.2d 1230 (D.Mont. 2010). 8, 37, 38, 39
Ingram v. Ault, 50 F.3d 898 (11th Cir. 1995). 1, 10, 37, 49
Inmates of Allegheny County Jail v. Wecht, 848 F.Supp.
52 (W.D. Pa. 1994). 4, 15, 27
Inmates of Allegheny County Jail v. Pierce, 487 F.Supp.
638 (W.D. Penn. 1980). 25, 29
Inmates of Allegheny County Jail v. Wecht, 565 F.Supp.
1278 (W.D. Penn. 1983). 1, 9, 12
Inmates of Allegheny County Jail v. Wecht, 612 F.Supp.
874 (D.C. Penn. 1985). 9
Inmates of Allegheny County Jail v. Wecht, 699 F.Supp.
1137 (W.D. Pa. 1988). 9, 27
Inmates of Allegheny County Jail v. Wecht, 874 F.2d 147
(3rd Cir. 1989). 9, 27
Inmates of Allegheny County Jail v. Wecht, 901 F.2d 1191
(3rd Cir. 1990). 5, 9
Inmates of D.C. Jail v. Jackson, 158 F.3d 1357 (D.C.Cir.
1998). 5
Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry, 650 F.Supp. 619 (D. D.C.
1986). 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 29, 39, 42, 45
Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry, 717 F.Supp. 854 (D.D.C.
1989). 3, 8, 15, 29, 44
Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Eisenstadt, 360 F.Supp.
676 (D. Mass. 1973). 23, 28, 32, 37, 49
Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Kearney, 734 F.Supp. 561
(D. Mass. 1990), affirmed, 915 F.2d 1557. 9, 27
Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Kearney, 928 F.2d 33 (1st
Cir. 1991). 17, 47
Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Rouse, 129 F.3d 649 (1st
Cir. 1997). 27, 32

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Rufo, 12 F.3d 286 (1st
Cir. 1993). 15, 27
Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Rufo, 844 F.Supp. 31 (D.
Mass. 1994). 15, 27
Inmates v. Ohio State Adult Parole Authority, 929 F.2d 233
(6th Cir. 1991). 36
Inouye v. Kemna, 504 F.3d 705 (9th Cir. 2007). 36, 37
Intersimone v. Carlson, 512 F.Supp. 526 (M.D. Penn.
1980). 1, 28
Ippolito v. Buss, 293 F.Supp.2d 881 (N.D.Ind. 2003). 1, 4
Iron Eyes v. Henry, 907 F.2d 810 (8th Cir. 1990). 19, 37
Irving v. Dormire, 519 F.3d 441 (8th Cir. 2008). 9, 10, 14
Isaac v. United States, 490 F.Supp. 613 (S.D. N.Y. 1979).
29
Isaraphanich v. Coughlin, 716 F.Supp. 119 (S.D.N.Y.
1989). 36, 49
Isby v. Clark, 100 F.3d 502 (7th Cir. 1996). 3, 10
Ishaaq v. Compton, 900 F.Supp. 935 (W.D.Tenn. 1995). 1,
14, 21, 47
Islam v. Jackson, 782 F.Supp. 1111 (E.D. Va. 1992). 18
Israel v. Abate, 949 F.Supp. 1035 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). 2, 19,
31
Iuteri v. Nardoza, 662 F.2d 159 (2nd Cir. 1981). 36
Ivey v. Harney, 47 F.3d 181 (7th Cir. 1995). 1
Ivey v. Wilson, 832 F.2d 950 (6th Cir. 1987). 27, 41
Ivy v. Moore, 31 F.3d 634 (8th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115
S.Ct. 760. 11
Iwanski v. Ray, 44 Fed.Appx. 370 (10th Cir. 2002). 14
Izzo v. Wiley, 620 F.3d 1257 (10th Cir. 2010). 20, 22, 34
J. B. ex rel. Benjamin v. Fassnacht, 801 F.3d 336 (3d Cir.
2015). 26, 41
J.P. v. Taft, 439 F.Supp.2d 793 (S.D.Ohio 2006). 1, 9, 23,
26
J.P.C. (JUV) v. U.S., 430 F.Supp.2d 961 (D.S.D. 2006). 22,
Jabbar v. Fischer, 683 F.3d 54 (2nd Cir. 2012). 10, 14, 47
Jaben v. Moore, 788 F.Supp. 500 (D.Kan. 1992). 1, 37
Jacklovich v. Simmons, 392 F.3d 420 (10th Cir. 2004). 19,
35, 38
Jacks v. Crabtree, 114 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 1997). 22, 43
Jackson v. Ashcroft, 347 F.Supp.2d 924 (D.Or. 2004). 20,
22
Jackson v. Austin, 241 F.Supp.2d 1313 (D.Kan. 2003). 27,
48
Jackson v. Berge, 864 F.Supp. 873 (E.D. Wis. 1994). 9, 10
Jackson v. Bostick, 760 F.Supp. 524 (D. Md. 1991). 3
Jackson v. Brookhart, 640 F.Supp. 241 (S.D. Iowa 1986).
11, 19, 28
Jackson v. Buckman, 756 F.3d 1060 (8th Cir. 2014). 29, 32,
48
Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235 (5th Cir. 1989). 50
Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750 (9th Cir. 2003). 3, 11
Jackson v. Carpenter, 921 F.2d 68 (5th Cir. 1991). 1
Jackson v. Correctional Corporation of America, 564
F.Supp.2d 22 (D.D.C. 2008). 27, 29
Jackson v. Culbertson, 984, F.2d 699 (5th Cir. 1993). 48
Jackson v. DeTella, 998 F.Supp. 901 (N.D. Ill. 1998). 9, 23,
48
Jackson v. District of Columbia, 89 F.Supp.2d 48 (D.D.C.
2000). 19, 37, 38, 39
Jackson v. Doria, 851 F.Supp. 288 (N.D.Ill. 1994). 16
Jackson v. Duckworth, 955 F.2d 21 (7th Cir. 1992). 9, 10,
40
Jackson v. Elrod, 671 F.Supp. 1508 (N.D. Ill. 1987). 19, 27,
38, 39
Jackson v. Elrod, 881 F.2d 441 (7th Cir. 1989). 19, 24, 28

TC-46
XXVI

Jackson v. Everett, 140 F.3d 1149 (8th Cir. 1998). 14
Jackson v. Fauver, 334 F.Supp.2d 697 (D.N.J. 2004). 27, 29
Jackson v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 538 F.Supp.2d 194
(D.D.C. 2008). 2, 33
Jackson v. First Correctional Medical Services, 380
F.Supp.2d 387 (D.Del. 2005). 2, 29
Jackson v. Frank, 509 F.3d 389 (7th Cir. 2007). 19, 38
Jackson v. Gandy, 877 F.Supp.2d 159 (D.N.J. 2012). 10,
14, 21, 24, 27, 48
Jackson v. Gardner, 639 F.Supp. 1005 (E.D. Tenn. 1986). 9,
10, 12, 15, 23, 40, 49
Jackson v. Gerl, 622 F.Supp.2d 738 (W.D.Wis. 2009). 10,
41, 46, 48
Jackson v. Goord, 664 F.Supp.2d 307 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). 9,
10, 40, 50
Jackson v. Hendrick, 446 A.2d 226 (Penn. 1982). 14, 45
Jackson v. Humphrey, 776 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2015). 7,
19, 39, 49
Jackson v. Illinois Medi-Car, Inc., 300 F.3d 760 (7th Cir.
2002). 29, 32
Jackson v. Illinois Prisoner Review Bd., 631 F.Supp. 150
(N.D. Ill. 1986). 36
Jackson v. Jamrog, 411 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2005). 7, 22, 36
Jackson v. Johnson, 118 F.Supp.2d 278 (N.D.N.Y. 2000).
26, 29, 39, 48
Jackson v. Johnson, 475 F.3d 261 (5th Cir. 2007). 1, 36
Jackson v. Johnson, 962 F.Supp. 391 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). 14
Jackson v. Kotter, 541 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2008). 1, 27, 29
Jackson v. Lane, 688 F.Supp. 1291 (N.D. Ill. 1988). 1, 10,
29
Jackson v. Lockhart, 7 F.3d 1391 (8th Cir. 1993). 36, 50
Jackson v. Long, 102 F.3d 722 (4th Cir. 1996). 31
Jackson v. Mann, 196 F.3d 316 (2nd Cir. 1999). 37
Jackson v. McCall, 509 F.Supp. 504 (D. D.C. 1981). 36
Jackson v. McIntosh, 81 F.3d 112 (9th Cir. 1996). 29
Jackson v. Meachum, 699 F.2d 578 (1st Cir. 1983). 3, 10,
19
Jackson v. Mowery, 743 F.Supp. 600 (N.D. (Ind. 1990). 13,
19, 28
Jackson v. New York Dept. of Correctional Services, 994
F.Supp. 219 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). 3, 16, 47
Jackson v. Nixon, 747 F.3d 537 (8th Cir. 2014). 27, 34, 37
Jackson v. Norris, 748 F.Supp. 570 (M.D. Tenn. 1990),
affirmed, 928 F.2d 1132. 1, 28
Jackson v. O'Leary, 689 F.Supp. 846 (N.D. Ill. 1988). 10,
50
Jackson v. Onondaga County, 549 F.Supp.2d 204
(N.D.N.Y. 2008). 11, 19
Jackson v. Pate, 382 F.2d 517 (7th Cir. 1967). 18, 37
Jackson v. Pollion, 733 F.3d 786 (7th Cir. 2013). 29
Jackson v. Procunier, 789 F.2d 307 (5th Cir. 1986). 1, 28
Jackson v. Raemisch, 726 F.Supp.2d 991 (W.D.Wis. 2010).
21, 37, 50
Jackson v. Reese, 608 F.2d 159 (5th Cir. 1979). 36
Jackson v. Russo, 495 F.Supp.2d 225 (D.Mass. 2007). 20,
34, 44, 50
Jackson v. State Bd. of Pardons and Paroles, 331 F.3d 790
(11th Cir. 2003). 5
Jackson v. Stevens, 694 F.Supp.2d 1334 (M.D.Ga. 2010.) 8,
14, 27
Jackson v. Thornburgh, 907 F.2d 194 (D.C. Cir. 1990). 17,
20, 22, 43
Jackson v. U.S., 24 F.Supp.2d 823 (W.D.Tenn. 1998). 13,
14, 26, 29, 39

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Jackson v. West, 787 F.3d 1345 (11th Cir. 2015). 14, 29, 30,
32
Jackson v. Wharton, 687 F.Supp. 595 (M.D. Ga. 1988). 1,
29
Jackson v. Whitman, 642 F.Supp. 816 (W.D. La. 1986). 9
Jackson v. Wiley, 352 F.Supp.2d 666 (E.D.Va. 2004). 1
Jackson-Bey v. Hanslmaier, 115 F.3d 1091 (2nd Cir. 1997).
19, 37
Jackson-El v. Winsor, 986 F.Supp. 440 (E.D.Mich. 1997). 1
Jacobs v. Ramirez, 400 F.3d 105 (2nd Cir. 2005). 36
Jacobs v. West Feliciana Sheriff's Dept., 228 F.3d 388 (5th
Cir. 2000). 14, 14, 25, 32
Jacobs v. Wilkinson, 529 F.Supp.2d 804 (N.D.Ohio 2008).
1, 37, 50
Jacobson v. Coughlin, 523 F.Supp. 1247 (N.D. N.Y. 1981),
cert. denied, 103 S.Ct. 77. 11
Jacques v. Hilton, 569 F.Supp. 730 (D. N.J. 1983). 37
Jaffee v. Redmond, 116 S.Ct. 1923 (1996). 30, 33
Jago v. Shields, 507 F.Supp. 67 (W.D. Va. 1981). 36
Jago v. Van Curen, 454 U.S. 14 (1981). 36
Jama v. Esmor Correctional Services Inc., 549 F.Supp.2d
602 (D.N.J. 2008). 5, 7, 9, 37
Jama v. U.S.I.N.S., 343 F.Supp.2d 338 (D.N.J. 2004). 27,
37
Jamal v. Kane, 105 F.Supp.3d 448 (M.D. Pa 2015). 7, 44
Jamal v. Kane, 96 F.Supp.3d 447 (M.D. Pa. 2015). 7, 19
James v. Aidala, 389 F.Supp.2d 451 (W.D.N.Y. 2005). 2,
11
James v. Alfred, 832 F.2d 339 (5th Cir. 1987). 48
James v. Coughlin, 13 F.Supp.2d 403 (W.D.N.Y. 1998). 7,
11, 19, 23, 29, 41, 48
James v. Milwaukee County, 956 F.2d 696 (7th Cir. 1992),
cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 63. 8
James v. Quinlan, 866 F.2d 627 (3rd Cir. 1989), cert.
denied, 110 S.Ct. 197. 50
James v. Reno, 39 F.Supp.2d 37 (D.D.C. 1999). 8, 47
James v. Strange, 407 U.S. 128 (1972). 4
James v. U.S. Parole Com'n, 159 F.3d 1200 (9th Cir. 1998).
36, 43, 47
James-Bey v. Freeman, 638 F.Supp. 758 (D. D.C. 1986). 47
Janes v. Hernandez, 215 F.3d 541 (5th Cir. 2000). 5, 8, 13,
32
Jantzen v. Hawkins, 188 F.3d 1247 (10th Cir. 1999). 31
Jarecke v. Hensley, 552 F.Supp.2d 261 (D.Conn. 2008). 29,
30, 47
Jarno v. Lewis, 256 F.Supp.2d 499 (E.D.Va. 2003). 7, 14,
22
Jaros v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections, 684 F.3d 667 (7th Cir.
2012). 7, 9, 15, 23
Jarriett v. Wilson, 414 F.3d 634 (6th Cir. 2005). 1, 3, 9, 19,
29
Jasper v. Thalacker, 999 F.2d 353 (8th Cir. 1993). 48
Jaundoo v. Clarke, 690 F.Supp.2d 20 (D.Mass. 2010). 24,
29
Jaundoo v. Clarke, 783 F.Supp.2d 190 (D.Mass. 2011). 29
Jawad v. Gates, 113 F.Supp.3d 251 (D.D.C. 2015). 7, 27
Jean-Laurent v. Wilkerson, 438 F.Supp.2d 318 (S.D.N.Y.
2006). 32, 37, 41
Jean-Laurent v. Wilkinson, 540 F.Supp.2d 501 (S.D.N.Y.
2008). 27, 41, 48
Jeanty v. County of Orange, 379 F.Supp.2d 533 (S.D.N.Y.
2005). 32, 46, 48
Jefferies v. Wyandotte County Bd. of County Com'rs, 979
F.Supp. 1372 (D.Kan. 1997). 31
Jeffers v. Gomez, 240 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001). 39, 48

TC-47
XXVI

Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2001). 14, 39, 48
Jefferson v. Douglas, 493 F.Supp. 13 (W.D. Okla. 1979).
10, 18, 42
Jeffes v. Barnes, 208 F.3d 49 (2nd Cir. 2000). 31
Jeffries v. Block, 940 F.Supp. 1509 (C.D.Cal. 1996). 29
Jeffries v. Reed, 631 F.Supp. 1212 (E.D. Wash. 1986). 1, 3,
8, 19, 28, 39, 41
Jehovah v. Clarke, 798 F.3d 169 (4th Cir. 2015). 8, 20, 37,
50
Jeldness v. Pearce, 30 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 1994). 17, 34, 50
Jelinek v. Greer, 90 F.3d 242 (7th Cir. 1996). 8, 14
Jenkins v. Angelone, 948 F.Supp. 543 (E.D.Va. 1996). 18,
37
Jenkins v. Cain, 977 F.Supp. 1255 (W.D.La. 1997). 1, 22
Jenkins v. County of Hennepin, Minn., 557 F.3d 628 (8th
Cir. 2009). 2, 29, 32
Jenkins v. Currier, 514 F.3d 1030 (10th Cir. 2008). 16, 43,
44
Jenkins v. DeKalb County, Ga., 528 F.Supp.2d 1329
(N.D.Ga. 2007). 2, 8, 14, 24, 27, 32, 46
Jenkins v. Fauver, 530 A.2d 790 (N.J. Super. A.D. 1986). 8,
47
Jenkins v. Haubert, 179 F.3d 19 (2nd Cir. 1999). 11, 13
Jenkins v. Lane, 977 F.2d 266 (7th Cir. 1992). 1, 3
Jenkins v. Raub, 310 F.Supp.2d 502 (W.D.N.Y. 2004). 1,
21
Jenkins v. State of La., Thru Dept. of Corrections, 874 F.2d
992 (5th CIr. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 871. 31
Jenkins v. Wilson, 432 F.Supp.2d 808 (W.D.Wis. 2006).
14, 32, 48
Jennings v. County of Washtenaw, 475 F.Supp.2d 692
(E.D.Mich. 2007). 31
Jennings v. Hart, 602 F.Supp.2d 754 (W.D.Va. 2009). 14,
17, 24, 29
Jennings v. Parole Bd. of Virginia, 61 F.Supp.2d 471
(E.D.Va. 1999). 22, 36
Jensen v. Clarke, 94 F.3d 1191 (8th Cir. 1996). 5, 8, 14, 25,
27
Jensen v. County of Lake, 958 F.Supp. 397 (N.D.Ind.
1997). 1, 27
Jensen v. Gunter, 807 F.Supp. 1463 (D.Neb. 1992). 8, 9, 24
Jensen v. Klecker, 599 F.2d 243 (8th Cir. 1979). 35, 38
Jensen v. Knowles, 621 F.Supp.2d 921 (E.D.Cal. 2008). 1,
21
Jensen v. Webb, 520 N.Y.S.2d 971 (A.D. 3 Dept. 1987). 15
Jermosen v. Coughlin, 745 F.Supp. 128 (W.D.N.Y. 1990). 1
Jermosen v. Coughlin, 877 F.Supp. 864 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). 1,
7, 28
Jermosen v. Coughlin, 878 F.Supp. 444 (N.D.N.Y. 1995).
11, 24
Jermosen v. Smith, 945 F.2d 547 (2nd Cir. 1991), cert.
denied, 112 S.Ct. 1565. 11, 24
Jersawitz v. Hanberry, 783 F.2d 1532 (11th Cir. 1986), cert.
denied, 107 S.Ct. 272. 19, 38
Jessup v. Miami-Dade County, 697 F.Supp.2d 1312
(S.D.Fla. 2010). 14, 17, 29, 32
Jessup v. U.S. Parole Com'n., 889 F.2d 831 (9th Cir. 1989).
22, 36
Jesus Christ Prison Ministry v. California Department of
Corrections, 456 F.Supp.2d 1188 (E.D.Cal. 2006). 19,
28, 37, 38
Jeter v. Montgomery County, 480 F.Supp.2d 1293
(M.D.Ala. 2007). 31
Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2006). 29

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Jewell v. Gonzales, 420 F.Supp.2d 406 (W.D.Pa. 2006). 12,
19
Jihaad v. O'Brien, 645 F.2d 556 (6th Cir. 1981). 11, 27
Jihad v. Wright, 929 F.Supp. 325 (N.D.Ind. 1996). 3, 29
Jimenez v. Franklin, 680 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2012). 4
Jimenez v. New Jersey, 245 F.Supp.2d 584 (D.N.J. 2003).
16, 32, 41
Jo v. District of Columbia, 582 F.Supp.2d 51 (D.D.C.
2008). 2, 31
Joan W. v. City of Chicago, 771 F.2d 1020 (1985). 41
John Does 1-100 v. Ninneman, 612 F.Supp. 1069 (D.C.
Minn. 1985). 24, 41
John Does 1-4 v. Snyder, 932 F.Supp.2d 803 (E.D.Mich.
2013). 7, 36, 43, 44
John L. v. Adams, 969 F.2d 228 (6th Cir. 1992). 1, 26
Johnpoll v. Thornburgh, 898 F.2d 849 (2nd Cir. 1990), cert.
denied, 111 S.Ct. 63. 35, 50
Johns v. Lemmon, 980 F.Supp.2d 1055 (N.D.Ind. 2013).
18, 37, 42
Johnson v. American Towers, LLC, 781 F.3d 693 (4th Cir.
2015). 39
Johnson v. Anderson, 370 F.Supp. 1373 (D. Del. 1974). 11
Johnson v. Atkins, 999 F.2d 99 (5th Cir. 1993). l
Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483 (1969). 1
Johnson v. Baker, 108 F.3d 10 (2nd Cir. 1997). 34, 36, 49
Johnson v. Blaukat, 453 F.3d 1108 (8th Cir. 2006). 17, 23,
48
Johnson v. Board of Police Com’rs, 351 F.Supp.2d 929
(E.D.Mo. 2004). 7, 16, 32, 50
Johnson v. Board of Police Com’rs, 370 F.Supp.2d 892
(E.D.Mo. 2005). 7, 32, 50
Johnson v. Boreani, 946 F.2d 67 (8th Cir. 1991). 3, 39
Johnson v. Bowers, 884 F.2d 1053 (8th Cir. 1989). 29
Johnson v. Boyd, 676 F.Supp.2d 800 (E.D. Ark. 2009). 11,
14, 15, 19, 23, 28, 37, 40, 42, 49
Johnson v. Bredesen, 579 F.Supp.2d 1044 (M.D.Tenn.
2008). 7, 13, 43, 44
Johnson v. Bredesen, 624 F.3d 742 (6th Cir. 2010). 7, 13,
19, 44
Johnson v. Breeden, 280 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2002). 5, 14,
27, 48
Johnson v. Bruce, 771 F.Supp. 327 (D. Kan. 1991),
affirmed, 961 F.2d 220. 18, 37
Johnson v. Clafton, 136 F.Supp.3d 838 (E.D. Mich. 2015).
29, 32
Johnson v. Collins, 564 F.Supp.2d 759 (N.D.Ohio 2008).
24, 37, 38, 39
Johnson v. Commissioner of Corr. Services, 699 F.Supp.
1071 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). 9
Johnson v. Connecticut Dept. of Corrections, 392 F.Supp.2d
326 (D.Conn. 2005). 2, 31
Johnson v. Conner, 754 F.3d 918 (11th Cir. 2014). 14, 29,
30, 39
Johnson v. Crabtree, 996 F.Supp. 999 (D.Or. 1997). 22, 34,
43
Johnson v. Daniels, 769 F.Supp. 230 (E.D. Mich. 1991). 7,
19, 28, 35
Johnson v. Deloach, 692 F.Supp.2d 1316 (M.D.Ala. 2010).
14, 24, 48
Johnson v. District of Columbia, 461 F.Supp.2d 48 (D.D.C.
2006). 32, 41
Johnson v. District of Columbia, 869 F.Supp.2d 34 (D.D.C.
2012). 21
Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001 (7th Cir. 2006). 29

TC-48
XXVI

Johnson v. Douglas County Medical Dept., 725 F.3d 825
(8th Cir. 2013). 29
Johnson v. DuBois, 20 F.Supp.2d 138 (D.Mass. 1998). 9,
50
Johnson v. Evinger, 517 F.3d 921 (7th Cir. 2008). 11
Johnson v. Fauver, 786 F.Supp. 442 (D. N.J. 1992). 36
Johnson v. Finnan, 467 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 2006). 11, 20, 22
Johnson v. Florida Dept. of Corrections, 826 F.Supp.2d
1319 (N.D.Fla.2011). 12, 21, 29, 42
Johnson v. Freeburn, 29 F.Supp.2d 764 (E.D.Mich. 1998).
21
Johnson v. Galli, 596 F.Supp. 135 (D. Nev. 1984). 19
Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028 (2d Cir. 1973), cert.
denied, 414 U.S. 1033. 3, 10, 14, 27, 29, 32, 48
Johnson v. Goord, 445 F.3d 532 (2nd Cir. 2006). 3, 28, 35,
38
Johnson v. Government of Dist. of Columbia, 734 F.3d
1194 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 1, 17, 24, 32, 41
Johnson v. Government of Dist. of Columbia, 780
F.Supp.2d 62 (D.D.C. 2011). 1, 17, 24, 32, 41
Johnson v. Government of District of Columbia, 584
F.Supp.2d 83 (D.D.C. 2008). 1, 17, 41
Johnson v. Hamilton, 452 F.3d 967 (8th Cir. 2006). 14, 29,
48
Johnson v. Hardin County, Ky., 908 F.2d 1280 (6th Cir.
1990). 5, 27, 29
Johnson v. Hay, 931 F.2d 456 2 (8th Cir. 1991). 29
Johnson v. Herman, 132 F.Supp.2d 1130 (N.D.Ind. 2001).
27, 32, 36
Johnson v. Hill, 910 F.Supp. 218 (E.D.Pa. 1996). 8, 14, 29
Johnson v. Hill, 965 F.Supp. 1487 (E.D.Va. 1997). 1, 13
Johnson v. Hornung, 358 F.Supp.2d 910 (S.D.Cal. 2005). 1,
28
Johnson v. Howard, 20 F.Supp.2d 1128 (W.D.Mich. 1998).
1
Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503 (5th Cir. 2004). 7, 14
Johnson v. Karnes, 398 F.3d 868 (6th Cir. 2005). 29, 32
Johnson v. Kelsh, 664 F.Supp. 162 (S.D. N.Y. 1987). 24, 36
Johnson v. Killian, 680 F.3d 234 (2nd Cir. 2012). 21, 37, 38
Johnson v. Kingston, 292 F.Supp.2d 1146 (W.D.Wis. 2003)
1, 47
Johnson v. Lark, 365 F.Supp. 289 (E.D. Mo. 1973). 7, 10,
11, 12, 18, 23, 25, 29, 40, 44
Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726 (9th Cir. 2000). 9, 10
Johnson v. Lockhart, 941 F.2d 705 (8th Cir. 1991). 29
Johnson v. Lynaugh, 766 S.W.2d 393 (Tex.App.--Tyler
1989). 1, 37
Johnson v. Martin, 223 F.Supp.2d 820 (W.D.Mich. 2002).
37
Johnson v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 105 S.Ct.
2717 (1985). 31
Johnson v. Medford, 208 F.Supp.2d 590 (W.D.N.C. 2002).
29, 34
Johnson v. Miller, 925 F.Supp. 334 (E.D.Pa. 1996). 1
Johnson v. Milliner, 65 F.Supp.3d 1295 (S.D.Ala. 2014).
32, 48
Johnson v. Moore, 926 F.2d 921 (9th Cir. 1991). 9, 37
Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517 (9th Cir. 1991). 9, 37, 38
Johnson v. Nelson, 877 F.Supp. 569 (D.Kan. 1995). 22, 29
Johnson v. O'Brien, 445 F.Supp. 122 (E.D. Mo. 1977). 12,
29, 49
Johnson v. Orsino, 942 F.Supp.2d 396 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). 6,
22
Johnson v. Ozmint, 567 F.Supp.2d 806 (D.S.C. 2008). 1, 2,
4, 21, 35

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Johnson v. Pearson, 316 F.Supp.2d 307 (E.D.Va. 2004). 8,
10, 29
Johnson v. Pelkner, 891 F.2d 136 (7th Cir. 1989). 9, 23, 40
Johnson v. Phelan, 69 F.3d 144 (7th Cir. 1995). 32, 33, 45
Johnson v. Quinones, 145 F.3d 164 (4th Cir. 1998). 29
Johnson v. Raemisch, 557 F.Supp.2d 964 (W.D.Wis. 2008).
19, 28, 39
Johnson v. Roberts, 721 F.Supp.2d 1017 (D.Kan. 2010). 13,
24, 35, 39, 48
Johnson v. Robinson, 987 F.2d 1043 (4th Cir. 1993). 15, 27
Johnson v. Rowley, 569 F.3d 40 (2nd Cir. 2009). 21, 50
Johnson v. Scott, 702 P.2d 56 (Okl. 1985). 1, 35
Johnson v. Snyder, 444 F.3d 579 (7th Cir. 2006). 29
Johnson v. Solomon, 484 F.Supp. 278 (D. Md. 1979). 26,
34
Johnson v. State of Cal., 207 F.3d 650 (9th Cir. 2000). 7, 8,
19
Johnson v. State of California, 321 F.3d 791 (9th Cir.
2003). 7, 8, 25
Johnson v. Stephan, 816 F.Supp. 677 (D.Kan. 1993),
affirmed, 6 F.3d 691. 19, 29
Johnson v. Stovall, 233 F.3d 486 (7th Cir. 2000). 11, 21
Johnson v. Tedford, 616 F.Supp.2d 321 (N.D.N.Y. 2007).
14, 21, 29
Johnson v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, 910 F.Supp.
1208 (W.D.Tex. 1995). 1, 36, 47
Johnson v. U.S., 590 F.Supp.2d 101 (D.D.C. 2008). 13, 36
Johnson v. U.S., 816 F.Supp. 1519 (N.D.Ala. 1993). 8, 10,
29
Johnson v. Unknown Dellatifa, 357 F.3d 539 (6th Cir.
2004). 1, 7, 10, 24
Johnson v. Vondera, 790 F.Supp. 898 (E.D. Mo. 1992). 29
Johnson v. Ward, 76 Fed.Appx 858 (10th Cir. 2003)
[unpublished]. 20, 50
Johnson v. Williams, 768 F.Supp. 1161 (E.D. Va. 1991).
12, 18, 23, 29
Johnson v. Wright, 423 F.Supp.2d 1242 (M.D.Ala. 2005).
14, 32, 48
Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938). 1
Johnson-Bey v. Lane, 863 F.2d 1308 (7th Cir. 1988). 37
Johnston v. Ciccone, 260 F.Supp. 553 (W.D. Mo. 1966). 8,
30, 32
Johnston v. Lucas, 786 F.2d 1254 (5th Cir. 1986). 8, 14, 27
Johnston v. Maha, 584 F.Supp.2d 612 (W.D.N.Y. 2008) . 1,
21, 29, 32, 48
Johnston v. Maha, 606 F.3d 39 (2nd Cir. 2010). 1, 8, 9, 32,
48
Johnston v. Maha, 845 F.Supp.2d 535 (W.D.N.Y. 2012). 3,
9, 10, 11, 14, 21, 32
Johnstone v. U.S., 980 F.Supp. 148 (E.D.Pa. 1997). 24, 29,
50
Joihner v. McEvers, 898 F.2d 569 (7th Cir. 1990). 47
Jolivet v. Deland, 966 F.2d 573 (10th Cir. 1992). 27, 28
Jolly v. Badgett, 144 F.3d 573 (8th Cir. 1998). 29
Jolly v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 468 (2nd Cir. 1996). 29, 37
Jolly v. Klein, 923 F.Supp. 931 (S.D. Tex. 1996). 29, 32
Jones v. Banks, 878 F.Supp. 107 (N.D. Ill. 1995). 14
Jones v. Bishop, 981 F.Supp. 290 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). 7, 9
Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2004). 7, 32
Jones v. Brown, 461 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2006). 1, 19, 28, 38,
39
Jones v. Carroll, 628 F.Supp.2d 551 (D.Del. 2009). 1, 13,
14, 24
Jones v. Caruso, 569 F.3d 258 (6th Cir. 2009). 19, 28, 38

TC-49
XXVI

Jones v. City and County of San Francisco, 976 F.Supp. 896
(N.D.Cal. 1997). 1, 9, 12, 15, 18, 23, 27, 33, 32, 39,
40, 44, 45
Jones v. City of Jackson, 203 F.3d 875 (5th Cir. 2000). 16,
24
Jones v. Coonce, 7 F.3d 1359 (8th Cir. 1993). 3, 24
Jones v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc., 845 F.Supp.2d
824 (W.D.Mich. 2012). 2, 9, 27, 29
Jones v. Culinary Manager II, 30 F.Supp.2d 491 (E.D.Pa.
1998). 7, 10
Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 (1963). 22
Jones v. Diamond, 594 F.2d 997 (5th Cir. 1979), cert.
denied, 102 S.Ct. 27. 1, 7, 8, 12, 15, 28, 32, 39, 40
Jones v. Diamond, 636 F.2d 1364 (5th Cir. 1981) cert
denied 102 S.Ct 27. 7, 9, 10, 11, 15, 27, 32
Jones v. Edguardo A. Consuegra’s Estate, 338 F.Supp.2d
1282 (M.D.Fla. 2004). 29
Jones v. Edwards, 770 F.2d 739 (1st Cir. 1985). 25, 41
Jones v. Ehlert, 704 F.Supp. 885 (E.D. Wis. 1989),
affirmed, 899 F.2d 17. 29
Jones v. Franzen, 697 F.2d 801 (7th Cir. 1983). 1
Jones v. Garcia, 430 F.Supp.2d 1095 (S.D.Cal. 2006). 12
Jones v. Goord, 435 F.Supp.2d 221 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). 9, 10,
14, 15, 35, 37
Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322 (5th Cir. 1999). 1, 21
Jones v. Hamelman, 869 F.2d 1023 (7th Cir. 1989). 14
Jones v. Hannigan, 959 F.Supp. 1400 (D.Kan. 1997). 29, 50
Jones v. Hobbs, 864 F.Supp.2d 808 (E.D.Ark. 2012). 2, 18,
37, 39
Jones v. Hodge, 662 F.Supp. 254 (E.D. N.C. 1987). 8
Jones v. Huff, 789 F.Supp. 526 (N.D.N.Y. 1992). 14, 48
Jones v. Hutto, 763 F.2d 979 (8th Cir. 1985). 7, 31
Jones v. Johnson, 230 F.3d 825 (5th Cir. 2000). 43
Jones v. Kelly, 918 F.Supp. 74 (W.D.N.Y. 1995). 14, 47
Jones v. Kelly, 937 F.Supp. 200 (W.D.N.Y. 1996). 3, 19
Jones v. Lexington County Detention Center, 586
F.Supp.2d 444 (D.S.C. 2008). 1, 32, 44
Jones v. Lockhart, 29 F.3d 422 (8th Cir. 1994). 5
Jones v. Lopez, 262 F.Supp.2d 701 (W.D.Tex. 2001). 16,
24, 36
Jones v. Marshall, 459 F.Supp.2d 1002 (E.D.Cal. 2006). 14,
29
Jones v. Mathai, 758 F.Supp.2d 443 (E.D.Mich. 2010). 1,
21
Jones v. McAndrew, 996 F.Supp. 1439 (N.D.Fla. 1998). 7,
10, 43
Jones v. McDaniel, 552 F.Supp.2d 1141 (D.Nev. 2008). 11,
22
Jones v. McDaniel, 717 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2013). 4, 5, 11
Jones v. Michigan, 698 F.Supp.2d 905 (E.D.Mich. 2010). 8,
29, 50
Jones v. Minnesota Dept. of Corrections, 512 F.3d 478 (8th
Cir. 2008). 14, 17, 29
Jones v. Mississippi Dept. of Corrections, 615 F.Supp. 456
(D.C. Miss. 1985). 2, 5, 7, 31
Jones v. Moran, 900 F.Supp. 1267 (N.D.Cal 1995). 3, 8
Jones v. Morris, 769 F.Supp. 274 (N.D. Ill. 1989). 50
Jones v. Murphy, 567 F.Supp.2d 787 (D.Md. 2008). 17, 25,
39, 41
Jones v. Murray, 763 F.Supp. 842 (W.D. Va. 1991),
modified, 962 F.2d 302. 33, 36, 41
Jones v. Muskegon County, 625 F.3d 935 (6th Cir. 2010). 7,
14, 29, 32
Jones v. Norris, 310 F.3d 610 (8th Cir. 2002). 29, 50

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union, 433 U.S.
119 (1977). 19
Jones v. Oakland County, 585 F.Supp.2d 914 (E.D.Mich.
2008). 8, 17, 25, 29
Jones v. Pramstaller, 678 F.Supp.2d 609 (W.D. Mich.
2009). 2, 10, 29
Jones v. Pramstaller, 874 F.Supp.2d 713 (W.D.Mich. 2012).
1, 14, 29
Jones v. Price, 696 F.Supp.2d 618 (N.D.W.Va. 2010). 33,
41
Jones v. Puckett, 160 F.Supp.2d 1016 (W.D.Wis. 2001). 8,
24, 34, 36
Jones v. Ray, 279 F.3d 944 (11th Cir. 2001). 36
Jones v. Russell, 950 F.Supp. 855 (N.D.Ill. 1996). 1, 3, 8
Jones v. Salt Lake County, 503 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. 2007).
19, 28, 38, 39
Jones v. Shields, 207 F.3d 491 (8th Cir. 2000). 48
Jones v. St. Tammany Parish Jail, 4 F.Supp.2d 606 (E.D.La.
1998). 29, 32
Jones v. Stine, 843 F.Supp. 1186 (W.D. Mich. 1994). 3, 9,
10, 12, 24
Jones v. Taylor, 534 F.Supp.2d 475 (D.Del. 2008). 27, 46,
48
Jones v. Thompson, 818 F.Supp. 1263 (S.D.Ind. 1993). 27,
32, 48
Jones v. U.S., 91 F.3d 623 (3rd Cir. 1996). 29
Jones v. Warden of Stateville Correctional Center, 918
F.Supp. 1142 (N.D.Ill, 1995).1, 38
Jones v. Westchester County Department of Corrections
Medical Dept., 557 F.Supp.2d 408 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
7, 29
Jones v. Williams, 791 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2015). 18, 37, 50
Jones v. Wittenberg, 330 F.Supp. 707 (N.D. Ohio 1971). 3,
8, 11, 18, 19, 23, 25, 27, 29, 34, 39, 40, 42
Jones v. Wittenberg, 440 F.Supp. 60 (N.D. Ohio 1977). 31,
46
Jones/Seymour v. LeFebvre, 781 F.Supp. 355 (E.D.Pa.
1991), affirmed, 961 F.2d 1567. 33
Jones-Bey v. Conley, 144 F.Supp.2d 1035 (N.D.Ind. 2000).
29, 48
Jones-Bey v. Wright, 944 F.Supp. 723 (N.D.Ind. 1996). 29,
37, 48
Jones-El v. Berge, 374 F.3d 541 (7th Cir. 2004). 9, 10, 15,
27
Jordan Ex Rel. Johnson v. Taylor, 310 F.3d 1068 (8th Cir.
2002). 39, 49
Jordan v. Cobb County, Georgia, 227 F.Supp.2d 1322
(N.D.Ga. 2001). 32, 48
Jordan v. Department of Corrections, 418 N.W.2d 914
(Mich. App. 1987). 2, 28
Jordan v. Fischer, 773 F.Supp.2d 255 (N.D.N.Y. 2011). 7,
14, 48
Jordan v. Gardner, 953 F.2d 1137 (9th Cir. 1992), affirmed,
986 F.2d 1521. 10, 37, 41
Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521 (9th Cir. 1993). 10, 17,
31, 41
Jordan v. Jones, 625 F.2d 750 (6th Cir. 1980). 3, 11
Jordan v. Pugh, 425 F.3d 820 (10th Cir. 2005). 19, 32
Jordan v. Pugh, 484 F.Supp.2d 1185 (D.Colo. 2007). 1, 22
Jordan v. Pugh, 504 F.Supp.2d 1109 (D.Colo. 2007). 7, 19,
28, 38
Jordan v. Sosa, 577 F.Supp.2d 1162 (D.Colo. 2008). 19, 28,
38
Jordan v. Sosa, 654 F.3d 1012 (10th Cir. 2011). 19, 38, 44
Jordan v. Wolke, 615 F.2d 749 (7th Cir. 1980). 49

TC-50
XXVI

Joseph Ex Rel. Estate of Harbin v. City of Detroit, 289
F.Supp.2d 863 (E.D.Mich. 2003) 14, 29, 32
Joseph v. Fischer, 900 F.Supp.2d 320 (W.D.N.Y. 2012). 1,
24, 35, 37, 39
Jova v. Smith, 582 F.3d 410 (2nd Cir. 2009). 18, 37, 39
Joy v. Healthcare C.M.S., 534 F.Supp.2d 482 (D.Del.
2008). 25, 29
Judd v. Furgeson, 239 F.Supp.2d 442 (D.N.J. 2002). 1
Judd v. Packard, 669 F.Supp. 741 (D. Md. 1987). 8, 9, 29
Juncker v. Tinney, 549 F.Supp. 574 (D. Md. 1982). 27
Junior v. Anderson, 724 F.3d 812 (7th Cir. 2013). 1, 14, 32,
39, 45
Jurado Sanchez v. Pereira, 525 F.Supp.2d 248 (D.Puerto
Rico 2007). 2, 9, 14, 15, 39, 45
Jurich v. Mahoning County, 31 Fair Emp. Prac. 1275 (N.D.
Ohio 1983). 31
Justice v. Coughlin, 941 F.Supp. 1312 (N.D.N.Y. 1996). 11
Justice v. Danberg, 571 F.Supp.2d 602 (D.Del. 2008). 2, 31
Justice v. Dennis, 793 F.2d 573 (4th Cir. 1986). 27, 32, 48
Justice v. Machtinger, 733 F.Supp.2d 495 (D.Del. 2010). 2,
31
Justus ex rel. Estate of Justus v. County of Buchanan, 498
F.Supp.2d 883 (W.D.Va. 2007). 14
Justus v. County of Buchanan, 517 F.Supp.2d 810
(W.D.Va. 2007). 14, 15, 29, 30, 32, 45
K.F.P. v. Dane County, 110 F.3d 516 (7th Cir. 1997). 8, 14
K.M. v. Alabama Dept. of Youth Services, 360 F.Supp.2d
1253 (M.D.Ala. 2005). 7, 14, 17, 26
Kaemmerling v. Lappin, 553 F.3d 669 (D.C.Cir. 2008). 7,
33, 37, 41
Kahey v. Jones, 836 F.2d 948 (5th Cir. 1988). 18, 37
Kahle v. Leonard, 477 F.3d 544 (8th Cir. 2007). 14, 17, 32
Kahle v. Leonard, 563 F.3d 736 (8th Cir. 2009). 4, 5, 14, 17,
27, 32
Kaiser v. County of Sacramento, 780 F.Supp. 1309
(E.D.Cal. 1991). 1, 32
Kalasho v. Kapture, 868 F.Supp. 882 (E.D. Mich. 1994).
24, 28
Kalka v. Megathlin, 10 F.Supp.2d 1117 (D.Ariz. 1998). 1,
28
Kalka v. Vasquez, 867 F.2d 546 (9th Cir. 1989), cert.
denied, 114 S.Ct. 2677. 20, 22, 50
Kalwasinski v. Morse, 201 F.3d 103 (2nd Cir. 1999). 3, 11
Kanayurak v. North Slope Borough, 677 P.2d 893 (Alaska
Sup.Ct. 1984). 14, 17, 27
Kane v. Winn, 319 F.Supp.2d 162 (D.Mass. 2004). 22, 29
Kansas v. Crane, 122 S.Ct. 867 (2002). 7
Kansas v. Hendricks, 117 S.Ct. 2072 (1977). 30
Kantamanto v. King, 651 F.Supp.2d 313 (E.D.Pa. 2009).
13, 19, 50
Kapfhammer v. Boyd, 5 F.Supp.2d 689 (E.D.Wis. 1998). 48
Karacsonyi v. Radloff, 885 F.Supp. 368 (N.D.N.Y. 1995).
15, 36, 43, 50
Karolis v. New Jersey Dept. of Corrections, 935 F.Supp.
523 (D.N.J. 1996). 11, 29, 37
Karriem v. Barry, 32 Crim. L. Rptr. 2429 (D. D.C. 1983).
37, 39
Karsjens v. Jesson, 109 F.Supp.3d 1139 (D. Minn. 2015). 7,
8, 36
Karsjens v. Jesson, 6 F.Supp.3d 916 (D.Minn. 2014). 1, 2,
7, 19, 28, 32, 34, 37, 41, 42
Kasiem v. Switz, 756 F.Supp.2d 570 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). 1,
21, 29
Kass v. Reno, 83 F.3d 1186 (10th Cir. 1996). 22, 36, 43, 47

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Kathriner v. City of Overland, Missouri, 602 F.Supp. 124
(E.D. Mo. 1984). 17, 24, 32, 41
Kaucher v. County of Bucks, 455 F.3d 418 (3rd Cir. 2006).
29, 31, 44
Kaufman v. Carter, 952 F.Supp. 520 (W.D.Mich. 1996). 29,
32
Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 419 F.3d 678 (7th Cir. 2005). 1,
19, 28, 37
Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 422 F.Supp.2d 1016 (W.D.Wis.
2006). 24, 37
Kaufman v. Pugh, 733 F.3d 692 (7th Cir. 2013). 37, 38, 39
Kaufman v. Schneiter, 474 F.Supp.2d 1014 (W.D.Wis.
2007). 1, 12, 19, 29, 37, 47
Kaufman v. Schneiter, 524 F.Supp.2d 1101 (W.D.Wis.
2007). 1, 12, 28, 37, 38, 47
Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2007). 37, 38
Kayser v. Caspari, 16 F.3d 280 (8th Cir. 1994). 29
Kearney v. Coughlin, 488 N.Y.S.2d 300 (A.D. 3 Dept.
1985). 31
Keel v. Dovey, 459 F.Supp.2d 946 (C.D.Cal. 2006). 3, 9,
11, 17, 40
Keele v. Glynn County, Ga.. 938 F.Supp.2d 1270 (S.D.Ga.
2013). 17, 24, 29, 32
Keeler v. Pea, 782 F.Supp. 42 (D. S.C. 1992). 3
Keeling v. Schaefer, 181 F.Supp.2d 1206 (D.Kan. 2001). 2,
7, 11, 27, 35, 50
Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 1996). 1, 8, 10, 11,
12, 15, 18, 23, 42, 49
Keeney v. Heath, 57 F.3d 579 (7th Cir. 1995). 19, 31
Keenum v. Amboyer, 558 F.Supp. 1321 (E.D. Mich. 1983).
39, 49
Keeton v. State of Okl., 32 F.3d 451 (10th Cir. 1994). 36
Keith v. DeKalb County, Georgia, 749 F.3d 1034 (11th Cir.
2014). 8, 14, 30, 32
Keith v. Koerner, 707 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 2013). 2, 13, 14,
17, 24, 31, 45
Keitt v. New York City, 882 F.Supp.2d 412 (S.D.N.Y.
2011). 7, 11, 24, 26, 34
Kell v. U.S. Parole Com'n., 26 F.3d 1016 (10th Cir. 1994).
22, 36
Kellas v. Lane, 923 F.2d 492 (7th Cir. 1990). 3
Kelleher v. New York State Trooper Fearon, 90 F.Supp.2d
354 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). 27, 32, 41
Keller v. U.S., 771 F.3d 1021 (7th Cir. 2014). 14, 25, 27, 45
Kelley v. Brewer, 525 F.2d 394 (8th Cir. 1975). 8
Kelley v. Hicks, 400 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2005). 9, 10, 29
Kelley v. McGinnis, 899 F.2d 612 (7th Cir. 1990). 29
Kelley v. Vaughn, 760 F.Supp. 161 (W.D. Mo. 1991). 50
Kellogg v. Shoemaker, 46 F.3d 503 (6th Cir. 1995). 36
Kelly v. Ambroski, 97 F.Supp.3d 1320 (M.D. Ala. 2015). 7,
29
Kelly v. Foti, 77 F.3d 819 (5th Cir. 1996). 17, 32, 35, 41
Kelly v. Foti, 870 F.Supp. 126 (E.D.La. 1994). 24, 41
Kelly v. United States, 630 F.Supp. 428 (W.D. Tenn. 1985).
2, 35
Kelly v. Wengler, 7 F.Supp.3d 1069 (D.Idaho 2014). 1, 2,
4, 5, 27
Kelly v. Wengler, 979 F.Supp.2d 1104 (D.Idaho 2013). 2,
27, 39, 45
Kelly v. Wengler, 979 F.Supp.2d 1237 (D.Idaho 2013). 2,
27, 45
Kelly v. Wengler, 979 F.Supp.2d 1243 (D.Idaho 2013). 2,
27
Kelsey v. State of Minnesota, 622 F.2d 956 (8th Cir. 1980).
1

TC-51
XXVI

Kemner v. Hemphill, 199 F.Supp.2d 1264 (N.D.Fla. 2002).
14
Kemp v. Balboa, 23 F.3d 211 (8th Cir. 1994). 4
Kemp v. Moore, 946 F.2d 588 (8th Cir. 1991), cert. denied,
112 S.Ct. 1958. 37, 38
Kemp v. Waldron, 479 N.Y.S.2d 440 (Sup. Ct. 1984). 14,
27, 31, 45
Kemppainen v. Aransas County Detention Center, 626
F.Supp.2d 672 (S.D.Tex. 2009). 29
Kendrick v. Bland, 931 F.2d 421 (6th Cir. 1991). 15
Kendrick v. Faust, 682 F.Supp.2d 932 (E.D. Ark. 2010). 1,
17, 28, 35, 37, 39, 41, 48
Kendrick v. Pope, 671 F.3d 686 (8th Cir. 2012). 17, 35, 37,
41
Kennan v. Bennett, 613 F.2d 127 (5th Cir. 1980). 11, 20
Kennedy v. Hardimann, 684 F.Supp. 540 (N.D. Ill. 1988).
27, 31, 41
Kennedy v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 667 F.Supp. 697
(D.C. Cal. 1987), affirmed, 901 F.2d 702. 32, 41
Kennedy v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 887 F.2d 920 (9th
Cir. 1989). 41
Kennedy v. Meacham, 382 F.Supp. 996 (D. Wy. 1974). 37
Kennelly v. Lemoi, 529 F.Supp. 140 (D.C. R.I. 1981). 5
Kenner v. Martin, 648 F.2d 1080 (6th Cir. 1981). 36
Kenney v. Hawaii, 109 F.Supp.2d 1271 (D.Hawai'i 2000).
13, 29
Kenney v. Paderes, 217 F.Supp.2d 1095 (D.Hawai’i 2002).
13, 29
Kensu v. Haigh, 87 F.3d 172 (6th Cir. 1996). 1, 28
Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220 (6th Cir. 1987). 10, 19, 33,
37
Kentucky Dept. of Corrections v. Thompson, 109 S.Ct.
1904 (1989). 49
Kentucky v. Graham, 105 S.Ct. 3099 (1985). 5, 7, 27
Kerr v. Farrey, 95 F.3d 472 (7th Cir. 1996). 8, 34, 36, 37
Kerr v. Puckett, 138 F.3d 321 (7th Cir. 1998). 1, 34
Kersch v. Board of County Com'rs of Natrona County, 851
F.Supp. 1541 (D.Wyo. 1994). 5
Kervin v. Barnes, 787 F.3d 833 (7th Cir. 2015). 1, 11, 21
Kesler v. King, 29 F.Supp.2d 356 (S.D.Tex. 1998). 27, 31,
48
Keup v. Hopkins, 596 F.3d 899 (8th Cir. 2010). 5, 28
Key v. McKinney, 176 F.3d 1083 (8th Cir. 1999). 11, 39
Keyhea v. Rushen, 223 Cal. Rptr. 747 (Cal. App. 1 Dist.
1986). 29, 30
Khadr v. Bush, 587 F.Supp.2d 225 (D.D.C. 2008). 7, 22, 26
Khatib v. County of Orange, 639 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2011).
1, 17, 32, 37
Kidd v. Gowen, 829 F.Supp. 16 (D.N.H. 1993). 25, 32, 41
Kiddy-Brown v. Blagojevich, 408 F.3d 346 (7th Cir. 2005).
31
Kikumura v. Hurley, 242 F.3d 950 (10th Cir. 2001). 37, 38
Kikumura v. Turner, 28 F.3d 592 (7th Cir. 1994). 19, 28
Killen v. McBride, 907 F.Supp. 302 (N.D.Ind. 1994). 3, 9
Killingsworth v. Ondahl, 978 F.Supp. 1425 (D.Kan. 1997).
8, 14, 24
Kim v. Hurston, 182 F.3d 113 (2nd Cir. 1999). 36
Kim v. Veglas, 607 F.Supp.2d 286 (D.Mass. 2009). 1, 47
Kim v. Ziglar, 276 F.3d 523 (9th Cir. 2002). 6, 22
Kiman v. New Hampshire Dept. of Corrections, 451 F.3d
274 (1st Cir. 2006). 29
Kimberlin v. Quinlan, 251 F.Supp.2d 47 (D.D.C. 2003). 19,
38
Kimberlin v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 318 F.3d 228 (D.C.Cir.
2003). 19, 35, 39

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Kimberlin v. White, 7 F.3d 527 (6th Cir. 1993). 36
Kimbrough v. O'Neil, 523 F.2d 1057 (7th Cir. 1975). 3, 11,
23
Kimbrough v. O'Neil, 545 F.2d 1059 (7th Cir. 1976). 27
Kincade v. Sparkman, 117 F.3d 949 (6th Cir. 1997). 1, 4, 22
Kincaid v. Rusk, 670 F.2d 737 (7th Cir. 1982). 19, 24, 38
Kind v. Frank, 329 F.3d 979 (8th Cir. 2003). 37
Kindred v. Duckworth, 9 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 1993). 1, 28
King v. Caruso, 542 F.Supp.2d 703 (E.D. Mich. 2008). 39,
49
King v. Chapman, 4 F.Supp.3d 1017 (N.D.Ill. 2013). 29
King v. County of Gloucester, 483 F.Supp.2d 396 (D.N.J.
2007). 5, 14
King v. Ditter, 432 F.Supp.2d 813 (W.D.Wis. 2006). 19, 50
King v. Fairman, 997 F.2d 259 (7th Cir. 1993). 14, 47
King v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 415 F.3d 634 (7th Cir.
2005). 1, 19, 34, 35, 38
King v. Frank, 371 F.Supp.2d 977 (W.D.Wis. 2005). 3, 8, 9,
10, 15, 29, 30
King v. Greenblatt, 53 F.Supp.2d 117 (D.Mass. 1999). 27,
34
King v. Higgins, 702 F.2d 18 (1st Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
104 S.Ct. 404. 11, 27
King v. Kramer, 680 F.3d 1013 (7th Cir. 2012). 29, 32
King v. Kramer, 763 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2014). 14, 29, 30, 32
King v. McCarty, 781 F.3d 889 (7th Cir. 2015). 1, 19, 21,
33, 47
King v. McMickens, 501 N.Y.S.2d 679 (A.D. 1 Dept.
1986). 2, 31, 41
King v. McMillan, 594 F.3d 301 (4th Cir. 2010). 2, 27, 31
King v. Morrison, 231 F.3d 1094 (8th Cir. 2000). 34, 36
King v. Rivas, 555 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2009). 4, 5, 27, 32
King v. White, 839 F.Supp. 718 (C.D. Cal. 1993). 1
King v. Zamiara, 680 F.3d 686 (6th Cir. 2012). 8, 11, 21
King v. Zamiara, 788 F.3d 207 (6th Cir. 2015). 2, 5, 8, 27,
47
Kingsley v. Bureau of Prisons, 937 F.2d 26 (2nd Cir. 1991).
10, 11
Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S.Ct. 2466 (2015). 32, 48
Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 801 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2015). 32,
48
Kinney v. Anglin, 889 F.Supp.2d 1101 (C.D.Ill. 2012). 31
Kinney v. Indiana Youth Center, 950 F.2d 462 (7th Cir.
1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 313. 48
Kinney v. Kalfus, 25 F.3d 633 (8th Cir. 1994). 29
Kinslow v. Pullara, 538 F.3d 687 (7th Cir. 2008). 2, 29, 47
Kirby v. Siegelman, 195 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 1999). 8, 36,
43
Kirwan v. Larned Mental Health, 816 F.Supp. 672 (D.Kan.
1993). 19
Kish v. County of Milwaukee, 441 F.2d 901 (7th Cir.
1971). 27
Kitchen v. Dallas County, Tex., 759 F.3d 468 (5th Cir.
2014). 14, 29, 32, 46, 48
Kitchen v. Ickes, 116 F.Supp.3d 613 (D. Md. 2015). 1, 21,
29, 48
Kitchen v. Upshaw, 286 F.3d 179 (4th Cir. 2002). 8, 24, 36,
50
Kitt v. Ferguson, 750 F.Supp. 1014 (D. Neb. 1990),
affirmed, 950 F.2d 725. 10, 24
Kiyemba v. Obama, 561 F.3d 509 (D.C. Cir. 2009). 22, 47
Klebanowski v. Sheahan, 540 F.3d 633 (7th Cir. 2008). 14,
32, 39
Kleeman v. United States Parole Com'n., 125 F.3d 725 (9th
Cir. 1997). 43, 47

TC-52
XXVI

Klein v. Pyle, 767 F.Supp. 215 (D. Colo. 1991). 8, 47
Klinger v. Department of Corrections, 107 F.3d 609 (8th
Cir. 1997). 1, 17, 34
Klinger v. Department of Corrections, 31 F.3d 727 (8th Cir.
1994). 17, 34
Klinger v. Nebraska Dept. of Correctional Services, 824
F.Supp. 1374 (D.Neb. 1993) reversed 31 F.3d 727. 1,
17, 34
Klinger v. Nebraska Dept. of Correctional Services, 902
F.Supp. 1036 (D.Neb. 1995). 27
Klos v. Haskell, 48 F.3d 81 (2nd Cir. 1995). 34
Klos v. Haskell, 835 F.Supp. 710 (W.D.N.Y. 1993),
affirmed, 48 F.3d 81. 34, 47
Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2013). 1
Kneen v. Zavaras, 885 F.Supp.2d 1055 (D.Colo. 2012). 27,
29
Kness v. Sondalle, 725 F.Supp. 1006 (E.D. Wis. 1989),
affirmed, 917 F.2d 1306. 1
Knight v. Armontrout, 878 F.2d 1093 (8th Cir. 1989). 11
Knight v. Gill, 999 F.2d 1020 (6th Cir. 1993). 14, 46
Knight v. Keane, 247 F.Supp.2d 379 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). 50
Knight v. Lombardi, 952 F.2d 177 (8th Cir. 1991). 28
Knight v. Thompson, 723 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2013). 19,
23, 37, 38, 39
Knight v. Thompson, 796 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2015). 37, 38
Knight v. Thompson, 797 F.3d 934 (11th Cir. 2015). 37, 38
Knight v. Vernon, 214 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2000). 31
Knight v. Washington State Department of Corrections, 147
F.Supp.3d 1165 (W.D. Wash. 2015). 3, 7, 39, 41, 49
Knight v. Wiseman, 590 F.3d 458 (7th Cir. 2009). 29, 50
Knighten v. United States Parole Commission, 105
F.Supp.3d 30 (D.D.C 2015). 22, 36
Knop v. Johnson, 667 F.Supp. 467 (W.D. Mich. 1987). 1,
10, 28
Knop v. Johnson, 712 F.Supp. 571 (W.D. Mich. 1989). 5
Knowles v. New York City Dept. of Corrections, 904
F.Supp. 217 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). 14
Knows His Gun v. Montana, 866 F.Supp.2d 1235 (D.Mont.
2012). 15, 27, 33, 35, 37, 38, 41, 47
Knox v. Bland, 632 F.3d 1290 (10th Cir. 2011). 1
Knox v. Lanham, 895 F.Supp. 750 (D.Md. 1995). 8, 36, 43
Knox v. McGinnis, 998 F.2d 1405 (7th Cir. 1993). 39
Kocienski v. City of Bayonne, 757 F.Supp. 457 (D. N.J.
1991). 14, 17, 25, 29, 32, 46
Koehl v. Dalsheim, 85 F.3d 86 (2nd Cir. 1996). 29, 35
Koenig v. Vanelli, 971 F.2d 422 (9th Cir. 1992). 38
Koerschner v. Warden, 508 F.Supp.2d 849 (D.Nev. 2007).
1, 3
Koger v. Bryan, 523 F.3d 789 (7th Cir. 2008). 18, 37
Koger v. Dart, 114 F.Supp.3d 572 (N.D. Ill. 2015). 19, 42
Koger v. Snyder, 252 F.Supp.2d 723 (C.D.Ill. 2003). 1, 21,
41, 47
Kogut v. Ashe, 592 F.Supp.2d 204 (D.Mass. 2008). 20, 22,
50
Kogut v. Ashe, 602 F.Supp.2d 251 (D.Mass. 2009). 20, 22,
34, 50
Kohl v. Smythe, 25 F.Supp.2d 1124 (D.Hawai'i 1998). 31
Kole v. Lappin, 551 F.Supp.2d 149 (D.Conn. 2008). 18, 37,
42
Kolman v. Sheahan, 31 F.3d 429 (7th Cir. 1994). 19, 31
Konah v. District of Columbia, 815 F.Supp.2d 61 (D.D.C.
2011). 2, 31
Konah v. District of Columbia, 915 F.Supp.2d 7 (D.D.C.
2013). 2, 31, 46

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Konah v. District of Columbia, 971 F.Supp.2d 74 (D.D.C.
2013). 2, 14, 31
Konigsberg v. Ciccone, 285 F.Supp. 585 (W.D. Mo. 1968),
cert. denied, 397 U.S. 963. 37, 39
Konigsberg v. Lefevre, 267 F.Supp.2d 255 (N.D.N.Y.
2003). 1, 35, 47
Konitzer v. Frank, 711 F.Supp.2d 874 (E.D.Wis. 2010). 10,
17, 29
Koos v. Holm, 204 F.Supp.2d 1099 (W.D.Tenn. 2002). 22,
47
Kopec v. Coughlin, 767 F.Supp. 463 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). 29
Kosilek v. Maloney, 221 F.Supp.2d 156 (D.Mass. 2002).
27, 29, 38
Kosilek v. Spencer, 774 F.3d 63 (1st Cir. 2014). 17, 29
Kosilek v. Spencer, 889 F.Supp.2d 190 (D.Mass. 2012). 27,
29
Kostrzewa v. City of Troy, 247 F.3d 633 (6th Cir. 2001).
32, 39, 48
Kotz v. Lappin, 515 F.Supp.2d 143 (D.D.C. 2007). 2, 36
Kounelis v. Sherrer, 396 F.Supp.2d 525 (D.N.J. 2005). 50
Kounelis v. Sherrer, 529 F.Supp.2d 503 (D.N.J. 2008). 11,
48
Koutnik v. Brown, 351 F.Supp.2d 871 (W.D.Wis. 2004).
19, 28
Koutnik v. Brown, 456 F.3d 777 (7th Cir. 2006). 19, 28, 38,
39
Kozohorsky v. Harmon, 332 F.3d 1141 (8th Cir. 2003). 1
Kramer v. Conway, 962 F.Supp.2d 1333 (N.D.Ga. 2013). 1,
9, 19, 28, 32, 37, 38, 39
Kramer v. Gwinnett County, Georgia, 306 F.Supp.2d 1219
(N.D.Ga. 2004). 29, 32
Kraushaar v. Flanigan, 45 F.3d 1040 (7th Cir. 1995). 41
Kress v. CCA of Tennessee, LLC, 694 F.3d 890 (7th Cir.
2012). 27, 29
Kriegal v. State Of Rhode Island, Dept. Of Corrs., 266
F.Supp.2d 288 (D.R.I. 2003). 31
Krisch v. Smith, 853 F.Supp. 301 (E.D. Wis. 1994). 1
Kritenbrink v. Crawford, 313 F.Supp.2d 1043 (D.Nev.
2004). 8, 13
Kroll v. St. Charles County, Mo., 766 F. Supp. 744 (E.D.
Mo. 1991). 15, 27
Kropp v. McCaughtry, 915 F.Supp. 85 (E.D.Wis. 1996). 9,
12
Krout v. Goemmer, 583 F.3d 557 (8th Cir. 2009). 29, 32, 48
Krug v. Lutz, 329 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2003). 19, 28
Kruger v. Erickson, 875 F.Supp. 583 (D.Minn. 1995). 33,
41
Kruger v. Jenne, 164 F.Supp.2d 1330 (S.D.Fla. 2000). 7,
15, 29
Kruger v. Nebraska, 90 F.Supp.3d 874 (D. Neb. 2015). 14,
27
Kucharczyk v. Westchester County, 95 F.Supp.3d 529
(S.D.N.Y. 2015). 27, 29
Kuffel v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 882 F.Supp. 1116 (D.D.C.
1995). 33
Kuhne v. Florida Dept. of Corrections, 745 F.3d 1091 (11th
Cir. 2014). 13, 29
Kujawski v. Board of Com’rs of Bartholomew Cty, 104
F.Supp.2d 1027 (S.D.Ind. 2000). 31
Kula v. Malani, 539 F.Supp.2d 1263 (D.Hawai‘I 2008). 7,
34
Kulikowski v. Board of County Com'rs. of County, 231
F.Supp.2d 1053 (D.Colo. 2002). 31
Kulow v. Nix, 28 F.3d 855 (8th Cir. 1994). 3, 11
Kunkel v. Stockwell, 887 F.Supp. 215 (E.D.Mo. 1995). 14

TC-53
XXVI

Kuperman v. Wrenn, 645 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2011). 37, 38, 39
Kurtz v. Denniston, 872 F.Supp. 631 (N.D. Iowa 1994). 18,
37
Kvech v. New Mexico Dept. of Public Safety, 987
F.Supp.2d 1162 (D.N.M. 2013). 7
L.C. v. State, 625 P.2d 839 (Sup. Ct. Alaska 1981). 43
L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, 519 F.Supp.2d 1072 (E.D.Cal.
2007). 26, 36
L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, 645 F.Supp.2d 888 (E.D.Cal.
2009). 5, 26
L.W. v. Grubbs, 974 F.2d 119 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied,
113 S.Ct. 2442. 14, 31
La Bounty v. Adler, 933 F.2d 121 (2nd Cir. 1991). 34, 50
Laaman v. Helgemoe, 437 F.Supp. 269 (D. N.H. 1977). 8,
29, 50
LaBounty v. Coughlin, 137 F.3d 68 (2nd Cir. 1998). 9, 40
Labounty v. Johnson, 253 F.Supp.2d 496 (W.D.N.Y. 2003).
1
LaBoy v. Coughlin, 822 F.2d 3 (2nd Cir. 1987). 2, 11, 27
LaChance v. Reno, 13 F.3d 586 (2nd Cir. 1994), cert.
denied, 114 S.Ct. 2711. 22, 36
Lackey v. Texas, 115 S.Ct. 1421 (1995). 10
Lacy v. Berge, 921 F.Supp. 600 (E.D. Wis. 1996). 11, 14,
27
Ladd v. Davies, 817 F.Supp. 81 (D.Kan. 1993). 1, 35
Ladd v. Hannigan, 962 F.Supp. 1390 (D.Kan. 1997). 1
Lafaut v. Smith, 834 F.2d 389 (4th Cir. 1987). 7, 10, 29, 50
LaFevers v. Saffle, 936 F.2d 1117 (10th Cir. 1991). 18, 37
LaFrance v. Rampone, 678 F.Supp. 72 (D.Vt. 1988). 24, 36
Laganiere v. County of Olmsted, 772 F.3d 1114 (8th Cir.
2014). 14, 29, 45
Lagar v. Tegels, 94 F.Supp.3d 998 (W.D. Wis. 2015). 37
Lahey v. Kelly, 524 N.Y.S.2d 30 (Ct. App. 1987). 29, 38,
41
Laird v. Mattox, 430 F.Supp.2d 636 (E.D.Tex. 2006) 1, 21
Laird v. McBride, 858 F.Supp. 822 (N.D. Ind. 1993). 22, 41
Lakin v. Barnhart, 758 F.3d 66 (1st Cir. 2014). 14, 39
LaMarca v. Turner, 662 F.Supp. 647 (S.D. Fla. 1987). 10,
14, 27
Lamb v. Hutto, 467 F.Supp. 562 (E.D. Vir. 1979). 48
Lamb v. Maschner, 633 F.Supp. 351 (D. Kan. 1986). 29,
38, 47
Lambert v. City of Dumas, 187 F.3d 931 (8th Cir. 1999).
14, 32, 48
Lambert v. Sullivan, 35 F.Supp.2d 1131 (E.D.Wis. 1999).
22, 47, 50
Lambros v. Hawk, 993 F.Supp. 1372 (D.Kan. 1998). 1, 47
Lancaster v. Monroe County, Ala., 116 F.3d 1419 (11th Cir.
1997). 14, 24, 29, 32
Landfair v. Sheahan, 878 F.Supp. 1106 (N.D. Ill. 1995). 9,
27
Landman v. Royster, 333 F.Supp. 621 (E.D. Vir. 1971). 48
Lane v. Brown, 372 U.S. 477 (1963). 1
Lane v. Doan, 287 F.Supp.2d 210 (W.D.N.Y. 2003) 1, 21
Lane v. Griffin, 834 F.2d 403 (4th Cir. 1987), affirmed, 887
F.2d 1080. 27, 37
Lane v. Williams, 689 F.3d 879 (7th Cir. 2012). 7, 8, 9, 19,
28, 34
Langford v. Day, 134 F.3d 1381 (9th Cir. 1998). 10
Langley v. Coughlin, 709 F.Supp. 482 (S.D.N.Y. 1989). 9,
17, 27, 29, 30
Langston v. Peters, 100 F.3d 1235 (7th Cir. 1996). 2, 14
Lanier v. Fair, 876 F.2d 243 (1st Cir. 1989). 24, 36, 47
Lanni v. Engler, 994 F.Supp. 849 (E.D.Mich. 1998). 33

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

LaPlante v. Massachusetts Dept. of Correction, 89
F.Supp.3d 235 (D.Mass. 2015). 37, 38
LaPlante v. Pepe, 307 F.Supp.2d 219 (D.Mass. 2004). 1, 5
Lappe v. Loeffelholz, 815 F.2d 1173 (8th Cir. 1987). 24, 30
LaReau v. MacDougall, 473 F.2d 974 (2nd Cir. 1972), cert.
denied, 414 U.S. 878. 37, 39
Lareau v. Manson, 651 F.2d 96 (2nd Cir. 1981). 10, 15, 25,
29, 32, 39, 44
Larkin v. Galloway, 266 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2001). 1
Larry v. Goetz, 575 F.Supp.2d 965 (W.D.Wis. 2007). 37
Larson v. Kempker, 405 F.3d 645 (8th Cir. 2005). 9, 10, 29
Larson v. Kempker, 414 F.3d 936 (8th Cir. 2005). 9, 10, 29
LaRue v. Fairman, 780 F.Supp. 1190 (N.D.Ill. 1991). 1
Lashley v. Stotts, 816 F.Supp. 676 (D.Kan. 1993). 1, 47
Lashley v. Wakefield, 367 F.Supp.2d 461 (W.D.N.Y.
2005). 1, 21, 41
Lasley v. Godinez, 833 F.Supp. 714 (N.D.Ill. 1993). 39, 41
Latimore v. Johnson, 7 F.3d 709 (8th Cir. 1993). 14, 24
Latimore v. Widseth, 986 F.2d 292 (8th Cir. 1993), cert.
denied, 114 S.Ct. 1124. 14, 33,
Lato v. Attorney General of the U.S., 773 F.Supp. 973
(W.D. Tex. 1991). 34, 47
Laube v. Allen, 506 F.Supp.2d 969 (M.D.Ala. 2007). 5, 17
Laube v. Campbell, 333 F.Supp.2d 1234 (M.D.Ala. 2004).
27
Laube v. Haley, 242 F.Supp.2d 1150 (M.D.Ala. 2003). 17,
27
Laughter v. Kay, 986 F.Supp. 1362 (D.Utah 1997). 41, 49
Laurence v. Wall, 551 F.3d 92 (1st Cir. 2008). 1
Lavender v. Lampert, 242 F.Supp.2d 821 (D.Or. 2002). 29
Laventure v. Aramark Correct. Services, 76 Fed.Appx 870
(10th Cir. 2003) [unpublished]. 50
Lawhorn v. Duckworth, 736 F.Supp. 1501 (N.D. Ind. 1987).
29
Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990). 1, 14
Lawrence v. Bowersox, 297 F.3d 727 (8th Cir. 2002). 14,
48
Lawrence v. Davis, 401 F.Supp. 1203 (W.D. Vir. 1975). 19,
28
Lawrence v. Virginia Dept. of Corrections, 308 F.Supp.2d
709 (E.D.Va. 2004). 29
Lawrenz v. James, 852 F.Supp. 986 (M.D. Fla. 1994),
affirmed, 46 F.3d 70. 19, 31
Laws v. Barron, 348 F.Supp.2d 795 (E.D.Ky. 2004). 22, 34
Laws v. Cleaver, 140 F.Supp.2d 145 (D.Conn. 2001). 48
Lawson v. Dugger, 844 F.Supp. 1538 (S.D. Fla. 1994). 19,
28, 37
Lawson v. Liburdi, 114 F.Supp.2d 31 (D.R.I. 2000). 27
Lawson v. Singletary, 85 F.3d 502 (11th Cir. 1996). 19, 37
Lawson v. Wainwright, 641 F.Supp. 312 (S.D. Fla. 1986).
19, 37
Laxton v. Watters, 348 F.Supp.2d 1024 (W.D.Wis. 2004). 7
Lay v. Anderson, 837 F.2d 231 (5th Cir. 1988). 1
Lay v. Porker, 371 F.Supp.2d 1159 (C.D.Cal. 2004). 33, 41
Layman Ex Rel. Layman v. Alexander, 343 F.Supp.2d 483
(W.D.N.C. 2004). 29, 32, 46
Layton v. Beyer, 953 F.2d 839 (3rd Cir. 1992). 3
Layton v. Quinn, 328 N.W.2d 95 (Ct. App. Mich. 1982).
14, 24, 31
Laza v. Reish, 84 F.3d 578 (2nd Cir. 1996). 32, 47
Lazano v. Smith, 718 F.2d 756 (5th Cir. 1983). 30, 48
Lazoda v. Maggy, 900 F.Supp. 596 (N.D.N.Y. 1955). 1, 11
LCS Corrections Services, Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 19
F.Supp.3d 712 (S.D.Tex. 2014). 2, 14, 24, 27, 29

TC-54
XXVI

Leach v. Dufrain, 103 F.Supp.2d 542 (N.D.N.Y. 2000). 10,
18, 38
Leach v. Shelby County Sheriff, 891 F.2d 1241 (6th Cir.
1989), cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 2173. 27, 29
Leacock v. DuBois, 937 F.Supp. 81 (D.Mass. 1996). 3, 11
Leacock v. DuBois, 974 F.Supp. 60 (D.Mass. 1997). 3, 11
Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532 (3rd Cir. 2002). 34, 43
Leary v. Livingston County, 528 F.3d 438 (6th Cir. 2008).
14, 32
Leavitt v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc., 645 F.3d 484
(1st Cir. 2011). 29
LeBlanc v. Foti, 487 F.Supp. 272 (E.D. La. 1980). 46, 48
Lebron v. Armstrong, 289 F.Supp.2d 56 (D.Conn. 2003) 1,
28, 42
Ledford v. Sullivan, 105 F.3d 354 (7th Cir. 1997). 1, 4, 29,
44
Lee v. City of Columbus, Ohio, 636 F.3d 245 (6th Cir.
2011). 2
Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001).
25, 46
Lee v. Corrections Corp. of America, 525 F.Supp.2d 1238
(D.Hawai‘i 2007). 1, 2, 14
Lee v. Coughlin, 26 F.Supp.2d 615 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). 11, 27
Lee v. Coughlin, 530 N.Y.S.2d 884 (A.D. 3 Dept. 1988).
11, 50
Lee v. Coughlin, 902 F.Supp. 424 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). 3, 11
Lee v. Crouse, 284 F.Supp. 541 (D. Kan. 1967). 37, 39
Lee v. Dugger, 902 F.2d 822 2 (11th Cir. 1990). 20, 24, 43
Lee v. Frederick, 519 F.Supp.2d 320 (W.D.N.Y. 2007). 10,
29
Lee v. Johnson, 793 F.Supp.2d 798 (W.D.Va. 2011). 37
Lee v. Perez, 175 F.Supp.2d 673 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). 25, 32,
41
Lee v. Sikes, 870 F.Supp. 1096 (S.D. Ga. 1994). 10, 50
Lee v. Washington, 390 U.S. 333 (1968). 7, 8
Lee v. Willey, 789 F.3d 673 (6th Cir. 2015). 1, 13, 14, 21,
30
Lee v. Young, 533 F.3d 505 (7th Cir. 2008). 9, 13, 29
Lee. v. Withrow, 76 F.Supp.2d 789 (E.D.Mich. 1999). 22,
36
Leeds v. Watson, 630 F.2d 674 (9th Cir. 1980). 1, 5
Leeks v. Cunningham, 997 F.2d 1330 (11th Cir. 1993), cert.
denied, 114 S.Ct. 609. 27, 30
LeFrere v. Quezada, 588 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2009). 24
Leggett v. Badger, 759 F.2d 1556 (11th Cir. 1985). 4, 14,
27
Lehn v. Holmes, 364 F.3d 862 (7th Cir. 2004). 1, 8, 29
Leitzsey v. Coombe, 998 F.Supp. 282 (W.D.N.Y. 1998). 19,
33, 35, 38, 41
Lekas v. Briley, 405 F.3d 602 (7th Cir. 2005). 3, 11
LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444 (9th Cir. 1993). 9, 11
LeMaire v. Maass, 745 F.Supp. 623 (D. Or. 1990). 9, 10, 12
Lemieux v. Kerby, 931 F.2d 1391 (10th Cir. 1991). 20, 36,
43
Lemire v. California Dept. of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, 726 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2013). 10, 14,
29, 30, 45
Lemon v. Dugger, 931 F.2d 1465 (11th Cir. 1991). 28
Lemons v. Skidmore, 985 F.2d 354 (7th Cir. 1993). 1
Lenea v. Lane, 882 F.2d 1171 (7th Cir. 1989). 11
Leon v. Harris, 489 F.Supp. 221 (S.D. N.Y. 1980). 37
Leon v. Johnson, 96 F.Supp.2d 244 (W.D.N.Y. 2000). 29,
33
Leonard v. Moran, 611 F.2d 397 (1st Cir. 1979). 3, 14
Leonard v. Nix, 55 F.3d 370 (8th Cir. 1995). 11, 19, 22, 28

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Leonard v. Norris, 797 F.2d 683 (8th Cir. 1986). 10, 11, 12
Leshore v. County of Worcester, 945 F.2d 471 (1st Cir.
1991). 14, 30, 32
Leslie v. Doyle, 125 F.3d 1132 (7th Cir. 1997). 10, 11
Leslie v. Doyle, 868 F.Supp. 1039 (N.D. Ill. 1994). 3, 12,
29
Leslie v. Holder, 865 F.Supp.2d 627 (M.D.Pa. 2012). 6, 22,
36
Letcher v. Turner, 968 F.2d 508 (5th Cir. 1992). 33, 41
Letterman v. Does, 789 F.3d 856 (8th Cir. 2015). 14, 15,
29, 30, 45
Leverette v. Bell, 247 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 2001). 31, 41
Levine v. Roebuck, 550 F.3d 684 (8th Cir. 2008). 7, 29, 41
Levitan v. Ashcroft, 281 F.3d 1313 (D.C. Cir. 2002). 37, 38
Lewis Ex Rel. Lewis v. Gagne, 281 F.Supp.2d 429
(N.D.N.Y. 2003) 1, 26
Lewis v. Angelone, 926 F.Supp. 69 (W.D.Va. 1996). 29
Lewis v. Attorney General of U.S., 878 F.2d 714 (3rd Cir.
1989). 20, 22, 25, 43
Lewis v. Board of Sedgwick County Com'rs., 14, 27, 32,
46, 48
Lewis v. Casey, 516 U.S. 804 (1996). 1
Lewis v. City of Albany Police Dept., 554 F.Supp.2d 297
(N.D.N.Y. 2008). 5
Lewis v. City of West Palm Beach, Fla., 561 F.3d 1288
(11th Cir. 2009). 14, 32, 46, 48
Lewis v. Cook County Dept. of Corrections, 28 F.Supp.2d
1073 (N.D.Ill. 1998). 21, 27, 50
Lewis v. Cooper, 771 F.2d 334 (7th Cir. 1985). 14, 29
Lewis v. Delaware County, 109 F.Supp.2d 406 (E.D.Pa.
2000). 31
Lewis v. Downey, 581 F.3d 467 (7th Cir. 2009). 24, 48
Lewis v. Driskell, 850 F.Supp. 678 (M.D.Tenn. 1994). 22
Lewis v. Houston County Jail, 876 F.Supp. 861 (E.D. Tex.
1995). 16, 24
Lewis v. Jacks, 486 F.3d 1025 (8th Cir. 2007). 7, 21, 50
Lewis v. Lynn, 236 F.3d 766 (5th Cir. 2001). 29, 50
Lewis v. Mollette, 752 F.Supp.2d 233 (N.D.N.Y. 2010). 14,
26, 48
Lewis v. Naku, 650 F.Supp.2d 1090 (E.D.Cal. 2009). 29
Lewis v. O'Grady, 853 F.2d 1366 (7th Cir. 1988). 16
Lewis v. O'Leary, 631 F.Supp. 60 (N.D. Ill. 1986). 14, 27
Lewis v. Ollison, 571 F.Supp.2d 1162 (C.D.Cal. 2008). 23,
37, 38, 39
Lewis v. Parish of Terrobonne, 894 F.2d 142 (5th Cir.
1990). 8, 14, 27
Lewis v. Sheahan, 35 F.Supp.2d 633 (N.D.Ill. 1999). 2, 29
Lewis v. Sternes, 712 F.3d 1083 (7th Cir. 2013). 2, 37, 38,
39
Lewis v. Sullivan, 134 F.Supp.2d 954 (W.D.Wis. 2001). 1,
29
Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526 (7th Cir. 2002). 1
Lewis v. U.S., 702 F.Supp. 231 (E.D. Mo. 1988). 27
Lewis v. Washington, 265 F.Supp.2d 939 (N.D.Ill. 2003). 3,
34, 37, 39
Lewis v. Wetzel, 153 F.Supp.3d 678 (M.D. Pa. 2015). 7,
11
Lewis v. Zon, 920 F.Supp.2d 379 (W.D.N.Y. 2013). 10, 18,
29, 37
Liebe v. Norton, 157 F.3d 574 (8th Cir. 1998). 2, 14, 25, 32,
45, 46
Liebson v. New Mexico Corrections Dept., 73 F.3d 274
(10th Cir. 1996). 14, 31
Lightfoot v. Walker, 486 F.Supp. 504 2 (S.D. Ill. 1980). 15,
18, 29, 40

TC-55
XXVI

Lightfoot v. Walker, 619 F.Supp. 1481 (D.C. Ill. 1985). 5,
23
Ligon v. Doherty, 208 F.Supp.2d 684 (E.D.N.Y. 2002). 1,
21
Lile v. McKune, 24 F.Supp.2d 1152 (D.Kan. 1998). 7, 33,
34
Lile v. McKune, 299 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir. 2002). 7, 34
Lile v. Simmons, 143 F.Supp.2d 1267 (D.Kan. 2001). 8
Lile v. Tippecanoe County Jail, 844 F.Supp. 1301 (N.D.
Ind. 1992). 14, 29, 32, 39, 45
Liles v. Camden County Dept. of Corrections, 225
F.Supp.2d 450 (D.N.J. 2002). 9, 14, 15, 23, 40
Lillard v. State, 274 S.E.2d 96 (Ct. App. Ga. 1980). 43
Limone v. U.S., 497 F.Supp.2d 143 (D.Mass. 2007). 13, 16,
27
Limone v. U.S., 579 F.3d 79 (1st Cir. 2009). 16, 27
Lin Li Qu v. Central Falls Detention Facility Corp., 717
F.Supp.2d 233 (D.R.I. 2010). 27, 29, 47
Lindell v. Casperson, 360 F.Supp.2d 932 (W.D.Wis. 2005).
19, 21, 37, 38
Lindell v. Frank, 377 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2004). 19, 27, 28,
38
Lindell v. Houser, 442 F.3d 1033 (7th Cir. 2006). 1, 7, 8
Lindell v. Litscher, 212 F.Supp.2d 936 (W.D.Wis. 2002). 1
Lindell v. Schneiter, 531 F.Supp.2d 1005 (W.D.Wis.
2008). 3, 9, 12, 21, 29
Lindh v. Murphy, 117 S.Ct. 2059 (1997). 22
Lindquist v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrections, 776 F.2d 851
(9th Cir. 1985). 1
Lindsay v. Dunleavy, 177 F.Supp.2d 398 (E.D.Pa. 2001).
29
Lineberry v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 923 F.Supp.2d 284
(D.D.C. 2013). 21, 27, 28
Liner v. Goord, 196 F.3d 132 (2nd Cir. 1999). 7, 14, 27
Lingenfelter v. Bd. Of County Com’rs of Reno Cty., 359
F.Supp.2d 1163 (D.Kan. 2005). 16, 32
Link v. Luebbers, 830 F.Supp.2d 729 (E.D.Mo. 2011). 5, 7,
10, 27, 43
Linton v. O’Brien, 142 F.Supp.3d 215 (D. Mass. 2015). 3,
8, 20, 34, 43
Lipinski v. Skinner, 781 F.Supp. 131 (N.D.N.Y. 1991). 27,
33
Lipscombe v. Ridley, 780 F.Supp. 16 (D.D.C. 1991). 3, 47
Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164 (9th Cir. 2005). 1, 3
Liska v. Dart, 60 F.Supp.3d 889 (N.D. Ill. 2014). 16, 24, 32,
36
Little v. Jones, 607 F.3d 1245 (10th Cir. 2010). 18, 21, 37
Little v. Lycoming County, 912 F.Supp. 809 (M.D.Pa.
1996). 7, 10, 29
Little v. Municipal Corp., 51 F.Supp3d 473 (S.D.N.Y.
2014). 3, 8, 9, 12, 18, 27, 39, 40, 41
Little v. Norris, 787 F.2d 1241 (8th Cir. 1986). 1, 3, 11, 28,
37, 38
Little v. Shelby County, Tenn., 384 F.Supp.2d 1169
(W.D.Tenn. 2005). 8, 9, 10, 14, 27, 32, 42
Little v. Terhune, 200 F.Supp.2d 445 (D.N.J. 2002). 3, 7, 34
Littlefield v. Deland, 641 F.2d 729 (10th Cir. 1981). 11, 30
Littlejohn v. Moody, 381 F.Supp.2d 507 (E.D.Va. 2005). 9,
14, 24, 39, 50
Litz v. City of Allentown, 896 F.Supp. 1401 (E.D.Pa 1995).
14, 32
Livers v. Schenck, 700 F.3d 340 (8th Cir. 2012). 1, 16, 32,
46
Lloyd v. City of New York, 43 F.Supp.3d 254 (S.D.N.Y.
2014). 37

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Lloyd v. Corrections Corp. of Amer., 855 F.Supp. 221
(W.D. Tenn. 1994). 1
Lloyd v. Lee, 570 F.Supp.2d 556 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). 24, 29
Lloyd v. Suttle, 859 F.Supp. 1408 (D.Kan. 1994). 3
Locher v. Plageman, 765 F.Supp. 1260 (W.D. Va. 1991).
11, 22
Locicero v. O’Connell, 419 F.Supp.2d 521 (S.D.N.Y.
2006). 2, 14, 27
Lock v. Jenkins, 464 F.Supp. 541 (N.D. Ind. 1978). 23
Lock v. Jenkins, 634 F.Supp. 615 (N.D. Ind. 1986). 5
Lock v. Jenkins, 641 F.2d 488 (7th Cir. 1981). 15, 32, 48
Lockett v. Suardini, 526 F.3d 866 (6th Cir. 2008). 19, 29, 48
Loeber v. County Of Albany, 216 F.Supp.2d 20 (N.D.N.Y.
2002). 3, 32, 41
Logan v. Clarke, 119 F.3d 647 (8th Cir. 1997). 29
Logan v. Shealy, 660 F.2d 1007 (4th Cir. 1981), cert.
denied, 455 U.S. 942. 41
Logue v. United States, 412 U.S. 521 (1973). 14, 27, 45
Lolli v. County of Orange, 351 F.3d 410 (9th Cir. 2003) 29,
32, 48
Lomax v. McCaughtry, 731 F.Supp. 1388 (E.D. Wis. 1990),
affirmed, 949 F.2d 398. 3, 11
Lomholt v. Holder, 287 F.3d 683 (8th Cir. 2002). 21, 37, 50
Lonegan v. Hasty, 436 F.Supp.2d 419 (E.D.N.Y. 2006). 1,
33, 49
Loney v. Scurr, 474 F.Supp. 1186 (S.D. Iowa 1979). 37
Long v. Beyer, 676 F.Supp. 75 (D. N.J. 1988). 1
Long v. Collins, 917 F.2d 3 (5th Cir. 1990). 35
Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir.
2006). 2, 14, 29, 46
Long v. Gaines, 173 F.Supp.2d 35 (D.D.C. 2001). 36
Long v. Katzenbach, 258 F.Supp. 89 (M.D. Penn. 1966). 37
Long v. Morris, 485 F.Supp.2d 1247 (D.Kan. 2007). 48
Long v. Nix, 86 F.3d 761 (8th Cir. 1996). 29, 30
Long v. Nix, 877 F.Supp. 1358 (S.D. Iowa 1995). 8, 29
Long v. Norris, 929 F.2d 1111 (6th Cir. 1991), cert. denied,
112 S.Ct. 187. 41, 49
Long v. Parker, 390 F.2d 816 (3rd Cir. 1968). 19, 37, 38, 39
Long v. Shillinger, 927 F.2d 525 (10th Cir. 1991). 1, 5
Longoria v. Dretke, 507 F.3d 898 (5th Cir. 2007). 7, 37, 38,
39
Longstreet v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections, 276 F.3d 379
(7th Cir. 2002). 31
Longstreth v. Maynard, 961 F.2d 895 (10th Cir. 1992), cert.
denied, 114 S.Ct. 260. 37, 38
Longval v. Commissioner of Correction, 484 N.E.2d 112
(App. Ct. Mass. 1985). 2, 43, 50
Lopez Morales v. Otero de Ramos, 725 F.Supp. 106 (D.
Puerto Rico 1989), affirmed, 915 F.2d 1557. 14, 29
Lopez v. Cipolini, 136 F.Supp.3d 570 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). 17,
19, 37
Lopez v. City of Chicago, 464 F.3d 711 (7th Cir. 2006). 1,
9, 16, 32
Lopez v. Davis, 121 S.Ct. 714 (2001). 22, 24, 36
Lopez v. LeMaster, 172 F.3d 756 (10th Cir. 1999). 14, 29,
32, 45, 46
Lopez v. Reynolds, 998 F.Supp. 252 (W.D.N.Y. 1997). 48
Lopez v. Smiley, 375 F.Supp.2d 19 (D.Conn. 2005). 1, 14,
21, 48
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000). 12, 29
Lopez v. Ward, 719 F.Supp. 261 (S.D.N.Y. 1989), affirmed,
898 F.2d 137. 29
Lopez v. Youngblood, 609 F.Supp.2d 1125 (E.D.Cal.
2009). 24, 32, 33, 41

TC-56
XXVI

Lopez-Valenzuela v. Arpaio, 770 F.3d 772 (9th Cir. 2014).
6, 7, 32
Lopez-Valenzuela v. County of Maricopa, 719 F.3d 1054
(9th Cir. 2013). 6, 7, 16, 32, 44
Lorando v. Waldren, 629 F.Supp.2d 60 (D.D.C. 2009). 20,
22, 36
Loret v. Selsky, 595 F.Supp.2d 231 (W.D.N.Y. 2009). 11,
39
Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. Garcia, 741 F.3d 922
(9TH Cir. 2014). 34
Losee v. Maschner, 113 F.Supp.2d 1343 (S.D.Iowa 1998).
1, 4, 35
Losee v. Nix, 842 F.Supp. 1178 (S.D.Iowa 1994). 3, 20, 35
Lott v. Arroyo, 785 F.Supp. 508 (E.D. Pa. 1991). 34
Lott v. Selsky, 747 F.Supp. 226 (S.D.N.Y. 1990), affirmed,
932 F.2d 957. 11
Louis v. Department of Correctional Services of Nebraska,
437 F.3d 697 (8th Cir. 2006). 11, 20, 41
Loukas v. Hofbauer, 784 F.Supp. 377 (E.D. Mich. 1991). 3,
24
Love v. Ficano, 19 F.Supp.2d 754 (E.D.Mich. 1998). 6, 22,
32
Love v. McCown, 38 Fed.Appx. 355 (8th Cir. 2002). 18, 37
Love v. McKune, 33 Fed.Appx. 369 (10th Cir. 2002). 7, 8,
12, 34, 38, 42, 50
Love v. Reed, 216 F.3d 682 (8th Cir. 2000). 18, 37
Love v. Summit County, 776 F.2d 908 (10th Cir. 1985),
cert. denied, 479 U.S. 814. 1, 32
Love v. Tippy, 133 F.3d 1066 (8th Cir. 1998). 22, 43
Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174 (4th Cir. 2006). 37
Lovett v. Seniff, 277 F.Supp.2d 896 (N.D.Ind. 2003). 1
Loving v. Johnson, 455 F.3d 562 (5th Cir. 2006). 7, 50
Lowe v. City of St. Louis, 843 F.2d 1158 (8th Cir. 1988).
14, 27
Lowrance v. Achtyl, 20 F.3d 529 (2nd Cir. 1994). 3, 11, 21
Lowrance v. Coughlin, 862 F.Supp. 1090 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).
3, 10, 19, 27, 29, 47
Lozeau v. Lake County, Mont., 98 F.Supp.2d 1157
(D.Mont. 2000). 5
Lucas v. Parish of Jefferson, 999 F.Supp. 839 (E.D.La.
1998). 16, 36, 42
Lucas v. Wasser, 425 F.Supp. 955 (S.D. N.Y. 1976). 7, 44
Luce v. Magnusson, 675 F.Supp. 681 (D. Me. 1987). 1
Lucero v. Gunter, 17 F.3d 1347 (10th Cir. 1994). 1, 11, 41
Lucero v. Gunter, 52 F.3d 874 (10th Cir. 1995). 41
Lucero v. Hensley, 920 F.Supp. 1067 (C.D.Cal. 1996). 7, 37
Lucia v. City of Peabody, 971 F.Supp.2d 153 (D.Mass.
2013). 7, 14, 16, 24, 25, 27, 32
Luciano v. Galindo, 944 F.2d 261 (5th Cir. 1991). 48
Lucien v. Godinez, 814 F.Supp. 754 (N.D.Ill. 1993). 29
Lucien v. Peters, 840 F.Supp. 591 (N.D. Ill. 1994). 1
Luck v. D.C. Parole Bd., 996 F.2d 372 (D.C. Cir. 1993). 20,
36
Luck v. Rovenstine, 168 F.3d 323 (7th Cir. 1999). 16, 27,
32
Luckert v. Dodge County, 684 F.3d 808 (8th Cir. 2012). 2,
5, 14, 29, 30, 32, 46
Luckes v. County of Hennepin, 415 F.3d 936 (8th Cir.
2005). 2, 16, 25, 32
Luckette v. Lewis, 883 F.Supp. 471 (D. Ariz. 1995). 37
Ludlam v. Coffee County, 993 F.Supp. 1421 (M.D.Ala.
1998). 17, 24, 32
Luedtke v. Bertrand, 32 F.Supp.2d 1074 (E.D.Wis. 1999).
1, 4

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Luedtke v. Gudmanson, 971 F.Supp. 1263 (E.D.Wis. 1997).
1, 34
Lugo v. Senkowski, 114 F.Supp.2d 111 (N.D.N.Y. 2000).
29, 36
Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192 (5th Cir. 1995). 3
Lum v. County of San Joaquin, 756 F.Supp.2d 1243
(E.D.Cal. 2010). 7, 14, 24, 25, 29, 32, 36
Lum v. Penarosa, 2 F.Supp.2d 1291 (D.Hawai'i 1998). 7,
22, 36
Lumbert v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections, 827 F.2d 257 (7th
Cir. 1987). 1
Lumley v. City of Dade City, Fla., 327 F.3d 1186 (11th Cir.
2003). 27, 29, 32
Lumpkin v. Burns, 702 F.Supp. 242 (D. Nev. 1988). 33, 37
Luna v. Pico, 356 F.3d 481 (2nd Cir. 2004). 11, 24
Lunsford v. Bennett, 17 F.3d 1574 (7th Cir. 1994). 10, 48
Lunsford v. RBC Dain Rauscher, Inc., 590 F.Supp.2d 1153
(D.Minn. 2008). 1
Luong v. Hatt, 979 F.Supp. 481 (N.D.Tex. 1997). 14, 47
Lustgarden v. Gunter, 779 F.Supp. 500 (D. Colo. 1991),
affirmed, 966 F.2d 552. 20, 22, 36
Lusz v. Scott, 126 F.3d 1018 (7th Cir. 1997). 11
Luttrell v. Nickel, 129 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 1997). 14
Lutz v. Hemingway, 476 F.Supp.2d 715 (E.D.Mich. 2007).
22
Lutz v. Smith, 180 F.Supp.2d 941 (N.D.Ohio 2001). 4, 25,
29, 32
Lymon v. Aramark Corp., 728 F.Supp.2d 1222 (D.N.M.
2010). 2, 8, 13, 21, 50
Lynch v. Baxley, 744 F.2d 1452 (11th Cir. 1984). 30
Lynch v. Hubbard, 47 F.Supp.2d 125 (D.Mass. 1999). 36
Lynch v. Leis, 382 F.3d 642 (6th Cir. 2004). 1, 5, 19, 32
Lynn v. Lappin, 593 F.Supp.2d 104 (D.D.C. 2009). 2, 33
Lynn v. Maryland, 295 F.Supp.2d 594 (D.Md. 2003). 5, 27
Lynn v. O’Leary, 264 F.Supp.2d 306 (D.Md. 2003). 32, 41,
48, 49
Lynott v. Story, 929 F.2d 228 (6th Cir. 1991). 22, 36
Lynsky v. City of Boston, 761 F.Supp. 858 (D. Mass.
1990). 29
Lyons v. Cunningham, 583 F.Supp. 1147 (S.D. N.Y. 1983).
14, 27
Lyons v. Holden-Selby, 729 F.Supp.2d 914 (E.D.Mich.
2010). 14
Lyons v. Papantoniou, 558 F.Supp. 4 (E.D. Tenn. 1982). 9,
10, 47
Lyons v. Powell, 729 F.Supp. 1404 (D.N.H. 1990). 9, 27,
32
Lyons v. Powell, 838 F.2d 28 (1st Cir. 1988). 9, 15, 32
Lyons v. Trinity Services Group, Inc., 401 F.Supp.2d 1290
(S.D.Fla. 2005). 1, 21, 50
M.C.I. Concord Advisory Bd. v. Hall, 447 F.Supp. 398 (D.
Mass. 1978). 3, 8, 9, 10, 15, 29, 44
M.H. v. County of Alameda, 62 F.Supp.3d 1049 (N.D.Cal.
2014). 14, 25, 29, 32
M.H. v. County of Alameda, 90 F.Supp.3d 889 (E.D. Cal.
2013). 14, 27, 29, 48
Ma v. Reno, 208 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2000). 22
Maberry v. McKune, 24 F.Supp.2d 1222 (D.Kan. 1998). 19,
35, 37, 38
Mabine v. Vaughn, 25 F.Supp.2d 587 (E.D.Pa. 1998). 8, 14
Mabry v. County of Kalamazoo, 626 F.Supp. 912 (W.D.
Mich. 1986). 16, 24
MacDonald v. Angelone, 69 F.Supp.2d 787 (E.D.Va. 1999).
33, 38
Mace v. Amestoy, 765 F.Supp. 847 (D. Vt. 1991). 34, 43

TC-57
XXVI

Mace v. City of Palestine, 333 F.3d 621 (5th Cir. 2003). 29,
32
MacFarlane v. Walter, 179 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 1999). 7, 8,
20, 22, 32, 43, 50
Macias v. Zenk, 495 F.3d 37 (2nd Cir. 2007). 1, 21
MacKay v. Farnsworth, 48 F.3d 491 (10th Cir. 1995). 10,
14
Mackey v. Dyke, 111 F.3d 460 (6th Cir. 1997). 3, 8
Mackey v. United States, 79 F.Supp.3d 57 (D.D.C. 2015).
4, 35
Macklin v. Huffman, 976 F.Supp. 1090 (W.D.Mich. 1997).
31
MacLaird v. Werger, 723 F.Supp. 617 (D. Wyo. 1989). 5
Maclean v. Secor, 876 F.Supp. 695 (E.D. Pa. 1995). 11, 14,
24
MacLeod v. Kern, 424 F.Supp.2d 260 (D.Mass. 2006). 29
Madden v. City of Meriden, 602 F.Supp. 1160 (D. Conn.
1985). 27, 48
Madden v. Kemna, 739 F.Supp. 1358 (W.D. Mo. 1990). 8
Maddox v. Berge, 473 F.Supp.2d 888 (W.D.Wis. 2007). 3,
9, 10, 12, 15, 28
Maddox v. City of Los Angeles, 792 F.2d 1408 (9th Cir.
1986). 27, 48
Maddox v. Elzie, 238 F.3d 437 (D.C.Cir. 2001). 22, 36
Maddox v. Love, 655 F.3d 709 (7th Cir. 2011). 2, 37
Madera v. Goord, 103 F.Supp.2d 536 (N.D.N.Y. 2000). 11
Madewell v. Garmon, 484 F.Supp. 823 (E.D. Tenn. 1980).
7, 27
Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203 (8th Cir. 1990). 10, 50
Madison County Jail Inmates v. Thompson, 773 F.2d 834
(7th Cir. 1985). 9, 27
Madison v. Parker, 104 F.3d 765 (5th Cir. 1997). 11, 20, 36
Madison v. Riter, 355 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2003). 18, 37
Madison v. Riter, 411 F.Supp.2d 645 (W.D.Va. 2006). 18,
24, 37
Madison v. Virginia, 474 F.3d 118 (4th Cir. 2006). 24, 37
Madley v. U.S. Parole Com’n., 278 F.3d 1306 (D.C. Cir.
2002). 36
Madrid v. Gomez, 190 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 1999). 5
Madrid v. Gomez, 889 F.Supp. 1146 (N.D.Cal. 1995). 3, 8,
9, 14, 15, 29, 30, 39, 42, 46, 48
Madyun v. Franzen, 704 F.2d 954 (7th Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 104 S.Ct. 493. 41
Magee v. Waters, 810 F.2d 451 (4th Cir. 1987). 1
Maggard v. Florida Parole Comm'n., 616 F.2d 890 (5th Cir.
1980), cert, denied, 449 U.S. 960, reh'g. denied., 450
U.S. 960. 36
Maggert v. Hanks, 131 F.3d 670 (7th Cir. 1997). 10, 29
Magill v. Lee County, 990 F.Supp. 1382 (M.D.Ala. 1998).
25, 32, 41
Magluta v. Samples, 375 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2004). 9, 11,
15, 32
Maguire v. Coughlin, 901 F.Supp. 101 (N.D.N.Y. 1995). 1,
9, 10, 47, 48
Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 122 (1980). 5, 7
Mahers v. Halford, 76 F.3d 951 (8th Cir. 1996). 2, 35, 43
Mahers v. Harper, 12 F.3d 783 (8th Cir. 1993). 11, 24
Mahers v. Hedgepeth, 32 F.3d 1273 (8th Cir. 1994). 27, 41
Mahfouz v. Lockhart, 826 F.2d 791 (8th Cir. 1987). 34, 36,
50
Mahler v. Slattery, 489 F.Supp. 798 (E.D. Vir. 1980). 21,
28
Mahotep v. DeLuca, 3 F.Supp.2d 385 (W.D.N.Y 1998). 14,
21, 48
Maillett v. Phinney, 755 F.Supp. 463 (D. Me. 1991). 1

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Main Road v. Atych, 385 F.Supp. 105 (E.D. Penn. 1974).
32, 50
Maine v. Thiboutot, 100 S.Ct. 2502 (1980). 5, 7
Majors v. Ridley-Turner, 277 F.Supp.2d 916 (N.D.Ind.
2003). 29
Makdessi v. Fields, 789 F.3d 126 (4th Cir. 2015). 14, 27
Makin v. Colorado Dept. of Corrections, 183 F.3d 1205
(10th Cir. 1999). 27, 37
Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953 (5th Cir. 2000). 11, 20, 22
Maldonado Santiago v. Velazquez Garcia, 821 F.2d 822
(1st Cir. 1987). 47
Maldonado v. Terhune, 28 F.Supp.2d 284 (D.N.J. 1998). 29
Malek v. Camp, 822 F.2d 812 (8th Cir. 1987). 11
Malek v. Haun, 26 F.3d 1013 (10th Cir. 1994). 24, 36
Malerba v. Selsky, 872 F.Supp. 1136 (N.D.N.Y. 1995). 11,
24
Malik v. Brown, 16 F.3d 330 (9th Cir. 1994). 19, 28, 37
Malik v. Brown, 71 F.3d 724 (9th Cir. 1995). 1, 19, 37
Malik v. District of Columbia, 512 F.Supp.2d 28 (D.D.C.
2007). 21, 47
Malik v. Mack, 15 F.Supp.2d 1047 (D.Kan. 1998). 3, 25, 48
Malles v. Lehigh County, 639 F.Supp.2d 566 (E.D.Pa.
2009). 2, 9, 23, 29
Malley v. Briggs, 106 S.Ct. 1092 (1986). 7, 16, 24, 46
Malloy v. Gray, 79 F.Supp.3d 53 (D.D.C. 2015). 36, 43
Malone v. Dept. of Corr., La. Training Inst., 468 So.2d 839
(La. App. 1 Cir. 1985). 2, 31
Malsh v. Austin, 901 F.Supp. 757 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). 9, 29
Malsh v. Garcia, 971 F.Supp. 133 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). 1, 19,
28
Manarite v. City of Springfield, 957 F.2d 953 (1st Cir.
1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 113. 14, 32, 46
Mandala v. Coughlin, 920 F.Supp. 342 (E.D.N.Y. 1996). 29
Mandel v. Doe, 888 F.2d 783 (11th Cir. 1989). 27, 29
Maness v. District Court of Logan County-Northern Div.,
495 F.3d 943 (8th Cir. 2007). 1, 24
Mangiafico v. Blumenthal, 358 F.Supp.2d 6 (D.Conn.
2005). 31
Maniccia v. Brown, 171 F.3d 1364 (11th Cir. 1999). 31
Manier v. Cook, 394 F.Supp.2d 1282 (E.D.Wash. 2005).
32, 48
Manis v. Corrections Corp. of America, 859 F.Supp. 302
(M.D. Tenn. 1994). 2, 27, 29
Manley v. Bronson, 657 F.Supp. 832 (D. Conn. 1987). 3,
10, 12
Manley v. Fordice, 945 F.Supp. 132 (S.D.Miss. 1996). 12,
19, 37
Mann ex rel. Terrazas v. Lopez, 404 F.Supp.2d 932
(W.D.Tex. 2005). 14, 17, 32, 45, 46
Mann v. Palmer, 713 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2013). 7, 10, 43
Mann v. Reynolds, 46 F.3d 1055 (10th Cir. 1995). 1, 5, 43,
49
Mann v. Reynolds, 828 F.Supp. 894 (W.D. Okl. 1993)
reversed 46 F.3d 1055. 1, 49
Mann v. Taser Intern., Inc., 588 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2009).
14, 17, 29, 32, 48
Manning v. Sweitzer, 891 F.Supp.2d 961 (N.D.Ill. 2012).
16, 17, 25, 29, 32, 46
Manso v. Federal Detention Center, 182 F.3d 814 (11th Cir.
1999). 22, 36
Maraglia v. Maloney, 499 F.Supp.2d 93 (D.Mass. 2007). 1,
21
Maraj v. Massachusetts, 836 F.Supp.2d 17 (D.Mass. 2011).
14, 24, 27, 39, 47, 48

TC-58
XXVI

Maraj v. Massachusetts, 953 F.Supp.2d 325 (D.Mass.
2013). 14, 29, 39, 48
Marange v. Fontenot, 879 F.Supp. 679 (E.D. Tex. 1995). 1
Marcelus v. Corrections Corp. of America/Correctional
Treatment Facility, 540 F.Supp.2d 231(D.D.C. 2008).
31
Marchant v. City of Little Rock, Ark., 557 F.Supp. 475
(E.D. Ark. 1983). 24, 27, 29
Marchese v. Lucas, 758 F.2d 181 (6th Cir. 1985), cert.
denied, 107 S.Ct. 1369. 27, 46, 48
Marcotte v. Monroe Corrections Complex, 394 F.Supp.2d
1289 (W.D.Wash. 2005). 29
Marcum v. McWhorter, 308 F.3d 635 (6th Cir. 2002). 31
Marcussen v. Brandstat, 836 F.Supp. 624 (N.D. Iowa 1993).
8, 14, 29, 38
Marella v. Terhune, 568 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2009). 14, 21
Marion v. Columbia Correction Inst., 559 F.3d 693 (7th Cir.
2009). 9, 11
Mark v. Gustafson, 482 F.Supp.2d 1084 (W.D.Wis. 2006).
1, 37, 47
Mark v. Nix, 983 F.2d 138 (8th Cir. 1993). 37
Markham v. Clark, 978 F.2d 993 (7th Cir. 1992). 20, 22
Marlowe v. Fabian, 676 F.3d 743 (8th Cir, 2012). 13, 22, 36
Marquard v. Secretary for Dept. of Corrections, 429 F.3d
1278 (11th Cir. 2005). 1, 22
Marquez v. Gutierrez, 322 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 2003). 14, 48
Marquez v. Quarterman, 652 F.Supp.2d 785 (E.D.Tex.
2009). 10, 18, 29
Marria v. Broaddus, 200 F.Supp.2d 280 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). 1,
19, 37
Marricone v. U.S., 703 F.Supp. 384 (E.D. Pa. 1989). 25, 29
Marriott By and Through Marriott v. Smith, 931 F.2d 517
(8th Cir. 1991). 24, 41, 49
Marriott v. County of Montgomery, 426 F.Supp.2d 1
(N.D.N.Y. 2006.) 5, 25, 32, 41
Marsh v. Arn, 937 F.2d 1056 (6th Cir. 1991). 14, 24
Marsh v. Barry, 705 F.Supp. 12 (D. D.C. 1988). 14
Marsh v. Jones, 53 F.3d 707 (5th Cir. 1995). 27
Marshall v. Fairman, 951 F.Supp. 128 (N.D.Ill. 1997). 11
Marshall v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 518 F.Supp.2d 190
(D.D.C. 2007). 34
Marshall v. Knight, 445 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 2006). 1
Marshall v. Kozakiewicz, 601 F.Supp. 1549 (1985). 8
Marshall v. Reno, 915 F.Supp. 426 (D.D.C. 1996). 8, 36, 47
Martin v. Benson, 827 F.Supp.2d 1022 (D.Minn.2011). 4, 7,
34, 35, 50
Martin v. Brewer, 830 F.2d 76 (7th Cir. 1987). 28
Martin v. Davies, 694 F.Supp. 528 (N.D. Ill. 1988). 1
Martin v. Debruyn, 880 F.Supp. 610 (N.D. Ind. 1995). 4, 29
Martin v. Donaghue, 407 F.Supp.2d 984 (N.D.Ind. 2006).
29
Martin v. Ezeagu, 816 F.Supp. 20 (D.D.C. 1993). 1, 27
Martin v. Gerlinski, 133 F.3d 1076 (8th Cir. 1998). 22, 43
Martin v. Hadix, 119 S.Ct. 1998 (1999). 1, 5
Martin v. Haggerty, 548 A.2d 371 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1988). 7, 19
Martin v. Harrison County Jail, 975 F.2d 192 (5th Cir.
1992). 14, 48
Martin v. Jones, 969 F.Supp. 1058 (M.D.Tenn. 1997). 1, 22
Martin v. Lord, 378 F.Supp.2d 184 (W.D.N.Y. 2005). 1
Martin v. New York Dept. of Correctional Services, 224
F.Supp.3d 434 (N.D.N.Y. 2002). 31
Martin v. Rison, 741 F.Supp. 1406 (N.D. Cal. 1990). 19, 38
Martin v. Shoults, 888 F.Supp. 1086 (D.Kan. 1995). 48
Martin v. Somerset County, 387 F.Supp.2d 65 (D.Me.
2005). 14, 29, 30, 32

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Martin v. Swift, 781 F.Supp. 1250 (E.D. Mich. 1992). 17,
41
Martinelli v. Dugger, 817 F.2d 1499 (11th Cir. 1987), cert.
denied, 108 S.Ct. 714. 37, 38
Martinez Diaz v. Olsen, 110 F.Supp.2d 295 (D.N.J. 2000).
8
Martinez v. Beggs, 563 F.3d 1082 (10th Cir. 2009). 14, 24,
29, 32
Martinez v. City of Los Angeles, 141 F.3d 1373 (9th Cir.
1998). 16, 27, 32
Martinez v. Espinas, 938 F.Supp. 650 (D.Hawai'i 1996). 1
Martinez v. Garden, 430 F.3d 1302 (10th Cir. 2005). 29
Martinez v. Griffin, 840 F.2d 314 (5th Cir. 1988). 1, 18
Martinez v. Hedrick, 36 Fed.Appx. 209 (7th Cir. 2002). 11,
22, 38
Martinez v. Johnson, 33 Fed.Appx. 395 (10th Cir. 2002). 47
Martinez v. Mathis, 970 F.Supp. 1047 (S.D.Ga. 1997). 14,
24, 32
Martinez v. Rosado, 614 F.2d 829 (2nd Cir. 1980). 48
Martinez v. State of California, 100 S.Ct. 553 (1980), reh'g.
denied, 100 S.Ct. 1285. 7, 36
Martinez v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, 300 F.3d 567
(5th Cir. 2002). 31
Martinez v. Turner, 977 F.2d 421 (8th Cir. 1992),
cert.denied, 113 S.Ct. 1856. 50
Martinez v. U.S., 19 F.3d 97 (2nd Cir. 1994). 43
Martini v. Russell, 582 F.Supp. 136 (C.D. Ca. 1984). 27
Martino v. Miller, 318 F.Supp.2d 63 (W.D.N.Y. 2004). 29
Martinson v. Leason, 22 F.Supp.3d 952 (D.Minn. 2014). 10,
29
Martucci v. Johnson, 944 F.2d 291 (6th Cir. 1991). 1, 3, 28,
32, 39
Martyr v. Bachik, 755 F.Supp. 325 (D. Or. 1991). 28
Marvin v. City of Taylor, 509 F.3d 234 (6th Cir. 2007). 32,
48
Marvin v. Goord, 255 F.3d 40 (2nd Cir. 2001). 1, 29
Mary Beth G. v. City of Chicago, 723 F.2d 1263 (7th Cir.
1984). 6, 17, 32, 41
Mascetta v. Miranda, 957 F.Supp. 1346 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).
31
Mashburn v. Yamhill County, 698 F.Supp.2d 1233 (D.Or.
2010). 2, 26, 32, 39, 49
Mason v. Clark, 920 F.2d 493 (8th Cir. 1990). 35
Mason v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc., 559 F.3d 880
(8th Cir. 2009). 29, 34, 42
Mason v. Sargent, 898 F.2d 679 (8th Cir. 1990). 11
Mason v. Schriro, 45 F.Supp.2d 709 (W.D.Mo. 1999). 7, 8
Mason v. Village of Babylon, New York, 124 F.Supp.2d
807 (E.D.N.Y. 2000). 17, 25, 32, 41
Masonoff v. Dubois, 336 F.Supp.2d 54 (D.Mass. 2004). 9,
10, 23, 40
Masonoff v. DuBois, 899 F.Supp. 782 (D.Mass. 1995). 9,
10, 15, 23, 39, 40, 44
Massey v. Helman, 196 F.3d 727 (7th Cir. 1999). 31
Massey v. Helman, 35 F.Supp.2d 1110 (C.D.Ill. 1999). 31
Massey v. U.S., 312 F.3d 272 (7th Cir. 2002). 29
Massey v. Wilson, 484 F.Supp. 1332 (D. Colo. 1980). 41
Mastroianni v. Reilly, 602 F.Supp.2d 425 (E.D.N.Y. 2009).
18, 29, 30
Mata v. Saiz, 427 F.3d 745 (10th Cir. 2005). 17, 29
Matheny v. Morrison, 307 F.3d 709 (8th Cir. 2002). 2, 4,
35, 43
Mathie v. Fries, 935 F.Supp. 1284 (E.D.N.Y. 1996). 7, 14,
27, 32, 48
Mathieu v. Chun, 828 F.Supp. 495 (E.D. Mich. 1993). 29

TC-59
XXVI

Mathis v. Bess, 763 F.Supp. 58 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). 1
Mathis v. Fairman, 120 F.3d 88 (7th Cir. 1997). 14, 30, 32,
46
Mathis v. State, 531 N.Y.S.2d 680 (Sup. 1988). 31
Mathison v. Moats, 812 F.3d 594 (7th Cir. 2016). 29
Matiyn v. Commissioner Dept. of Corrections, 726 F.Supp.
42 (W.D.N.Y. 1989). 37
Matiyn v. Henderson, 841 F.2d 31 (2nd Cir. 1988), cert.
denied, 108 S.Ct. 2876. 24, 37, 47
Matos Ex Rel. Matos v. O’Sullivan, 335 F.3d 553 (7th Cir.
2003). 14, 29
Matrisciano v. Walker, 417 F.Supp.2d 1014 (C.D.Ill. 2006).
31
Matter of Plunkett, 788 P.2d 1090 (Wash. App. 1990). 11
Matter of Stowman, 491 A.2d 1275 (N.J. App. 1985). 31
Matthews v. Armitage, 36 F.Supp.2d 121 (N.D.N.Y. 1999).
14
Matthews v. Morales, 23 F.3d 118 (5th Cir. 1994). 19, 37
Matthews v. Peters, 818 F.Supp. 224 (N.D.Ill. 1993). 9, 23,
40
Matulin v. Village of Lodi, 862 F.2d 609 (6th Cir. 1988). 31
Matz v. Kelsch, 638 F.2d 48 (8th Cir. 1981). 36
Matzker v. Herr, 748 F.2d 1142 (7th Cir. 1984). 14, 29, 32
Maul v. Constan, 23 F.3d 143 (7th Cir. 1994). 1, 5
Maul v. Constan, 928 F.2d 784 (7th Cir. 1991). 4, 29, 30
Maurello v. U.S., 111 F.Supp.2d 475 (D.N.J. 2000). 16, 24,
27
Mauro v. Arpaio, 188 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 1999). 19, 32, 35,
38
Maus v. Baker, 747 F.3d 926 (7th Cir. 2014). 1, 32, 45, 48
Maxton v. Johnson, 488 F.Supp. 1030 (D. S.C. 1980). 3
Maxwell v. Mason, 668 F.2d 361 (1981). 11, 23
Maxwell v. South Bend Work Release Center, 787
F.Supp.2d 819 (N.D.Ind. 2011). 7, 36, 50
May v. Baldwin, 109 F.3d 557 (9th Cir. 1997). 37, 38
May v. Baldwin, 895 F.Supp. 1398 (D.Or. 1995). 3, 7, 11,
12, 23, 37, 38, 39, 42
May v. Rich, 531 F.Supp.2d 998 (C.D.Ill. 2008). 1, 7, 11,
21, 27
May v. Sheahan, 226 F.3d 876 (7th Cir. 2000). 1, 29, 32, 39
Mayberry v. Somner, 480 F.Supp. 833 (E.D. Penn. 1979). 1,
47
Mayberry v. Spicer, 808 F.Supp. 563 (E.D.Mich. 1992). 50
Mayberry v. Walters, 862 F.2d 1040 (3rd Cir. 1988),
affirmed, 884 F.2d 1382 and 884 F.2d 1384. 5, 14
Maydak v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 254 F.Supp.2d 23 (D.D.C.
2003). 2, 19, 33
Maydak v. U.S., 363 F.3d 512 (D.C.Cir. 2004). 2, 7, 19,
33, 35, 49
Mayers v. Anderson, 93 F.Supp.2d 962 (N.D.Ind. 2000).
11, 20, 22
Mayfield v. Collins, 918 F.2d 560 (5th Cir. 1990). 1
Mayfield v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, 529 F.3d 599
(5th Cir. 2008). 1, 24, 37, 38, 39
Maynard v. Cartwright, 108 S.Ct. 1853 (1988). 43
Maynard v. Kear, 474 F.Supp. 794 (N.D. Ohio 1979). 10,
29
Mayner v. Callahan, 873 F.2d 1300 (9th Cir. 1989). 36
Mayo v. Lane, 867 F.2d 374 (7th Cir. 1989). 49
Mayoral v. Sheahan, 245 F.3d 934 (7th Cir. 2001). 8, 14, 32,
39
Mayorov v. United States, 84 F.Supp.3d 678 (N.D.Ill.
2015). 6, 7, 13, 16
Mays v. Mahoney, 23 F.3d 660 (2nd Cir. 1994). 11
Mays v. Rhodes, 255 F.3d 644 (8th Cir. 2001). 29, 50

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Mays v. Springborn, 575 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2009). 9, 18, 19,
21, 28, 38, 41
Mays v. Springborn, 719 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 2013). 9, 18, 21,
28, 37, 39, 41
Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91 (5th Cir. 1992). 29
Mayweathers v. Terhune, 328 F.Supp.2d 1086 (E.D.Cal.
2004). 37, 38, 50
McAleese v. Owens, 770 F.Supp. 255 (M.D. Pa. 1991). 29
McAlister v. Robinson, 488 F.Supp. 545 (D. Conn. 1978).
3, 11
McAllister v. Zydel, 929 F.Supp. 102 (W.D.N.Y. 1996). 3
McAlphin v. Toney, 281 F.3d 709 (8th Cir. 2002). 1, 29
McArdle v. Tronetti, 961 F.2d 1083 (3rd Cir. 1992). 27, 30
McBride v. Cahoone, 820 F.Supp.2d 623 (E.D.Pa. 2011).
24, 27, 36, 43
McBride v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections, 677 F.Supp. 537
(N.D. Ill. 1987). 9, 34
McBride v. Lopez, 791 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2015). 14, 21, 48
McBride v. Lopez, 807 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2015). 1, 14, 21,
48
McCabe v. Mais, 602 F.Supp.2d 1025 (N.D.Iowa 2008). 27,
41
McCabe v. Prison Health Services, 117 F.Supp.2d 443
(E.D.Pa. 1997). 2,
McCain v. Scott, 9 F.Supp.2d 1365 (N.D.Ga. 1998). 21, 47
McCall v. Board of Com’rs of County of Shawnee, KS, 291
F.Supp.2d 1216 (D.Kan. 2003) 31
McCall v. Crosthwait, 590 F.Supp.2d 1337 (M.D.Ala.
2008). 32, 48
McCall v. Pataki, 232 F.3d 321 (2nd Cir. 2000). 1, 7, 36
McCann v. Phillips, 864 F.Supp. 330 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). 11,
27
McCann v. Tillman, 526 F.3d 1370 (11th Cir. 2008). 2, 31
McCarthy v. Armstrong, 2 F.Supp.2d 231 (D.Conn. 1998).
3, 8
McCarthy v. Madigan, 112 S.Ct. 1081 (1992). 4, 21, 29
McCarty v. Woodson, 465 F.2d 822 (10th Cir. 1972). 1
McCaster v. Clausen, 684 F.3d 740 (8th Cir. 2012). 25, 29
McCauley v. City of Chicago, 671 F.3d 611(7th Cir. 2011).
7, 14, 36
McClaflin v. Pearce, 739 F.Supp. 537 (D. Or. 1990). 1, 37
McClaflin v. Pearce, 743 F.Supp. 1381 (D. Or. 1990). 37
McClain v. Northwest Comm. Corr. Ctr., 268 F.Supp.2d
941 (N.D.Ohio 2003). 2, 31
McClanahan v. City of Moberly, 35 F.Supp.2d 744
(E.D.Mo. 1998). 32, 48
McClary v. Coughlin, 87 F.Supp.2d 205 (W.D.N.Y. 2000).
3, 27
McClary v. Kelly, 4 F.Supp.2d 195 (W.D.N.Y. 1998). 3
McClendon v. City of Albuquerque, 79 F.3d 1014 (10th
Cir. 1996). 9, 15
McCloud v. Delaney, 677 F.Supp. 230 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). 29
McClung v. Camp County, Tex., 627 F.Supp. 528 (E.D.
Tex. 1986). 9, 12, 23, 29, 39, 40
McCollum v. California Dept. of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, 647 F.3d 870 (9th Cir. 2011). 1, 2, 21,
34, 37, 49
McCollum v. California, 610 F.Supp.2d 1053 (N.D.Cal.
2009). 2, 31, 37
McConnell v. Selsky, 877 F.Supp. 117 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). 11
McConney v. City of Houston, 863 F.2d 1180 (5th Cir.
1989). 6, 32, 36
McCord v. Maggio, 910 F.2d 1248 (5th Cir. 1990). 8, 9
McCord v. Maggio, 927 F.2d 844 (5th Cir. 1991). 9, 15, 40
McCorkle v. Johnson, 881 F.2d 993 (11th Cir. 1989). 37, 39

TC-60
XXVI

McCorkle v. Walker, 871 F.Supp. 555 (N.D.N.Y. 1995). 10,
23, 29
McCormick v. Stalder, 105 F.3d 1059 (5th Cir. 1997). 29
McCoy v. Chesapeake Correctional Center, 788 F.Supp.
890 (E.D. Va. 1992). 44
McCoy v. Goord, 255 F.Supp.2d 233 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). 13,
30
McCoy v. Nevada Department of Prisons, 776 F.Supp. 521
(D. Nev. 1991). 17
McCoy v. Webster, 47 F.3d 404 (11th Cir. 1995). 14, 24
McCray v. Burrell, 622 F.2d 705 (4th Cir. 1980), cert.
denied, 449 U.S. 997, 449 U.S. 1003, 101 S.Ct. 537.
3, 30
McCray v. Dietz, 517 F.Supp. 787 (D. N.J. 1980). 36
McCray v. First State Medical System, 379 F.Supp.2d 635
(D.Del. 2005). 1, 29, 47
McCray v. State of Maryland, 456 F.2d 1 (4th Cir. 1972).
41
McCray v. Sullivan, 509 F.2d 1332 (5th Cir. 1975), cert.
denied, 423 U.S. 859. 7, 8, 34
McCray v. Williams, 357 F.Supp.2d 774 (D.Del. 2005). 29
McCreary v. Richardson, 738 F.3d 651 (5th Cir. 2013). 24,
33, 37, 41
McCree v. Grissom, 657 F.3d 623 (7th Cir. 2011). 1, 3
McCuiston v. Wanicka, 483 So.2d 489 (Fla. App. 2 Dist.
1986). 1
McCullough v. Cady, 640 F.Supp. 1012 (E.D. Mich. 1986).
24, 48
McCullough v. Scully, 784 F.Supp. 115 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). 1,
29
McCullough v. Wittner, 552 A.2d 881 (Md. 1989). 21
McCullum v. Tepe, 693 F.3d 696 (6th Cir. 2012). 24, 27,
29, 30
McCurry v. Moore, 242 F.Supp.2d 1167 (N.D.Fla. 2002).
13, 36, 46
McDaniel v. County of Schenectady, 595 F.3d 411 (2nd Cir.
2010). 5, 27
McDaniel v. Rhodes, 512 F.Supp. 117 (S.D. Ohio 1981).
29, 36, 50
McDay v. City of Atlanta, 740 F.Supp. 852 (N.D. Ga.
1990), affirmed, 927 F.2d 614. 14, 32
McDiffett v. Stotts, 902 F.Supp. 1419 (D.Kan. 1995). 3, 11,
41, 49
McDonald v. Armontrout, 908 F.2d 388 (8th Cir. 1990). 9,
27
McDonald v. Board of Election Commissioners, 394 U.S.
802 (1969). 19, 32
McDonald v. Doe, 650 F.Supp. 858 (S.D. N.Y. 1986). 24
McDonald v. Dunning, 760 F.Supp. 1156 (E.D. Va. 1991).
16
McDonald v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16 (1st Cir. 1979). 1
McDonald v. State of Illinois, 557 F.2d 596 2 (7th. Cir.
1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 966. 1
McDonald v. State of KS, Dept. of Corrections, 880
F.Supp. 1416 (D.Kan. 1995). 2, 31
McDonald v. Steward, 132 F.3d 225 (5th Cir. 1998). 1
McDonell v. Hunter, 809 F.2d 1302 (8th Cir. 1987). 31, 41
McDowell v. Brown, 392 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2004). 2, 13,
29, 32, 39
McDowell v. Jones, 990 F.2d 433 (8th Cir. 1993). 7, 9
McDuffie v. Hopper, 982 F.Supp. 817 (M.D.Ala. 1997). 14,
27, 29, 30
McDuffie v. Rikers Island Medical Department, 668
F.Supp. 328 (S.D. N.Y. 1987). 8, 29

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

McEachern v. Civiletti, 502 F.Supp. 532 (N.D. Ill. 1980).
29
McEachin v. Beard, 319 F.Supp.2d 510 (E.D.Pa. 2004). 35
McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197 (2nd Cir. 2004). 1,
11, 37
McElligott v. Foley, 182 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 1999). 29
McElroy v. Lopac, 403 F.3d 855 (7th Cir. 2005). 19, 50
McElveen v. Prince William County, 725 F.2d 954 (4th Cir.
1984), cert. denied, 105 S.Ct. 88. 9, 15, 27
McElyea v. Babbit, 833 F.2d 196 (9th Cir. 1987). 18, 37
McFaul v. Valenzuela, 684 F.3d 564 (5th Cir. 2012). 37, 38,
39
McGarry v. Pallito, 687 F.3d 505 (2nd Cir. 2012). 7, 32, 50
McGavock v. City of Water Valley, Miss., 452 F.3d 423
(5th Cir. 2006). 31
McGhee v. Belisle, 501 F.Supp. 189 (E.D. La. 1980). 11,
20, 36
McGhee v. Clark, 166 F.3d 884 (7th Cir. 1999). 4, 35, 43
McGhee v. Foltz, 852 F.2d 876 (6th Cir. 1988). 14, 45
McGill v. Duckworth, 726 F.Supp. 1144 (N.D. Ind. 1989),
modified, 944 F.2d 344. 14
McGill v. Duckworth, 944 F.2d 344 (7th Cir. 1991), cert.
denied, 112 S.Ct. 1265. 14
McGill v. Faulkner, 18 F.3d 456 (7th Cir. 1994), cert.
denied, 115 S.Ct. 233. 1, 4
McGinnis v. Royster, 410 U.S. 263 (1973). 20, 36
McGlothlin v. Murray, 54 F.Supp.2d 629 (W.D.Va. 1999).
1, 5
McGoldrick V. Farrington, 462 F.Supp.2d 112 (D.Me.
2006). 3, 9, 10
McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997). 1,
2, 4, 35
McGoue v. Janecka, 211 F.Supp.2d 627 (E.D.Pa. 2002). 20,
34, 50
McGowan v. Hulick, 612 F.3d 636 (7th Cir. 2010). 29
McGowan v. U.S., 94 F.Supp.3d 382 (E.D.N.Y. 2015). 16,
19, 27, 36
McGregor v. City of Olathe, KS, 158 F.Supp.2d 1225
(D.Kan. 2001). 32
McGrew v. Texas Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 47 F.3d 158
(5th Cir. 1995). 36, 43
McGruder v. Phelps, 608 F.2d 1023 (5th Cir. 1979). 8
McGuinness v. Dubois, 75 F.3d 794 (1st Cir. 1996). 3, 11
McGuinness v. Dubois, 891 F.Supp. 25 (D.Mass. 1995). 3,
11, 34, 46
McGuire v. Strange, 83 F.Supp.3d 1231 (M.D.Ala. 2015).
7, 13, 29
McHenry v. Chadwick, 896 F.2d 184 (6th Cir. 1990). 14, 27
McIllwain v. Weaver, 686 F.Supp.2d 894 (E.D.Ark. 2010).
25, 33, 41
McIlwain v. Prince William Hosp., 774 F.Supp. 986 (E.D.
Va. 1991). 29
McKeever v. Israel, 476 F.Supp. 1370 (E.D. Wisc. 1979).
35
McKenna v. Wright, 386 F.3d 432 (2nd Cir. 2004). 29
McKenzie v. Crotty, 738 F.Supp. 1287 (D. S.D. 1990). 27
McKenzie v. O’Gara, 289 F.Supp.2d 389 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)
49
McKinley v. Trattles, 732 F.2d 1320 (7th Cir. 1984). 27, 41
McKinney v. Anderson, 959 F.2d 853 (9th Cir. 1992),
affirmed, 113 S.Ct. 2475. 9, 10, 29
McKinney v. Compton, 888 F.Supp. 75 (W.D.Tenn. 1995).
29, 48
McKinney v. Debord, 507 F.2d 501 (9th Cir. 1974). 19, 28

TC-61
XXVI

McKinney v. Hanks, 911 F.Supp. 359 (N.D.Ind. 1995). 11,
22
McKinney v. Maynard, 952 F.2d 350 (10th Cir. 1991). 37,
38
McKinney v. U.S., 950 F.Supp.2d 923 (N.D.Tex. 2013). 14,
24, 27, 29, 47
McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 (2002). 7, 34
McLaurin v. Cole, 115 F.3d 408 (6th Cir. 1997). 11, 21
McLaurin v. Morton, 48 F.3d 944 (6th Cir. 1995). 48
McLaurin v. New Rochelle Police Officers, 368 F.Supp.2d
289 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). 6, 32
McLaurin v. Prater, 30 F.3d 982 (8th Cir. 1994). 48
McLean v. Crabtree, 173 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 1999). 22, 34,
43
McMaster v. Pung, 984 F.2d 948 (8th Cir. 1993), affirmed,
984 F.2d 950. 1, 11, 28
McMaster v. State of Minn., 30 F.3d 976 (8th Cir. 1994). 50
McMaster v. State of Minn., 819 F.Supp. 1429 (D.Minn.
1993), affirmed, 30 F.3d 976. 50
McMath v. Alexander, 486 F.Supp. 156 (M.D. Tenn. 1980).
1
McMillan v. Healey, 739 F.Supp. 153 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). 11,
24
McMorrow v. Little, 109 F.3d 432 (8th Cir. 1997). 7, 36
McNair v. Allen, 515 F.3d 1168 (11th Cir. 2008). 1, 10
McNally v. Prison Health Services, Inc., 28 F.Supp.2d
671(D.Me. 1998). 7, 25, 29, 32
McNeal v. Owens, 769 F.Supp. 270 (W.D. Tenn. 1991). 48
McNeal v. U.S., 979 F.Supp. 431 (N.D.W.Va. 1997). 29
McNeil v. Ellerd, 823 F.Supp. 627 (E.D.Wis. 1993),
affirmed, 991 F.2d 795. 9, 40
McNeil v. Lane, 16 F.3d 123 (7th Cir. 1994). 9, 15
McNeil v. Redman, 21 F.Supp.2d 884 (C.D.Ill. 1998). 7, 29
McNeill v. Allen, 106 F.Supp.3d 711 (W.D. N.C. 2015). 27,
29, 32
McPherson v. Coombe, 29 F.Supp.2d 141 (W.D.N.Y.
1998). 8, 9, 10, 29
McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d 784 (7th Cir. 1999). 11,
22
McPherson v. McBride, 943 F.Supp. 971 (N.D.Ind. 1996).
11, 22
McQueen v. Williams, 587 So.2d 918 (Miss. 1991). 14, 23,
24, 39
McQuillion v. Duncan, 306 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2002). 22, 36
McQuillion v. McKenzie, 35 Fed.Appx. 547 (9th Cir. 2002).
19
McRaven v. Sanders, 577 F.3d 974 (8th Cir. 2009). 24, 29,
32
McRorie v. Shimoda, 795 F.2d 780 (9th Cir. 1986). 41, 48
McRoy v. Cook County Dept. of Corrections, 366
F.Supp.2d 662 (N.D.Ill. 2005). 8, 37, 39, 41
McRoy v. Sheahan, 383 F.Supp.2d 1010 (N.D.Ill. 2005).
29, 32
Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1976), reh'g. denied, 429
U.S. 873. 7, 8, 47
Mead v. Palmer, 794 F.3d 932 (8th Cir. 2015). 7, 29
Meade v. Plummer, 344 F.Supp.2d 569 (E.D.Mich. 2004).
27
Meadors v. Ulster County, 984 F.Supp.2d 83 (N.D.N.Y.
2013). 2, 31
Meadows v. Gibson, 855 F.Supp. 223 (W.D. Tenn. 1994).
10, 21
Meadows v. Hopkins, 713 F.2d 206 (6th Cir. 1983). 28
Mearin v. Swartz, 951 F.Supp.2d 776 (W.D.Pa. 2013). 7, 8,
10, 29, 38

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Medical Development Intern. v. California Dept. of
Corrections and Rehabilitation, 585 F.3d 1211 (9th
Cir. 2009). 2, 27, 29
Medina v. Clark, 791 F.Supp. 194 (W.D.Tenn. 1992),
affirmed, 978 F.2d 1259. 22, 43
Meek v. Orton, 773 F.Supp. 172 (E.D. Mo. 1991). 4, 29
Meeks v. McBride, 81 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 1996). 11, 20, 22
Meeks v. Schofield, 10 F.Supp.3d 774 (M.D.Tenn. 2014).
1, 8, 21, 30, 33, 34, 41
Meis v. Grammer, 411 N.W.2d 355 (Neb. 1987). 35, 50
Meis v. Gunter, 906 F.2d 364 (8th Cir. 1990), cert. denied,
111 S.Ct. 682. 11, 34
Melendres v. Arpaio, 989 F.Supp.2d 822 (D.Ariz. 2013). 7,
16
Mellette v. Lowe, 881 F.Supp. 499 (D.Kan. 1995). 22, 36
Meloy v. Bachmeier, 302 F.3d 845 (8th Cir. 2002). 13, 29
Melvin v. Nickolopoulos, 864 F.2d 301 (3rd Cir. 1988). 22,
36
Melvin v. U.S., 963 F.Supp. 1052 (D.Kan. 1997). 27, 35
Memphis Community School Dist. v. Stachura, 106 S.Ct.
2537 (1986). 27
Mendez v. Superior Court (Perry), 253 Cal. Rptr. 731
(Cal.App. 5 Dist. 1988). 2, 31
Mendez-Suarez v. Veles, 698 F.Supp. 905 (N.D. Ga. 1988).
5, 19
Mendoza v. Blodgett, 960 F.2d 1425 (9th Cir. 1992), cert,
denied, 113 S.Ct. 102. 11, 49
Menocal v. GEO Group, Inc., 113 F.Supp.3d 1125 (D.
Colo. 2015). 27, 32, 50
Mercer v. Griffin, 30 CrL 2253 (1981). 9, 27
Merideth v. Grogan, 812 F.Supp. 1223 (N.D.Ga. 1992),
affirmed, 985 F.2d 579. 14, 29
Merit v. Lynn, 848 F.Supp. 1266 (W.D. La. 1994). 36, 50
Meriwether v. Faulkner, 821 F.2d 408 (7th Cir. 1987), cert.
denied, 108 S.Ct. 311. 10, 17, 29
Merneigh v. Lane, 409 N.E.2d 319 (Ill. App. 1980). 1
Merritt v. Broglin, 891 F.2d 169 (7th Cir. 1989). 36
Merritt v. Faulkner, 697 F.2d 761 (7th Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 104 S.Ct. 434. 1
Merritt v. Reed, 120 F.3d 124 (8th Cir. 1997). 31
Merritt-Bey v. Salts, 747 F.Supp. 536 (E.D. Mo. 1990),
affirmed, 938 F.2d 187. 3, 7, 33, 41
Merriweather v. Sherwood, 235 F.Supp.2d 339 (S.D.N.Y.
2002). 1, 27, 30, 37
Merriweather v. Zamora, 569 F.3d 307 (6th Cir. 2009). 1, 2,
13, 27, 28
Merrriweather v. Marion County Sheriff, 368 F.Supp.2d
875 (S.D.Ind. 2005). 14, 26, 32
Merryfield v. Jordan, 584 F.3d 923 (10th Cir. 2009). 1, 4, 7
Messere v. Fair, 752 F.Supp. 48 (D. Mass. 1990). 1
Messina v. Mazzeo, 854 F.Supp. 116 (E.D.N.Y. 1994). 18,
25, 29, 32, 37
Metcalf v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 530 F.Supp.2d 131
(D.D.C. 2008). 1
Metheney v. Anderson, 953 F.Supp. 854 (N.D.Ohio 1996).
29, 37
Metheny v. Hammonds, 216 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2000). 36,
43
Metro. Dade County v. P.L. Dodge Foundations, 509 So.2d
1170 (Fla. App. 3 Dist. 1987). 4, 29
Meuir v. Greene County Jail Employees, 487 F.3D 1115
(8th Cir. 2007). 29, 32
Meyer v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 940 F.Supp. 9 (D.D.C.
1996). 8, 19, 33

TC-62
XXVI

Meyer v. Nava, 518 F.Supp.2d 1279 (D.Kan. 2007). 2, 14,
17
Meyer v. Reno, 911 F.Supp. 11 (D.D.C. 1996). 8
Meyer v. Teslik, 411 F.Supp.2d 983 (W.D.Wis. 2006). 24,
37, 38
Meza v. Livingston, 607 F.3d 392 (5th Cir. 2010). 24, 34, 36
Michael v. Ghee, 411 F.Supp.2d 813 (N.D.Ohio 2006). 36,
43, 44
Michael v. Ghee, 498 F.3d 372 (6th Cir. 2007). 36, 43
Michau v. Charleston County, S.C., 434 F.3d 725 (4th Cir.
2006). 1, 7, 13
Michaud v. Sheriff of Essex County, 458 N.E.2d 702
(Mass. 1983). 9, 23, 40
Michtavi v. New York Daily News, 587 F.3d 551 (2nd Cir.
2009). 19
Mickens v. Winston, 462 F.Supp. 910 (E.D. Vir. 1978). 8
Mickens-Thomas v. Vaughn, 355 F.3d 294 (3rd Cir. 2004).
36, 43
Mikeska v. Collins, 900 F.2d 833 (5th Cir. 1990). 1, 3, 11,
50
Milburn v. McNiff, 36 CrL 2441 (NY Sup. Ct. App. Div.
1985). 19
Miles v. Angelone, 483 F.Supp.2d 491 (E.D.Va. 2007). 1,
22
Miles v. Bell, 621 F.Supp. 51 (D.C. Conn. 1985). 9, 12, 15,
18, 23, 29, 32, 33, 39, 40, 44
Miles v. Konvalenka, 791 F.Supp. 212 (N.D.Ill. 1992). 3,
18, 40
Milledge v. McCall, 43 Fed.Appx. 196 (10th Cir. 2002)
[unpublished]. 27, 33
Miller ex rel. Jones v. Stewart, 231 F.3d 1248 (9th Cir.
2000). 7
Miller v. Beard, 699 F.Supp.2d 697 (E.D.Pa. 2010). 29, 30
Miller v. Benson, 51 F.3d 166 (8th Cir. 1995). 50
Miller v. Calhoun County, 408 F.3d 803 (6th Cir. 2005). 29,
32, 46
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), reh'g. denied, 414
U.S. 881. 19
Miller v. Campanella, 794 F.3d 878 (7th Cir. 2015). 29
Miller v. Campbell, 108 F.Supp.2d 960 (W.D.Tenn. 2000).
1, 4, 50
Miller v. Campbell, 804 F.Supp. 159 (D.Kan. 1992). 9, 39
Miller v. Carson, 392 F.Supp. 515 (M.D. Fla. 1975). 26
Miller v. Carson, 401 F.Supp. 835 (M.D. Fla. 1975). 4, 5, 9,
10, 27, 32, 34
Miller v. Carson, 550 F.Supp. 543 (M.D. Fla. 1982). 4, 15,
27
Miller v. Carson, 628 F.2d 346 (5th Cir. 1980). 5
Miller v. Corrections Corp. of America, 375 F.Supp.2d 889
(D.Alaska 2005). 29
Miller v. Dobier, 634 F.3d 412 (7th Cir. 2011). 7, 11
Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091 (11th Cir. 2008). 1
Miller v. Duckworth, 963 F.2d 1002 (7th Cir. 1992). 11, 22
Miller v. Fairman, 872 F.Supp. 498 (N.D. Ill. 1994). 9, 14,
48
Miller v. Glanz, 948 F.2d 1562 (10th Cir. 1991). 48
Miller v. Harbaugh, 698 F.3d 956 (7th Cir. 2012). 15, 24,
26, 29, 30, 47
Miller v. Johnson, 541 F.Supp.2d 799 (E.D.Va. 2008). 24,
29
Miller v. Kennebec County, 219 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2000). 16,
17, 32, 41
Miller v. King, 384 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2004). 7, 9, 15, 29,
39

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Miller v. Leathers, 885 F.2d 151 (4th Cir. 1989), cert.
denied, 111 S.Ct. 1018. 48
Miller v. Leathers, 913 F.2d 1085 (4th Cir. 1990), cert.
denied, 111 S.Ct. 1018. 48
Miller v. McBride, 259 F.Supp.2d 738 (N.D.Ind. 2001). 3, 8
Miller v. McBride, 64 Fed.Appx. 558 (7th Cir. 2003)
[unpublished]. 14, 45
Miller v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 986 F.Supp. 1078
(W.D.Mich. 1997). 23, 29
Miller v. Neathery, 52 F.3d 634 (7th Cir. 1995). 14
Miller v. New Hampshire Dept. of Corrections, 296 F.3d 18
(1st Cir. 2002). 31
Miller v. New Jersey State Dept. of Corrections, 145 F.3d
616 (3rd Cir. 1998). 22
Miller v. PrimeCare Medical AS, 89 F.Supp.2d 779
(N.D.W.Va. 2000). 29
Miller v. Selsky, 111 F.3d 7 (2nd Cir. 1997). 11, 20
Miller v. Shelby County, 93 F.Supp.2d 892 (W.D.Tenn.
2000). 3, 8, 12, 14, 27, 39
Miller v. Thornburgh, 755 F.Supp. 980 (D. Kan. 1991). 22,
47
Miller v. U.S., 964 F.Supp. 15 (D.D.C. 1997). 43
Miller v. Washington County, 650 F.Supp.2d 1113 (D.Or.
2009). 27, 39, 41, 47
Miller v. Whitehead, 527 F.3d 752 (8th Cir. 2008). 22, 34
Miller v. Yamhill County, 620 F.Supp.2d 1241 (D.Or.
2009). 25, 32, 41
Milligan v. Archuleta, 659 F.3d 1294 (10th Cir. 2011). 8, 21,
39, 50
Mills v. City of Barbourville, 389 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2004).
17, 32, 33, 41
Mills v. Holmes, 95 F.Supp.3d 924 (E.D. Va. 2015). 20, 22
Mills v. Maryland, 108 S.Ct. 1860 (1988). 43
Mills v. Meadows, 1 F.Supp.2d 548 (D.Md. 1998). 31
Mills v. Oliver, 367 F.Supp. 77 (D. Vir. 1973). 29
Miltier v. Beorn, 896 F.2d 848 (4th Cir. 1990). 10, 29
Milton v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 596 F.Supp.2d 63 (D.D.C.
2009). 2, 19
Milwaukee Deputy Sheriffs Ass'n v. Clarke, 513 F.Supp.2d
1014 (E.D.Wisc. 2007). 2, 31
Mims v. Shapp, 399 F.Supp. 818 (W.D. Penn. 1975). 1
Mingo v. Patterson, 455 F.Supp. 1358 (D. Colo. 1978). 1,
47
Minigan v. Irvin, 977 F.Supp. 607 (W.D.N.Y. 1997). 28
Miniken v. Walter, 978 F.Supp. 1356 (E.D.Wash. 1997).
19, 28
Minton v. Childers, 113 F.Supp.3d 796 (D. Md. 2015). 1,
19, 21, 38, 39
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), reh'g. denied, 385
U.S. 890. 1
Miranda v. Munoz, 770 F.2d 255 (1st Cir. 1985). 29
Miranda v. Utah, 629 F.Supp.2d 1256 (D.Utah 2009). 5
Mirmehdi v. U.S., 689 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2012). 7, 27
Missouri v. Jenkins By Agyei, 109 S.Ct. 2463 (1989). 5
Mistretta v. Prokesch, 5 F.Supp.2d 128 (E.D.N.Y. 1998).
16, 32
Mistretta v. Volusia County Dept. of Corrections, 61
F.Supp.2d 1255 (M.D.Fla. 1999). 31
Mitchell v. Angelone, 82 F.Supp.2d 485 (E.D.Va. 1999). 7,
37, 38
Mitchell v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 294 F.3d
1309 (11th Cir. 2002). 1, 27
Mitchell v. Dixon, 862 F.Supp. 95 (E.D.N.C. 1994). 1, 49
Mitchell v. Dodrill, 696 F.Supp.2d 454 (M.D.Pa. 2010). 9,
15, 40, 42

TC-63
XXVI

Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 517 (9th Cir. 1995). 1, 11, 27,
41
Mitchell v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 587 F.3d 415 (D.C.
Cir. 2009). 1, 7
Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523 (3rd Cir. 2003). 1, 11, 21
Mitchell v. Keane, 974 F.Supp. 332 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). 27,
45, 48
Mitchell v. Kirk, 20 F.3d 936 (8th Cir. 1994). 24, 35
Mitchell v. Massachusetts Dept. of Correction, 190
F.Supp.2d 204 (D.Mass. 2002). 7, 13, 20, 34, 50
Mitchell v. Maynard, 80 F.3d 1433 (10th Cir. 1996). 9, 14,
48
Mitchell v. Newryder, 245 F.Supp.2d 200 (D.Me. 2003).
23, 32, 40
Mitchell v. Rappahannock Regional Jail Authority, 703
F.Supp.2d 549 (E.D.Va. 2010). 14, 17, 27, 45
Mitchell v. Shomig, 969 F.Supp. 487 (N.D.Ill. 1997). 1, 10
Mitchell v. Thompson, 18 F.3d 425 (7th Cir. 1994), cert.
denied, 115 S.Ct. 191. 24, 31
Mitchell v. Untreiner, 421 F.Supp. 567 (D. Neb. 1976). 27
Mitchell v. Untreiner, 421 F.Supp. 886 (N.D. Fla. 1976). 1,
8, 15, 18, 23, 25, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 37, 40
Mitts v. Zickefoose, 869 F.Supp.2d 568 (D.N.J. 2012). 11,
20, 22
Mladek v. Day, 293 F.Supp.2d 1297 (M.D.Ga. 2003). 14,
29, 32, 48
Mobile Co. Jail Inmates v. Purvis, 551 F.Supp. 92 (S.D.
Ala. 1982), affirmed, 703 F.2d 580. 4, 9, 15
Moeller v. Bradford County, 444 F.Supp.2d 316 (M.D.Pa.
2006). 13, 34, 37
Moenius v. Stevens, 688 F.Supp. 1054 (D. Maryland,
1988). 8, 25, 32
Moffat v. Broyles, 288 F.3d 978 (7th Cir. 2002). 11, 20
Mohamed v. Tattum, 380 F.Supp.2d 1214 (D.Kan. 2005).
14, 24
Molano v. Bezio, 42 F.Supp.3d 465 (W.D.N.Y. 2012). 11
Molesky v. Walter, 931 F.Supp. 1506 (E.D. Wash. 1996). 1,
30, 33
Molina v. New York, 697 F.Supp.2d 276 (N.D.N.Y. 2010).
26, 29, 32, 48
Molinelli v. Tucker, 901 F.2d 13 (2nd Cir. 1990). 24, 31
Mombourquette v. Amundson, 469 F.Supp.2d 624
(W.D.Wis. 2007), 14, 17, 29, 32
Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Ser. of the City of New York, 98
S.Ct. 2018 (1978). 7, 27
Monie v. State Personnel Bd., 424 N.W.2d 874 (Neb.
1988). 31
Monk v. Williams, 516 F.Supp.2d 343 (D.Del. 2007). 34,
37
Monmouth County Corr. Inst. Inmates v. Lanzaro, 595
F.Supp. 1417 (D. N.J. 1984). 8, 9, 15, 29
Monmouth County Corr. Inst. Inmates v. Lanzaro, 643
F.Supp. 1217 (U.S.D.C. N.J. 1986), cert. denied, 108
S.Ct. 1731. 4, 29
Monmouth County Corr. Inst. Inmates v. Lanzaro, 717
F.Supp. 268 (D. N.J. 1989). 15
Monroe v. Beard, 536 F.3d 198 (3rd Cir. 2008). 1, 35
Monroe v. Bombard, 422 F.Supp 211 (S.D. N.Y. 1976). 37
Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961). 7, 27
Montalvo v. Lamy, 139 F.Supp.3d 597 (W.D.N.Y. 2015). 2,
18, 21, 29, 42
Montalvo v. Snyder, 207 F.Supp.2d 581 (E.D.Ky. 2002).
Montanez v. Secretary Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections,
773 F.3d 472 (3rd Cir. 2014). 1, 4, 35

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Montanez v. Thompson, 603 F.3d 243 (3rd Cir. 2010). 2, 24,
36
Montano-Figueroa v. Crabtree, 162 F.3d 548 (9th Cir.
1998). 4, 22, 35, 43, 50
Montayne v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236 (1976). 1, 7, 47
Montcalm Pub. Corp. v Beck, 80 F.3d 105 (4th Cir. 1996).
19, 28
Montcalm Pub. Corp. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 199
F.3d 168 (4th Cir. 1999). 5
Montero v. Travis, 171 F.3d 757 (2nd Cir. 1999). 24, 36
Montez Estate of Hearlson v. U.S., 359 F.3d 392 (6th Cir.
2004). 14, 24, 27
Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862 (10th Cir. 2000). 22, 47
Montez v. Romer, 32 F.Supp.2d 1235 (D.Colo. 1999). 7, 27
Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2001). 11,
20, 22
Montgomery v. Brookshire, 880 F.Supp. 483 (W.D. Tex.
1995). 31
Montgomery v. Kelly, 526 N.Y.S.2d 274 (A.D. 1988). 38
Montgomery v. Kelly, 661 F.Supp. 1051 (W.D. N.Y. 1987).
19, 37, 38
Montgomery v. Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492 (3rd Cir. 2002). 1, 29
Montoya v. Board of County Com'rs, 506 F.Supp.2d 434
(D.Colo. 2007). 3, 19, 47, 48
Montoya v. Newman, 115 F.Supp.3d 1263 (D. Colo. 2015).
29, 32, 40
Moody v. Baker, 857 F.2d 256 (5th Cir. 1988), cert. denied,
109 S.Ct. 40. 1, 50
Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78 (1976). 36
Moody v. Kearney, 380 F.Supp.2d 393 (D.Del. 2005). 9,
10, 15, 29
Moody v. Miller, 864 F.2d 1178 (5th Cir. 1989). 1, 11
Moody v. Proctor, 986 F.2d 239 (8th Cir. 1993). 29, 39
Moody v. Rodriguez, 164 F.3d 893 (5th Cir. 1999). 7, 43
Moomey v. City of Holland, 490 F.Supp. 188 (W.D. Mich.
1980). 14, 27
Moonblatt v. District of Columbia, 572 F.Supp.2d 15
(D.D.C. 2008). 7, 13, 27
Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 87 (1935). 22
Moore ex rel. Estate of Grady v. Tuelja, 546 F.3d 423 (7th
Cir. 2008). 14, 29, 32, 48
Moore v. Bennette, 517 F.3d 717 (4th Cir. 2008). 21
Moore v. Branson, 755 F.Supp. 268 (E.D. Mo. 1991),
affirmed, 950 F.2d 728. 28
Moore v. Carwell, 168 F.3d 234 (5th Cir. 1999). 1, 37, 41
Moore v. Chavez, 36 Fed.Appx. 169 (6th Cir. 2002). 23, 42,
50
Moore v. Ciccone, 459 F.2d 574 (8th Cir. 1972). 28, 30
Moore v. Clarke, 821 F.2d 518 (8th Cir. 1987). 7, 19
Moore v. County of Alameda, 411 U.S. 693 (1973), reh'g.
denied, 412 U.S. 963. 7, 24
Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86 (1923). 22
Moore v. Dowd, 731 F.Supp. 921 (E.D. Mo. 1990). 3
Moore v. Gardner, 199 F.Supp.2d 17 (W.D.N.Y. 2002). 1,
9, 10, 15, 38
Moore v. Hofbauer, 144 F.Supp.2d 877 (E.D.Mich. 2001).
20, 22, 36
Moore v. Holbrook, 2 F.3d 697 (6th Cir. 1993). 39, 48
Moore v. Hosier, 43 F.Supp.2d 978 (N.D.Ind. 1998). 2, 14,
32, 46, 48
Moore v. Jackson, 123 F.3d 1082 (8th Cir. 1997). 29
Moore v. Janing, 427 F.Supp. 567 (D. Neb. 1976). 1, 8, 15,
18, 27, 32, 34
Moore v. Lehman, 940 F.Supp. 704 (M.D.Pa. 1996). 1, 17,
49

TC-64
XXVI

Moore v. Mabus, 976 F.2d 268 (5th Cir. 1992). 3, 8
Moore v. Morales, 445 F.Supp.2d 1000 (N.D.Ill. 2006). 14,
32, 48
Moore v. Morgan, 922 F.2d 1553 (11th Cir. 1991). 9, 27
Moore v. Novak, 146 F.3d 531 (8th Cir. 1998). 32, 48
Moore v. Peters, 92 F.Supp.3d 109 (W.D.N.Y. 2015). 11,
36
Moore v. Plaster, 313 F.3d 442 (8th Cir. 2002). 1
Moore v. Prison Health Services, Inc., 24 F.Supp.2d 1164
(D.Kan. 1998). 29
Moore v. Schuetzle, 354 F.Supp.2d 1065 (D.N.D. 2005). 1,
28
Moore v. Schuetzle, 486 F.Supp.2d 969 (D.N.D. 2007). 1,
3, 12
Moore v. Selsky, 900 F.Supp. 670 (S.D.N.Y. 1955). 11
Moore v. Smith, 18 F.Supp.2d 1360 (N.D.Ga. 1998). 14,
21, 22
Moore v. Tartler, 986 F.2d 682 (3rd Cir. 1993). 36, 43
Moore v. Thomas, 653 F.Supp.2d 984 (N.D.Cal. 2009). 29,
48
Moore v. Vega, 371 F.3d 110 (2nd Cir. 2004). 36, 41
Moore v. Winebrenner, 927 F.2d 1312 (4th Cir. 1991), cert.
denied, 116 LE2d 69. 14
Moorehead v. Keller, 845 F.Supp.2d 689 (W.D.N.C. 2012).
2, 28, 37, 38
Mooreman v. Sargent, 991 F.2d 472 (8th Cir. 1993). 14
Mooring v. San Francisco Sheriff’s Dept., 289 F.Supp.2d
1110 (N.D.Cal. 2003) 8, 14, 32
Moorman v. Thalacker, 83 F.3d 970 (8th Cir. 1996). 11, 24,
47
Moots v. Lombardi, 453 F.3d 1020 (8th Cir. 2006). 8, 11,
29, 30
Morales Feliciano v. Hernandez Colon, 672 F.Supp. 627
(D. P.R. 1987). 9, 10, 15, 27
Morales Feliciano v. Hernandez Colon, 704 F.Supp. 16 (D.
Puerto Rico 1988). 1
Morales Feliciano v. Romero Bercelo, 672 F.Supp. 591 (D.
P.R. 1986). 9, 32, 34, 39, 42, 50
Morales Feliciano v. Rossello Gonzalez, 13 F.Supp.2d 151
(D.Puerto Rico 1998). 2, 8, 15, 18, 25, 27, 29, 30, 44
Morales Feliciano v. Rullan, 378 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2004). 2,
27, 29, 30
Morales v. GEO Group, Inc., 824 F.Supp.2d 836 (S.D.Ind.
2010). 2, 31
Morales v. Hickman, 438 F.3d 926 (9th Cir. 2006). 10
Morales v. Mackalm, 278 F.3d 126 (2nd Cir. 2002). 7, 21,
29
Morales v. Tilton, 465 F.Supp.2d 972 (N.D.Cal. 2006). 7, 8
Morales v. U.S., 72 F.Supp.3d 826 (W.D.Tenn. 2014). 12,
14, 27, 45
Morales-Feliciano v. Parole Bd. of Com. of P.R., 887 F.2d
1 (1st Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 1511. 15, 27
Morales-Fernandez v. I.N.S., 418 F.3d 1116 (10th Cir.
2005). 22
Mora-Meraz v. Thomas, 601 F.3d 933 (9th Cir. 2010). 2, 22,
34
Moran v. Farrier, 924 F.2d 134 (8th Cir. 1991). 11
Moran v. United States, 18 F.3d 412 (7th Cir. 1994). 1
More v. Farrier, 984 F.2d 269 (8th Cir. 1993), cert. denied,
114 S.Ct. 74. 7, 9, 12
Moreland v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 431 F.3d 180 (5th
Cir. 2005). 20, 22
Moreland v. Miami-Dade County, 255 F.Supp.2d 1304
(S.D.Fla. 2002). 2, 31

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Moreland v. U.S., 932 F.2d 690 (8th Cir. 1991), cert.
denied, 113 S.Ct. 675. 22, 43
Morello v. James, 810 F.2d 344 (2nd Cir. 1987). 1, 35
Moreno v. Buss, 523 F.Supp.2d 878 (N.D.Ind. 2007). 11,
20, 22
Moreno v. State of California, 25 F.Supp.2d 1060 (N.D.Cal.
1998). 36
Morgan v. Arizona Dept. of Corrections, 967 F.Supp. 1184
(D.Ariz. 1997). 1, 21
Morgan v. Arizona Dept. of Corrections, 976 F.Supp. 892
(D.Ariz. 1997). 14, 21
Morgan v. Dept. of Offender Rehab., 305 S.E.2d 130 (Ga.
App. 1983). 31
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 647 F.Supp. 694 (D. D.C.
1986). 11, 49
Morgan v. MacDonald, 41 F.3d 1291 (9th Cir. 1994). 50
Morgan v. Maricopa County, 259 F.Supp.2d 985 (D.Ariz.
2003). 1, 13
Morgan v. NV Bd. of State Prison Commissioners, 615
F.Supp. 882 (D.C. Nev. 1985). 5
Morgan v. Quarterman, 570 F.3d 663 (5th Cir. 2009). 11,
20, 22
Morgan v. Ward, 699 F.Supp. 1025 (N.D.N.Y. 1988). 11,
41
Mori v. Allegheny County, 51 F.Supp.3d 558 (W.D.Pa.
2014). 2, 10, 14, 17, 27, 29, 47
Morin v. Department of Corrections, 727 F.Supp. 699 (D.
Me. 1990). 29, 50
Morissette v. Peters, 45 F.3d 1119 (7th Cir. 1995). 9, 10,
11, 27
Morris v. Carter Global Lee, Inc., 997 F.Supp.2d 27
(D.D.C. 2013). 2, 31
Morris v. City of Alvin, Tex., 950 F. Supp. 804 (S.D.Tex.
1997). 14, 29, 32
Morris v. Corrections Corporation of America, 75
F.Supp.3d 457 (D.D.C. 2014). 9, 10, 13, 14, 15
Morris v. Crawford County, 299 F.3d 919 (8th Cir. 2002).
2, 14, 27, 31, 32
Morris v. Crawford County, Ark., 173 F.Supp.2d 870
(W.D.Ark. 2001). 32, 48
Morris v. Dallas County, 960 F.Supp.2d 665 (N.D.Tex.
2013). 2, 14, 15, 29, 32, 46
Morris v. Eversley, 282 F.Supp.2d 196 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) 13,
14, 17
Morris v. Livingston, 739 F.3d 740 (5th Cir. 2014). 2, 4, 24,
29, 35, 44
Morris v. McCotter, 773 F.Supp. 969 (E.D. Tex. 1991). 36
Morris v. Powell, 449 F.3d 682 (5th Cir. 2006). 21, 47, 50
Morris v. Travisono, 499 F.Supp. 149 (D. R.I. 1980). 8, 9
Morrison v. Cortright, 397 F.Supp.2d 424 (W.D.N.Y.
2005). 7, 41
Morrison v. Davis, 195 F.Supp.2d 1019 (S.D.Ohio 2001). 5
Morrison v. Davis, 88 F.Supp.2d 799 (S.D.Ohio 2000). 5,
27
Morrison v. Garraghty, 239 F.3d 648 (4th Cir. 2001). 7, 37,
38
Morrison v. Hartman, 898 F.Supp.2d 577 (W.D.N.Y. 2012).
7, 14, 48
Morrison v. Martin, 755 F.Supp. 683 (E.D.N.C. 1990). 9,
30
Morrison v. Parmele, 892 F.Supp.2d 485 (W.D.N.Y. 2012).
14, 21
Morrow v. Harwell, 640 F.Supp. 225 (W.D. Tex. 1986). 1
Morrow v. Harwell, 768 F.2d 619 (5th Cir. 1985). 1, 19

TC-65
XXVI

Morse v. Regents of University of California, Berkeley, 821
F.Supp.2d 1112 (N.D.Cal. 2011). 6, 16, 25, 27, 46
Morstad v. Dept. of Corrections & Rehab., 147 F.3d 741
(8th Cir. 1998). 14, 34
Morton v. Bolyard, 810 F.Supp.2d 112 (D.D.C. 2011). 20,
21, 24, 34, 50
Mosby v. Cavey, 686 F.Supp.2d 868 (W.D.Wis. 2010). 29,
32
Mosby v. Mabry, 697 F.2d 213 (8th Cir. 1982). 14, 27, 28,
37
Moser v. Indiana Dept. of Corrections, 406 F.3d 895 (7th
Cir. 2005). 31
Moses v. Dennehy, 523 F.Supp.2d 57 (D.Mass. 2007). 19,
38, 39
Moses v. Westchester County Dept. of Corrections, 951
F.Supp.2d 448 (S.D.N.Y.2013). 2, 14, 29, 30, 48
Mosher v. Nelson, 589 F.3d 488 (1st Cir. 2009). 2, 14, 32,
45, 49
Mosholder v. Barnhardt, 679 F.3d 443 (6th Cir. 2012). 31
Mosier v. Maynard, 937 F.2d 1521 (10th Cir. 1991), cert.
denied, 114 S.Ct. 260. 37
Mosier v. Robinson, 722 F.Supp. 555 (W.D. Ark. 1989). 14,
27, 32
Moss v. Apker, 376 F.Supp.2d 416 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). 2, 22,
43
Moss v. Clark, 886 F.2d 686 (4th Cir. 1989). 20, 22
Moton v. Cowart, 631 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2011). 11, 19, 21
Moulton v. DeSue, 966 F.Supp.2d 1298 (M.D.Fla. 2012).
14, 17, 24, 27, 29, 32
Moussazadeh v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, 703 F.3d
781 (5th Cir. 2012). 2, 4, 18, 21, 35, 37, 39, 44
Mowrey v. Romero, 749 F.Supp. 1097 (M.D. Fla. 1990),
reversed, 963 F.2d 384. 29
Moyers v. Buescher, 806 F.Supp. 218 (E.D.Mo. 1992). 29
Moyle v. Anderson, 571 F.3d 814 (8th Cir. 2009). 2, 8, 14,
25, 32
Moyo v. Gomez, 32 F.3d 1382 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied,
115 S.Ct. 732, modified, 40 F.3d 982. 7
Moyo v. Gomez, 40 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied,
115 S.Ct. 732. 31
Mroz v. City of Tonawanda, 999 F.Supp. 436 (W.D.N.Y.
1998). 14, 26, 32, 36
Mueller v. Raemisch, 740 F.3d 1128 (7th Cir. 2014). 4, 7,
36, 44
Muhammad v. City of New York Dept. of Corrections, 904
F.Supp. 161 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). 37
Muhammad v. Hilbert, 906 F.Supp. 267 (E.D.Pa 1995). 1,
21
Muhammad v. Klotz, 36 F.Supp.2d 240 (E.D.Pa. 1999). 37
Muhammad v. Lynaugh, 966 F.2d 901 (5th Cir. 1992). 37
Muhammad v. McCarrell, 536 F.3d 934 (8th Cir. 2008). 48
Muhammad v. McMickens, 708 F.Supp. 607 (S.D.N.Y.
1989). 27, 37
Muhammad v. Moore, 760 F.Supp. 869 (D. Kan. 1991). 35,
50
Muhammad v. Pitcher, 35 F.3d 1081 (6th Cir. 1994). 28
Muhammad v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 789 F.Supp. 449
(D.D.C. 1992). 8, 29, 33
Muhammad v. Warithu-Deen Umar, 98 F.Supp.2d 337
(W.D.N.Y. 2000). 37
Muhammad-D.C.C. v. Keve, 479 F.Supp. 1311 (D. Del.
1979). 18, 37
Muhammand v. Carlson, 845 F.2d 175 (8th Cir. 1988), cert.
denied, 109 S.Ct. 1346. 8, 29

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Muhammand v. Wainwright, 839 F.2d 1422 (11th Cir.
1987). 11, 24, 37
Muhammed v. U.S., 6 F.Supp.2d 582 (N.D.Tex. 1998). 27,
29
Muhmmaud v. Murphy, 632 F.Supp.2d 171 (D.Conn.
2009). 11
Mujahid v. Crabtree, 999 F.Supp. 1398 (D.Or. 1998). 4, 22,
35
Mujahid v. Daniels, 413 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2005). 20, 22
Mujahid v. Meyer, 59 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 1995). 3, 11
Mujahid v. Sumner, 807 F.Supp. 1505 (D.Hawaii 1992),
affirmed, 996 F.2d 1226. 19, 28
Mulberry v. Neal, 96 F.Supp.2d 1149 (D.Colo. 2000). 22,
36
Mullen v. Unit Manager Weber, 730 F.Supp. 640 (M.D. Pa.
1990). 14, 47
Muller v. Costello, 187 F.3d 298 (2nd Cir. 1999). 31
Mullins v. City of New York, 523 F.Supp.2d 339 (S.D.N.Y.
2007). 2, 31
Mullins v. Smith, 14 F.Supp.2d 1009 (E.D.Mich. 1998). 11
Mullins v. Stratton, 878 F.Supp. 1016 (E.D. Ky. 1995). 14,
46
Mumin v. Phelps, 857 F.2d 1055 (5th Cir. 1988). 37, 39
Munera v. Metro West Detention Center, 351 F.Supp.2d
1353 (S.D.Fla. 2004). 7, 32, 48
Munir v. Kearney, 377 F.Supp.2d 468 (D.Del. 2005). 19,
34, 37, 50
Munir v. Scott, 792 F.Supp. 1472 (E.D.Mich. 1992),
reversed, 12 F.3d 213. 27, 37
Munoz v. Kolender, 208 F.Supp.2d 1125 (S.D.Cal. 2002).
8, 9, 32, 34
Munson v. Gaetz, 673 F.3d 630 (7th Cir. 2012). 19, 35, 38,
42
Munson v. Gaetz, 957 F.Supp.2d 951 (S.D.Ill. 2013). 18,
21, 24, 37
Muntaqim v. Coombe, 366 F.3d 102 (2nd Cir. 2004). 7, 19
Muntaqim v. Coombe, 449 F.3d 371 (2nd Cir. 2006). 7, 19
Munyiri v. Haduch, 585 F.Supp.2d 670 (D.Md. 2008). 17,
25, 27, 32, 41
Munz v. Nix, 908 F.2d 267 (8th Cir. 1990). 1
Murchison v. Rogers, 779 F.3d 882 (8th Cir. 2015). 13, 19,
28
Murcia v. County of Orange, 185 F.Supp.2d 290 (S.D.N.Y.
2002). 25, 32, 41
Murcia v. County of Orange, 226 F.Supp.2d 489 (S.D.N.Y.
2002). 32, 41
Murdock v. Washington, 193 F.3d 510 (7th Cir. 1999) cert
den. 120 S.Ct. 2015. 7, 34
Murphy v. Bray, 51 F.Supp.2d 877 (S.D.Ohio 1999). 29
Murphy v. Carroll, 202 F.Supp.2d 421 (D.Md. 2002). 7, 37,
38, 50
Murphy v. Collins, 26 F.3d 541 (5th Cir. 1994). 1, 11
Murphy v. Dowd, 757 F.Supp. 1019 (E.D. Mo. 1990), cert.
denied, 112 S.Ct. 603, affirmed, 938 F.2d 187. 1
Murphy v. Dowd, 975 F.2d 435 (8th Cir. 1992), cert.
denied, 113 S.Ct. 1310. 10, 27
Murphy v. Franklin, 510 F.Supp.2d 558 (M.D.Ala. 2007).
2, 9, 23, 27, 32
Murphy v. Gilman, 551 F.Supp.2d 677 (W.D.Mich. 2008).
9, 18, 27, 29
Murphy v. Kellar, 950 F.2d 290 (5th Cir. 1992). 1
Murphy v. Lockhart, 826 F.Supp.2d 1016 (E.D.Mich.2011).
3, 19, 28, 37, 39, 50
Murphy v. Missouri Department of Corrections, 814 F.2d
1252 (8th Cir. 1987). 19, 28, 37, 39

TC-66
XXVI

Murphy v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections, 372 F.3d 979 (8th
Cir. 2004). 19, 37
Murphy v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections, 506 F.3d 1111
(8th Cir. 2007). 37
Murphy v. OSCI, 790 P.2d 1179 (Or.App. 1990). 38
Murphy v. Town of Natick, 516 F.Supp.2d 153 (D.Mass.
2007). 2, 31
Murphy v. Walker, 51 F.3d 714 (7th Cir. 1995). 11, 29
Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246 (3rd Cir. 2011). 8, 9
Murray v. Dosal, 150 F.3d 814 (8th Cir. 1998). 1, 4, 35
Murray v. Edwards County Sheriff's Dept., 453 F.Supp.2d
1280 (D.Kan. 2006). 1, 9, 12, 32, 40, 49
Murray v. Giarratano, 109 S.Ct. 2765 (1989). 1
Murray v. Mississippi Dept. of Corrections, 911 F.2d 1167
(5th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 760. 50
Murray v. Prison Health Services, 513 F.Supp.2d 9
(S.D.N.Y. 2007). 1, 21
Murrell v. Bennett, 615 F.2d 306 (5th Cir. 1980). 18, 29
Musgrove v. Broglin, 651 F.Supp. 769 (N.D. Ind. 1986). 14,
48
Muslim v. Frame, 854 F.Supp. 1215 (E.D. Pa. 1994). 18, 37
Muslim v. Frame, 891 F.Supp. 226 (E.D.Pa. 1995). 32, 37,
38
Musser v. County of Centre, 515 A.2d 1027 (Pa. Cmwlth,
1986). 31, 48
Mustafa v. State of Nebraska Dept. of Correctional, 196
F.Supp.2d 945 (D.Neb. 2002). 31
Mutawakkil v. Huibregtse, 735 F.3d 524 (7th Cir. 2013). 2,
19, 37
Myers v. County of Lake, Ind., 30 F.3d 847 (7th Cir. 1994),
cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 666. 14, 26, 27
Myers v. Hundley, 101 F.3d 542 (8th Cir. 1996). 1, 3, 23,
50
Myers v. Klevenhagen, 97 F.3d 91 (5th Cir. 1996). 4, 29, 35
Myers v. Maryland Div. of Correction, 782 F.Supp. 1095
(D. Md. 1992). 8, 25
Myers v. Milbert, 281 F.Supp.2d 859 (N.D.W.Va. 2003) 18,
19, 48
Myers v. Potter, 422 F.3d 347 (6th Cir. 2005). 26, 32
Myles v. U.S., 416 F.3d 551 (7th Cir. 2005). 14, 27
Myrie v. Calvo/Calvoba, 591 F.Supp.2d 620 (S.D.N.Y.
2008). 29, 32
Myrie v. Commissioner, N.J. Dept. of Corrections, 267 F.3d
251 (3rd Cir. 2001). 42, 43
Myron v. Terhune, 457 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2006). 1, 8, 19,
38, 42
Myron v. Terhune, 476 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 2007). 8, 19
N.E.W. v. Kennard, 952 F.Supp. 714 (D.Utah 1997). 5, 32,
49
N.G. v. Connecticut, 382 F.3d 225 (2nd Cir. 2004). 26, 32,
41
N.Y. State Com'n. of Correction v. Ruffo, 530 N.Y.S.2d
469 (Sup. 1988). 12, 15, 44
Nagle v. Gusman, 61 F.Supp.3d 609 (E.D.La. 2014). 14, 27,
30, 32, 45
Nagy v. Corrections Corporation of America, 79 F.Supp.3d
114 (D.D.C. 2015). 14, 17, 48
Nails v. Laplante, 596 F.Supp.2d 475 (D.Conn. 2009). 27,
29
Nakao v. Rushen, 580 F.Supp. 718 (N.D. Cal. 1984). 41
Nakao v. Rushen, 635 F.Supp. 1362 (N.D. Cal. 1986). 28,
33
Nally v. Ghosh, 799 F.3d 756 (7th Cir. 2015). 29
Nam Dang v. Sheriff of Seminole County, Fla., 38
F.Supp.3d 1333 (M.D.Fla. 2014). 29, 32, 46

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63 (3rd Cir. 1996). 1, 3, 10
Nance v. Vieregge, 147 F.3d 589 (7th Cir. 1998). 1, 35
Napier v. Madison County, KY., 238 F.3d 739 (6th Cir.
2001). 29, 32
Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528 (11th Cir. 2002). 9, 27
Naranjo v. Thompson, 809 F.3d 793 (5th Cir. 2015). 1
Nash v. McGinnis, 315 F.Supp.2d 318 (W.D.N.Y. 2004).
28, 33
Nash v. Wennar, 645 F.Supp. 238 (U.S.D.C. Vt. 1986). 29
Nasir v. Morgan, 350 F.3d 366 (3rd Cir. 2003) 19, 28, 38
Natale v. Camden County Correctional Facility, 318 F.3d
575 (3rd Cir. 2003). 29, 32
Native American Council of Tribes v. Weber, 750 F.3d 742
(8th Cir. 2014). 37, 38
Native American Council of Tribes v. Weber, 897
F.Supp.2d 828 (D.S.D. 2012). 37, 38, 39
Naumoff v. Old, 167 F.Supp.2d 1250 (D.Kan. 2001). 14,
27, 32
Navarro v. Adams, 419 F.Supp.2d 1196 (C.D.Cal. 2006). 1,
22, 39, 41
Navedo v. Maloney, 172 F.Supp.2d 276 (D.Mass. 2001). 7,
15, 29
Navejar v. Iyiola, 718 F.3d 692 (7th Cir. 2013). 1, 48
Navin v. Iowa Dept. of Corrections, 843 F.Supp. 500 (N.D.
Iowa 1994). 19, 49
Neal v. Camper, 647 S.W.2d 923 (Mo. App. 1983). 49
Neal v. City of Harvey, Ill., 1 F.Supp.2d 849 (N.D.Ill.
1998). 16, 32
Neal v. Clark, 938 F.Supp. 484 (N.D.Ill. 1996). 3, 9, 10
Neal v. District of Columbia, 131 F.3d 172 (D.C.Cir. 1997).
3, 50
Neal v. Hargrave, 770 F.Supp. 553 (D. Nev. 1991). 20, 36
Neal v. LaRiva, 765 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2014). 22, 27
Neal v. Lewis, 325 F.Supp.2d 1231 (D.Kan. 2004). 35, 37,
38
Neal v. Lewis, 414 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 2005). 19, 37, 38,
39
Neal v. Miller, 778 F.Supp. 378 (W.D. Mich. 1991). 10, 48
Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818 (9th Cir. 1997). 8, 34, 36
Neal V. Shimoda, 905 F.Supp. 813 (D.Hawai'i 1995). 8, 34,
36, 43
Neb. Dept. of Correctional Serv. v. Carroll, 383 N.W.2d
740 (Neb. 1986). 5, 31
Neelley v. Nagle, 138 F.3d 917 (11th Cir. 1998). 22
Neely v. Eshelman, 507 F.Supp. 78 (E.D. Pa. 1981). 36
Nees v. Bishop, 524 F.Supp. 1310 (D.C. Colo. 1981). 1, 27
Neese v. Arpaio, 397 F.Supp.2d 1178 (D.Ariz. 2005). 1, 21
Neff v. Bryant, 772 F.Supp.2d 1318 (D.Nev. 2011). 1, 28,
36
Nei v. Dooley, 372 F.3d 1003 (8th Cir. 2004). 14
Neisler v. Tuckwell, 807 F.3d 225 (7th Cir. 2015). 50
Nelson v. Balazic, 802 F.2d 1077 (8th Cir. 1986). 24, 36
Nelson v. City of Irvine, 143 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 1998). 32,
41
Nelson v. Collins, 455 F.Supp. 727 (D. Md. 1978). 3, 30
Nelson v. Correctional Medical Services, 583 F.3d 522 (8th
Cir. 2009). 17, 24, 29, 48
Nelson v. Coughlin, 538 N.Y.S.2d 360 (A.D. 1989). 11
Nelson v. District of Columbia, 928 F.Supp.2d 210 (D.D.C.
2013). 1, 8, 9, 15, 19, 29, 32, 40, 42
Nelson v. District of Columbia, 953 F.Supp.2d 128 (D.D.C.,
2013). 26, 41
Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F.Supp.2d 946 (S.D.Cal. 2005). 1,
21
Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891 (9th Cir. 2001). 4, 35, 42

TC-67
XXVI

Nelson v. Herdzik, 559 F.Supp. 27 (1983). 12, 27
Nelson v. Heyne, 491 F.2d 352 (7th Cir. 1974), cert. denied,
417 U.S. 976. 26, 30
Nelson v. Michalko, 35 F.Supp.2d 289 (W.D.N.Y. 1999).
11
Nelson v. Miller, 570 F.3d 868 (7th Cir. 2009). 18, 27, 37
Nelson v. Overberg, 999 F.2d 162 (6th Cir. 1993). 14, 27
Nelson v. Prison Health Services, Inc., 991 F.Supp. 1452
(M.D.Fla. 1997). 27, 29, 32
Nelson v. Shuffman, 603 F.3d 439 (8th Cir. 2010). 9, 21, 30,
32
Nelson v. Warden of C.F.C.F., 461 F.Supp.2d 316 (E.D.Pa.
2006). 1
Nerren v. Livingston Police Dept., 86 F.3d 469 (5th Cir.
1996). 29, 32
Nesvold v. Roland, 37 F.Supp.3d 1022 (W.D.Wis. 2014).
31
Nettles v. Griffith, 883 F.Supp. 136 (E.D. Tex. 1995). 3, 4,
8, 10, 14, 27, 39
Neumeyer v. Beard, 421 F.3d 210 (3rd Cir. 2005). 39, 41, 49
Nevada Dept of Corrections v. Cohen, 581 F.Supp.2d 1085
(D.Nev. 2008). 1, 35, 38
Nevada Dept. of Corrections v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014 (9th
Cir. 2011). 1, 35, 38
Neville v. True, 900 F.Supp. 972 (N.D.Ill. 1995). 29, 32
New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benev.
Ass'n, Inc. v. New York, 911 F.Supp.2d 111
(N.D.N.Y. 2012). 2, 31
New York v. Eno, 155 U.S. 89 (1894). 22
Newbrough v. Piedmont Regional Jail Authority, 822
F.Supp.2d 558 (E.D.Va. 2011). 14, 29, 32, 46
Newby v. District of Columbia, 59 F.Supp.2d 35 (D.D.C.
1999). 7, 17, 45, 46
Newell v. Kankakee County Sheriff's Department, 968
F.Supp.2d 973 (C.D.Ill. 2013). 7, 9, 15, 23, 27, 29, 32
Newkirk v. Sheers, 834 F.Supp. 772 (E.D.Pa. 1993). 9, 24,
25, 32, 41
Newlin v. Helman, 123 F.3d 429 (7th Cir. 1997). 1, 4
Newman v. Holmes, 122 F.3d 650 (8th Cir. 1997). 14, 27
Newman v. State of Alabama, 559 F.2d 283 (5th Cir. 1977),
cert. denied, 438 U.S. 915. 29, 42
Newsome v. Lee County, Ala., 431 F.Supp.2d 1189
(M.D.Ala. 2006). 7, 14, 17, 32
Newsome v. Webster, 843 F.Supp. 1460 (S.D. Ga. 1994).
32, 48
Newson v. Norris, 888 F.2d 371 (6th Cir. 1989). 1, 50
Newton v. Black, 133 F.3d 301 (5th Cir. 1998). 14, 24, 27
Ngemi v. County of Nassau, 87 F.Supp.3d 413 (E.D.N.Y.
2015). 4, 16, 43
Ngo v. Woodford, 403 F.3d 620 (9th Cir. 2005). 1
Ngo v. Woodford, 539 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2008). 21
Nguyen v. B.I. Inc., 435 F.Supp.2d 1109 (D.Or. 2006). 2, 6,
22, 36
Nguyen v. Fasano, 84 F.Supp.2d 1099 (S.D.Cal. 2000). 22
Nicastro v. Clinton, 882 F.Supp. 1128 (D.D.C. 1995). 50
Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652 (2nd Cir. 2005). 33, 41
Nicholas v. Miller, 109 F.supp.2d 152 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). 19
Nicholas v. Miller, 189 F.3d 191 (2nd Cir. 1999). 1, 19
Nicholas v. Riley, 874 F.Supp. 10 (D.D.C. 1995). 34
Nicholas v. Tucker, 89 F.Supp.2d 475 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). 1.
11. 38. 50
Nicholas v. Wallenstein, 266 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2001). 31
Nichols v. Hopper, 173 F.3d 820 (11th Cir. 1999). 27
Nicholson v. Carroll, 458 F.Supp.2d 249 (D.Del. 2006). 3,
11, 22

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Nicholson v. Choctaw Co., Ala., 498 F.Supp. 295 (S.D.
Ala. 1980). 18, 25, 29, 38, 40, 46, 49
Nicholson v. Kent County Sheriff's Dept., 839 F.Supp. 508
(W.D. Mich. 1993). 7, 48
Nicholson v. Moran, 835 F.Supp. 692 (D.R.I. 1993). 11
Nicholson v. Moran, 961 F.2d 996 (1st Cir. 1992). 8, 11
Nickens v. Melton, 38 F.3d 183 (5th Cir. 1994). 1, 35
Nicolas v. Rhode Island, 160 F.Supp.2d 229 (D.R.I. 2001).
24, 36
Niece v. Fitzner, 922 F.Supp. 1208 (E.D.Mich. 1996). 7, 19,
47
Niemic v. Maloney, 448 F.Supp.2d 270 (D.Mass. 2006). 29,
33
Niemic v. UMass Correctional Health, 89 F.Supp.3d 193
(D.Mass. 2015). 29
Niemyjski v. City of Albuquerque, 379 F.Supp.2d 1221
(D.N.M. 2005). 32, 46, 48
Nillson-Borrill v. Burnheimer, 505 F.Supp.2d 180 (D.Me.
2007). 14, 17
Nilsen v. York County, 382 F.Supp.2d 206 (D.Me. 2005).
25, 27, 32, 33, 41
Nilsson v. Coughlin, 670 F.Supp. 1186 (S.D. N.Y. 1987). 9,
10, 15, 40
Nishiyama v. Dickson County, Tenn., 814 F.2d 277 (6th
Cir. 1987). 27
Nitcher v. Cline, 899 F.2d 1543 (8th Cir. 1990). 29, 41
Nix v. Evatt, 850 F.Supp. 455 (D.S.C. 1994). 11, 24
Noble v. Adams, 646 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2011). 3, 12, 24,
39
Noble v. Three Forks Regional Jail Authority, 995
F.Supp.2d 736 (E.D.Ky. 2014). 13, 18, 29
Noble v. U.S. Parole Com'n, 194 F.3d 152 (D.C.Cir. 1999).
22, 36
Nobles v. Johnson, 127 F.3d 409 (5th Cir. 1997). 1, 22
Nolley v. County of Erie, 776 F.Supp. 715 (W.D.N.Y.
1991). 1, 8, 17, 29, 33, 37
Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2014). 1, 28
Norfleet v. Walker, 684 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2012). 2, 3, 9, 12
Norfleet v. Webster, 439 F.3d 392 (7th Cir. 2006). 29
Norman v. Schuetzle, 585 F.3d 1097 (8th Cir. 2009). 8, 14
Norman v. Taylor, 9 F.3d 1078 (4th Cir. 1993). 10, 48
Norris v. Corrections Corp. of America, 521 F.Supp.2d 586
(W.D.Ky. 2007). 27
Norris v. Detrick, 918 F.Supp. 977 (N.D.W.Va. 1996). 48
Norris v. Engles, 494 F.3d 634 (8th Cir. 2007). 17, 29, 30,
32, 48
Norris v. Frame, 585 F.2d 1183 (3rd Cir. 1978). 29
Norris v. Premier Integrity Solutions, Inc., 641 F.3d 695 (6th
Cir. 2011). 2, 4, 11, 35
Norsworthy v. Beard, 802 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2015). 17, 29
Norsworthy v. Beard, 87 F.Supp.3d 1104 (N.D.Cal. 2015).
17, 19, 27, 29
Norsworthy v. Beard, 87 F.Supp.3d 1164 (N.D.Cal. 2015).
1, 17, 27, 29
North Emerson-West v. Redman, 630 F.Supp.2d 373
(D.Del. 2009). 27
North River Ins. Co. v. Broward County Sheriff's Office,
428 F.Supp.2d 1284 (S.D.Fla. 2006). 16, 27
Northern v. Hanks, 326 F.3d 909 (7th Cir. 2003). 20, 22
Northern v. Nelson, 315 F.Supp. 687 (N.D. Calif. 1970). 37
Northfield Ins. Co. v. City of Waukegan, 701 F.3d 1124 (7th
Cir. 2012). 7, 16, 27
Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286 (5th Cir. 1997). 1, 4
Norton v. The City of Marietta, OK, 432 F.3d 1145 (10th
Cir. 2005). 48

TC-68
XXVI

Norwood v. Vance, 591 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2010). 12, 39
Norwood v. Woodford, 583 F.Supp.2d 1200 (S.D.Cal.
2008). 12, 24, 39
Norwood v. Woodford, 661 F.Supp.2d 1148 (S.D.Cal.
2009). 10, 12, 39
Novak v. Beto, 453 F.2d 661 (5th Cir. 1971). 1
Nowaczyk v. State of New Hampshire, 882 F.Supp. 18
(D.N.H. 1995). 6, 22
Nowosad v. English, 903 F.Supp. 377 (E.D.N.Y. 1995). 25,
32, 41, 48
Nunes v. Massachusetts Dept. of Correction, 766 F.3d 136
(1st Cir. 2014). 29, 33
Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2010). 39, 41, 50
Nunez v. Horn, 72 F.Supp.2d 24 (N.D.N.Y. 1999). 29
Nusbaum v. Terrangi, 210 F.Supp.2d 784 (E.D.Va. 2002).
20, 34, 37
Nwaokocha v. Sadowski, 369 F.Supp.2d 362 (E.D.N.Y.
2005). 1, 35
O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 119 S.Ct. 1728 (1999). 22
Oare v. Coughlin, 520 N.Y.S.2d 658 (A.D. 3 Dept. 1987).
31
Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489 (7th Cir. 2008). 21, 30,
47
O'Brien v. Borough of Woodbury Heights, 679 F.Supp. 429
(D. N.J. 1988). 27, 32, 41
O'Brien v. Indiana Dept. of Correction ex rel. Turner, 495
F.3d 505 (7th Cir. 2007). 3, 8, 14
O'Bryan v. Bureau of Prisons, 349 F.3d 399 (7th Cir. 2003)
37
O'Bryan v. Saginaw, 446 F.Supp. 436 (E.D. Mich. 1978). 1,
12, 25, 28, 49
O'Bryant v. Finch, 637 F.3d 1207 (11th Cir. 2011). 11, 21
Ocasio v. Konesky, 821 F.Supp.2d 571 (W.D.N.Y. 2011).
29, 34
Ochoa v. U.S., 819 F.2d 366 (2nd Cir. 1987). 36, 43
Ochs v. Thalacker, 90 F.3d 293 (8th Cir. 1996). 3, 8, 29, 37
O'Connell v. County of Northampton, 79 F.Supp.2d 529
(E.D.Pa. 999). 31
O'Conner v. Keller, 510 F.Supp. 1359 (D. Md. 1981). 3, 10,
23, 27, 48
Odd v. Malone, 538 F.3d 202 (3rd Cir. 2008). 16, 24
O'Dell v. Netherland, 112 F.3d 773 (4th Cir. 1997). 1, 49
Odenwalt v. Gillis, 327 F.Supp.2d 502 (M.D.Pa. 2004). 19,
49
Odom v. South Carolina Dept. of Corrections, 349 F.3d 765
(4th Cir. 2003) 14
Odom v. Tripp, 575 F.Supp. 1491 (E.D. Mo. 1983). 28, 32
O'Donnell v. Thomas, 826 F.2d 788 (8th Cir. 1987). 29, 48
Oest v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections, 240 F.3d 605 (7th Cir.
2001). 31
Offet v. Solem, 936 F.2d 363 (8th Cir. 1991). 20, 36, 43
O'Guinn v. Lovelock Correctional Center, 502 F.3d 1056
(9th Cir. 2007). 21, 29, 30
O'Hagan v. Soto, 725 F.2d 878 (2d Cir. 1984). 1, 24
Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard, 118 S.Ct. 1244
(1998). 43
O'Keefe v. Murphy, 860 F.Supp. 748 (E.D. Wash. 1994).
19, 21, 28
O'Keefe v. Van Boening, 82 F.3d 322 (9th Cir. 1996). 1, 21
O'Kelley v. Snow, 53 F.3d 319 (11th Cir. 1995). 36
Oken v. Nuth, 30 F.Supp.2d 877 (D.Md. 1998). 22
Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 105 S.Ct. 2427 (1985), cert.
denied, 106 S.Ct. 16. 7, 27
Olabisiomotosho v. City of Hudson, 185 F.3d 521 (5th Cir.
1999). 29, 32

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Oladipupo v. Austin, 104 F.Supp.2d 626 (W.D.La. 2000). 8,
9. 15, 18, 19, 29, 32, 44
Oladipupo v. Austin, 104 F.Supp.2d 643 (W.D.La. 2000). 8,
9, 32, 39, 40
Oladipupo v. Austin, 104 F.Supp.2d 654 (W.D.La. 2000). 9,
15, 32
Olaniyi v. District of Columbia, 876 F.Supp.2d 39 (D.D.C.
2012). 29, 30, 32, 46
Oldham v. Chandler-Halford, 877 F.Supp. 1340 (N.D. Iowa
1995). 9, 29
Olds v. Hogg, 774 F.Supp. 1202 (E.D. Mo. 1991). 24, 36
O'Leary v. Iowa State Men's Reformatory, 79 F.3d 82 (8th
Cir. 1996). 9, 10, 11, 23
Olgin v. Darnell, 664 F.2d 107 (1981). 32, 39
Olibas v. Gomez, 481 F.Supp.2d 721 (W.D.Tex. 2006). 6, 7
Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238 (1983). 8, 47
Oliva v. Heller, 839 F.2d 37 (2nd Cir. 1988). 24
Olivas v. Corrections Corp. of America, 408 F.Supp.2d 251
(N.D.Tex. 2006). 2, 27, 29
Oliver v. Collins, 914 F.2d 56 (5th Cir. 1990). 48
Oliver v. Deen, 77 F.3d 156 (7th Cir. 1996). 8, 9, 10, 29
Oliver v. Fauver, 118 F.3d 175 (3rd Cir. 1997). 1, 28
Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623 (9th Cir. 2002). 7, 9, 15, 32
Oliver v. Powell, 250 F.Supp.2d 593 (E.D.Va. 2002). 9, 10,
28, 39
Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736 (5th Cir. 2002). 7, 17, 33, 41,
45
O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614 (9th Cir. 1990). 1, 29
Olsen v. Klecker, 642 F.2d 1115 (8th Cir. 1981). 39, 41
Olson v. Brown, 594 F.3d 577 (7th Cir. 2010). 1, 27
Olson v. Loy, 951 F.Supp. 225 (S.D.Ga. 1996). 19, 38
Olson v. Morgan, 750 F.3d 708 (7th Cir. 2014). 14, 29
Olson v. Stotts, 9 F.3d 1475 (10th Cir. 1993). 29
Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136 (9th Cir. 1987). 1
Oluwa v. Gomez, 133 F.3d 1237 (9th Cir. 1998). 18, 37
Olynick v. Taylor County, 643 F.Supp. 1100 (W.D. Wis.
1986). 16, 17, 24, 47, 50
Omar v. Casterline, 288 F.Supp.2d 775 (W.D.La. 2003) 8,
32, 37, 41
Omar v. Casterline, 414 F.Supp.2d 582 (W.D.La. 2006). 18,
24, 32, 37
O'Neil v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, 804 F.Supp.2d
532 (N.D.Tex. 2011). 14, 24, 29, 50
Onishea v. Hopper, 171 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 1999). 7, 8,
34, 37, 38, 50
Opalec v. Curry, 556 F.Supp.2d 1036 (N.D.Cal. 2008). 22,
36
O'Quinn v. Manuel, 767 F.2d 174 (5th Cir. 1985). 14, 27,
45
Orange v. Fielding, 517 F.Supp.2d 776 (D.S.C. 2007). 14,
27, 32
Orebaugh v. Caspari, 910 F.2d 526 (8th Cir. 1990). 35
Oregon Advocacy Center v. Mink, 322 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir.
2003). 1, 30, 47
Orem v. Rephann, 523 F.3d 442 (4th Cir. 2008). 17, 32, 48
Ornelas v. Giurbino, 358 F.Supp.2d 955 (S.D.Cal. 2005). 7
Orr v. Hawk, 156 F.3d 651 (6th Cir. 1998). 34, 36, 43
Orr v. Larkins, 610 F.3d 1032 (8th Cir. 2010). 3, 9, 29, 30
Orr v. Trumbull County, 77 F.Supp.2d 853 (N.D.Ohio
1999). 31
Ort v. White, 813 F.2d 318 (11th Cir. 1987). 10, 11, 50
Ortega Melendres v. Arpaio, 598 F.Supp.2d 1025 (D.Ariz.
2009). 7, 16, 27, 32
Ortiz Gonzalez v. Otero De Ramos, 737 F.Supp. 9 (D.
Puerto Rico 1990). 11, 47

TC-69
XXVI

Ortiz v. City of Chicago, 656 F.3d 523 (7th Cir. 2011). 14,
17, 24, 29, 32
Ortiz v. Downey, 561 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. 2009). 1, 32, 37, 38
Ortiz v. Fort Dodge Correctional Facility, 368 F.3d 1024
(8th Cir. 2004). 19, 28, 38
Ortiz v. Lasker, 590 F.Supp.2d 423 (W.D.N.Y. 2008). 14,
17
Ortiz v. Turner, 651 F.Supp. 309 (S.D. Ill. 1987). 27, 44
Ortiz v. Voinovich, 211 F.Supp.2d 917 (S.D.Ohio 2002). 3,
14, 17
Orwat v. Maloney, 360 F.Supp.2d 146 (D.Mass. 2005). 14,
48
Osborn v. Mason, 359 F.Supp. 1107 (D. Conn. 1973). 11
Oses v. Fair, 739 F.Supp. 707 (D. Mass. 1990). 10
Oses v. U.S., 833 F.Supp. 49 (D. Mass. 1993). 43
Osorio v. Rios, 429 F.Supp. 570 (D. P.R. 1976). 26
Ospina v. Department of Corrections, State of Del., 749
F.Supp. 572 (D. Del. 1990). 24, 48
Osterback v. McDonough, 549 F.Supp.2d 1337 (M.D.Fla.
2008). 10, 14, 15, 27, 30, 44
Ostrander v. Horn, 145 F.Supp.2d 614 (M.D.Pa. 2001). 39
Oswald v. Graves, 819 F.Supp. 680 (E.D.Mich. 1993). 1
Oswalt v. Godinez, 894 F.Supp. 1181 (N.D.Ill. 1995). 11
Overbay v. Lilliman, 572 F.Supp. 174 (W.D. Mo. 1983).
27, 46, 48
Overturf v. Massie, 385 F.3d 1276 (10th Cir. 2004). 22, 47
Owen v. City of Independence, Mo., 100 S.Ct. 1398 (1980),
reh'g. denied, 100 S.Ct. 2979. 7, 24, 31
Owen v. Heyne, 473 F.Supp. 345 (N.D. Ind. 1978). 3
Owen v. Wille, 117 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 1997). 19, 28, 38
Owens v. City of Atlanta, 780 F.2d 1564 (11th Cir. 1986).
14, 25, 27, 48
Owens v. City of Philadelphia, 6 F.Supp.2d 373 (E.D.Pa.
1998). 14, 32, 46
Owens v. Haas, 601 F.2d 1242 (2nd Cir. 1979), cert.
denied, 444 U.S. 980. 7, 27, 46
Owens v. Libhart, 729 F.Supp. 1510 (M.D. Pa. 1990),
affirmed, 925 F.2d 419. 11
Owens v. Sebelius, 357 F.Supp.2d 1281 (D.Kan. 2005). 4,
23, 36
Owens-Ali v. Pennell, 672 F.Supp.2d 647 (D.Del. 2009). 1,
18, 24, 37
Owensby v. City of Cincinnati, 414 F.3d 596 (6th Cir.
2005). 29, 32, 48
Owens-El v. Robinson, 442 F.Supp. 1368 (W.D. Penn.
1978). 11, 48
Owens-El v. Robinson, 457 F.Supp. 984 (W.D. Penn.
1978). 19, 30, 49
Owens-El v. Robinson, 498 F.Supp. 877 (W.D. Penn.
1980). 5
Oxendine v. Kaplan, 241 F.3d 1272 (10th Cir. 2001). 29
Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405 (4th Cir. 1975). 49
Oyedeji v. Ashcroft, 332 F.Supp.2d 747 (M.D.Pa. 2004). 22
PA Prison Soc. v. Cortes, 622 F.3d 215 (3rd Cir. 2010). 36,
43, 44
Pabon v. LeFevre, 508 N.Y.S.2d 95 (A.D. 3 Dept. 1986). 41
Pabon v. Wright, 459 F.3d 241 (2nd Cir. 2006). 29
Pabon v. Wright, 459 F.3d 241 (2nd Cir. 2006). 29, 33
Pace v. Oliver, 634 F.2d 302 (5th Cir. 1981). 2, 11
Pacheco v. Comisse, 897 F.Supp. 671 (N.D.N.Y. 1995). 1,
37
Pacheco-Camacho v. Hood, 272 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001).
20
Pack v. Artuz, 348 F.Supp.2d 63 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). 9, 15

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Packett v. Clarke, 910 F.Supp. 469 (D.Neb. 1996). 19, 28,
38, 39
Padgett v. Donald, 401 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2005). 33, 41
Padgett v. Ferrero, 294 F.Supp.2d 1338 (N.D.Ga. 2003). 33,
41
Padgett v. Stein, 406 F.Supp. 287 (M.D. Penn. 1975). 1, 4,
18, 23, 29, 32, 34, 40, 44
Padilla v. Miller, 143 F.Supp.2d 479 (M.D.Pa. 2001). 16
Padilla v. Yoo, 633 F.Supp.2d 1005 (N.D.Cal.2009). 1, 7,
16, 27, 32, 37, 48
Pagan v. Dubois, 884 F.Supp. 25 (D.Mass. 1995). 7, 19
Page v. DeLaune, 837 F.2d 233 (5th Cir. 1988). 19, 31
Page v. Kirby, 314 F.Supp.2d 619 (N.D.W.Va. 2004). 18,
27, 29
Page v. Mancuso, 999 F.Supp.2d 269 (D.D.C. 2013). 27,
32, 36, 41
Page v. Norvell, 186 F.Supp.2d 1134 (D.Or. 2000). 29, 30
Page v. Sharpe, 487 F.2d 567 (1st Cir. 1973). 7, 29
Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2000). 1, 30
Pagels v. Morrison, 335 F.3d 736 (8th Cir. 2003). 14
Pahk v. Hawaii, 109 F.Supp.2d 1262 (D.Hawai'i 2000). 27,
36
Paine v. Cason, 678 F.3d 500 (7th Cir. 2012). 7, 14, 17, 24,
25, 27, 29, 30, 32, 36
Paine v. Johnson, 689 F.Supp.2d 1027 (N.D.Ill. 2010). 14,
17, 24, 30, 32, 34, 36
Pak v. Reno, 8 F.Supp.2d 1001 (N.D.Ohio 1998). 22
Pak v. U.S., 278 F.Supp.2d 263 (D.Conn. 2003). 34
Palmer v. Board of Com'rs for Payne County Oklahoma,
765 F.Supp.2d 1289 (W.D.Okla. 2011). 29, 32, 46
Palmer v. Flore, 3 F.Supp.3d 632 (E.D.Mich. 2014). 1, 3, 21
Palmer v. Johnson, 193 F.3d 346 (5th Cir. 1999). 9, 10, 23,
29, 40, 50
Palmer v. Marion County, 327 F.3d 588 (7th Cir. 2003). 14,
32
Palmer v. Richards, 364 F.3d 60 (2nd Cir. 2004). 3, 11, 24
Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2009). 1, 10
Palmermo v. Correctional Medical Services Inc., 133
F.Supp.2d 1348 (S.D.Fla. 2001). 29
Palmigiano v. DiPrete, 710 F.Supp. 875 (D. R.I. 1989). 9,
27
Palmigiano v. DiPrete, 737 F.Supp. 1257 (D. R.I. 1990). 6,
9, 20
Palmigiano v. Garrahy, 616 F.2d 598 (1st Cir. 1980), cert.
denied, 449 U.S. 839. 5
Palmigiano v. Garrahy, 639 F.Supp. 244 (D. R.I. 1986). 9
Palmigiano v. Garrahy, 707 F.2d 636 (1st Cir. 1983). 5
Palmigiano v. Sundlun, 482 F.Supp.2d 207 (D.R.I. 2007).
27
Palmigiano v. Travisono, 317 F.Supp. 776 (D. R.I. 1970). 1,
19, 44
Panayoty v. Annucci, 898 F.Supp.2d 469 (N.D.N.Y. 2012).
37, 38, 39
Pannell v. McBride, 306 F.3d 499 (7th Cir. 2002). 11, 22
Paoli v. Lally, 636 F.Supp. 1252 (D. Md. 1986), cert.
denied, 108 S.Ct. 184, affirmed, 812 F.2d 1489. 8, 47
Papa v. U.S., 281 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2002). 27
Para-Profess. Law Clinic, SCI-Graterford v. Beard, 334
F.3d 301 (3rd Cir. 2003). 1, 27
Pardo v. Hosier, 946 F.2d 1278 (7th Cir. 1991). 3, 8, 11
Pardue Ex Rel. Christian v. Ashe, 36 Fed.Appx. 199 (6th
Cir. 2002). 14, 25. 32
Parette v. Lockhart, 927 F.2d 367 (8th Cir. 1991). 22
Pargo v. Elliot, 894 F.Supp. 1243 (S.D.Iowa 1995). 17, 19,
34, 50

TC-70
XXVI

Pargo v. Elliott, 49 F.3d 1355 (8th Cir. 1995). 17, 34
Parisie v. Morris, 873 F.Supp. 1560 (N.D. Ga. 1995). 27, 36
Parkell v. Danberg, 871 F.Supp.2d 341 (D.Del. 2012). 3, 9,
29
Parkell v. Morgan, 917 F.Supp.2d 328 (D.Del. 2013). 1, 18,
32, 37
Parker v. Asher, 701 F.Supp. 192 (D. Nev. 1988). 10, 48
Parker v. Bladen County, 583 F.Supp.2d 736 (E.D.N.C.
2008). 14, 17, 46, 48
Parker v. Conway, 581 F.3d 198 (3rd Cir. 2009). 5
Parker v. Kelly, 529 N.Y.S.2d 662 (A.D. 1988). 38
Parker v. McKeithen, 488 F.2d 553 (5th Cir. 1974), cert.
denied, 419 U.S. 838. 14
Parker v. Shade, 872 F.Supp. 573 (E.D. Wis. 1994). 3
Parker v. Vose, 875 F.Supp. 954 (D.R.I. 1994). 11
Parker v. Williams, 855 F.2d 763 (11th Cir. 1988). 14, 24,
31
Parker v. Williams, 862 F.2d 1471 (11th Cir. 1989). 27
Parkerson v. State, 274 S.E.2d 799 (Ct. App. Ga. 1980). 43
Parkinson v. Goord, 116 F.Supp.2d 390 (W.D.N.Y. 2000).
7, 29
Parkus v. Delo, 135 F.3d 1232 (8th Cir. 1998). 48
Parlin v. Cumberland County, 659 F.Supp.2d 201 (D.Me.
2009). 13, 17, 29, 46, 48
Parnell v. Waldrep, 511 F.Supp. 764 (W.D. N.C. 1981). 12,
19, 28
Parnell v. Waldrep, 538 F.Supp. 1203 (W.D. N.C. 1982). 1,
12, 27
Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981). 7, 19, 27, 35
Parrish Ex Rel Lee v. Cleveland, 372 F.3d 294 (4th Cir.
2004). 14, 32
Parrish v. Ball, 594 F.3d 993 (8th Cir. 2010). 14, 17, 27, 32,
46
Parrish v. Mallinger, 133 F.3d 612 (8th Cir. 1998). 2, 4, 35
Parrott v. U.S., 536 F.3d 629 (7th Cir. 2008). 14, 27, 35
Parsons v. Pitzer, 149 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 1998). 22, 34, 43
Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2014). 9, 27, 29, 30
Partee v. Cook County Sheriff's Office, 863 F.Supp. 778
(N.D. Ill. 1994). 1
Partelow v. Massachusetts, 442 F.Supp.2d 41 (D.Mass.
2006). 9, 15, 29
Partridge v. Two Unknown Police Officers of Houston, 791
F.2d 1182 (5th Cir. 1986). 29, 30
Partridge v. Two Unknown Police Officers, 751 F.2d 1448
(5th Cir. 1985). 14, 25, 27, 29
Parzyck v. Prison Health Services, Inc., 627 F.3d 1215 (11th
Cir. 2010). 1, 21
Patchette v. Nix, 952 F.2d 158 (8th Cir. 1991). 9, 49
Pate v. Peel, 256 F.Supp.2d 1326 (N.D.Fla. 2003). 21, 29,
50
Patel v. Fleming, 415 F.3d 1105 (10th Cir. 2005). 1, 9, 10
Patel v. Moron, 897 F.Supp.2d 389 (E.D.N.C. 2012). 1, 7,
11, 21, 24, 27
Patel v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 515 F.3d 807 (8th Cir.
2008). 18, 37
Patrick v. Lewis, 397 F.Supp.2d 1134 (D.Minn. 2005). 14,
25, 29, 32
Patrick v. Raemisch, 550 F.Supp.2d 859 (W.D.Wis. 2008).
34, 36
Patrick v. Redman, 818 F.Supp. 86 (D. Del. 1993). 36, 7
Patsy v. Bd. of Regents of the State of Florida, 102 S.Ct.
2557 (1982). 7
Patterson v. Balsamico, 440 F.3d 104 (2nd Cir. 2006). 2, 5,
27, 31
Patterson v. Coughlin, 905 F.2d 564 (2nd Cir. 1990). 11

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Patterson v. Hopkins, 350 F.Supp. 676 (N.D. Miss. 1972).
15, 26
Patterson v. Knowles, 162 F.3d 574 (10th Cir. 1998). 20,
22, 36
Patterson v. Pearson, 19 F.3d 439 (8th Cir. 1994). 29
Patterson v. Webster, 760 F.Supp. 150 (E.D. Mo. 1991). 34,
36
Patton v. Fenton, 491 F.Supp. 156 (M.D. Pa. 1979). 36
Patton v. Jefferson Correctional Center, 136 F.3d 458 (5th
Cir. 1998). 1
Paul P. v. Farmer, 80 F.Supp.2d 320 (D.N.J. 2000). 7, 13,
33
Paul P. v. Verniero, 170 F.3d 396 (3rd Cir. 1999). 33, 36
Paulone v. City of Frederick, 718 F.Supp.2d 626 (D.Md.
2010). 7, 29, 34, 42
Pauls v. Green, 816 F.Supp.2d 961 (D.Idaho 2011). 1, 14,
17, 21, 32, 45, 46
Paulsen v. Daniels, 413 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2005). 2, 22, 34,
36
Pavey v. Conley, 528 F.3d 494 (7th Cir. 2008). 21, 48
Paydon v. Hawk, 960 F.Supp. 867 (D.N.J. 1997). 22, 43
Payne for Hicks v. Churchich, 161 F.3d 1030 (7th Cir.
1998). 14, 32
Payne v. Axelrod, 871 F.Supp. 1551 (N.D.N.Y. 1995). 11,
24
Payne v. Collins, 986 F.Supp. 1036 (E.D.Tex. 1997). 14
Payne v. Friel, 919 F.Supp.2d 1185 (D.Utah 2013). 3, 47
Payne v. Monroe County, 779 F.Supp. 1330 (S.D. Fla.
1991). 14
Payton v. Cannon, 806 F.3d 1109 (7th Cir. 2015). 19, 28
Payton v. County of Kane, 308 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 2002). 4,
6, 32, 36
Payton v. Horn, 49 F.Supp.2d 791 (E.D.Pa. 1999). 4, 35
Payton v. United States, 636 F.2d 132 (5th Cir. 1981). 36
Paz v. Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, 787 F.2d
469 2 (10th Cir. 1986). 22, 36
Paz v. Weir, 137 F.Supp.2d 782 (S.D.Tex. 2001). 14, 17
Peacock v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 199
F.Supp.2d 306 (D.Md. 2002). 16, 32
Pearl v. Cason, 219 F.Supp.2d 820 (E.D.Mich. 2002). 1, 22
Pearson v. Ramos, 237 F.3d 881 (7th Cir. 2001). 11, 12
Pearson v. Secretary Dept. of Corrections, 775 F.3d 598 (3rd
Cir. 2015). 1, 21, 50
Pearson v. Simms, 345 F.Supp.2d 515 (D.Md. 2003). 1, 28
Pearson v. Vaughn, 102 F.Supp.2d 282 (E.D.Pa. 2000). 14
Pearson v. Welborn, 471 F.3d 732 (7th Cir. 2006). 5, 19, 27
Peate v. McCann, 294 F.3d 879 (7th Cir. 2002). 14, 39
Peckham v. Wisconsin Dept. Of Corrections, 141 F.3d 694
(7th Cir. 1998). 39, 41
Peddle v. Sawyer, 64 F.Supp.2d 12 (D.Conn. 1999). 7, 9,
14, 17
Pedraza v. Meyer, 919 F.2d 317 (5th Cir. 1990). 29, 32
Pedro v. Oregon Parole Board, 825 F.2d 1396 (9th Cir.
1987), cert. denied, 108 S.Ct. 726. 36
Peebles v. Frey, 617 F.Supp. 1072 (D.C. Mo. 1985). 48
Peek v. Ciccone, 288 F.Supp. 329 (W.D. Mo. 1968). 28
Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (1974). 19, 39, 49
Pella v. Adams, 638 F.Supp. 94 (D. Nev. 1986). 41
Pella v. Adams, 723 F.Supp. 1394 (D. Nev. 1989). 11
Pelland v. Rhode Island, 317 F.Supp.2d 86 (D.R.I. 2004).
43
Pelletier v. Magnuson, 201 F.Supp.2d 148 (D.Me. 2002).
14, 29, 30
Pelletier v. Magnusson, 195 F.Supp.2d 214 (D.Me. 2002).
14, 30

TC-71
XXVI

Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 106 S.Ct. 1292 (1986). 7, 27
Pena v. Greffet, 108 F.Supp.3d 1030 (D.N.M. 2015). 27, 48
Pena v. Greffet, 110 F.Supp.3d 1103 (D.N.M. 2015). 14,
17, 24, 27
Pena v. Greffet, 922 F.Supp.2d 1187 (D.N.M. 2013). 2, 3,
7, 13, 14, 17, 21
Pendergrass v. Hannigan, 788 F.Supp. 488 (D. Kan. 1992).
10, 50
Pendergrass v. Hodge, 53 F.Supp.2d 838 (E.D.Va. 1999).
39
Peniman v. Cartwright, 550 F.Supp. 1302 (S.D. Iowa 1982).
5
Penland v. Long, 922 F.Supp. 1085 (W.D.N.C. 1996). 2, 31
Penn v. Escorsio, 764 F.3d 102 (1st Cir. 2014). 14, 32
Pennington v. Taylor, 343 F.Supp.2d 508 (E.D.Va. 2004). 8
Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation v. Scott, 118 S.Ct. 2014
(1998). 36, 41
Pennsylvania Bur. of Correction v. U.S. Marshals, 106 S.Ct.
355 (1985). 1, 2, 4, 22
Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey, 118 S.Ct.
1952 (1998). 7, 8, 29
Pennsylvania Prison Soc. v. Cortes, 508 F.3d 156 (3rd Cir.
2007). 43, 44
Pennsylvania Prison Society v. Rendell, 419 F.Supp.2d 651
(M.D.Pa. 2006). 7, 36, 43
Penrod v. Zavaras, 94 F.3d 1399 (10th Cir. 1996). 1, 21, 23,
50
Pentlarge v. Murphy, 541 F.Supp.2d 421 (D.Mass. 2008). 7,
24, 34
People Ex Rel Vega v. Smith, 485 N.E.2d 997 (N.Y. 1985).
11, 38
People ex rel. Martin v. Smith, 457 N.Y.S.2d 390 (Sup. Ct.
1982). 11, 22
People Ex Rel. Reed v. Scully, 531 N.Y.S.2d 196 (Sup.
1988). 11, 22
People v. Cheeks, 493 N.Y.S.2d 518 (A.D. 3 Dept. 1985).
38
People v. Greenwald, 445 N.Y.S.2d 865 (App. Div. 1982).
35, 41
People v. McCaslin, 223 Cal. Rptr. 587 (Cal. App. 1 Dist.
1986). 28
People v. Nagel, 38 CrL 2101 (Ill. App. Ct., 4th Dist. 1985).
32, 41
People v. Roth, 397 N.W.2d 196 (Mich. App. 1986). 41, 43
People v. West, 37 CrL 2359 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1985).
41
People v. Whitfield, 488 N.E.2d 1087 (Ill. App. 5 Dist.
1986). 31, 41
Peoples v. CCA Detention Centers, 422 F.3d 1090 (10th Cir.
2005). 1, 3, 8, 19, 32, 33, 39
Peoples v. Fischer, 898 F.Supp.2d 618 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). 3,
9, 10, 24
Pepper v. Carroll, 423 F.Supp.2d 442 (D.Del. 2006). 1, 2, 3,
10, 19, 39, 41, 42
Peralta v. Dillard, 704 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2013). 2, 29
Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2014). 2, 29
Peranzo v. Coughlin, 608 F.Supp. 1504 (D.C. N.Y. 1985).
11, 41
Percy v. Jabe, 823 F.Supp. 445 (E.D.Mich. 1993). 11, 49
Perez Olivo v. Gonzalez, 384 F.Supp.2d 536 (D.Puerto
Rico 2005). 29, 39, 48
Perez v. Cate, 632 F.3d 553 (9th Cir. 2011). 5
Perez v. Coughlin, 536 N.Y.S.2d 207 (A.D. 3 Dept. 1988).
11

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Perez v. County of Westchester, 83 F.Supp.2d 435
(S.D.N.Y. 2000). 13, 29, 30
Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 2015). 1, 10, 21,
29
Perez v. Frank, 433 F.Supp.2d 955 (W.D.Wis. 2006). 19, 37
Perez v. Illinois, 488 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2007). 31
Perez v. Metropolitan Correctional Center Warden, 5
F.Supp.2d 208 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). 1, 35
Perez v. Oakland County, 380 F.Supp.2d 830 (E.D.Mich.
2005). 14, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 45
Perez v. Oakland County, 466 F.3d 416 (6th Cir. 2006). 8,
14, 30
Perez v. Westchester County Dept. of Corrections, 587 F.3d
143 (2nd Cir. 2009). 5
Perez-Garcia v. Village of Mundelein, 396 F.Supp.2d 907
(N.D.Ill. 2005). 2, 7, 16, 25, 32, 36
Perez-Olivo v. Chavez, 394 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2005). 20, 22
Perkins v. Brown, 285 F.Supp.2d 279 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) 14,
29, 32, 41, 48
Perkins v. Grimes, 161 F.3d 1127 (8th Cir. 1998). 14, 32
Perkins v. Kansas Dept. of Corrections, 165 F.3d 803 (10th
Cir. 1999). 12, 29
Perkins v. Lawson, 312 F.3d 872 (7th Cir. 2002). 14, 27, 29
Perko v. Bowers, 945 F.2d 1038 (8th Cir. 1991), cert.
denied, 112 S.Ct. 1482. 1
Perkowski v. City of Detroit, 794 F.Supp. 223 (E.D.Mich.
1992). 14
Perro v. State, 517 So.2d 258 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1987). 27, 50
Perry v. Davies, 757 F.Supp. 1223 (D. Kan. 1991). 25, 37,
38
Perry v. Dickhaut, 125 F.Supp.3d 285 (D. Mass. 2015). 8,
14, 15, 48
Perry v. McGinnis, 209 F.3d 597 (6th Cir. 2000). 31
Perry v. Roy, 782 F.3d 73 (1st Cir. 2015). 29
Perry v. Secretary, Florida Dept. of Corrections, 664 F.3d
1359 (11th Cir. 2011). 7, 19, 28, 38, 39
Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972). 2, 31
Persechini v. Callaway, 651 F.3d 802 (8th Cir. 2011). 11,
34, 43
Pesci v. Budz, 730 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2013). 7, 19, 35
Petaway v. City of New Haven Police Dept., 541 F.Supp.2d
504 (D.Conn. 2008). 1, 16, 32
Peters v. City of Biloxi, Mississippi, 57 F.Supp.2d 366
(S.D.Miss. 1999). 32, 48
Peters v. Risdal, 786 F.3d 1095 (8th Cir. 2015). 17, 25, 32,
33, 48
Petersen v. Utah Dept. of Corrections, 301 F.3d 1182 (10th
Cir. 2002). 31
Peterson v. Davis, 551 F.Supp. 137 (D. Md. 1982). 24, 48
Peterson v. Johnson, 714 F.3d 905 (6th Cir. 2013). 11, 21
Peterson v. Scully, 707 F.Supp. 759 (S.D.N.Y. 1989). 29
Peterson v. Shanks, 149 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. 1998). 1
Peterson v. Tomaselli, 469 F.Supp.2d 146 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).
16, 36
Petition of Anderson, 772 F.2d 510 (Wash. 1989), cert.
denied, 110 S.Ct. 565. 11, 17, 38
Petition of Johnston, 745 F.2d 864 (Wash. 1987). 41, 43
Petrazzoulo v. U.S. Marshals Service, 999 F.Supp. 401
(W.D.N.Y. 1998). 27, 29, 32
Petrichko v. Kurtz, 117 F.Supp.2d 467 (E.D.Pa. 2000). 29
Petrichko v. Kurtz, 52 F.Supp.2d 503 (E.D.Pa. 1999). 29,
45, 46
Petrick v. Maynard, 11 F.3d 991 (10th Cir. 1993). 1
Petrig v. Folz, 581 F.Supp.2d 1013 (S.D.Ind. 2008). 14, 29

TC-72
XXVI

Petrolino v. County of Spokane, 678 F.Supp.2d 1082
(E.D.Wash. 2009). 32, 48
Petrone v. Pike County Probation Dept., 240 F.Supp.2d 317
(M.D.Pa. 2002). 14, 36
Petties v. Carter, 795 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2015). 29
Pettit v. Smith, 45 F.Supp.3d 1099 (D.Ariz. 2014). 1, 48
Pettus v. McGinnis, 533 F.Supp.2d 337 (W.D.N.Y. 2008).
11, 19, 24
Pettus v. Wright, 514 F.Supp.2d 436 (W.D.N.Y. 2007). 29
Petty v. Stine, 424 F.3d 509 (6th Cir. 2005). 20, 22
Petzak v. Nevada ex rel. Department of Corrections, 579
F.Supp.2d 1330 (D.Nev. 2008). 24, 31, 44
Peyton v. Rowe, 88 S.Ct. 1549 (1968). 22, 43
Pfeil v. Lampert, 11 F.Supp.3d 1099 (D.Wyo. 2014). 37, 38
Phelps v. Dunn, 770 F.Supp. 346 (E.D. Ky. 1991). 7, 37, 39
Phelps v. Kapnolas, 308 F.3d 180 (2nd Cir. 2002). 18
Phelps v. Tucker, 370 F.Supp.2d 792 (N.D.Ind. 2005). 11
Phiffer v. Columbia River Correctional Inst., 384 F.3d 791
(9th Cir. 2004). 9, 24, 27
Philadelphia Inquirer v. Wetzel, 906 F.Supp.2d 362
(M.D.Pa. 2012). 10, 19, 33, 39
Phillips Ex Rel. Phillips v. Monroe County, Miss., 311 F.3d
369 (5th Cir. 2002). 29
Phillips v. Booker, 76 F.Supp.2d 1183 (D.Kan. 1999). 4, 22,
35, 43, 50
Phillips v. Brennan, 969 F.2d 384 (7th Cir. 1992), cert.
denied, 113 S.Ct. 990. 36
Phillips v. Girdich, 408 F.3d 124 (2nd Cir. 2005). 7
Phillips v. Hust, 338 F.Supp.2d 1148 (D.Or. 2004). 1
Phillips v. Hust, 477 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2007). 1, 27
Phillips v. Hust, 507 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2007). 1, 27
Phillips v. Hust, 588 F.3d 652 (9th Cir. 2009). 1, 24, 27
Phillips v. Jasper County Jail, 437 F.3d 791 (8th Cir. 2006).
1, 8, 29
Phillips v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 731 F.Supp. 792
(W.D. Mich. 1990), affirmed, 932 F.2d 969. 17, 29,
30
Phillips v. Monroe County, Mississippi, 143 F.Supp.2d 663
(N.D.Miss. 2001). 29
Phillips v. Norris, 320 F.3d 844 (8th Cir. 2003). 3, 11, 12,
49
Phillips v. Roane County, Tenn., 534 F.3d 531 (6th Cir.
2008). 2, 17, 24, 29, 32, 46
Phillips v. True, 992 F.Supp. 1255 (D.Kan. 1998). 22, 36
Phillips v. U.S., 836 F.Supp. 965 (N.D.N.Y. 1993). 1, 7, 43
Phipps v. Parker, 879 F.Supp. 734 (W.D.Ky. 1995). 3, 19,
37, 38
Phipps v. Sheriff of Cook County, 681 F.Supp.2d 899
(N.D.Ill. 2009). 1, 9, 13, 15, 21, 29, 32, 34, 36
Picariello v. Fenton, 491 F.Supp. 1026 (M.D. Penn. 1980).
4, 27, 48
Piccolo v. Lansing, 939 F.Supp. 319 (D.N.J. 1996). 22, 43
Pichardo v. Kinker, 73 F.3d 612 (5th Cir. 1996). 3, 39
Picon v. Morris, 933 F.2d 660 (8th Cir. 1991). 15, 27
Piedra v. True, 169 F.Supp.2d 1239 (D.Kan. 2001). 14, 48
Pierce v. County of Orange, 519 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2008).
1, 3, 7, 9, 12, 23, 27, 32
Pierce v. County of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2008).
3, 9, 12, 15, 23, 27, 32, 34, 37
Pierce v. County of Orange, 761 F.Supp.2d 915 (C.D.Cal.
2011). 9, 15, 32, 34
Pierce v. County of Orange, 905 F.Supp.2d 1017 (C.D.Cal.
2012). 4, 5, 9, 32
Pierce v. District of Columbia, 128 F.Supp.3d 250 (D.D.C.
2015). 3, 27, 29, 34

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Pierce v. King, 918 F.Supp. 932 (E.D.N.C. 1996). 50
Pierce v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and Corr., 284
F.Supp.2d 811 (N.D.Ohio 2003) 2, 31
Pierce v. Pemiscot Memorial Health Systems, 25 F.Supp.3d
1198 (E.D.Mo. 2014). 7, 27, 30, 32
Pierce v. Smith, 347 F.Supp.2d 1143 (M.D.Ala. 2004). 37
Piercy v. Maketa, 480 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2007). 31, 45
Pierson v. Hartley, 391 F.3d 898 (7th Cir. 2004). 8, 14
Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967). 7, 16, 24
Pietrafeso v. Lawrence County, S. D., 452 F.3d 978 (8th
Cir. 2006). 14, 25, 29, 32
Piggie v. Hanks, 98 F.Supp.2d 1003 (N.D.Ind. 2000). 11, 22
Piggie v. McBride, 277 F.3d 922 (7th Cir. 2002). 11, 22
Piggie v. Riggle, 548 F.Supp.2d 652 (N.D.Ind. 2008). 1, 21,
47
Pilgrim v. Luther, 571 F.3d 201 (2nd Cir. 2009). 19, 50
Pilon v. Bordenkircher, 100 S.Ct. 7 (1979). 22
Pimentel v. Gonzales, 367 F.Supp.2d 365 (E.D.N.Y. 2005).
22, 36
Pina v. Lantz, 495 F.Supp.2d 290 (D.Conn. 2007). 31
Pinaud v. County of Suffolk, 52 F.3d 1139 (2nd Cir. 1995).
16, 24
Pindle v. Poteat, 360 F.Supp.2d 17 (D.D.C. 2003). 22, 36
Ping v. McBride, 888 F.Supp. 917 (N.D.Ind. 1993). 11, 22
Pink v. Lester, 52 F.3d 73 (4th Cir. 1995). 1
Pinkston v. Bensinger, 359 F.Supp. 95 (N.D. Ill. 1973). 3,
37
Pinkston v. Madry, 440 F.3d 879 (7th Cir. 2006). 14, 29, 39
Pino v. Dalsheim, 558 F.Supp. 673 (S.D. N.Y. 1983). 1, 47
Pino v. Dalsheim, 605 F.Supp. 1305 (1984). 11, 27, 50
Pinson v. U.S. Department of Justice, 104 F.Supp.3d 30
(D.D.C. 2015). 1, 2
Pippins v. Adams County Jail, 851 F.Supp. 1228 (C.D.Ill.
1994). 1, 11, 12, 32, 37
Pischke v. Litscher, 178 F.3d 497 (7th Cir. 1999). 22, 47, 50
Piscottano v. Murphy, 317 F.Supp.2d 97 (D.Conn. 2004).
31
Piscottano v. Murphy, 511 F.3d 247 (2nd Cir. 2007). 2, 31
Pittman ex rel. Hamilton v. County of Madison, Ill., 746
F.3d 766 (7th Cir. 2014). 14, 29, 30, 32
Pittman v. Department of Justice, 486 F.3d 1276 (Fed Cir.
2007). 31
Pittman v. Kurtz, 165 F.Supp.2d 1243 (D.Kan. 2001). 32,
48
Pitts v. Kee, 511 F.Supp. 497 (D. Del. 1981). 3, 4, 27
Pitts v. Meese, 684 F.Supp. 303 (D. D.C. 1987). 7, 17, 47
Pitts v. Thornburgh, 866 F.2d 1450 (D.C. Cir. 1989). 17
Pittsburgh League of Young Voters Educ. Fund v. Port
Authority of Allegheny County, 653 F.3d 290 (3rd
Cir. 2011). 13, 19
Pizarro Calderon v. Chavez, 327 F.Supp.2d 131 (D.Puerto
Rico 2004). 11, 20, 22
Pizzuto v. County of Nassau, 239 F.Supp.2d 301 (E.D.N.Y.
2003). 14, 48
Pizzuto v. County of Nassau, 240 F.Supp.2d 203 (E.D.N.Y.
2002). 14, 48
Plair v. City of New York, 789 F.Supp.2d 459 (S.D.N.Y.
2011). 14, 26, 27, 32, 48
Plaisance v. Phelps, 845 F.2d 107 (5th Cir. 1988). 50
Plasko v. City of Pottsville, 852 F.Supp. 1258 (E.D. Pa.
1994). 14, 32
Plata v. Schwarzenegger, 560 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2009). 2,
15, 27, 29
Plata v. Schwarzenegger, 603 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2010). 27

TC-73
XXVI

Platcher v. Health Professionals, Ltd., 549 F.Supp.2d 1040
(C.D.Ill. 2008). 14, 27
Platt v. Brockenborough, 476 F.Supp.2d 467 (E.D.Pa.
2007). 1, 3, 12
Plemmons v. Roberts, 439 F.3d 818 (8th Cir. 2006). 24, 25,
29, 46
Pletka v. Nix, 957 F.2d 1480 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied,
113 S.Ct. 163. 3, 27
Plumb v. Prinslow, 847 F.Supp. 1509 (D.Or. 1994). 24, 36
Plumeau v. Yamhill Cty. Sch. Dist., 907 F.Supp. 1423
(D.Or. 1995). 14, 27
Plyler v. Evatt, 846 F.2d 208 (4th Cir. 1988), cert. denied,
109 S.Ct. 241. 9, 15, 27
Plyler v. Evatt, 902 F.2d 273 (4th Cir. 1990). 5
Plyler v. Moore, 129 F.3d 728 (4th Cir. 1997). 22, 36
Poche v. Gautreaux, 973 F.Supp.2d 658 (M.D.La. 2013). 1,
2, 5, 7, 16, 17, 27, 30, 32, 36, 46
Poirier v. Massachusetts Dept. of Correction, 532 F.Supp.2d
275 (D.Mass. 2008). 31
Poirier v. Massachusetts Dept. of Correction, 558 F.3d 92
(1st Cir. 2009). 24, 31
Polanco v. Dworzack, 25 F.Supp.2d 148 (W.D.N.Y. 1998).
29
Polanco v. Hopkins, 510 F.3d 152 (2nd Cir. 2007). 1, 40
Poland v. Stewart, 117 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 1997). 1, 10, 22
Policano v. Koehler, 715 F.Supp. 598 (S.D.N.Y. 1989). 14,
39
Polk v. Montgomery County, MD, 689 F.Supp. 556 (D. Md.
1988). 5, 17, 41
Pollard v. Montgomery County, 66 F.Supp.2d 1218
(M.D.Ala. 1999). 31
Pollock v. Marshall, 845 F.2d 656 (6th Cir. 1988), cert.
denied, 109 S.Ct. 239, reh'g. denied, 109 S.Ct. 545.
19, 37, 38, 39, 40
Ponchik v. Bogan, 929 F.2d 419 (8th Cir. 1991). 47
Ponzini v. Monroe County, 897 F.Supp.2d 282 (M.D.Pa.
2012). 14, 29, 30, 32, 45
Pool v. Mo. Dept. of Corr. and Human Resources, 883 F.2d
640 (8th Cir. 1989). 48
Pool v. Sebastian County, Ark., 418 F.3d 934 (8th Cir.
2005). 17, 29
Poole v. Isaacs, 703 F.3d 1024 (7th Cir. 2012). 4, 29, 35, 44
Poole v. Kelly, 954 F.2d 760 (D.C. Cir. 1992). 20, 22, 36,
43
Poole v. Stephens, 688 F.Supp. 149 (D. N.J. 1988). 31, 41
Poole v. Taylor, 466 F.Supp.2d 578 (D.Del. 2006). 9, 29,
32, 40
Poore v. Glanz, 46 F.Supp.3d 1191 (N.D.Okla. 2014). 14,
17, 26, 45
Pope v. Hightower, 101 F.3d 1382 (11th Cir. 1996). 1, 19,
39
Pope v. Shafer, 86 F.3d 90 (7th Cir. 1996). 14, 27, 47
Popham v. City of Talladega, 742 F.Supp. 1504 (N.D. Ala.
1989). 14, 24
Popham v. City of Talladega, 908 F.2d 1561 (11th Cir.
1990). 14, 45, 46
Popoalii v. Correctional Medical Services, 512 F.3d 488
(8th Cir. 2008).14, 17, 29
Porm v. White, 762 F.2d 635 (1985). 14
Porras v. Montefiore Medical Center, 742 F.Supp. 120
(S.DN.Y. 1990). 31
Porro v. Barnes, 624 F.3d 1322 (10th Cir. 2010). 7, 32, 48
Portee v. Tollison, 753 F.Supp. 184 (D. S.C. 1990),
affirmed, 929 F.2d 694. 8, 29

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Portentoso v. Kern, 532 F.Supp.2d 920 (N.D.Ohio 2008).
16, 36, 41
Porter v, Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002). 1, 21
Porter v. Caruso, 431 F.Supp.2d 768 (W.D.Mich. 2006). 18,
19, 37
Porter v. Coughlin, 964 F.Supp. 97 (W.D.N.Y. 1997). 3, 11
Porter v. Epps, 659 F.3d 440 (5th Cir. 2011). 2, 24, 36, 46
Porter v. Selsky, 287 F.Supp.2d 180 (W.D.N.Y. 2003) 3, 9,
40
Porterfield v. Durst, 589 F.Supp.2d 523 (D.Del. 2008). 29
Porth v. Farrier, 934 F.2d 154 (8th Cir. 1991). 9, 23, 40
Portis v. City of Chicago, 510 F.Supp.2d 461 (N.D.Ill.
2007). 2, 36
Portis v. City of Chicago, Ill., 613 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2010).
32, 36
Portis v. Evans, 297 S.E.2d 248 (Sup. Ct. Ga. 1982). 1, 47
Portley-El v. Brill, 288 F.3d 1063 (8th Cir. 2002). 20
Posey v. Dewalt, 86 F.Supp.2d 565 (E.D.Va. 1999). 8, 22
Posey v. Southwestern Bell Telephone L.P., 430 F.Supp.2d
616 (N.D.Tex. 2006). 14, 25, 32
Poston v. Fox, 577 F.Supp. 915 (D. N.J. 1984). 5, 27
Potter v. Ledesma, 541 F.Supp.2d 463 (D.Puerto Rico
2008). 27, 29
Potts v. City of Philadelphia, 224 F.Supp.2d 919 (E.D.Pa.
2002). 16, 32
Potts v. Holt, 13 F.Supp.3d 445 (M.D.Pa. 2014). 18, 37, 39
Potts v. Moreci, 12 F.Supp.3d 1065 (N.D.Ill. 2013). 3, 8, 9,
27, 32
Pouncil v. Tilton, 704 F.3d 568 (9th Cir. 2012). 22, 37, 49
Pourmoghani-Esfahani v. Gee, 625 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir.
2010). 14, 17, 29, 32, 39, 45
Powell v. Barrett, 376 F.Supp.2d 1340 (N.D.Ga. 2005). 25,
32, 36, 41
Powell v. Barrett, 541 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2008). 13, 25,
32, 36
Powell v. Cusimano, 326 F.Supp.2d 322 (D.Conn. 2004). 3,
13, 41
Powell v. Department of Corrections, State of Okl., 647
F.Supp. 968 (N.D. Okl. 1986). 1, 3, 8, 29, 37
Powell v. Estelle, 959 F.2d 22 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied,
113 S.Ct. 668. 37, 39
Powell v. Lennon, 914 F.2d 1459 (11th Cir. 1990). 24, 29
Powell v. Morris, 37 F.Supp.2d 1011 (S.D.Ohio 1999). 31
Powell v. Riveland, 991 F.Supp. 1249 (W.D.Wash. 1997).
7, 19, 28
Powell v. Symons, 680 F.3d 301 (3rd Cir. 2012). 1, 29
Powell v. Ward, 643 F.2d 924 (2nd Cir. 1981), cert. denied,
102 S.Ct. 131. 11
Powell v. Weiss, 757 F.3d 338 (3rd Cir. 2014). 36
Powells v. Minnehaha County Sheriff Dept., 198 F.3d 711
(8th Cir. 1999). 1, 7, 28
Powers v. Hamilton County Public Defender Com'n, 501
F.3d 592 (6th Cir. 2007). 1, 43
Powers-Bunce v. District of Columbia, 576 F.Supp.2d 67
(D.D.C. 2008). 14, 32, 48
Powers-Bunce v. District of Columbia, 594 F.Supp.2d 54
(D.D.C. 2009). 14, 29, 32
Powers-Bunce v. District of Columbia, 659 F.Supp.2d 173
(D.D.C. 2009). 14, 25, 29, 32, 46
Powloski v. Wullich, 479 N.Y.S.2d 89 (App. 1984). 12
Pratt v. City of New York, 929 F.Supp.2d 314(S.D.N.Y.
2013). 9, 10, 15
Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 1995). 8, 19, 47
Pratt v. Rowland, 770 F.Supp. 1399 (N.D. Cal. 1991). 3, 11
Pratt v. Tarr, 464 F.3d 730 (7th Cir. 2006). 1

TC-74
XXVI

Praylor v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, 423 F.3d 524
(5th Cir. 2005). 29
Praylor v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, 430 F.3d 1208
(5th Cir. 2005). 17, 29, 38
Preast v. Cox, 628 F.2d 292 (4th Cir. 1980). 1, 19
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973). 7, 11, 20, 22, 43
Presley v. City of Blackshear, 650 F.Supp.2d 1307 (S.D.Ga.
2008). 14, 25, 27, 29, 32, 44
Pressley v. Brown, 754 F.Supp. 112 (W.D. Mich. 1990). 3,
12
Pressly v. Gregory, 831 F.2d 514 (4th Cir. 1987). 39, 48
Preston v. Thompson, 589 F.2d 300 (7th Cir. 1978). 23
Preval v. Reno, 57 F.Supp.2d 307 (E.D.Va. 1999). 9, 14, 32
Prevard v. Fauver, 47 F.Supp.2d 539 (D.N.J. 1999). 7, 20,
34, 36, 43, 50
Price v. Barry, 53 F.3d 369 (D.C. Cir. 1995). 36
Price v. Caruso, 451 F.Supp.2d 889 (E.D.Mich. 2006). 24,
27, 37
Price v. Correctional Medical Services, 493 F.Supp.2d 740
(D.Del. 2007). 1, 29, 47
Price v. District of Columbia, 545 F.Supp.2d 89 (D.D.C.
2008). 14
Price v. Dixon, 961 F. Supp. 894 (E.D.N.C. 1997). 39, 48
Price v. Kelly, 847 F.Supp. 163 (D.D.C. 1994). 3, 11
Price v. Sasser, 65 F.3d 342 (4th Cir. 1995). 14
Price v. Wall, 428 F.Supp.2d 52 (D.R.I. 2006). 1, 34, 47
Price v. Wall, 464 F.Supp.2d 90 (D.R.I. 2006). 1, 8, 47
Pride v. Correa, 719 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2013). 27, 29
Priest v. Gudmanson, 902 F.Supp. 844 (E.D.Wis. 1995). 1
Prieto v. Clarke, 780 F.3d 245 (4th Cir. 2015). 9, 10, 12, 49
Primus v. Lee, 517 F.Supp.2d 755 (D.S.C. 2007). 27, 29, 39
Prison Law Office v. Koenig, 233 Cal. Rptr. 590 (Cal. App.
1 Dist. 1986). 36
Prison Legal News v. Babeu, 933 F.Supp.2d 1188 (D.Ariz.
2013). 2, 19, 27, 28, 38, 39
Prison Legal News v. Chapman, 44 F.Supp.3d 1289
(M.D.Ga. 2014). 19, 28, 38
Prison Legal News v. Columbia County, 942 F.Supp.2d
1068 (D.Or. 2013). 2, 19, 27, 28, 32, 38, 39
Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2001).
19, 28
Prison Legal News v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys,
628 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir. 2011). 2, 33
Prison Legal News v. Jones, 126 F.Supp.3d 1233 (N.D. Fla.
2015). 19, 28
Prison Legal News v. Lappin, 436 F.Supp.2d 17 (D.D.C.
2006). 2, 19
Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2005).
19, 28
Prison Legal News v. Livingston, 683 F.3d 201 (5th Cir.
2012). 2, 19, 28, 38, 39
Prison Legal News v. Schwarzenegger, 561 F.Supp.2d 1095
(N.D.Cal. 2008). 4, 5, 19, 28
Prison Legal News v. Schwarzenegger, 608 F.3d 446 (9th
Cir. 2010). 4, 5, 28
Prison Legal News v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 113
F.Supp.3d 1077 (W.D. Wash. 2015). 2, 4, 5, 19, 42
Prison Legal News, Inc. v. Simmons, 401 F.Supp.2d 1181
(D.Kan. 2005). 24, 38
Probst v. Central Ohio Youth Center, 511 F.Supp.2d 862
(S.D. Ohio 2007). 14, 25, 26, 27, 30
Proctor v. Applegate, 661 F.Supp.2d 743 (E.D.Mich. 2009).
14, 24, 28, 30, 35, 38, 41
Proctor v. Horn, 95 F.Supp.3d 1242 (D. Nev. 2015). 29
Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974). 1, 28

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555 (1978). 7, 27, 28
Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069 (11th Cir. 1986). 1
Proffitt v. Ridgway, 279 F.3d 503 (7th Cir. 2002). 14, 32
Proffitt v. U.S., 758 F.Supp. 342 (E.D. Va. 1990). 11
Profitt v. District of Columbia, 790 F.Supp. 304 (D. D.C.
1991). 31, 41
Prophete v. Gilless, 869 F.Supp. 537 (W.D. Tenn. 1994). 1,
10, 18
Propst v. Leapley, 886 F.2d 1068 (8th Cir. 1989). 7, 11
Prosser v. Nagaldinne, 927 F.Supp.2d 708 (E.D.Mo. 2013).
29
Prosser v. Ross, 70 F.3d 1005 (8th Cir. 1995). 14
Proudfoot v. Williams, 803 F.Supp. 1048 (E.D.Pa. 1992). 1,
41
Prows v. Kastner, 842 F.2d 138 (5th Cir. 1988), cert.
denied, 109 S.Ct. 364. 1
Prows v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 704 F.Supp. 272 (D. D.C.
1988). 35, 50
Prude v. Clarke, 675 F.3d 732 (7th Cir. 2012). 10, 18, 29
Pruett v. Harris County Bail Bond Bd., 499 F.3d 403 (5th
Cir. 2007). 5, 6, 44
Pruitt v. Joiner, 395 N.E.2d 276 (3rd Dist. 1979). 9, 22, 32
Prushinowski v. Hambrick, 570 F.Supp. 863 (E.D. N.C.
1983). 18, 37
Pryor v. Dearborn Police Dept., 452 F.Supp.2d 714
(E.D.Mich. 2006). 14, 25, 29, 32
Pryor-el v. Kelly, 892 F.Supp. 261 (D.D.C. 1995). 1, 10, 21,
29, 34, 35
Puccini v. U.S., 978 F.Supp. 760 (N.D.Ill. 1997). 13, 16, 24,
36
Pugh v. Goord, 571 F.Supp.2d 477 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). 2, 21,
24, 37, 39, 47
Pugh v. Rainwater, 557 F.2d 1189 (5th Cir. 1977). 32
Pujalt-Leon v. Holder, 934 F.Supp.2d 759 (M.D.Pa. 2013).
6, 22
Pulaski County Civil Service Com'n. v. Davis, 730 S.W.2d
220 (Ark. 1987). 31
Pulliam v. Tallapoosa County Jail, 185 F.3d 1182 (11th Cir.
1999). 31
Purcell ex rel. Estate of Morgan v. Toombs County, 400
F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2005). 2, 8,
Purkey v. CCA Detention Center, 339 F.Supp.2d 1145
(D.Kan. 2004). 1, 19, 21, 27, 32
Purvis v. Ponte, 929 F.2d 822 (1st Cir. 1991). 8, 14
Purvis. v. City of Atlanta, 142 F.Supp.3d 1337 (N.D. Ga.
2015). 16, 24, 32, 36
Putman v. Gerloff, 701 F.2d 63 (8th Cir. 1983). 48
Pyka v. Village of Orlando Park, 906 F.Supp. 1196 (N.D.Ill
1995). 6, 14, 32, 46, 48
Pyles v. Fahim, 771 F.3d 403 (7th Cir. 2014). 9, 29
Pyles v. Kamka, 491 F.Supp. 204 (D. Md. 1980). 9, 11
Qasem v. Toro, 737 F.Supp.2d 147 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). 2, 14,
17, 24, 45
Qian v. Kautz, 168 F.3d 949 (7th Cir. 1999). 16, 25, 29, 32
Quam v. Minnehaha County Jail, 821 F.2d 522 (8th Cir.
1987). 11
Quarles v. Palakovich, 736 F.Supp.2d 941 (M.D.Pa. 2010).
9, 15
Quarrels v. Breton, 645 F.Supp. 211 (E.D. Mich. 1986). 10,
29
Quartararo v. Catterson, 73 F.Supp.2d 270 (E.D.N.Y.
1999). 36, 50
Quartararo v. Catterson, 917 F.Supp. 919 (E.D.N.Y. 1996).
11, 24, 36

TC-75
XXVI

Quartararo v. Hoy, 113 F.Supp.2d 405(E.D.N.Y. 2000). 24,
27, 36, 50
Quasim v. Scully, 708 F.Supp. 90 (S.D.N.Y. 1989). 49
Quigley v. Tuong Vinh Thai, 707 F.3d 675 (6th Cir. 2013).
29, 30
Quinlan v. Fairman, 663 F.Supp. 24 (N.D. Ill. 1987). 11
Quinn v. Cunningham, 879 F.Supp. 25 (E.D. Pa. 1995). 21,
50
Quinn v. Nix, 983 F.2d 115 (8th Cir. 1993). 19, 27, 38
Quinones v. Durkis, 638 F.Supp. 856 (S.D. Fla. 1986). 27
Quinones-Ruiz v. Pereira-Castillo, 607 F.Supp.2d 296
(D.Puerto Rico 2009). 10, 41
Quint v. Cox, 348 F.Supp.2d 1243 (D.Kan. 2004). 25, 29,
32
Quiroz v. Horel, 85 F.Supp.3d 1115 (N.D.Cal. 2015). 1, 11,
21, 35, 41
Quiroz v. Short, 85 F.Supp.3d 1092 (N.D.Cal. 2015). 1, 11,
19, 21, 28
Qureshi v. U.S., 600 F.3d 523 (5th Cir. 2010). 1, 27
R.G. v. Koller, 415 F.Supp.2d 1129 (D.Hawai’i 2006). 7, 8,
26, 27
Ra Chaka v. Franzen, 727 F.Supp. 454 (N.D. Ill. 1989). 37,
39
Rael v. Williams, 223 F.3d 1153 (10th Cir. 2000). 22, 47
Raffone v. Robinson, 607 F.2d 1058 (2nd Cir. 1979). 3, 24
Ragan v. Lynch, 113 F.3d 875 (8th Cir. 1997). 11, 20
Ragins v. Gilmore, 48 F.Supp.2d 566 (E.D.Va. 1999). 36
Ragland v. Angelone, 420 F.Supp.2d 507 (W.D.Va. 2006).
19, 37, 38
Rahim v. Holden, 882 F.Supp.2d 638 (D.Del. 2012). 1, 21,
36
Rahman v. Schriro, 22 F.Supp.3d 305 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). 14,
29, 32, 41, 48, 50
Rahman v. Stephenson, 626 F.Supp. 886 (W.D. Tenn.
1986). 29, 37, 38
Rahman X v. Morgan, 300 F.3d 970 (8th Cir. 2002). 3, 9
Raines v. Lack, 714 F.Supp. 889 (M.D. Tenn. 1989). 3, 11,
27, 47
Raines v. State of Fla., 983 F.Supp. 1362 (N.D.Fla. 1997).
7, 20, 50
Rainey v. Conerly, 973 F.2d 321 (4th Cir. 1992). 48
Raley v. Fraser, 747 F.2d 287 (5th Cir. 1984). 5, 27, 48
Ralk v. Lincoln County, GA., 81 F.Supp.2d 1372 (S.D.Ga.
2000). 29, 32
Ralston v. McGovern, 167 F.3d 1160 (7th Cir. 1999). 10,
27, 29
Ramer v. Kerby, 936 F.2d 1102 (10th Cir. 1991). 11, 22
Ramey v. Hawk, 730 F.Supp. 1366 (E.D.N.C. 1989). 11, 41
Ramirez v. Department of Corrections, Colo., 222 F.3d
1238 (10th Cir. 2000). 31
Ramirez v. Puerto Rico Fire Service, 715 F.2d 694 (1st Cir.
1983). 24, 31
Ramirez v. Pugh, 486 F.Supp.2d 421 (M.D.Pa. 2007). 19,
38
Ramirez v. U.S., 998 F.Supp. 425 (D.N.J. 1998). 16, 27
Ramos Bonilla v. Vivoni Del Valle, 336 F.Supp.2d 159
(D.Puerto Rico 2004). 16, 32
Ramos v. Lamm, 485 F.Supp. 122 (D. Colo. 1979), cert.
denied, 101 S.Ct. 1759. 29
Ramos v. Lamm, 632 F.Supp. 376 (D. Colo. 1986). 5
Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559 (10th Cir. 1980), cert.
denied, 450 U.S. 1041. 5, 10, 18, 28, 40, 44
Ramos v. O'Connell, 28 F.Supp.2d 796 (W.D.N.Y. 1998).
29

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Ramos-Martinez v. Negron-Fernandez, 393 F.Supp.2d 118
(D.Puerto Rico 2005). 31
Ramsey v. Busch, 19 F.Supp.2d 73 (W.D.N.Y. 1998). 14,
Ramsey v. Coughlin, 1 F.Supp.2d 198 (W.D.N.Y. 1998).
18, 29, 37
Ramsey v. Goord, 661 F.Supp.2d 370 (W.D.N.Y. 2009). 11,
18, 20, 24, 37
Ramsey v. Schauble, 141 F.Supp.2d 584 (W.D.N.C. 2001).
13, 14, 27, 29, 32
Rand v. Simonds, 422 F.Supp.2d 318 (D.N.H. 2006). 1, 21,
29, 32
Randall v. Whelan, 938 F.2d 522 (4th Cir. 1991). 36, 43
Randell v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 300 (5th Cir. 2000). 13
Randle v. Alexander, 960 F.Supp.2d 457 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).
7, 8, 9, 14, 24, 29, 30, 39, 48, 50
Randle v. Parker, 48 F.3d 301 (8th Cir. 1995). 14
Randolph v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services, 453 F.3d 724
(6th Cir. 2006). 31
Randolph v. Rodgers, 170 F.3d 850 (8th Cir. 1999). 7, 11,
34
Randolph v. Simmons, 757 F.Supp.2d 233 (W.D.N.Y.
2010). 11
Randolph v. State, 74 F.Supp.2d 537 (D.Md. 1999). 14, 29,
36
Randolph v. Wetzel, 987 F.Supp.2d 605 (E.D.Pa. 2013). 1,
9, 11, 12, 29, 35
Rangolan v. County of Nassau, 217 F.3d 77 (2nd Cir. 2000).
14, 27
Rankin v. Colman, 476 So.2d 234 (Fla. App. 5 Dist. 1985).
17, 41
Ransom v. Davies, 816 F.Supp. 681 (D.Kan. 1993). 11
Rapier v. Harris, 172 F.3d 999 (7th Cir. 1999). 11, 18, 24,
32, 37
Rapier v. Kankakee County, Ill., 203 F.Supp.2d 978
(C.D.Ill. 2002). 14, 32, 45
Rasheed-Bey v. Duckworth, 969 F.2d 357 (7th Cir. 1992).
11
Rashid v. Khulmann, 991 F.Supp. 254 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). 22
Raske v. Martinez, 876 F.2d 1496 (11th Cir. 1989), cert.
denied, 110 S.Ct. 543. 20, 22, 36
Rasul v. District of Columbia, 680 F.Supp. 436 (D. D.C.
1988). 31
Rasul v. Myers, 512 F.3d 644 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 7, 9, 10, 27,
37
Rasul v. Rumsfeld, 414 F.Supp.2d 26 (D.D.C. 2006). 7, 10,
24, 48
Rasul v. Rumsfeld, 433 F.Supp.2d 58 (D.D.C. 2006). 32, 37
Ratcliff v. Moore, 614 F.Supp.2d 880 (S.D.Ohio 2009). 1,
12
Rattray v. Woodbury County, Iowa, 788 F.Supp.2d 839
(N.D.Iowa 2011). 17, 27, 41
Rattray v. Woodbury County, Iowa, 908 F.Supp.2d 976
(N.D.Iowa 2012). 2, 25, 32, 41
Rawls v. Sundquist, 929 F.Supp. 284 (M.D.Tenn. 1996). 7,
12, 35, 38
Ray v. Kertes, 285 F.3d 287 (3rd Cir. 2002). 1, 13, 21
Ray v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 706 F.3d 864 (7th Cir.
2013). 10, 29
Rayes v. Eggars, 838 F.Supp. 1372 (D.Neb. 1993). 29, 37
Rayfield v. S.C. Dept. of Corrections, 374 S.E.2d 910 (S.C.
App. 1988). 2, 14, 36
Reckard v. County of Westchester, 351 F.Supp.2d 157
(S.D.N.Y. 2004). 31
Redd v. Dougherty, 578 F.Supp.2d 1042 (N.D.Ill. 2008). 31
Redd v. Gilless, 857 F.Supp. 601 (W.D.Tenn. 1994). 14

TC-76
XXVI

Redding v. Florida, Dept. of Juvenile Justice, 401
F.Supp.2d 1255 (N.D.Fla. 2005). 2, 31
Redding v. Marsh, 750 F.Supp. 473 (E.D. Okl. 1990). 29
Redman v. County of San Diego, 896 F.2d 362 (9th Cir.
1990). 8, 14, 32
Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435 (9th Cir.
1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 972. 14, 32
Redmond v. Baxley, 475 F.Supp. 1111 (E.D. Mich. 1979).
14, 45
Redmond v. Gill, 352 F.3d 801 (3rd Cir. 2003) 1
Reece v. Gragg, 650 F.Supp. 1297 (10th Cir. 1986). 8, 9,
10, 15, 32
Reed v. Baca, 800 F.Supp.2d 1102 (C.D.Cal. 2011). 16, 27,
32
Reed v. Cedar County, 474 F.Supp.2d 1045 (N.D.Iowa
2007). 31
Reed v. Dunham, 893 F.2d 285 (10th Cir. 1990). 14, 29
Reed v. Faulkner, 653 F.Supp. 965 (N.D. Ind. 1987). 23, 37,
38, 39
Reed v. Iranon, 940 F.Supp. 1523 (D.Hawai'i 1996). 24, 36
Reed v. McBride, 178 F.3d 849 (7th Cir. 1999). 10, 18, 29
Reed v. McKune, 298 F.3d 946 (10th Cir. 2002). 7, 34
Reed v. OSP, 773 P.2d 5 (Or. App. 1989). 11
Reed v. Shepard, 939 F.2d 484 (7th Cir. 1991). 31
Reed v. Woodruff County Ark., 7 F.3d 808 (8th Cir. 1993).
14, 29
Reed-Bey v. Pramstaller, 603 F.3d 322 (6th Cir. 2010). 21,
29
Reedy v. Werholtz, 660 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir. 2011). 2, 35
Reeves v. Collins, 27 F.3d 174 (5th Cir. 1994). 29, 50
Reeves v. King, 774 F.3d 430 (8th Cir. 2014). 11, 14
Reeves v. Pettcox, 19 F.3d 1060 (5th Cir. 1994). 11, 38
Regional Economic Community v. City of Middletown, 294
F.3d 35 (2nd Cir. 2002). 2, 15
Reid v. Artus, 984 F.Supp. 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). 3, 23, 29
Reid v. Cumberland County, 34 F.Supp.3d 396 (D.N.J.
2013). 1, 2, 48
Reid v. Donelan, 2 F.Supp.3d 38 (D.Mass. 2014). 1, 6, 22,
27, 32, 39
Reid v. Griffin, 808 F.3d 1191 (8th Cir. 2015). 29, 30
Reid v. Johnson, 333 F.Supp.2d 543 (E.D.Va. 2004). 10
Reilly v. Grayson, 157 F.Supp.2d 762 (E.D.Mich. 2001). 8,
9, 10, 27, 29, 38
Reilly v. Grayson, 310 F.3d 519 (6th Cir. 2002). 9, 10, 27,
29, 38
Reilly v. Vadlamudi, 680 F.3d 617 (6th Cir. 2012). 27, 29
Reimann v. Frank, 397 F.Supp.2d 1059 (W.D.Wis. 2005).
1, 8, 12, 29
Reimann v. Murphy, 897 F.Supp. 398 (E.D.Wis. 1995). 19,
37
Reimers v. State of Or., 863 F.2d 630 (9th Cir. 1988). 37
Reinhardt v. Kopcow, 66 F.Supp.3d 1348 (D.Colo. 2014).
7, 19, 34, 43
Reinhart v. City of Schenectady Police Dept., 599
F.Supp.2d 323 (N.D.N.Y. 2009). 17, 25, 32, 41
Rellergert v. Cape Girardeau County, Mo., 724 F.Supp. 662
(E.D.Mo. 1989), affirmed, 924 F.2d 794. 14, 24, 25,
29
Rellergert v. Cape Girardeau County, Mo., 924 F.2d 794
(8th Cir. 1991). 24, 29
Rembert v. Holland, 735 F.Supp. 733 (W.D. Mich. 1990).
14
Remmers v. Brewer, 361 F.Supp. 537 (N.D. Iowa 1973),
cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1012. 37

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Renaud v. Wyoming Dept. of Family Services, 203 F.3d
723 (10th Cir. 2000). 31
Renchenski v. Williams, 622 F.3d 315 (3rd Cir. 2010). 34,
43
Rendelman v. Rouse, 569 F.3d 182 (4th Cir. 2009). 18, 27,
37
Reneer v. Sewell, 975 F.2d 258 (6th Cir. 1992). 1, 28
Renkel v. U.S., 456 F.3d 640 (6th Cir. 2006). 29
Reno v. Koray, 115 S.Ct. 2021 (1995). 22, 43
Rentschler v. Campbell, 739 F.Supp. 561 (D.Kan. 1990). 1,
28
Rentz v. Spokane County, 438 F.Supp.2d 1252 (E.D.Wash.
2006). 14, 32, 44
Resnick v. Adams, 348 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 2003) 37
Resnick v. Adams, 37 F.Supp.2d 1154 (C.D.Cal. 1999). 20,
22, 32, 43
Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443 (9th Cir. 2000). 3, 32
Reutcke v. Dahm, 707 F.Supp. 1121 (D.Neb. 1988). 1, 3, 27
Revilla v. Glanz, 7 F.Supp.3d 1207 (N.D.Okla. 2014). 14,
27, 29, 30, 32
Revilla v. Glanz, 8 F.Supp.3d 1336 (N.D.Okla. 2014). 27,
29, 32
Reyes v. Smith, 810 F.3d 654 (9th Cir. 2016). 1, 21
Reyes-Morales v. Wells, 766 F.Supp.2d 1349 (S.D.Ga.
2011). 20, 22, 34
Reynolds v. Barrett, 685 F.3d 193 (2nd Cir. 2012). 7, 34, 50
Reynolds v. Barrett, 741 F.Supp.2d 416 (W.D.N.Y. 2010).
7, 50
Reynolds v. Bucks, 833 F.Supp. 518 (E.D. Pa. 1993). 38
Reynolds v. City of Anchorage, 225 F.Supp.2d 754
(W.D.Ky. 2002). 26, 41
Reynolds v. Dormire, 636 F.3d 976 (8th Cir. 2011). 14, 29,
39
Reynolds v. Powell, 370 F.3d 1028 (10th Cir. 2004). 9, 39
Reynolds v. Sheriff, City of Richmond, 574 F.Supp. 90
(E.D. Vir., 1983). 14, 27, 32
Reynolds v. Wagner, 128 F.3d 166 (3rd Cir. 1997). 4, 29,
32, 35
Reynolds v. Wagner, 936 F.Supp. 1216 (E.D.Pa. 1996). 1,
2, 4, 29, 35
Reynolds v. Wolff, 916 F.Supp. 1018 (D.Nev 1996). 11, 20
Rezaq v. Nalley, 677 F.3d 1001 (10th Cir. 2012). 3, 9, 47
Rhem v. Malcolm, 371 F.Supp. 594 (S.D. N.Y. 1974). 11,
12, 14, 32, 45
Rhem v. Malcolm, 396 F.Supp. 1195 (S.D. N.Y. 1975). 8,
11, 12, 39
Rhem v. Malcolm, 527 F.2d 1041 (2nd Cir. 1975). 49
Rhode Island Broth. Of Officers v. Rhode Island, 264
F.Supp.2d 87 (D.R.I. 2003). 31
Rhode Island Broth., Correct. Offic. v. Rhode Isl., 357 F.3d
42 (1st Cir. 2004). 31
Rhode Island Defense Attorneys' Assoc. v. Dodd, 463 A.2d
1370 (Sup. Ct. R.I. 1983). 1, 41, 49
Rhoden v. Rowland, 172 F.3d 633 (9th Cir. 1999). 1, 22
Rhodes v. Chapman, 101 S.Ct. 2392 (1981). 9, 10, 14, 15,
40, 46
Rhodes v. Knight, 861 F.Supp. 980 (D.Kan. 1994),
affirmed, 45 F.3d 440. 1, 3, 50
Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 (9th Cir. 2005). 1, 21, 35,
47
Rhodes v. Stewart, 109 S.Ct. 202 (1988). 5
Rial v. McGinnis, 756 F.Supp. 1070 (N.D. Ill. 1991). 1, 22
Ribble v. Lucky, 817 F.Supp. 653 (E.D.Mich. 1993). 14
Riccardo v. Rausch, 375 F.3d 521 (7th Cir. 2004). 14

TC-77
XXVI

Rice ex rel. Rice v. Correctional Medical Services, 675 F.3d
650 (7th Cir. 2012). 3, 9, 14, 23, 27, 29, 30, 32, 45, 48
Rice v. Kempker, 374 F.3d 675 (8th Cir. 2004). 19, 38
Rice v. McBride, 967 F.Supp. 1097 (N.D.Ind. 1997). 11, 22
Rich v. Bruce, 129 F.3d 336 (4th Cir. 1997). 14, 39
Rich v. City of Mayfield Heights, 955 F.2d 1092 (6th Cir.
1992). 14, 24, 32
Rich v. Secretary, Florida Dept. of Corrections, 716 F.3d
525 (11th Cir. 2013). 2, 18, 37
Richard v. Fischer, 38 F.Supp.3d 340 (W.D.N.Y. 2014). 11,
21, 34, 37, 50
Richard v. Reed, 49 F.Supp.2d 485 (E.D.Va. 1999). 9, 10,
12, 15
Richards v. Dretke, 394 F.3d 291 (5th Cir. 2004). 11, 20
Richards v. Jones, 31 F.Supp.3d 630 (D.Del. 2014). 29
Richards v. Mitcheff, 696 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2012). 1, 29
Richards v. Southeast Alabama Youth Ser. Diversion, 105
F.Supp.2d 1268 (M.D.Ala. 2000). 14, 26, 32, 39
Richards v. State of Connecticut Dept. of Corrs., 349
F.Supp.2d 278 (D.Conn. 2004). 31
Richards v. Thaler, 710 F.3d 573 (5th Cir. 2013). 22
Richards v. White, 957 F.2d 471 (7th Cir. 1992). 37
Richardson v. Coughlin, 763 F.Supp. 1228 (S.D.N.Y.
1991). 11, 19
Richardson v. McDonnell, 841 F.2d 120 (5th Cir. 1988). 1,
28
Richardson v. McKnight, 117 S.Ct. 2100 (1997). 27
Richardson v. Nassau County, 277 F.Supp.2d 196
(E.D.N.Y. 2003). 29, 32
Richardson v. New York State Dept. of Corr. Ser., 180 F.3d
426 (2nd Cir. 1999). 31
Richardson v. Penfold, 839 F.2d 392 (7th Cir. 1988). 14, 27
Richardson v. Runnels, 594 F.3d 666 (9th Cir. 2010). 7, 8,
12, 39
Richardson v. Van Dusen, 833 F.Supp. 146 (N.D.N.Y.
1993). 11, 48
Richerson v. Lexington Fayette Urban County Government,
958 F.Supp. 299 (E.D.Ky. 1996). 32, 41
Richman v. Sheahan, 512 F.3d 876 (7th Cir. 2008). 14, 24,
48
Richmond v. Cagle, 920 F.Supp. 955 (E.D.Wis. 1996). 34
Richmond v. Ricketts, 640 F.Supp. 767 (D. Ariz. 1986). 22
Richmond v. Stigile, 22 F.Supp.2d 476 (D.Md. 1998). 1, 4,
23, 35
Rickenbacker v. U.S., 365 F.Supp.2d 347 (E.D.N.Y. 2005).
32, 42, 43
Ricker v. Leapley, 25 F.3d 1406 (8th Cir. 1994). 3, 11
Rickman v. Avaniti, 854 F.2d 327 (9th Cir. 1988). 41
Riddick v. Sutton, 794 F.Supp. 169 (E.D.N.C. 1992). 33
Riddle v. Mondragon, 83 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 1996). 8, 29,
30, 34, 36
Rider v. Louw, 957 F.Supp 983 (E.D.Mich. 1997). 14
Ridley v. Leavitt, 631 F.2d 358 (4th Cir. 1980). 48
Rienholtz v. Campbell, 64 F.Supp.2d 721 (W.D.Tenn.
1999). 1, 21, 38, 47, 50
Rigano v. County of Sullivan, 486 F.Supp.2d 244 (S.D.N.Y.
2007). 8, 14, 45
Rigg v. City of Lakewood, 896 F.Supp.2d 978 (D.Colo.
2012). 14, 27
Riggins v. Walter, 279 F.3d 422 (7th Cir. 2001). 3, 11
Riker v. Lemmon, 798 F.3d 546 (7th Cir. 2015). 19, 31, 49
Riley v. Blagojevich, 425 F.3d 357 (7th Cir. 2005). 31
Riley v. Church, 874 F.Supp. 765 (E.D. Mich. 1994). 11, 21
Riley v. County of Cook, 682 F.Supp.2d 856 (N.D.Ill.
2010). 2, 14, 27

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Riley v. Dorton, 115 F.3d 1159 (4th Cir. 1997). 32, 48
Riley v. Jeffes, 777 F.2d 143 (3rd Cir. 1985). 14, 39
Riley v. Kolitwenzew, 967 F.Supp.2d 1251 (C.D.Ill. 2013).
1
Riley v. Kurtz, 361 F.3d 906 (6th Cir. 2004). 5, 27
Riley v. Kurtz, 893 F.Supp. 709 (E. D.Mich. 1995). 1, 28,
11
Riley v. Olk-Long, 282 F.3d 592 (8th Cir. 2002). 14, 17, 27,
45
Riley v. Snyder, 72 F.Supp.2d 456 (D.Del. 1999). 9
Rimmer-Bey v. Brown, 62 F.3d 789 (6th Cir. 1995). 3, 8
Rinehart v. Brewer, 360 F.Supp. 105 (S.D. Iowa 1973). 37,
38
Ringenberg v. Cox, 524 F.Supp. 112 (E.D. Va. 1981). 36
Ringgold v. Lamby, 565 F.Supp.2d 549 (D.Del. 2008). 29,
33, 50
Ringuette v. City of Fall River, 146 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1998).
16, 32
Rios v. Lane, 812 F.2d 1032 (7th Cir. 1987). 11, 19, 27, 38
Ripp v. Nickel, 838 F.Supp.2d 861 (W.D.Wis. 2012). 1, 11
Risdal v. Iowa, 243 F.Supp.2d 970 (S.D.Iowa 2003). 1, 4,
22
Risdal v. Martin, 810 F.Supp. 1049 (S.D. Iowa 1993). 23,
48
Rise v. State, 59 F.3d 1556 (9th Cir. 1995). 33, 41, 43
Rivas v. Freeman, 940 F.2d 1491 (11th Cir. 1991). 16, 46
Rivas v. Martin, 781 F.Supp.2d 775 (N.D.Ind. 2011). 6, 24,
32, 36
Rivera Borrero v. Rivera Correa, 93 F.Supp.2d 122
(D.Puerto Rico 2000). 8, 39
Rivera v. Alvarado, 240 F.Supp.2d 136 (D.Puerto Rico
2003). 29
Rivera v. Dyett, 762 F.Supp. 1109 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). 5
Rivera v. Smith, 462 N.Y.S.2d 352 (App. 1983). 37, 41
Rivera-Feliciano v. Acevedo-Vila, 438 F.3d 50 (1st Cir.
2006). 36
Rivera-Quinones v. Rivera-Gonzalez, 397 F.Supp.2d 334
(D.Puerto Rico 2005). 1, 14, 45
Rivers v. State, 537 N.Y.S.2d 968 (Ct.Cl. 1989). 27, 29
Rizvi v. Crabtree, 42 F.Supp.2d 1024 (D.Or. 1999). 3, 19,
22, 47
Roach v. Kligman, 412 F.Supp. 521 (E.D. Penn. 1976). 29
Robbins v. Chronister, 435 F.3d 1238 (10th Cir. 2006). 5
Robbins v. Clarke, 946 F.2d 1331 (8th Cir. 1991). 8, 29, 33
Roberson v. Bradshaw, 198 F.3d 645 (8th Cir. 1999). 29
Roberson v. Torres, 770 F.3d 398 (6th Cir. 2014). 48
Robert v. Carter, 819 F.Supp.2d 832 (S.D.Inc. 2011). 2, 31
Roberts v. Champion, 255 F.Supp.2d 1272 (N.D.Okla.
2003). 1, 37, 38
Roberts v. City of Troy, 773 F.2d 720 (6th Cir. 1985). 14,
27, 32
Roberts v. Cohn, 63 F.Supp.2d 921 (N.D.Ind. 1999). 1, 35
Roberts v. County of Mahoning, Ohio, 495 F.Supp.2d 784
(N.D.Ohio 2007). 2, 9, 27, 32
Roberts v. Klein, 770 F.Supp.2d 1102 (D.Nev. 2011). 11,
18, 24, 37, 50
Roberts v. Mahoning County, 495 F.Supp.2d 719
(N.D.Ohio 2007). 9, 15, 27, 32, 36
Roberts v. New York, 911 F.Supp.2d 149 (N.D.N.Y.2012).
2, 24, 31
Roberts v. Rhode Island, 175 F.Supp.2d 176 (D.R.I. 2000).
25, 41
Robertson v. Las Animas County Sheriff's Dept., 500 F.3d
1185 (10th Cir. 2007). 1, 29, 42

TC-78
XXVI

Robeson v. Squadrito, 57 F.Supp.2d 642 (N.D.Ind. 1999).
9, 12, 18, 23, 29, 32
Robey v. Chester County, 946 F.Supp. 333 (E.D.Pa. 1996).
14, 30, 32
Robinson v. California Bd. of Prison Terms, 997 F.Supp.
1303 (C.D.Cal. 1998). 36
Robinson v. Catlett, 725 F.Supp.2d 1203 (S.D.Cal. 2010).
8, 29
Robinson v. Cavanaugh, 20 F.3d 892 (8th Cir. 1994). 14,
39, 50
Robinson v. City of Chicago, 638 F.Supp. 186 (N.D. Ill.
1986), cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 756. 16
Robinson v. Danberg, 729 F.Supp.2d 666 (D.Del. 2010). 9,
21, 32
Robinson v. Estate of Williams, 721 F.Supp. 806 (S.D.
Miss. 1989). 14, 27, 39
Robinson v. Fahey, 366 F.Supp.2d 368 (E.D.Va. 2005). 36
Robinson v. Fauver, 932 F.Supp. 639 (D.N.J. 1996). 1, 4,
35
Robinson v. Hager, 292 F.3d 560 (8th Cir. 2002). 29
Robinson v. IL State Corr. Ctr. (Statesville), 890 F.Supp.
715 (N.D.Ill. 1995). 3, 9, 18, 40, 42, 49
Robinson v. Keita, 20 F.Supp.3d 1140 (D.Colo. 2014). 1,
16, 25, 32, 46
Robinson v. Moses, 644 F.Supp. 975 (N.D. Ind. 1986). 29,
32
Robinson v. Page, 170 F.3d 747 (7th Cir. 1999). 7, 40
Robinson v. Phelps, 946 F.Supp.2d 354 (D.Del. 2013). 8, 9,
14, 29, 47, 48
Robinson v. Prunty, 249 F.3d 862 (9th Cir. 2001). 3, 12, 14
Robinson v. Ridge, 996 F.Supp. 447 (E.D.Pa. 1997). 1, 35,
37, 39, 41
Robinson v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 244 F.Supp.2d 57
(N.D.N.Y. 2003). 14, 45
Robinson v. Young, 674 F.Supp. 1356 (W.D. Wis. 1987).
11, 38
Robles v. U.S., 146 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 1998). 22, 43
Rocheleau v. Cumberland County Sheriff's Department, 733
F.Supp. 140 (D. Me. 1990). 27
Rochon v. L.A. State Penitentiary Inmate Account, 880
F.2d 845 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 742.
35
Rochon v. Maggio, 517 So.2d 213 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1987).
1, 28, 35, 39, 41
Rock v. McCoy, 763 F.2d 394 (10th Cir. 1985). 25, 29, 32,
48
Rockford Memorial Hosp. v. Schueler, 521 N.E.2d 251 (Ill.
App. 2 Dist. 1988). 4
Rodgers v. Thomas, 879 F.2d 380 (8th Cir. 1989). 11
Rodi v. Ventetuolo, 941 F.2d 22 (1st Cir. 1991). 3, 24
Rodney v. Romano, 814 F.Supp. 311 (E.D.N.Y. 1993). 30
Rodriguez v. Ames, 224 F.Supp.2d 555 (W.D.N.Y. 2002).
1, 19, 33
Rodriguez v. Ames, 287 F.Supp.2d 213 (W.D.N.Y. 2003)
29, 33
Rodriguez v. Blaedow, 497 F.Supp. 558 (E.D. Wisc. 1980).
19, 39
Rodriguez v. Briley, 403 F.3d 952 (7th Cir. 2005). 11, 18,
35, 38
Rodriguez v. Connecticut, 169 F.Supp.2d 39 (D.Conn.
2001). 14
Rodriguez v. Coughlin, 795 F.Supp. 609 (W.D.N.Y. 1992).
1, 41
Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, 96 F.Supp.3d 1012
(C.D. Cal. 2014). 1, 5, 27, 48

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, 96 F.Supp.3d 990
(C.D. Cal. 2014). 13, 27, 48
Rodriguez v. Jiminez, 409 F.Supp. 582 (D. P.R. 1976). 1, 9,
10, 23, 26, 27, 38
Rodriguez v. Kincheloe, 763 F.Supp. 463 (E.D. Wash.
1991), affirmed 967 F.2d 590. 21, 29, 33, 45
Rodriguez v. McClenning, 399 F.Supp.2d 228 (S.D.N.Y.
2005). 7, 11, 21, 33, 41
Rodriguez v. McGinnis, 1 F.Supp.2d 244 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).
11, 48
Rodriguez v. Phillips, 66 F.3d 470 (2nd Cir. 1995). 3, 39,
49
Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Service, 577 F.3d 816
(7th Cir. 2009). 29
Rodriguez v. Reno, 164 F.3d 575 (11th Cir. 1999). 22
Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013). 6, 7,
22, 27, 32, 36, 44
Rodriguez v. Robbins, 804 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2015). 1, 6,
22, 27, 32
Rodriguez v. Secretary for Dept. of Corrections, 508 F.3d
611 (11th Cir. 2007). 10, 14, 39
Rodriguez v. Shanahan, 84 F.Supp.3d 251 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).
6, 22
Rodriguez v. Smith, 541 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2008). 22, 36
Rodriguez v. U.S., 847 F.Supp. 231 (D. Puerto Rico 1993).
16, 32
Rodriguez v. Westchester County Jail Correctional, 372
F.3d 485 (2nd Cir. 2004). 1
Rodriguez-Borton v. Pereira-Castillo, 593 F.Supp.2d 399
(D.Puerto Rico 2009). 2, 14, 15, 32, 39, 45
Rodriguez-Marin v. Rivera-Gonzalez, 438 F.3d 72 (1st Cir.
2006). 2, 27, 31
Rodriguez-Sanchez v. Acevedo-Vila, 763 F.Supp.2d 294
(D.Puerto Rico 2011). 9, 10, 15, 27
Rodriquez v. James, 823 F.2d 8 (2nd Cir. 1987). 28, 35
Roe v. County Com'n of Monongalia County, 926 F.Supp.
74 (N.D.W.Va. 1996) 7, 15, 25, 30
Roe v. Crawford, 396 F.Supp.2d 1041 (W.D.Mo. 2005). 17,
27, 29
Roe v. Crawford, 439 F.Supp.2d 942 (W.D. Mo. 2006). 17,
29, 39
Roe v. Crawford, 514 F.3d 789 (8th Cir. 2008). 2, 17, 29
Roe v. Marcotte, 193 F.3d 72 (2nd Cir. 1999). 41, 43
Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403 (5th Cir. 2013). 14, 29,
39, 47
Rogers v. District of Columbia, 880 F.Supp.2d 163 (D.D.C.
2012). 6, 13, 20, 36, 45, 46
Rogers v. Fair, 902 F.2d 140 (1st Cir. 1990). 24, 36
Rogers v. Haley, 421 F.Supp.2d 1361 (M.D.Ala. 2006). 2,
31
Rogers v. Haley, 436 F.Supp.2d 1256 (M.D.Ala. 2006). 31
Rogers v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections Spec. Unit, 160
F.Supp.2d 972 (N.D.Ill. 2001). 13, 22, 30
Rogers v. Isom, 709 F.Supp. 115 (E.D. Va. 1989). 1
Rogers v. Morris, 34 Fed.Appx. 481 (7th Cir. 2002). 19, 28,
38, 39
Rogers v. Oestreich, 736 F.Supp. 964 (E.D. Wis. 1990). 2,
11
Rogers v. Scurr, 676 F.2d 1211 (8th Cir. 1982). 37, 39
Rogge v. City of Richmond, Tex., 995 F.Supp.2d 657
(S.D.Tex. 2014). 14, 25, 32, 45
Rogowski v. Reno, 94 F.Supp.2d 177 (D.Conn. 1999). 22
Roland v. Murphy, 289 F.Supp.2d 321 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) 1,
17, 33, 41
Roles v. Maddox, 439 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2006). 1, 21, 27

TC-79
XXVI

Roll v. Carnahan, 225 F.3d 1016 (8th Cir. 2000). 43
Rollins v. Magnusson, 542 F.Supp.2d 114 (D.Me. 2008). 1,
35
Romaine v. Rawson, 140 F.Supp.2d 204 (N.D.N.Y. 2001).
14, 27
Roman v. DiGuglielmo, 675 F.3d 204 (3rd Cir. 2012). 1, 22,
34, 36
Roman v. Donelli, 616 F.Supp.2d 299 (N.D.N.Y. 2007). 21,
29
Roman v. Koehler, 775 F.Supp. 695 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). 27
Romey v. Vanyur, 9 F.Supp.2d 565 (E.D.N.C. 1998). 22, 36
Romo v. Champion, 46 F.3d 1013 (10th Cir. 1995). 41, 49
Ronchetti v. Rickards, 790 F.Supp. 117 (N.D. W.Va. 1992).
36, 43
Rondon Pinto v. Jimenez Nettleship, 660 F.Supp. 255 (D.
P.R. 1987). 14, 27
Roop v. Squadrito, 70 F.Supp.2d 868 (N.D.Ind. 1999). 7, 8,
9, 12, 23, 32, 38, 40
Rosado v. Alameida, 349 F.Supp.2d 1340 (S.D.Cal. 2004).
29
Rosado v. Alameida, 497 F.Supp.2d 1179 (S.D.Cal. 2007).
29
Rosales-Garcia v. Holland, 322 F.3d 386 (6th Cir. 2003). 7,
22
Rosario v. Brawn, 670 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2012). 14, 29, 30,
32, 47
Rosati v. Igbinoso, 791 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2015). 17, 29
Rosborough v. Management & Training Corp., 350 F.3d
459 (5th Cir. 2003) 27
Rosciszewski v. Adducci, 983 F.Supp.2d 910 (E.D.Mich.
2013). 6, 22
Roscom v. City of Chicago, 550 F.Supp. 153 (N.D. Ill.
1982). 17, 27, 41
Roscom v. City of Chicago, 570 F.Supp. 1259 (N.D. Ill.
1983). 41
Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982). 22
Rose v. Mayberg, 454 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2006). 7, 22
Rose v. Mitchell, 443 U.S. 545 (1979). 22
Rose v. Morris, 619 F.2d 42 (9th Cir. 1980). 36
Rose v. Saginaw County, 353 F.Supp.2d 900 (E.D.Mich.
2005). 3, 32
Roseboro v. Gillespie, 791 F.Supp.2d 353 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).
21, 49
Rosen v. Chang, 811 F.Supp. 754 (D.R.I. 1993). 29
Ross v. Blackledge, 477 F.2d 616 (4th Cir. 1973). 37
Ross v. Clayton County, GA., 173 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir.
1999). 31
Ross v. Coughlin, 669 F.Supp. 1235 (S.D. N.Y. 1987). 18,
37, 38, 39
Ross v. Douglas County, Nebraska, 234 F.3d 391 (8th Cir.
2000). 31
Ross v. Keelings, 2 F.Supp.2d 810 (E.D.Va. 1998). 34, 37
Ross v. Kelly, 784 F.Supp. 35 (W.D.N.Y. 1992), affirmed,
970 F.2d 896. 29
Ross v. Moffitt, 417 417 U.S. 600 (1974). 1
Ross v. Qwens, 720 F.Supp. 490 (E.D. Pa. 1989). 49
Ross v. Thompson, 927 F.Supp. 956 (N.D.W.Va. 1996). 4,
36
Ross v. United States, 641 F.Supp. 368 (D. D.C. 1986). 14,
47
Rother v. NYS Dept. of Corrections and Community
Supervision, 970 F.Supp.2d 78 (N.D.N.Y. 2013). 2,
27, 31
Rothgeb v. United States, 789 F.2d 647 (8th Cir. 1986). 36,
43

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Roubideaux v. North Dakota Dept. of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, 523 F.Supp.2d 952 (D.N.D. 2007). 17,
34
Roubideaux v. North Dakota Dept. of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, 570 F.3d 966 (8th Cir. 2009). 17, 34,
44, 47, 50
Roucchio v. Coughlin, 29 F.Supp.2d 72 (E.D.N.Y. 1998).
13, 36, 50
Roucchio v. Coughlin, 923 F. Supp. 360 (E.D.N.Y. 1996).
34, 36
Rouse v. Benson, 193 F.3d 936 (8th Cir. 1999). 7, 21, 37,
47
Rouse v. Plantier, 997 F.Supp. 575 (D.N.J. 1998). 7, 29
Rouser v. White, 630 F.Supp.2d 1165 (E.D.Cal. 2009). 27,
37
Rouser v. White, 707 F.Supp.2d 1055 (E.D.Cal. 2010). 21,
37, 38
Roussos v. Menifee, 122 F.3d 159 (3rd Cir. 1997). 22, 36,
43
Rouster v. County of Saginaw, 749 F.3d 437 (6th Cir. 2014).
14, 29, 32
Rowe v. Davis, 373 F.Supp.2d 822 (N.D.Ind. 2005). 3, 37,
38
Rowe v. DeBruyn, 17 F.3d 1047 (7th Cir. 1994), cert.
denied, 115 S.Ct. 508. 11
Rowe v. Gibson, 798 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2015). 1, 29
Rowe v. I.N.S., 45 F.Supp.2d 144 (D.Mass. 1999). 6
Rowe v. Jones, 483 F.3d 791 (11th Cir. 2007). 2, 27
Rowe v. Shake, 196 F.3d 778 (7th Cir. 1999). 19, 28
Rowland v. Jones, 452 F.2d 1005 (8th Cir. 1971). 35, 38
Rowland v. U.S. Dist. Court for N.D. of Cal., 849 F.2d 380
(9th Cir. 1988). 9, 15
Rowland v. Wolff, 336 F.Supp. 257 (D. Neb. 1971). 49
Rowlery v. Genesee County, 54 F.Supp.3d 763 (E.D.Mich.
2014). 14, 27, 32, 46, 48
Rowold v. McBride, 973 F.Supp. 829 (N.D.Ind. 1997). 11,
22, 37, 50
Roy v. Johnson, 97 F.Supp.2d 1102 (S.D.Ala. 2000). 14
Royal v. Durison, 319 F.Supp.2d 534 (E.D.Pa. 2004). 36,
43
Royal v. Kautzky, 375 F.3d 720 (8th Cir. 2004). 27
Royal v. Tombone, 141 F.3d 596 (5th Cir. 1998). 22, 43
Royce v. Hahn, 151 F.3d 116 (3rd Cir. 1998). 22, 36
Royer v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 933 F.Supp.2d 170
(D.D.C. 2013). 3, 8, 19, 33, 38, 39, 45, 49
Ruark v. Drury, 21 F.3d 213 (8th Cir. 1994), cert. denied,
115 S.Ct. 66. 29
Ruark v. Solano, 928 F.2d 947 (10th Cir. 1991). 1
Rubins v. Roetker, 737 F.Supp. 1140 (D. Colo. 1990),
affirmed, 936 F.2d 583. 1, 48
Ruble v. King, 911 F.Supp. 1544 (N.D.Ga. 1995). 29, 48
Rublee v. Fleming, 160 F.3d 213 (5th Cir. 1998). 34, 36
Rucci v. Thoubboron, 68 F.Supp.2d 311 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).
31
Rucker v. City of Kettering, 84 F.Supp.2d 917 (S.D.Ohio
2000). 31, 44
Rucker v. Johnson, 724 F.Supp. 568 (N.D. Ill. 1989). 11, 24
Rudd v. Jones, 879 F.Supp. 621 (S.D. Miss. 1995). 1
Rudd v. Sargent, 866 F.2d 260 (8th Cir. 1989). 11
Ruehman v. Village of Palos Park, 842 F.Supp. 1043
(N.D.Ill. 1993), affirmed, 34 F.3d 525. 16, 24
Ruffin v. County of Los Angeles, 607 F.2d 1276 (9th Cir.
1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 951. 31
Ruffins v. Department of Correctional Services, 907
F.Supp.2d 290 (E.D.N.Y. 2012). 7, 16, 24, 36

TC-80
XXVI

Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 112 S.Ct. 748
(1992). 15
Ruiz v. Estelle, 609 F.2d 118 (5th Cir. 1980). 5
Ruiz v. McCotter, 661 F.Supp. 112 (S.D. Tex. 1986). 9, 15,
17, 27
Ruiz v. U.S., 243 F.3d 941 (5th Cir. 2001). 27
Ruiz-Rosa v. Rullán, 485 F.3d 150 (1st Cir. 2007). 29, 32
Rules Regarding Inmate-Therapist Conf. 540 A.2d 212
(N.J. Super. A.D. 1988). 30, 33
Ruley v. Nevada Bd. of Prison Com'rs., 628 F.Supp. 108
(D. Nev. 1986). 2, 4, 11, 24, 35
Rumsey v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 327 F.Supp.2d
767 (E.D.Mich. 2004). 1
Rumsey v. N.Y. State Dept. of Corr. Services, 19 F.3d 83
(2nd Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 202. 2, 5, 31
Rupe v. Cate, 688 F.Supp.2d 1035 (E.D.Cal. 2010). 3, 19,
21, 24, 27, 37, 47
Rush v. McKune, 888 F.Supp. 123 (D.Kan. 1995). 3
Russ v. Young, 895 F.2d 1149 (7th Cir. 1990). 8
Russell v. Coughlin, 774 F.Supp. 189 (S.D.N.Y. 1991),
reversed, 15 F.3d 219. 11, 24
Russell v. Coughlin, 782 F.Supp. 876 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). 11
Russell v. Coughlin, 910 F.2d 75 (2nd Cir. 1990). 3, 24
Russell v. Eaves, 722 F.Supp. 558 (E.D. Mo. 1989). 36
Russell v. Enser, 496 F.Supp. 320 (D. S.C. 1979). 29
Russell v. Hennepin County, 420 F.3d 841 (8th Cir. 2005).
2, 6, 16, 32, 36
Russell v. Knox County, 826 F.Supp. 20 (D.Me. 1993). 14,
32, 45
Russell v. Richards, 384 F.3d 444 (7th Cir. 2004). 23, 29
Russell v. Scully, 15 F.3d 219 (2nd Cir. 1993). 3, 11
Russell v. Selsky, 35 F.3d 55 (2nd Cir. 1994). 11
Russo v. Honen, 755 F.Supp.2d 313 (D.Mass. 2010). 1, 21
Russo v. Johnson, 129 F.Supp.2d 1012 (S.D.Tex. 2001).
22, 43
Rust v. Clarke, 883 F.Supp. 1293 (D. Neb. 1995). 37
Ruston v. Department of Justice, 521 F.Supp.2d 18 (D.D.C.
2007). 2
Rutherford v. Pitchess, 104 S.Ct. 3227 (1983). 5
Rutherford v. Pitchess, 457 F.Supp. 104 (C.D. Calif. 1978).
18
Rutherford v. Pitchess, 710 F.2d 572 (9th Cir. 1983). 15,
32, 39, 49
Ruvalcaba v. City of Los Angeles, 167 F.3d 514 (9th Cir.
1999). 29, 32, 48
Ryan Robles v. Otero de Ramos, 729 F.Supp. 920 (D.Puerto
Rico 1989). 24, 39, 46, 48
Ryan v. Burlington County, 674 F.Supp. 464 (D. N.J.
1987), cert. denied, 109 S.Ct. 1745. 8, 14, 32
Ryan v. Burlington County, N.J., 708 F.Supp. 623 (D. N.J.
1989). 8, 14, 24, 39
Ryan v. Sargent, 969 F.2d 638 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied,
113 S.Ct. 1000. 3
Ryder v. Freeman, 918 F.Supp. 157 (W.D.N.C. 1996). 31,
46
Ryncarz v. Eikenberry, 824 F.Supp. 1493 (E.D.Wash.
1993). 37, 41,
S.L. ex rel. K.L. v. Pierce Tp. Bd. of Trustees, 771 F.3d 956
(6th Cir. 2014). 16, 25, 26, 32
Saahir v. Estelle, 47 F.3d 758 (5th Cir. 1995). 27, 35
Saenz v. Marshall, 791 F.Supp. 812 (C.D.Cal. 1992),
affirmed 990 F.2d 1260. 1
Safe Haven Sober Houses, LLC v. City of Boston, 517
F.Supp.2d 557 (D.Mass.2007). 2, 7

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Sahagian v. Dickey, 646 F.Supp. 1502 (W.D. Wis. 1986). 2,
35, 50
Said v. Lacky, 731 S.W.2d 7 (Ky. App. 1987). 31
Sain v. Wood, 512 F.3d 886 (7th Cir. 2008). 8, 9, 15, 34, 40
Salaam v. Lockhart, 905 F.2d 1168 (8th Cir. 1990),cert
denied, 111 S.Ct. 677. 37
Salahuddin v. Coughlin, 674 F.Supp. 1048 (S.D. N.Y.
1987). 47, 50
Salahuddin v. Coughlin, 993 F.2d 306 (2nd Cir. 1993). 37
Salahuddin v. Coughlin, 999 F.Supp. 526 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).
3, 37
Salahuddin v. Goord, 467 F.3d 263 (2nd Cir. 2006). 37
Salas v. Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections, 429 F.Supp.2d
1056 (W.D.Wis. 2006). 31
Salas v. Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections, 493 F.3d 913 (7th
Cir. 2007). 31
Salazar v. City of Chicago, 940 F.2d 233 (7th Cir. 1991).
29, 32
Sales v. Marshall, 873 F.2d 115 (6th Cir. 1989). 14
Sales v. Murray, 862 F.Supp. 1511 (W.D. Va. 1994). 11
Salinas v. Breier, 695 F.2d 1073 (7th Cir. 1982), cert.
denied, 104 S.Ct. 119. 27, 41
Sallee v. Joyner, 40 F.Supp.2d 766 (E.D.Va. 1999). 21
Samford v. Dretke, 562 F.3d 674 (5th Cir. 2009). 19, 28, 38,
49
Sammons v. Allenbrank, 817 F.Supp. 94 (D.Kan. 1993). 1
Samonte v. Frank, 517 F.Supp.2d 1238 (D.Hawaii 2007). 1,
4, 35
Sample v. Borg, 675 F.Supp. 574 (E.D. Cal. 1987), vacated,
870 F.2d 563. 37, 38
Sample v. Bureau of Prisons, 466 F.3d 1086 (D.C.Cir.
2006). 2
Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099 (3rd Cir. 1988). 36, 43
Sample v. Lappin, 424 F.Supp.2d 187 (D.D.C. 2006). 1, 37,
38, 39
Sample v. Morrison, 406 F.3d 310 (5th Cir. 2005). 20, 22,
36
Sampson v. City of Xenia, 108 F.Supp.2d 821 (S.D.Ohio
1999). 16
Samuals v. Department of Corrections, N.Y.C., 548 F.Supp.
253 (E.D. N.Y. 1982). 32, 36
Samuel v. Carroll, 505 F.Supp.2d 256 (D.Del. 2007). 29
Samuel v. City of Chicago, 41 F.Supp.2d 801 (N.D.Ill.
1999). 29, 32
Samuel v. First Correctional Medical, 463 F.Supp.2d 488
(D.Del. 2006). 29
Samuels v. Lefevre, 885 F.Supp. 32 (N.D.N.Y. 1995). 11
Sanchez Rodriguez v. Departamento de Correccion y
Rehabilitacion, 537 F.Supp.2d 295 (D.Puerto Rico
2008). 10, 12, 39, 41
Sanchez v. California, 90 F.Supp.3d 1036 (E.D.Cal. 2015).
31
Sanchez v. Coughlin, 518 N.Y.S.2d 456 (A.D. 3 Dept.
1987). 11, 20, 36
Sanchez v. Hoke, 498 N.Y.S.2d 535 (A.D. 3 Dept. 1986).
11
Sanchez v. Pereira-Castillo, 590 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2009). 24,
29, 33, 39, 41
Sanchez v. Roth, 891 F.Supp. 452 (N.D.Ill. 1995). 11
Sanchez v. Taggart, 144 F.3d 1154 (8th Cir. 1998). 50
Sanchez-Alaniz v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 85 F.Supp.3d
208 (D.C.D.C. 2015). 2
Sanchez-Ramos v. Sniezek, 370 F.Supp.2d 652 (N.D.Ohio
2005). 1

TC-81
XXVI

Sanchez-Velasco v. Secretary of Dept. of Corr., 287 F.3d
1015 (11th Cir. 2002). 22
Sand v. Steele, 218 F.Supp.2d 788 (E.D.Va. 2002). 11
Sandage v. Board of Com'rs of Vanderburgh County, 548
F.3d 595 (7th Cir. 2008). 14, 27, 36, 50
Sandefur v. Lewis, 937 F.Supp. 890 (D.Ariz. 1996). 3, 8
Sanders v. Borgert, 711 F.Supp. 889 (E.D. Mich. 1989),
cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 2182. 3, 11
Sanders v. Glanz, 138 F.Supp.3d 1248 (N.D. Okla. 2015).
2, 14, 25, 29, 30, 32
Sanders v. Hayden, 544 F.3d 812 (7th Cir 2008). 50
Sanders v. Heitzkey, 757 F.Supp. 981 (E.D. Wis. 1991),
affirmed, 962 F.2d 10. 41, 48
Sanders v. Howze, 177 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir. 1999). 14, 32,
45
Sanders v. Howze, 50 F.Supp.2d 1364 (M.D.Ga. 1998). 14,
32, 46
Sanders v. Kingston, 53 Fed.Appx. 781 (7th Cir. 2002).
[unpublished] 9. 29
Sanders v. Ryan, 484 F.Supp.2d 1028 (D.Ariz. 2007). 7, 12,
29, 35, 37, 38
Sanders v. Woodruff, 908 F.2d 310 (8th Cir. 1990), cert.
denied, 111 S.Ct. 525. 3
Sanderson v. Buchanon, 568 F.Supp.2d 217 (D.Conn.
2008). 29
Sandin v. Conner, 115 S.Ct. 2293 (1995). 3, 11, 38
Sandlin v. Pearsall, 427 F.Supp. 494 (E.D. Tenn. 1976). 17,
27, 29
Sandoval v. U.S., 980 F.2d 1057 (5th Cir. 1993). 2, 14, 27
Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166 (9th Cir. 1989). 1
Sanford v. Brookshire, 879 F.Supp. 691 (W.D. Tex. 1994).
9, 15, 27
Santana v. Collazo, 714 F.2d 1172, (1st Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 104 S.Ct. 2352. 9, 26, 34
Santana v. Coughlin, 457, N.Y.S.2d 944 (App. Div. 1982).
11
Santana v. Keane, 949 F.2d 584 (2nd Cir. 1991). 3
Santiago v. Blair, 707 F.3d 984 (8th Cir. 2013). 14, 21, 27,
48
Santiago v. C.O. Campisi Shield #4592., 91 F.Supp.2d 665
(S.D.N.Y. 2000). 14, 32, 48
Santiago v. Semenza, 965 F.Supp. 468 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). 32,
48
Santiago v. Walls, 599 F.3d 749 (7th Cir. 2010). 1, 14, 48
Santiago v. Yarde, 487 F.Supp. 52 (S.D. N.Y. 1980). 10, 48
Santiago-Lebron v. Florida Parole Com'm, 767 F.Supp.2d
1340 (S.D.Fla. 2011). 22, 34, 36
Santiago-Lugo v. Warden, 785 F.3d 467 (11th Cir. 2015).
11, 20, 22, 39
Santibanez v. Havlin, 750 F.Supp.2d 1121 (E.D.Cal. 2010).
11, 22
Santori v. Fong, 484 F.Supp. 1029 (E.D. Penn. 1980). 30,
32, 34
Santos v. Bush, 874 F.Supp.2d 408 (D.N.J. 2012). 27, 29,
30
Santos v. Hauck, 242 F.Supp.2d 257 (W.D.N.Y. 2003). 1,
21
Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2001). 14,
45
Sapanajin v. Gunter, 857 F.2d 463 (8th Cir. 1988). 37
Sarro v. Cornell Corrections, Inc., 248 F.Supp.2d 52 (D.R.I.
2003). 27
Sarro v. Essex County Correctional Facility, 84 F.Supp.2d
175 (D.Mass. 2000). 9, 10
Sash v. Zenk, 344 F.Supp.2d 376 (E.D.N.Y. 2004). 20, 22

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Sash v. Zenk, 428 F.3d 132 (2nd Cir. 2005). 20, 22
Sasnett v. Deptartment of Corrections, 891 F.Supp. 1305
(W.D.Wis. 1995). 1, 37, 38
Sasnett v. Litscher, 197 F.3d 290 (7th Cir. 1999). 19, 37, 38
Sasnett v. Sullivan, 908 F.Supp. 1429 (W.D.Wis. 1995). 19,
37, 38
Sasser v. Alabama Dept. of Corrections, 373 F.Supp.2d
1276 (M.D.Ala. 2005). 24, 31
Sassman v. Brown, 73 F.Supp.3d 1241 (E.D.Cal. 2014). 7,
27, 34
Sassman v. Brown, 99 F.Supp.3d 1223 (E.D. Cal. 2015). 7,
36, 47
Saulsberry v. Arpaio, 41 Fed.Appx. 953 (9th Cir. 2002). 32,
33, 41
Saunders v. Chatham County, 728 F.2d 1367 (11th Cir.
1982). 14, 27
Saunders v. Horn, 959 F.Supp. 689 (E.D.Pa. 1996). 7, 29
Saunders v. Hunter, 980 F.Supp. 1236 (M.D.Fla. 1997). 31
Saunders v. U.S., 502 F.Supp.2d 493 (E.D.Va. 2007). 14,
32
Saunders-El v. Tsoulos, 1 F.Supp.2d 845 (N.D.Ill. 1998). 37
Sauve v. Lamberti, 597 F.Supp.2d 1312 (S.D.Fla. 2008). 2,
29, 30
Savage v. Judge, 644 F.Supp.2d 550 (E.D.Pa. 2009). 9, 21,
39, 47
Savko v. Rollins, 749 F.Supp. 1403 (D. Md. 1990),
affirmed, 924 F.2d 1053. 1, 35
Saxbe v. Washington Post Co., 417 U.S. 843 (1974). 19
Sayed v. Profitt, 743 F.Supp.2d 1217 (D.Colo. 2010). 37
Saylor v. Nebraska, 812 F.3d 637 (8th Cir. 2016). 3, 8, 21,
30, 47
Scaife v. Wilson, 861 F.Supp. 1027 (D.Kan. 1994). 11, 21,
41
Scales v. Mississippi State Parole Bd., 831 F.2d 565 (5th
Cir. 1987). 7, 22, 36, 43
Scalise v. Meese, 891 F.2d 640 (7th Cir. 1989), cert. denied,
110 S.Ct. 1815. 47
Scarpino v. Grosshiem, 852 F.Supp. 798 (S.D. Iowa 1994).
34, 37
Scarver v. Litscher, 371 F.Supp.2d 986 (W.D.Wis. 2005). 8,
9, 10, 15, 30
Scarver v. Litscher, 434 F.3d 972 (7th Cir. 2006). 9, 10, 15,
30, 39
Schacht v. Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections, 175 F.3d 497
(7th Cir. 1999). 31
Schad v. Brewer, 732 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2013). 43
Schaefer v. Tannian, 793 F.Supp. 146 (E.D.Mich. 1992). 31
Schafer v. Moore, 46 F.3d 43 (8th Cir. 1995). 36
Schall, Comm. of N.Y. Dept. of Juv. Justice v. Martin et al.,
104 S.Ct. 2403 (1984). 26, 32
Schaub v. County of Olmsted, 656 F.Supp.2d 990 (D.Minn.
2009). 2, 23, 29, 36, 50
Schaub v. VonWald, 638 F.3d 905 (8th Cir. 2011). 27, 29
Schenck v. Edwards, 921 F.Supp. 679 (E.D.Wash. 1996). 1,
41
Schepers v. Commissioner, Indiana Dept. of Correction,
691 F.3d 909 (7th Cir. 2012). 2, 7
Scher v. Engelke, 943 F.2d 921 (8th Cir. 1991), cert.
denied, 112 S.Ct. 1516. 24, 41
Scher v. Purkett, 758 F.Supp. 1316 (E.D. Mo. 1991). 3, 23
Scheur v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 (1974). 24, 48
Schlemm v. Wall, 784 F.3d 362 (7th Cir. 2015). 18, 37, 39
Schlesinger v. Carlson, 489 F.Supp. 612 (M.D. Penn. 1980).
18, 37

TC-82
XXVI

Schlicher v. (NFN) Peters, I and I, 103 F.3d 940 (10th Cir.
1996). 33, 41
Schlicher v. Thomas, 111 F.3d 777 (10th Cir. 1997). 1
Schmanke v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 847 F.Supp. 134 (D.
Minn. 1994). 22, 43
Schmelz v. Monroe County, 954 F.2d 1540 (11th Cir.
1992). 14
Schmelzer v. Norfleet, 903 F.Supp. 632 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). 3,
11
Schmidt v. City of Bella Villa, 557 F.3d 564 (8th Cir.
2009). 17, 25, 26, 32, 33, 41
Schmidt v. Odell, 64 F.Supp.2d 1014 (D.Kan. 1999). 7, 9,
12, 15,27, 29, 34, 39
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973). 22
Schneyder v. Smith, 653 F.3d 313 (3rd Cir. 2011). 16, 24,
32, 36
Schneyder v. Smith, 709 F.Supp.2d 368 (E.D.Pa. 2010). 6,
32, 36
Schnitzler v. Reisch, 518 F.Supp.2d 1098 (D.S.D. 2007).
27, 34, 37
Schoelch v. Mitchell, 625 F.3d 1041 (8th Cir. 2010). 14, 32
Schreiber v. Ault, 280 F.3d 891 (8th Cir. 2002). 37
Schreter v. Bednosky, 963 F.Supp. 216 (E.D.N.Y. 1997).
29, 32
Schrier v. Halford, 60 F.3d 1309 (8th Cir. 1995). 1, 47
Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454 (9th Cir. 1995). 1, 8,
47
Schuemann v. CO St. Board of Adult Parole, 624 F.2d 172
(10th Cir. 1980). 22, 36
Schultz v. Pugh, 728 F.3d 619 (7th Cir. 2013). 14, 21
Schwartz v. County of Montgomery, 843 F.Supp. 962 (E.D.
Pa. 1994), affirmed, 37 F.3d 1488. 8, 14, 39
Schwartz v. Lassen County ex rel. Lassen County Jail
(Detention Facility), 838 F.Supp.2d 1045 (E.D.Cal.
2012). 6, 14, 18, 27, 29, 32, 46
Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2000). 7, 14,
17
Scicluna v. Wells, 219 F.Supp.2d 846 (E.D.Mich. 2002). 29
Scoby v. Neal, 734 F.Supp. 837 (C.D. Ill. 1990). 31, 41
Scoby v. Neal, 981 F.2d 286 (7th Cir. 1992). 31, 41
Scott v. Angelone, 771 F.Supp. 1064 (D. Nev. 1991),
affirmed, 980 F.2d 738. 4, 29, 35
Scott v. Antonini, 764 F.Supp.2d 904 (E.D.Mich. 2011). 29
Scott v. Baldwin, 225 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2000). 22, 36
Scott v. Baldwin, 720 F.3d 1034 (8th Cir. 2013). 13, 24, 36
Scott v. Churchill, 377 F.3d 565 (6th Cir. 2004). 21
Scott v. Clarke, 61 F.Supp.3d 569 (W.D.Va. 2014). 4, 17,
27, 29
Scott v. Clarke, 64 F.Supp.3d 813 (W.D.Va. 2014). 17, 29
Scott v. Coughlin, 727 F.Supp. 806 (W.D.N.Y. 1990). 8, 27
Scott v. Coughlin, 944 F.Supp. 266 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). 11
Scott v. DiGuglielmo, 615 F.Supp.2d 368 (E.D.Pa. 2009).
27, 30
Scott v. District of Columbia, 139 F.3d 940 (D.C. Cir.
1998). 9, 10, 29
Scott v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 317 F.Supp.2d 529
(D.N.J. 2004). 8, 22
Scott v. Garcia, 370 F.Supp.2d 1056 (S.D.Cal. 2005). 8, 29,
47
Scott v. Kelly, 107 F.Supp.2d 706 (E.D.Va. 2000). 1, 22
Scott v. Kelly, 533 N.Y.S.2d 157 (A.D. 1988). 11
Scott v. Kelly, 962 F.2d 145 (2nd Cir. 1992). 11, 36
Scott v. Mississippi Dept. of Corrections, 961 F.2d 77 (5th
Cir. 1992). 37, 38, 39
Scott v. Moore, 114 F.3d 51 (5th Cir. 1997). 14, 27, 32, 45

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Scott v. Moore, 85 F.3d 230 (5th Cir. 1996). 14, 17, 45
Scott v. Ozmint, 467 F.Supp.2d 564 (D.S.C. 2006). 1, 37
Scott v. Reno, 902 F.Supp. 1190 (C.D.Cal. 1995). 27. 29,
47, 50
Scotti v. Russell, 175 F.Supp.2d 1099 (N.D.Ill. 2001). 9, 10
Scotto v, Almenas, 143 F.3d 105 (2nd Cir. 1998). 27, 36
Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (1945). 7, 27, 48
Scruggs v. Jordon, 435 F.Supp.2d 869 (N.D.Ind. 2006). 11,
20, 22
Scull v. New Mexico, 236 F.3d 588 (10th Cir. 2000). 16,
32, 36
Scurry v. Fernandez, 841 F.Supp. 12 (D.D.C. 1993). 29
Seacrest v. Gallegos, 30 Fed.Appx. 755 (10th Cir. 2002). 22,
36
Seale v. Mason, 326 F.Supp. 1375 (D. Conn. 1971). 35, 37,
38, 39
Sealey v. Coughlin, 857 F.Supp. 214 (N.D.N.Y. 1994). 3
Sealey v. Coughlin, 997 F.Supp. 316 (N.D.N.Y. 1998). 3
Sealey v. Giltner, 197 F.3d 578 (2nd Cir. 1999). 3
Sealock v. Colorado, 218 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 2000). 29
Seals v. Shah, 145 F.Supp.2d 1378 (N.D.Ga. 2001). 29
Searcy v. Simmons, 299 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 2002). 7, 20,
34, 35
Searcy v. Simmons, 68 F.Supp.2d 1197 (D.Kan. 1999). 1,
34, 37
Searcy v. Simmons, 97 F.Supp.2d 1055 (D.Kan. 2000). 7,
33, 34, 35
Searcy v. Singletary, 894 F.Supp. 1565 (M.D.Fla. 1995). 3
Searer v. Wells, 837 F.Supp. 1198 (M.D. Fla. 1993). 27
Searles v. Dechant, 393 F.3d 1126 (10th Cir. 2004). 37, 50
Searles v. Van Bebber, 251 F.3d 869 (10th Cir. 2001). 18,
27, 37
Seaver v. Commandant, U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, 998
F.Supp. 1215 (D.Kan. 1998). 22
Seaver v. Manduco, 178 F.Supp.2d 30 (D.Mass. 2002). 10,
41
Security and Law Enforcement Employees v. Carey, 737
F.2d 187 (2nd Cir. 1984). 31, 41
Seehausen v. Van Buren, 243 F.Supp.2d 1165 (D.Or. 2002).
11, 22, 38
Seelig v. Koehler, 554 N.Y.S.2d 201 (A.D. 1 Dept. 1990).
31, 33
Segreti v. Giller, 259 F.Supp.2d 733 (N.D.Ill. 2003). 13, 21,
50
Segura v. Colombe, 895 F.Supp.2d 1141 (D.N.M. 2012). 2,
27
Selah v. Goord, 255 F.Supp.2d 42 (N.D.N.Y. 2003). 29, 37
Selby v. Caruso, 734 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2013). 3, 8, 11
Selep v. City of Chicago, 842 F.Supp. 1068 (N.D. Ill.
1993). 16
Self v. Crum, 439 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir. 2006). 29, 32
Seling v. Young, 121 S.Ct. 727 (2001). 13, 22, 30, 36, 43
Sellars v. Procunier, 641 F.2d 1295 (9th Cir. 1981), cert.
denied, 454 U.S. 1101. 36
Sellers v. Bureau of Prisons, 959 F.2d 307 (D.C.Cir. 1992).
2, 33
Sellers v. U.S. 881 F.2d 1061 (11th Cir. 1989). 1
Sellers v. U.S., 902 F.2d 598 (7th Cir. 1990). 27, 35
Sellmon v. Reilly, 551 F.Supp.2d 66 (D.D.C. 2008). 36, 43
Seltzer-Bey v. Delo, 66 F.3d 961 (8th Cir. 1995). 7, 41
Senalan v. Curran, 78 F.Supp.3d 905 (N.D. Ill. 2015). 7, 14,
32, 48
Sengchanh v. Lanier, 89 F.Supp.2d 1356 (N.D.Ga. 2000).
22
Senisais v. Fitzgerald, 940 F.Supp. 196 (N.D.Ill. 1996). 29

TC-83
XXVI

Senty-Haugen v. Goodno, 462 F.3d 876 (8th Cir. 2006). 1,
7, 11, 19, 29, 47
Sepulvado v. Jindal, 729 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2013). 7, 10
Sepulveda v. Ramirez, 967 F.2d 1413 (9th Cir. 1992), cert.
denied, 114 S.Ct. 342. 17, 33
Serna v. Colorado Dept. of Corrections, 455 F.3d 1146
(10th Cir. 2006), 27, 39, 45, 48
Serna v. Goodno, 567 F.3d 944 (8th Cir. 2009). 7, 30, 33,
39, 41
Serra v. Lappin, 600 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2010). 44, 50
Serrano v. Alvarado, 169 F.Supp.2d 14 (D.Puerto Rico
2001). 1
Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2003). 3, 7, 11,
24
Serrato v. Clark, 486 F.3d 560 (9th Cir. 2007). 2, 20, 22
Sesler v. Pitzer, 110 F.3d 569 (8th Cir. 1997). 22, 36, 43
Sesler v. Pitzer, 926 F.Supp. 130 (D.Minn 1996). 22, 43
Settles v. U.S. Parole Com’n., 429 F.3d 1098 (D.C.Cir.
2005). 36
Severino v. Negron, 996 F.2d 1439 (2nd Cir. 1993). 27, 36,
50
Sewell v. Jefferson County Fiscal Court, 863 F.2d 461 (6th
Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 75. 31
Sexton v. Kenton County Detention Center, 702 F.Supp.2d
784 (E.D.Ky. 2010). 14, 15, 17, 27, 31, 44, 45
Shabazz v. Askins, 14 F.3d 533 (10th Cir. 1994). 1, 36
Shabazz v. Barnauskas, 790 F.2d 1536 (11th Cir. 1986),
cert. denied, 107 S.Ct. 655. 19, 37, 38
Shabazz v. Cole, 69 F.Supp.2d 177 (D.Mass. 1999). 7,42,50
Shabazz v. Coughlin, 852 F.2d 697 (2nd Cir. 1988). 27, 37
Shabazz v. Parsons, 127 F.3d 1246 (10th Cir. 1997). 19, 28,
37, 39
Shaddy v. Gunter, 690 F.Supp. 860 (D. Neb. 1988). 49
Shadrick v. Hopkins County, Ky., 805 F.3d 724 (6th Cir.
2015). 14, 24, 27, 29, 46
Shaffer v. Meyers, 338 F.Supp.2d 562 (M.D.Pa. 2004). 36
Shaffer v. Saffle, 148 F.3d 1180 (10th Cir. 1998). 37, 41, 43
Shah v. Danberg, 855 F.Supp.2d 215 (D.Del. 2012). 1, 8,
24, 43, 44
Shaheed-Muhammad v. Dipaolo, 138 F.Supp.2d 99
(D.Mass. 2001). 1, 37, 38
Shaheed-Muhammad v. Dipaolo, 393 F.Supp.2d 80
(D.Mass. 2005). 1, 18, 19, 21, 24, 37, 47
Shaidnagle v. Adams County, Miss., 88 F.Supp.3d 705
(S.D.Miss. 2015). 4, 5, 14, 27, 32, 45, 46
Shain v. Ellison, 273 F.3d 56 (2nd Cir. 2001). 32, 41
Shain v. Ellison, 356 F.3d 211 (2nd Cir. 2004). 27, 32, 41
Shain v. Ellison, 53 F.Supp.2d 564 (E.D.N.Y. 1999). 32, 41
Shakka v. Smith, 71 F.3d 162 (4th Cir. 1995). 23, 29
Shakur v. Bell, 447 F.Supp. 958 (S.D. N.Y. 1978). 47
Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 2008). 18, 37
Shakur v. Selsky, 391 F.3d 106 (2nd Cir. 2004). 33, 37
Shango v. Jurich, 608 F.Supp. 931 (N.D.Ill. 1985),
affirmed, 965 F.2d 289. 11
Shango v. Jurich, 965 F.2d 289 (7th Cir. 1992). 1
Shannon v. Lester, 519 F.2d 76 (6th Cir. 1975). 29
Shanton v. Detrick, 826 F.Supp. 979 (N.D. W.Va. 1993),
affirmed, 17 F.3d 1434. 29, 48
Shape v. Barnes County, N.D., 396 F.Supp.2d 1067
(D.N.D. 2005). 31, 44
Shapley v. Nevada Board of State Prison Commissioners,
766 F.2d 404 (9th Cir. 1985). 4, 29
Sharafeldin v. Maryland, Dept. of Public Safety, 131
F.Supp.2d 730 (D.Md. 2001). 31

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Shariff v. Coombe, 655 F.Supp.2d 274 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). 1,
7, 9, 10, 15, 21, 23, 42, 49
Shariff v. Poole, 689 F.Supp.2d 470 (W.D.N.Y. 2010). 7,
21, 35
Sharp v. Johnson, 669 F.3d 144 (3rd Cir. 2012). 24, 37
Sharp v. Leonard, 611 F.2d 136 (6th Cir. 1979). 36
Sharp v. Siegler, 408 F.2d 966 (8th Cir. 1969). 3, 11, 37
Sharp v. Weston, 233 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 2000). 27, 34
Shaw v. Allen, 771 F.Supp. 760 (S.D. W.Va. 1990). 15, 27
Shaw v. Coosa County Com’n., 330 F.Supp.2d 1285
(M.D.Ala. 2004). 2, 27, 29, 45
Shaw v. Coosa County Com'n., 434 F.Supp.2d 1179
(M.D.Ala. 2006). 2, 14, 25, 29
Shaw v. Coosa County Com'n., 434 F.Supp.2d 1199
(M.D.Ala. 2006). 14, 27
Shaw v. District of Columbia, 944 F.Supp.2d 43 (D.D.C.
2013). 8, 17, 24, 25, 32, 33, 38, 41
Shaw v. Jahnke, 607 F.Supp.2d 1005 (W.D.Wis. 2009). 1,
21
Shaw v. Murphy, 121 S.Ct. 1475 (2001). 1, 7, 19
Shaw v. Neb. Dept. of Correctional Services, 666 F.Supp.
1330 (D. Neb. 1987). 7, 31
Shaw v. TDCJ-CID, 540 F.Supp.2d 834 (S.D.Tex. 2008). 9,
15, 29
Shea v. Heggie, 624 F.2d 175 (10th Cir. 1980). 36
Shearin v. Correction Officer Pennington, 867 F.Supp. 1250
(E.D.Va. 1994). 10, 14, 48
Sheehan v. Beyer, 51 F.3d 1170 (3rd Cir. 1995). 3
Sheehan v. U.S., 822 F.Supp. 13 (D.D.C. 1993). 14, 27
Sheerin v. State, 434 N.W.2d 633 (Iowa 1989). 14, 36
Sheets v. Moore, 97 F.3d 164 (6th Cir. 1996). 19, 28
Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295 (6th Cir. 1999). 11, 21, 50
Shehee v. Saginaw County, 86 F.Supp.3d 704 (E.D.Mich.
2015). 14, 29
Shelby County Jail Inmates v. Westlake, 798 F.2d 1085 (7th
Cir. 1986). 8, 9, 12, 15
Sheldon v. C/O Pezley, 49 F.3d 1312 (8th Cir. 1995). 10,
29, 48
Sheley v. Dugger, 824 F.2d 1551 (11th Cir. 1987). 3, 10
Shell v. Brun, 585 F.Supp.2d 465 (W.D.N.Y. 2008). 1, 7
Shell v. Brzezniak, 365 F.Supp.2d 362 (W.D.N.Y. 2005). 1,
11, 29
Shelly v. Johnson, 849 F.2d 228 (6th Cir. 1988). 11, 24
Shelton v. Angelone, 183 F.Supp.2d 830 (W.D.Va. 2002).
48
Shelton v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Services, 677 F.3d
837 (8th Cir. 2012). 17, 29, 30, 45
Shelton v. Gudmanson, 934 F.Supp. 1048 (W.D.Wis.
1996). 7, 41
Shelvin v. Lykos, 741 S.W.2d 178 (Tex. App. 1987). 29
Shepard v. Hansford County, 110 F.Supp.3d 696 (N.D. Tex.
2015). 2, 14, 17, 30, 32, 39, 45, 46
Shepard v. Peryam, 657 F.Supp.2d 1331 (S.D.Fla. 2009).
18, 24, 37, 38
Shepard v. Wapello County, Iowa, 250 F.Supp.2d 1112
(S.D.Iowa, 2003). 2, 31
Shepheard v. City of New York, 577 F.Supp.2d 669
(S.D.N.Y. 2008). 2, 31
Shepherd v. Dallas County, 591 F.3d 445 (5th Cir. 2009). 9,
29, 32
Shepherd v. Goord, 662 F.3d 603 (2nd Cir. 2011). 4, 5
Shepherd v. Powers, 55 F.Supp.3d 508 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).
45, 46, 48
Shepherd v. Wenderlich, 746 F.Supp.2d 430 (N.D.N.Y.
2010). 1, 5

TC-84
XXVI

Sheppard v. Early, 168 F.3d 689 (4th Cir. 1999). 43
Sheppard v. Phoenix, 210 F.Supp.2d 450 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).
14, 27, 48
Sheppard v. U.S., 537 F.Supp.2d 785 (D.Md. 2008). 16, 24,
36, 43
Sherbrooke v. City of Pelican Rapids, 513 F.3d 809 (8th
Cir. 2008). 1, 32, 33
Sheriff’s Silver Star Ass’n v. County of Oswego, 56
F.Supp.2d 263 (N.D.N.Y. 1999). 31, 44, 45
Sherley v. Thompson, 69 F.Supp.3d 656 (W.D.Ky. 2014).
4, 7, 8, 9, 23, 29, 40
Sherrer v. Stephens, 50 F.3d 496 (8th Cir. 1994). 10, 29
Shidler v. Moore, 409 F.Supp.2d 1060 (N.D.Ind. 2006). 1,
2, 19, 35, 37
Shidler v. Moore, 446 F.Supp.2d 942 (N.D.Ind. 2006). 19,
37, 38
Shields v. Dart, 664 F.3d 178 (7th Cir. 2011). 14, 32, 39
Shiflet v. Cornell, 933 F.Supp. 1549 (M.D.Fla. 1996). 1, 7,
29
Shifrin v. Fields, 39 F.3d 1112 (10th Cir. 1994). 10, 36
Shilling v. Crawford, 536 F.Supp.2d 1227 (D.Nev. 2008). 8,
37, 47
Shimer v. Washington, 100 F.3d 506 (7th Cir. 1996). 19, 31
Shinault v. Hawks, 782 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2015). 4, 35
Shine v. Hofman, 548 F.Supp.2d 112 (D.Vt. 2008). 1, 3, 15,
28, 32, 39
Shoats v. Horn, 213 F.3d 140 (3rd Cir. 2000). 3
Shockley v. McCarty, 677 F.Supp.2d 741 (D.Del. 2009). 1,
14
Shomo v. City of New York, 579 F.3d 176 (2nd Cir. 2009).
29
Shook v. Board of County Commissioners of County of El
Paso, 543 F.3d 597 (10th Cir. 2008). 27, 30
Shookoff v. Adams, 750 F.Supp. 288 (M.D. Tenn. 1990),
modified, 969 F.2d 228. 1, 26
Short v. Greene, 577 F.Supp.2d 790 (S.D.W.Va. 2008). 21
Short v. Smoot, 436 F.3d 422 (4th Cir. 2006). 14, 24, 32, 45
Shorter v. Baca, 101 F.Supp.3d 876 (C.D. Cal. 2015). 8, 9,
17, 18, 23, 29, 30, 32, 40, 41, 48
Shouse v. Ljunggren, 792 F.2d 902 (9th Cir. 1986). 36
Shreve v. Franklin County, Ohio, 743 F.3d 126 (6th Cir.
2014). 14, 32, 39, 48
Shropshire v. Duckworth, 654 F.Supp. 369 (N.D. Ind.
1987). 3, 27, 47
Shrum v. City of Coweta, Okla., 449 F.3d 1132 (10th Cir.
2006). 31
Shuford v. Conway, 86 F.Supp.3d 1344 (N.D.Ga. 2015).
14, 32, 39, 48
Shuler v. District of Columbia, 744 F.Supp.2d 320 (D.D.C.
2010). 7, 49
Shuler v. Edwards, 485 F.Supp.2d 294 (W.D.N.Y. 2007).
29
Shultz v. Allegheny County, 835 F.Supp.2d 14 (W.D.Pa.
2011). 2, 14, 17, 29
Shumpert v. Johnson, 621 F.Supp.2d 387 (N.D.Miss. 2009).
31
Shumway v. OR St. Penitentiary, 657 P.2d 686 (Ore. 1983).
11
Sibley v. Lemaire, 184 F.3d 481 (5th Cir. 1999). 14, 29
Sickles v. Campbell County, Kentucky, 439 F.Supp.2d 751
(E.D.Ky. 2006). 2, 4, 13, 32, 35, 44
Sickles v. Campbell County, Kentucky, 501 F.3d 726 (6th
Cir. 2007). 2, 4, 32, 35
Siddiqi v. Lane, 748 F.Supp. 637 (N.D. Ill. 1990). 8, 39

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Siddiqi v. Lane, 763 F.Supp. 284 (N.D. Ill. 1991), affirmed,
972 F.2d 352. 7, 8
Siddiqi v. Leak, 880 F.2d 904 (7th Cir. 1989). 37
Sidebottom v. Schiriro, 927 F.Supp. 1221 (E.D.Mo. 1996).
19, 49
Sienkiewicz v. Santa Cruz County, 240 Cal.Rptr. 451
(Cal.App. 6 Dist. 1987). 31
Sieu Phong Ngo v. Curry, 745 F.Supp.2d 1031 (N.D.Cal.
2010). 22, 36
Sieverding v. Colorado Bar Ass'n, 469 F.3d 1340 (10th Cir.
2006). 1
Sieverding v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 910 F.Supp.2d 149
(D.D.C. 2012). 7, 19
Siggers-El v. Barlow, 412 F.3d 693 (6th Cir. 2005). 21, 47
Siggers-El v. Barlow, 433 F.Supp.2d 811(E.D.Mich. 2006).
5, 7, 19, 27, 47
Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 1997). 1, 48
Sikorski v. Whorton, 631 F.Supp.2d 1327 (D.Nev. 2009).
19, 21, 28
Silas v. City of New York, 536 F.Supp.2d 353 (S.D.N.Y.
2008). 1
Siluk v. Merwin, 783 F.3d 421 (3rd Cir. 2015). 1, 4
Silva v. Casey, 992 F.2d 20 (2nd Cir. 1993). 11
Silva v. Clarke, 603 F.Supp.2d 248 (D.Mass. 2009). 29
Silva v. State, 745 P.2d 380 (N.M. 1987). 14, 27
Silvera v. Connecticut Dept. of Corrections, 726 F.Supp.2d
183 (D.Conn. 2010). 8, 14, 30, 32, 45
Silverstein v. Federal Bureau Of Prisons, 704 F.Supp.2d
1077 (D.Colo. 2010). 3, 9, 15, 45, 47
Simkins v. Bruce, 406 F.3d 1239 (10th Cir. 2005). 1, 28, 47
Simmons v. Adamy, 987 F.Supp.2d 302 (W.D.N.Y. 2013).
1, 21, 37
Simmons v. City of Philadelphia, 728 F.Supp. 352 (E.D. Pa.
1990), affirmed, 947 F.2d 1042. 14, 25, 29, 46
Simmons v. City of Philadelphia, 947 F.2d 1042 (3rd Cir.
1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 1671. 14, 25, 29, 32, 46
Simmons v. Cook, 154 F.3d 805 (8th Cir. 1998). 3, 7, 15,
27
Simmons v. Corizon Health, Inc., 122 F.Supp.3d 255
(M.D.N.C. 2015). 27, 29, 44
Simmons v. Corizon Health, Inc., 136 F.Supp.3d 719
(M.D.N.C. 2015). 27, 29
Simmons v. Galvin, 575 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2009). 7, 19, 44
Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir.
2010). 14, 26, 29, 30, 32
Simmons v. Poppell, 837 F.2d 1243 (5th Cir. 1988). 1, 35
Simmons v. Sacramento County Superior Court, 318 F.3d
1156 (9th Cir. 2003). 1, 32
Simmons v. The G.E.O. Group, Inc., 528 F.Supp.2d 583
(E.D.N.C. 2007). 2, 31
Simmons v. Wolff, 594 F.Supp.2d 6 (D.D.C. 2009). 47
Simpson v. Gallant, 223 F.Supp.2d 286 (D.Me. 2002). 3,
11, 19, 28, 32
Simpson v. Gallant, 231 F.Supp.2d 341 (D.Me. 2002). 1, 3,
11, 32
Simpson v. Hines, 903 F.2d 400 (5th Cir. 1990). 14, 27, 29,
48
Simpson v. Horn, 25 F.Supp.2d 563 (E.D.Pa. 1998). 8, 9,
10, 18, 40
Simpson v. Horn, 80 F.Supp.2d 477 (E.D.Pa. 2000). 7, 8
Simpson v. Nickel, 450 F.3d 303 (7th Cir. 2006). 1, 11, 21
Simpson v. Office of Chief Judge of Circuit Court of Will
County, 559 F.3d 706 (7th Cir. 2009). 31
Simpson v. Penobscot County Sheriff’s Dept., 285
F.Supp.2d 75 (D.Me. 2003) 15, 21, 33

TC-85
XXVI

Simpson v. Thomas, 528 F.3d 685 (9th Cir. 2008). 11, 14,
20, 48
Sims v. Brierton, 500 F.Supp. 813 (N.D. Ill. 1980). 1, 39,
41
Sims v. Mashburn, 25 F.3d 980 (11th Cir. 1994). 10, 35, 39
Sims v. Montgomery County Com'n., 766 F.Supp. 1052
(M.D. Ala. 1990). 7, 31
Sinclair v. Henderson, 331 F.Supp. 1123 (E.D. La. 1971).
10, 12
Singer v. Ferro, 711 F.3d 334 (2nd Cir. 2013). 31
Singer v. Raemisch, 593 F.3d 529 (7th Cir. 2010). 19, 38, 39
Singh v. Goord, 520 F.Supp.2d 487 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). 21,
37, 38, 39
Singletary v. District of Columbia, 876 F.Supp.2d 106
(D.D.C. 2012). 16, 27, 36
Singleton v. City of New York, 496 F.Supp.2d 390
(S.D.N.Y. 2007). 31
Singleton v. Hoester, 505 F.Supp. 54 (E.D. Mo. 1980). 43
Singleton v. Norris, 319 F.3d 1018 (8th Cir. 2003). 7, 22,
29, 30
Singson v. Norris, 553 F.3d 660 (8th Cir. 2009). 37, 38, 39
Sinnett v. Simmons, 45 F.Supp.2d 1210 (D.Kan. 1999). 14,
37, 47
Sira v. Morton, 380 F.3d 57 (2nd Cir. 2004). 3, 11
Siripongs v. Davis, 282 F.3d 755 (9th Cir. 2002). 5
Sisneros v. Booker, 981 F.Supp. 1374 (D.Colo. 1997). 22,
43
Sisneros v. Nix, 884 F.Supp. 1313 (S.D.Iowa 1995). 19, 27,
28, 47
Sisneros v. Nix, 95 F.3d 749 (8th Cir. 1996). 27, 47
Sisney v. Reisch, 533 F.Supp.2d 952 (D.S.D. 2008). 24, 37,
39
Sisney v. Reisch, 674 F.3d 839 (8th Cir. 2012). 18, 37
Sistrunk v. Khan, 931 F.Supp.2d 849 (N.D.Ill. 2013). 29, 32
Sital v. Burgio, 592 F.Supp.2d 355 (W.D.N.Y. 2009). 3, 11,
33
Sivak v. Ada County, 769 P.2d 1131 (Idaho App. 1989). 9,
18
Six v. United States Parole Commission, 502 F.Supp. 446
(E.D. Mich. 1980). 36
Sizemore v. Lee, 20 F.Supp.2d 956 (W.D.Va. 1998). 1, 22
Sizemore v. Williford, 829 F.2d 608 (7th Cir. 1987). 19, 38
Sizer v. County of Hennepin, 393 F.Supp.2d 796 (D.Minn.
2005). 6, 32, 36
Skelton v. Pri-Cor, Inc., 963 F.2d 100 (6th Cir. 1991). 1, 28,
37, 38
Skinner v. Cunningham, 430 F.3d 483 (1st Cir. 2005). 3, 7,
48
Skinner v. Holman, 672 F.Supp.2d 657 (D.Del. 2009). 11,
21, 47, 50
Skinner v. Lampert, 457 F.Supp.2d 1269 (D.Wyo. 2006).
14, 27
Skinner v. Uphoff, 410 F.Supp.2d 1104 (D.Wyo. 2006). 1,
2, 14, 27
Skrtich v. Thornton, 280 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2002). 14, 48
Skundor v. McBride, 280 F.Supp.2d 524 (S.D.W.Va. 2003).
3, 12, 33, 39, 41
Skurstenis v. Jones, 236 F.3d 678 (11th Cir. 2000). 17, 25,
29, 32, 41
Slade v. Hampton Roads Regional Jail, 407 F.3d 243 (4th
Cir. 2005). 4, 32, 35
Slakan v. Porter, 737 F.2d 368 (4th Cir. 1984), cert. denied,
470 U.S. 1035, 105 S.Ct. 1413. 27, 48
Slater v. Susquehanna County, 613 F.Supp.2d 653 (M.D.Pa.
2009). 31

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Sledge v. Cummings, 995 F.Supp. 1276 (D.Kan. 1998). 37,
38
Sledge v. Kooi, 564 F.3d 105 (2nd Cir. 2009). 29
Sledge v. U.S., 883 F.Supp.2d 71 (D.D.C. 2012). 2, 14, 27,
39, 49
Slevin v. Board of Com'rs for County of Dona Ana, 934
F.Supp.2d 1270 (D.N.M. 2013). 3, 27, 29, 30, 32
Slevin v. Board of Com'rs for County of Dona Ana, 934
F.Supp.2d 1282 (D.N.M. 2013). 1, 27, 32
Slezak v. Evatt, 21 F.3d 590 (4th Cir. 1994), cert. denied,
115 S.Ct. 235. 8
Sliney v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 577 F.Supp.2d 113
(D.D.C. 2008). 2, 19
Sloane v. Borawski, 64 F.Supp.3d 473 (W.D.N.Y. 2014).
11, 48
Sluss v. United States Department of Justice, 78 F.Supp.3d
61 (D.D.C. 2015). 2, 47
Small v. Camden County, 728 F.3d 265 (3rd Cir. 2013). 1,
21
Small v. Lehman, 98 F.3d 762 (3rd Cir. 1996). 37
Small v. Sutton, 653 F.Supp. 900 (10th Cir. 1987). 24, 36
Small v. Weekly, 749 F.Supp. 1052 (D. Colo. 1990). 14, 24
Smallwood v. Renfro, 708 F.Supp. 182 (N.D. Ill. 1989). 24,
29, 48
Smart v. Goord, 21 F.Supp.2d 309 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). 22, 47
Smego v. Mitchell, 723 F.3d 752 (7th Cir. 2013). 29
Smentek v. Dart, 683 F.3d 373 (7th Cir. 2012). 27, 32
Smith v. Allen, 502 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2007). 37, 39
Smith v. Arkansas Dept. of Correction, 103 F.3d 637 (8th
Cir. 1996). 14, 45
Smith v. Arkansas Dept. of Correction, 995 F.2d 869 (8th
Cir. 1993). 31
Smith v. Armstrong, 968 F.Supp. 40 (D.Conn. 1996). 1
Smith v. Atkins, 777 F.Supp.2d 955 (E.D.N.C. 2011). 2, 14,
25, 29, 30, 44, 45, 46
Smith v. Barber, 316 F.Supp.2d 992 (D.Kan. 2004). 9, 12,
26, 32
Smith v. Bennett, 365 U.S. 708 (1961). 1, 22
Smith v. Bingham, 914 F.2d 740 (5th Cir. 1990), cert.
denied, 111 S.Ct. 1116. 34
Smith v. Blue, 67 F.Supp.2d 686 (S.D.Tex. 1999). 14, 26,
29, 45, 46
Smith v. Board of County Com'rs. of County of Lyon, 216
F.Supp.2d 1209 (D.Kan. 2002). 23, 27, 40, 44, 45, 46,
50
Smith v. Brevard County, 461 F.Supp.2d 1243 (M.D.Fla.
2006), 14, 27, 32, 45
Smith v. Bruce, 568 F.Supp.2d 1277 (D.Kan. 2008). 18, 37
Smith v. Campbell, 250 F.3d 1032 (6th Cir. 2001). 21, 47
Smith v. Carpenter, 316 F.3d 178 (2nd Cir. 2003). 29
Smith v. Carrasco, 334 F.Supp.2d 1094 (N.D.Ind. 2004).
19, 35
Smith v. Chrans, 629 F.Supp. 606 (C.D. Ill. 1986). 33, 41
Smith v. City of Oakland, 538 F.Supp.2d 1217 (N.D.Cal.
2008). 4, 16, 27
Smith v. Clarke, 458 F.3d 720 (8th Cir. 2006). 29
Smith v. Cochran, 216 F.Supp.2d 1286 (N.D.Okla. 2001).
7, 13, 17, 50
Smith v. Colorado Dept. of Corrections, 23 F.3d 339 (10th
Cir. 1994). 35
Smith v. Conway County, Ark., 759 F.3d 853 (8th Cir.
2014). 14, 27, 32, 48
Smith v. Copeland, 87 F.3d 265 (8th Cir. 1996). 9, 23, 32,
40

TC-86
XXVI

Smith v. Copeland, 892 F.Supp. 1218 (E.D.Mo. 1995). 3, 9,
12, 18, 19, 24, 27, 29, 32, 48
Smith v. Coughlin, 727 F.Supp. 834 (S.D.N.Y. 1989). 24,
33, 36
Smith v. Coughlin, 938 F.2d 19 (2nd Cir. 1991). 11
Smith v. County of Lenawee, 600 F.3d 686 (6th Cir. 2010).
14, 17, 24, 27, 29, 32, 45
Smith v. County of Los Angeles, 535 F.Supp.2d 1033
(C.D.Cal. 2008). 2, 14, 24, 29
Smith v. Cummings, 445 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2006). 14, 39
Smith v. Dart, 803 F.3d 304 (7th Cir. 2015). 12, 18, 23, 32,
40, 50
Smith v. Delamaid, 842 F.Supp. 453 (D.Kan. 1994). 48
Smith v. Delo, 995 F.2d 827 (8th Cir. 1993), cert. denied,
114 S.Ct. 710. 19, 28
Smith v. Dept. of Corrections, 792 P.2d 109 (Or. App.
1990). 18
Smith v. District of Columbia, 674 F.Supp.2d 209 (D.D.C.
2009). 13, 14, 29
Smith v. Dodrill, 718 F.Supp. 1293 (N.D. W.Va. 1989). 2,
31
Smith v. Eovaldi, 112 F.Supp.3d 779 (S.D. Ill. 2015). 10,
18, 23, 29, 48
Smith v. Erickson, 884 F.2d 1108 (8th Cir. 1989). 1, 28
Smith v. Erickson, 961 F.2d 1387 (8th Cir. 1992). 1, 28
Smith v. Fairman, 528 F.Supp. 186 (C.D. Ill. 1981). 9, 15
Smith v. Fairman, 678 F.2d 52 (C.D. Ill. 1982), cert. denied,
103 S.Ct. 1879. 10, 19, 33, 41
Smith v. Farley, 858 F.Supp. 806 (N.D. Ind. 1993). 11, 22
Smith v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 517 F.Supp.2d 451
(D.D.C. 2007). 2, 4, 21
Smith v. Fischer, 803 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2015). 11
Smith v. Franklin County, 227 F.Supp.2d 667 (E.D.Ky.
2002). 1, 13, 29
Smith v. Gosh, 653 F.Supp. 846 (W.D. Wis. 1987). 5, 16,
48
Smith v. Haley, 401 F.Supp.2d 1240 (M.D.Ala. 2005). 13,
24, 37, 38
Smith v. Harvey County Jail, 889 F.Supp. 426 (D.Kan.
1995). 1, 12, 18, 29, 32
Smith v. Holzapfel, 739 F.Supp. 1089 (E.D. Tex. 1990). 48
Smith v. Iron County, 692 F.2d 685 (10th Cir. 1982). 39, 48
Smith v. Jenkins, 919 F.2d 90 (8th Cir. 1990). 29, 30
Smith v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 262 (5th Cir. 2006). 10
Smith v. Knox County Jail, 666 F.3d 1037 (7th Cir. 2012).
14, 29, 32, 45
Smith v. Lejeune, 203 F.Supp.2d 1260 (D.Wyo. 2002). 14,
29, 32, 46
Smith v. Linn County, 342 N.W.2d 861 (Iowa 1984). 4, 29
Smith v. Maloney, 735 F.Supp. 39 (D. Mass. 1990). 41, 49
Smith v. Marcantonio, 910 F.2d 500 (8th Cir. 1990). 14, 24
Smith v. Maschner, 899 F.2d 940 (10th Cir. 1990). 11, 28
Smith v. Massachusetts Dept. of Correction, 936 F.2d 1390
(1st Cir. 1991). 11, 47
Smith v. Matthews, 793 F.Supp. 998 (D.Kan. 1992). 41, 49
Smith v. McDonald, 869 F.Supp. 918 (D.Kan. 1994). 49
Smith v. Mensinger, 293 F.3d 641 (3rd Cir. 2002). 14
Smith v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 765 F.Supp.2d 973
(E.D.Mich. 2011). 31
Smith v. Michigan, 256 F.Supp.2d 704 (E.D. Mich. 2003).
14, 29
Smith v. Miller, 423 F.Supp.2d 859 (N.D.Ind. 2006). 19,
38, 39
Smith v. Montefiore Med. Center-Health Services, 22
F.Supp.2d 275 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). 9, 15, 32

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Smith v. Montgomery County, Md., 643 F.Supp. 435 (D.
Md. 1986). 25, 32, 41
Smith v. Mosley, 532 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2008). 11, 19, 21,
38
Smith v. Muccino, 223 F.Supp.2d 396 (D.Conn. 2002). 8, 9,
10, 14
Smith v. Noonan, 992 F.2d 987 (9th Cir. 1993). 3, 8, 11
Smith v. Norris, 877 F.Supp. 1296 (E.D. Ark. 1995). 14, 27,
45
Smith v. O'Connor, 901 F.Supp. 644 (S.D.N.Y. 1955). 1,
35, 41
Smith v. Ozmint, 578 F.3d 246 (4th Cir. 2009). 23, 37, 38,
48
Smith v. Peters, 631 F.3d 418 (7th Cir. 2011). 10, 19, 39, 50
Smith v. Reilly, 604 F.Supp.2d 124 (D.D.C. 2009). 36, 43
Smith v. Reyes, 904 F.Supp.2d 1070 (S.D.Cal. 2012). 20,
24
Smith v. Reynaud, 89 F.Supp.2d 784 (W.D.La. 2000). 29
Smith v. Rowe, 761 F.2d 360 (1985). 50
Smith v. Sampson, 349 F.Supp. 268 (D. N.H. 1972). 23, 32,
38
Smith v. Sangamon County Sheriff's Dept., 715 F.3d 188
(7th Cir. 2013). 8, 9, 14, 25, 32, 39, 44
Smith v. Scott, 223 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir. 2000). 20
Smith v. Securus Technologies, Inc., 120 F.Supp.3d 976 (D.
Minn. 2015). 2, 42
Smith v. Shawnee Library System, 60 F.3d 317 (7th Cir.
1995). 1, 3
Smith v. Shettle, 946 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1991). 3, 11
Smith v. Smith, 589 F.3d 736 (4th Cir. 2009). 29
Smith v. Stanton, 545 F.Supp.2d 302 (W.D.N.Y. 2008). 24,
33
Smith v. Sullivan, 1 F.Supp.2d 206 (W.D.N.Y. 1998). 26
Smith v. Sullivan, 553 F.2d 373 (5th Cir. 1977). 7, 9, 27, 29
Smith v. Sumner, 994 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir. 1993). 11, 12
Smith v. U.S. Parole Com'n, 814 F.Supp. 246 (D.Conn.
1993). 36
Smith v. U.S., 207 F.Supp.2d 209 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). 3, 9
Smith v. U.S., 518 F.Supp.2d 139 (D.D.C. 2007). 27, 36
Smith v. U.S., 561 F.3d 1090 (10th Cir. 2009). 15, 27, 50
Smith v. U.S., 850 F.Supp. 984 (M.D.Fla. 1994). 2, 24
Smith v. U.S., 896 F.Supp. 1183 (N.D.Fla. 1995). 7, 17
Smith v. Ullman, 874 F.Supp. 979 (D.Neb. 1994). 14
Smith v. Wade, 103 S.Ct. 1625 (U.S. Sup. Ct. 1983). 7, 14,
27
Smith-Bey v. CCA/CTF, 703 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C. 2010).
15, 18, 40
Smith-Thompson v. District of Columbia, 657 F.Supp.2d
123 (D.D.C. 2009). 2, 31
Smook v. Minnehaha County, 340 F.Supp.2d 1037 (D.S.D.
2004). 17, 26, 33, 41
Smook v. Minnehaha County, 457 F.3d 806 (8th Cir. 2006).
26, 32, 33, 41
Smook v. Minnehaha County, S.D., 353 F.Supp.2d 1059
(D.S.D. 2005). 26, 32, 41
Smylis v. City of New York, 25 F.Supp.2d 461 (S.D.N.Y.
1998). 31
Smylis v. City of New York, 983 F.Supp. 478 (S.D.N.Y.
1997). 31
Sneed v. Donahue, 993 F.2d 1239 (6th Cir. 1993). 36
Snell v. DeMello, 44 F.Supp.2d 386 (D.Mass. 1999). 14,
29, 32
Snell v. Suffolk County, 611 F.Supp. 521 (D.C. N.Y. 1985).
7, 31

TC-87
XXVI

Snell v. Suffolk County, 782 F.2d 1094 (2nd Cir. 1986). 2,
7
Snelling v. Riveland, 983 F.Supp. 930 (E.D.Wash. 1997).
19, 28
Snider v. Dylag, 188 F.3d 51 (2nd Cir. 1999). 10, 14
Snipes v. Detella, 95 F.3d 586 (7th Cir. 1996). 29, 40
Snodgrass v. Robinson, 512 F.3d 999 (8th Cir. 2008). 36,
43, 44
Snow ex rel. Snow v. City of Citronelle, AL., 420 F.3d
1262 (11th Cir. 2005). 2, 14, 29, 30, 32
Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2012). 24, 27, 29,
45
Snyder v. Baumecker, 708 F.Supp. 1451 (D. N.J. 1989). 14
Snyder v. Blagojevich, 332 F.Supp.2d 1132 (N.D.Ill. 2004).
31
Snyder v. Nolen, 380 F.3d 279 (7th Cir. 2004). 1
Sockwell v. Phelps, 20 F.3d 187 (5th Cir. 1994). 4, 5, 7, 8,
24
Sok v. I.N.S., 67 F.Supp.2d 1166 (E.D.Cal. 1999). 22
Solberg v. County of Yellowstone, 659 P.2d 290 (Mont.
1983). 14, 27, 29
Solis v. County of Los Angeles, 514 F.3d 946 (9th Cir.
2008). 1, 14
Solivan v. Dart, 897 F.Supp.2d 694 (N.D.Ill. 2012). 8, 10,
14, 15, 32, 45
Solomon v. Dixon, 724 F.Supp. 1193 (E.D.N.C. 1989),
affirmed, 904 F.2d 701. 50
Solomon v. Nassau County, 759 F.Supp.2d 251 (E.D.N.Y.
2011). 15, 23, 32, 40
Solomon v. Zant, 888 F.2d 1579 (11th Cir. 1989). 1, 38, 39
Somers v. Thurman, 109 F.3d 614 (9th Cir. 1997). 33, 41
Soneeya v. Spencer, 851 F.Supp.2d 228 (D.Mass. 2012). 2,
17, 27, 29, 30
Sonntag v. Papparozzi, 256 F.Supp.2d 320 (D.N.J. 2003).
36
Sorenson v. Murphy, 874 F.Supp. 461 (D. Mass, 1995). 11,
49
Sorrels v. McKee, 290 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2002). 19, 28, 39
Sorrentino v. Godinez, 777 F.3d 410 (7th Cir. 2015). 2, 35,
38, 42
Sossamon v. Lone Star State of Texas, 560 F.3d 316 (5th
Cir. 2009). 8, 24, 37, 39
Sostre v. McGinnis, 442 F.2d 178 (2d Cir. 1971). 4, 27
Soto v. Belcher, 339 F.Supp.2d 592 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). 1, 21
Soto v. Cady, 566 F.Supp. 773 (E.D. Wisc. 1983). 48
Soto v. City of Sacramento, 567 F.Supp. 662 (E.D. Cal.
1983). 14
Soto v. Johansen, 137 F.3d 980 (7th Cir. 1998). 14
Soto v. Lord, 693 F.Supp. 8 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). 11, 27
Soto-Ramirez v. Ashcroft, 228 F.Supp.2d 566 (M.D.Pa.
2002). 22
Souffront v. Alvarado, 115 F.Supp.2d 237 (D.Puerto Rico
2000). 27, 29
Sours v. Big Sandy Regional Jail Authority, 946 F.Supp.2d
678 (E.D.Ky. 2013). 14, 24, 29, 32
Sours v. Purkett, 978 F.2d 1086 (8th Cir. 1992). 37
Southerland v. Thigpen, 784 F.2d 713 (5th Cir. 1986). 17,
29
Southern Christian Leadership v. Supreme Court, 61
F.Supp.2d 499 (E.D.La. 1999). 1
Souza v. Travisono, 498 F.2d 1120 (1st Cir. 1974). 38, 49
Sowards v. Loudon County, 203 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2000).
31
Sowell v. Vose, 941 F.2d 32 (1st Cir. 1991). 1
Spann v. Roper, 453 F.3d 1007 (8th Cir. 2006). 29, 30

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Sparks v. Gaines, 144 F.Supp.2d 9 (D.D.C. 2001). 22, 36
Sparks v. Seltzer, 607 F.Supp.2d 437 (E.D.N.Y. 2009). 7,
19, 33, 49
Spaulding v. Collins, 867 F.Supp. 499 (S.D.Tex. 1993). 11,
22, 39
Spavone v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Services,
719 F.3d 127 (2nd Cir. 2013). 7, 10, 24, 30, 36
Spear v. Sowders, 33 F.3d 576 (6th Cir. 1994). 24, 41, 49
Spear v. Sowders, 71 F.3d 626 (6th Cir. 1995). 33, 41, 49
Spears v. Ruth, 589 F.3d 249 (6th Cir. 2009). 14, 25, 29, 32,
48
Speed v. Stotts, 941 F.Supp. 1051 (D.Kan. 1996). 3, 11
Spellman v. Hopper, 142 F.Supp.2d 1323 (M.D.Ala. 2000).
3, 19, 38
Spellman v. Hopper, 95 F.Supp.2d 1267 (M.D.Ala. 1999).
3, 19, 38
Spellmon-Bey v. Lynaugh, 778 F.Supp. 338 (E.D. Tex.
1991), dismissed, 12 F.3d 1097. 11, 20
Spence v. Farrier, 807 F.2d 753 (8th Cir. 1986). 11, 41
Spencer v. Bouchard, 449 F.3d 721 (6th Cir. 2006). 9, 15,
32
Spencer v. Jackson County, Mo., 738 F.3d 907 (8th Cir.
2013). 8, 21, 34, 50
Spencer v. Kemna, 118 S.Ct. 978 (1998). 22, 36
Spencer v. Knapheide Truck Equipment Co., 183 F.3d 902
(8th Cir. 1999). 14, 32
Spencer v. Moore, 638 F.Supp. 315 (E.D. Mo. 1986). 21
Spencer v. Sheahan, 158 F.Supp.2d 837 (N.D.Ill. 2001). 29,
32
Sperle v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 297 F.3d 483 (6th
Cir. 2002). 14, 31
Spicer v. Collins, 9 F.Supp.2d 673 (E.D.Tex. 1998). 11, 14,
18, 35, 48
Spicer v. Com. of Va., Dept. of Corrections, 66 F.3d 705
(4th Cir. 1995). 31
Spicer v. District of Columbia, 916 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C.
2013). 14, 45
Spiegla v. Hull, 371 F.3d 928 (7th Cir. 2004). 31
Spiegla v. Hull, 481 F.3d 961 (7th Cir. 2007). 31
Spies v. Voinovich, 173 F.3d 398 (6th Cir. 1999). 37, 38, 39
Spotted Bear v. McCall, 648 F.2d 546 (9th Cir. 1980). 36
Spotts v. U.S., 562 F.Supp.2d 46 (D.D.C. 2008). 9, 40
Spotts v. U.S., 613 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 2010). 27, 39
Spotville v. Cain, 149 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 1998). 22
Spratt v. County of Kent, 621 F.Supp. 594 (D.C. Mich.
1985), cert. denied, 107 S.Ct. 1574. 34, 37
Spratt v. Rhode Island Dept. Of Corrections, 482 F.3d 33
(1st.Cir. 2007). 19, 37, 38
Sprau v. Coughlin, 997 F.Supp. 390 (W.D.N.Y. 1998). 14,
21
Sprouse v. Babcock, 870 F.2d 450 (8th Cir. 1989). 11, 21
Spruce v. Sargent, 149 F.3d 783 (8th Cir. 1998). 14
Spruytte v. Govorchin, 961 F.Supp. 1094 (W.D.Mich.
1997). 1, 35
Spruytte v. Hoffner, 181 F.Supp.2d 736 (W.D.Mich. 2001).
19, 27, 47, 50
Spruytte v. Hoffner, 197 F.Supp.2d 931 (W.D.Mich. 2001).
5
Spurlock v. Simmons, 88 F.Supp.2d 1189 (D.Kan. 2000). 7,
19
St. Claire v. Cuyler, 634 F.2d 109 (3rd Cir. 1980). 19, 37,
38, 39
St. Louis v. Morris, 573 F.Supp.2d 846 (D.Del. 2008). 19,
50

TC-88
XXVI

Stack v. Karnes, 750 F.Supp.2d 892 (S.D.Ohio 2010). 2, 29,
46
Stafford v. Harrison, 766 F.Supp. 1014 (D. Kan. 1991). 34,
37
Stafford v. State, 835 F.Supp. 1136 (W.D.Mo. 1993). 2, 31
Standing Deer v. Carlson, 831 F.2d 1525 (9th Cir. 1987).
37, 38
Standish v. Bommel, 82 F.3d 190 (8th Cir. 1996). 9, 39
Stanfill v. Talton, 851 F.Supp.2d 1346 (M.D.Ga. 2012). 1,
14, 24, 29, 32, 45, 48
Stanko v. Patton, 568 F.Supp.2d 1061 (D.Neb. 2008). 1, 4,
8, 11, 18, 32, 37
Stanley v. Hejirika, 134 F.3d 629 (4th Cir. 1998). 27, 48
Stanley v. Litscher, 213 F.3d 340 (7th Cir. 2000). 34
Stanley v. Muzio, 578 F.Supp.2d 443 (D.Conn. 2008). 16,
24, 32, 48
Stanley v. Vining, 602 F.3d 767 (6th Cir. 2010). 1, 21, 28,
38
Stanwood v. Green, 559 F.Supp. 196 (1983). 4, 5
Staples v. U.S., 948 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C.013). 8, 9, 29
Staples v. Virginia Dept. of Corrections, 904 F.Supp. 487
(E.D.Va. 1995). 7, 29
Staples v. Young, 438 N.W.2d 567 (Wis. 1989). 11, 21
Star v. Gramley, 815 F.Supp. 276 (C.D.Ill. 1993). 7, 19, 38
Starchild v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 973 F.2d 610 (8th
Cir. 1992). 22, 43
Stark v. County of Westchester, 862 F.Supp. 67 (S.D.N.Y.
1994). 14
Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2011). 7, 14, 27, 32
Starr v. Moore, 849 F.Supp.2d 205 (D.N.H. 2012). 2, 11,
18, 21
State Bank of St. Charles v. Camic, 712 F.2d 1140 (7th Cir.
1983), cert. denied, 104 S.Ct. 491. 14, 27
State Correctional Inst. v. Nelson, 503 A.2d 116 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1986). 2, 31, 46
State Dept. of Corrections v. Romero, 524 So.2d 1032 (Fla.
App. 1988). 27, 50
State Dept. of Justice, Inmate Injury Fund v. Spear, 767
P.2d 928 (Or.App. 1989). 50
State Ex. Rel. M.L.N. v. Greiner, 360 S.E.2d 554 (W.Va.
1987). 8, 26
State v. Balser, 460 So.2d 74 (La. App., 1984). 19, 41
State v. Berger, 618 S.W.2d 215 (Ct. App. Mo. 1981). 47
State v. Braxton, 37 CrL 2372 (Conn. Sup. Ct. 1985). 16
State v. Dawson, 282 S.E.2d 284 (Sup. Ct. App. W.Va.
1981). 36, 43
State v. Ferre, 734 P.2d 888 (Ore. App. 1987). 43
State v. Grey, 602 S.W.2d 259 (Crim. App. Tenn. 1980).
32, 47
State v. Hartzog, 635 P.2d 694 (Sup. Ct. Wash. 1981). 41
State v. Human Rights Com'n., 534 N.E.2d 161 (Ill.App. 4
Dist. 1989). 2, 31
State v. Killebrew, 327 N.W.2d 155 (Ct. App. Wisc. 1982).
11
State v. Maier, 423 A.2d 235 (Sup. Ct. Me. 1980). 43
State v. Moot, 398 N.W.2d 21 (Minn. App. 1986). 36, 43
State v. Patrick, 381 So.2d 501 (Sup. Ct. La. 1980). 36
State v. Ryan, 429 A.2d 332 (Sup. Ct. N.J. 1981), cert.
denied, 454 U.S. 880. 43
State v. Simon, 297 N.W.2d 206 (Iowa 1980). 1
State v. Staab, 430 So.2d 55 (La. 1983). 1
State v. Thornton, 38 CrL 2173 (Mont. Sup. Ct. 1985). 16,
39
State v. Washington, 37 CrL 2226 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985).
26, 32, 36

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

State v. Williams, 36 CrL 2103 (Wash. Sup. Ct. 1984). 16
Stauffer v. Gearhart, 741 F.3d 574 (5th Cir. 2014). 7, 19,
27, 28, 34
Steading v. Thompson, 941 F.2d 498 (7th Cir. 1991), cert.
denied, 112 S.Ct. 1206. 10, 29
Steele v. Shah, 87 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 1996). 29, 30
Steele v. Withrow, 157 F.Supp.2d 734 (E.D.Mich. 2001).
22, 26
Stefanoff v. Hays County, Tex., 154 F.3d 523 (5th Cir.
1998). 19, 20, 24
Stefanow v. McFadden, 103 F.3d 1466 (9th Cir. 1996). 19,
37
Steffenhagen v. Armontrout, 749 F.Supp. 997 (W.D. Mo.
1990). 14
Steffey v. Orman, 461 F.3d 1218 (10th Cir. 2006). 35, 38
Steidl v. Gramley, 151 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 1998). 14, 45
Stein v. Ryan, 662 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2011). 7, 36, 43
Stenzel v. Ellis, 916 F.2d 423 (8th Cir. 1990). 10, 48
Stephany v. Wagner, 835 F.2d 497 (3rd Cir. 1987), cert.
denied, 108 S.Ct. 2851. 3
Stephens v. Correctional Services Corp., 428 F.Supp.2d 580
(E.D.Tex. 2006). 14, 27, 32, 46
Stephens v. Muncy, 751 F.Supp. 1214 (E.D. Va. 1990),
affirmed, 929 F.2d 694. 36, 43
Sterling v. Borough of Minersville, 232 F.3d 190 (3rd Cir.
2000). 14, 33
Sterling v. Cupp, 625 P.2d 123 (Sup. Ct. Ore. 1981). 41
Sterling v. Wood, 68 F.3d 1124 (8th Cir. 1995). 1, 47
Stern v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 515 F.Supp.2d 153
(D.D.C. 2007). 2, 4
Stern v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 537 F.Supp.2d 178
(D.D.C. 2008). 4, 43
Stevens v. County of Duchess, 445 F.Supp. 89 (S.D. N.Y.
1977). 14, 27
Stevens v. Gooch, 48 F.Supp.3d 992 (E.D.Ky. 2014). 1, 21,
29
Stevenson v. Carroll, 495 F.3d 62 (3rd Cir. 2007). 3, 8, 32
Stevenson v. Koskey, 877 F.2d 1435 (9th Cir. 1989). 28
Stevenson v. Thornburgh, 943 F.2d 1214 (10th Cir. 1991).
22, 47
Stewart ex rel. Estate of Stewart v. Waldo County, 350
F.Supp.2d 215 (D.Me. 2004). 14, 29, 32
Stewart v. Alameida, 418 F.Supp.2d 1154 (N.D.Cal. 2006).
8, 19, 39
Stewart v. Beach, 701 F.3d 1322 (10th Cir. 2012). 37
Stewart v. Beaufort County, 481 F.Supp.2d 483 (D.S.C.
2007). 32, 48
Stewart v. Block, 938 F.Supp. 582 (C.D.Cal. 1996). 1, 11,
18, 21
Stewart v. Davies, 954 F.2d 515 (8th Cir. 1992). 34, 36
Stewart v. Gates, 450 F.Supp. 583 (C.D. Calif. 1978). 3, 12
Stewart v. LaGrand, 119 S.Ct. 1018 (1999). 10, 43
Stewart v. Lyles, 66 Fed.Appx. 18 (7th Cir. 2003).
[unpublished] 33, 41
Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 118 S.Ct. 1618 (1998). 1, 22
Stewart v. McGinnis, 800 F.Supp. 604 (N.D.Ill, affirmed, f
F.3d 1031. 1992). 9, 35
Stewart v. McManus, 924 F.2d 138 (8th Cir. 1991). 11, 39,
48
Stewart v. McMickens, 677 F.Supp. 226 (S.D. N.Y. 1988).
1
Stewart v. Robinson, 115 F.Supp.2d 188 (D.N.H. 2000). 14,
25, 32
Stewart v. Taft, 235 F.Supp.2d 763 (N.D.Ohio 2002). 29
Stickley v. Byrd, 703 F.3d 421 (8th Cir. 2013). 23, 24, 32

TC-89
XXVI

Stigall v. Madden, 26 F.3d 867 (8th Cir. 1994). 16, 47
Stiltner v. Crouse, 327 F.Supp.2d 667 (W.D.Va. 2004). 14,
25, 32, 45
Stiver v. Meko, 130 F.3d 574 (3rd Cir. 1997). 34, 43
Stojcevski v. County of Macomb, 143 F.Supp.3d 675 (E.D.
Mich. 2015). 13, 14, 27, 29, 44
Stokes v. Delcambre, 710 F.2d 1120 (5th Cir. 1983). 8, 14,
27
Stokes v. Fair, 795 F.2d 235 (1st Cir. 1986). 8
Stokes v. Hurdle, 393 F.Supp. 757 (D. Md. 1975). 29
Stokes v. Miller, 216 F.Supp.2d 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). 1, 22
Stone v. Caswell, 963 F.Supp.2d 32 (D.Mass. 2013). 14, 48
Stone v. City and County of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850
(9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1050. 15, 27,
36
Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976), reh'g. denied, 429
U.S. 874. 22
Stone v. Schmidt, 398 F.Supp. 768 (W.D. Wisc. 1975), cert.
denied, 429 U.S. 865. 28
Stone-Bey v. Swihart, 898 F.Supp. 1287 (N.D.Ind. 1995).
11
Stone-El v. Fairman, 785 F.Supp. 711 (N.D. Ill. 1991). 24,
28
Stone-El v. Sheahan, 914 F.Supp. 202 (N.D.Ill. 1995). 9,
10, 12, 27, 32, 39
Stoner v. Arkansas Dep. of Correction, 983 F.Supp.2d 1074
(E.D.Ark. 2013). 2, 31
Stones v. McDonald, 7 F.Supp.3d 422 (D.Del. 2014). 29
Story v. Foote, 782 F.3d 968 (8th Cir. 2015). 31, 33, 41
Story v. Morgan, 786 F.Supp. 523 (W.D. Pa. 1992). 1, 47
Stotts v. Salas, 938 F.Supp. 663 (D.Hawai'i 1996). 1
Stoudemire v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 22 F.Supp.3d
715 (E.D.Mich. 2014). 3, 13, 15, 17, 29
Stoudemire v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 705 F.3d 560
(6th Cir. 2013). 17, 24, 29, 33, 41
Stough v. Gallahger, 967 F.2d 1523 (11th Cir. 1992). 31
Stout v. City of Porterville, 196 Calif. Rptr. 301 (Calif. Ct.
App. 1983). 14, 27
Stow v. Grimaldi, 993 F.2d 1002 (lst Cir. 1993). 28
Strachan v. Ashe, 548 F.Supp. 1193 (D. Mass. 1982). 10,
11, 23, 24, 40
Straker v. Jones, 986 F.Supp.2d 345 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). 6, 22
Straley v. Utah Bd. of Pardons, 582 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir.
2009). 22, 36, 44
Strandberg v. City of Helena, 791 F.2d 744 (9th Cir. 1986).
19, 25
Strandell v. Jackson County, Ill., 634 F.Supp. 824 (S.D. Ill.
1986). 8, 14, 44
Straub v. Monge, 815 F.2d 1467 (11th Cir. 1987), cert.
denied, 108 S.Ct. 336. 1
Street v. Fair, 918 F.2d 269 (1st Cir. 1990). 14
Street v. Vose, 936 F.2d 38 (1st Cir. 1991), cert. denied,
112 S.Ct. 948. 1
Streeter v. Goord, 519 F.Supp.2d 289 (N.D.N.Y. 2007). 27,
29
Streeter v. Hopper, 618 F.2d 1178 (5th Cir. 1980). 3, 9, 14,
19, 22, 27, 47
Streeter v. Sheriff of Cook County, 576 F.Supp.2d 913
(N.D.Ill. 2008). 32, 33, 39, 41
Streit v. County of Los Angeles, 236 F.3d 552 (9th Cir.
2001). 16, 24, 27, 32, 36
Strickland v. Delo, 758 F.Supp. 1319 (E.D. Mo. 1991). 3,
11
Strickland v. Dyer, 628 F.Supp. 180 (E.D. Ark. 1986). 8, 11

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Strickland v. Godinez, 104 F.Supp.3d 940 (S.D. Ill. 2015).
37, 38
Strickler v. McCord, 306 F.Supp.2d 818 (N.D.Ind. 2004).
14, 32
Strickler v. Waters, 989 F.2d 1375 (4th Cir. 1993), cert.
denied, 114 S.Ct. 393. 1, 9, 10, 33
Stringer v. Rowe, 616 F.2d 993 (7th Cir. 1980). 11
Stringer v. Williams, 161 F.3d 259 (5th Cir. 1998). 22, 36
Stringfellow v. Perry, 869 F.2d 1140 (8th Cir. 1989). 3
Strong v. Woodford, 428 F.Supp.2d 1082 (C.D.Cal. 2006).
1, 28
Strope v. Collins, 492 F.Supp.2d 1289 (D.Kan. 2007). 24,
27, 28, 38
Strother v. Nardolillo, 583 F.Supp.2d 645 (E.D.Pa. 2008).
22, 36
Stroud v. Roth, 741 F.Supp. 559 (E.D. Pa. 1990). 3, 29, 37
Stroud v. Swope, 187 F.2d 850 (9th Cir. 1951). 22
Strouss v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 250 F.3d 336 (6th
Cir. 2001). 31
Strutton v. Meade, 668 F.3d 549 (8th Cir. 2012). 2, 7, 11,
30, 34, 45
Stuck v. Aikens, 760 F.Supp. 740 (N.D. Ind. 1991). 8, 47
Studway v. Feltman, 764 F.Supp. 133 (W.D. Wis. 1991). 11
Sturm v. Clark, 835 F.2d 1009 (3rd Cir. 1987). 19, 49
Sturts v. City of Philadelphia, 529 F.Supp. 434 (E.D. Penn.
1982). 7, 14
Stutes v. Tipto, 540 F.Supp.2d 516 (D.Vt. 2008). 9, 27, 47
Stutler v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections, 263 F.3d 698 (7th
Cir. 2001). 31
Sudler v. City of New York, 689 F.3d 159 (2nd Cir. 2012).
20, 36, 43
Sullivan v. Bornemann, 384 F.3d 372 (7th Cir. 2004). 25,
29, 32
Sullivan v. Flannigan, 8 F.3d 591 (7th Cir. 1993). 29, 30
Sullivan v. Ford, 828 F.Supp. 480 (E.D. Mich. 1993). 11
Sult v. Prison Health Services Polk County Jail, 806
F.Supp. 251 (M.D.Fla. 1992). 29
Sultenfuss v. Snow, 7 F.3d 1543 (11th Cir. 1993). 36
Sultenfuss v. Snow, 894 F.2d 1277 2 (11th Cir. 1990). 36
Sulton v. Wright, 265 F.Supp.2d 292 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). 2,
27, 29, 47
Summers v. Salt Lake County, 713 F.Supp. 1415 (D. Utah
1989). 1, 28, 33
Summers v. Sheahan, 883 F.Supp. 1163 (N.D. Ill. 1995). 9,
10, 27, 29, 40
Sundby v. Fiedler, 827 F.Supp. 580 (W.D. Wis. 1993). 34
Surles v. Andison, 678 F.3d 452 (6th Cir. 2012). 1, 21, 35,
47
Surprenant v. Rivas, 424 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 2005). 3, 7, 9, 11,
15, 23, 32, 40, 41
Sutherland v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections, 580 F.3d 748
(8TH Cir. 2009). 2, 31
Sutton v. City of Philadelphia, 21 F.Supp.3d 474 (E.D.Pa.
2014). 18, 37
Sutton v. Rasheed, 323 F.3d 236 (3rd Cir. 2003). 3, 37, 38
Sutton v. Stewart, 22 F.Supp.2d 1097 (D.Ariz. 1998). 28,
37, 38, 39
Swader v. Com. of Va., 743 F.Supp. 434 (E.D. Va. 1990).
14, 36
Swain v. Spinney, 117 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1997). 17, 25, 41, 46
Swain v. Spinney, 932 F.Supp. 25 (D.Mass. 1996). 32, 41
Swan by Carello v. Daniels, 923 F.Supp. 626 (D.Del. 1995).
27, 29, 32, 45
Swan v. U.S., 159 F.Supp.2d 1174 (N.D.Cal. 2001). 14, 30,
33

TC-90
XXVI

Swan v. U.S., 698 F.Supp.2d 227 (D.Mass. 2010). 29
Swann v. Secretary, Georgia, 668 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir.
2012). 7, 13, 19, 28
Swart v. Scott County, Minn., 650 F.Supp. 888 (D. Minn.
1987). 5, 41
Sweat v. Grondolsky, 898 F.Supp.2d 347 (D.Mass. 2012).
22, 43
Sweatt v. Bailey, 876 F.Supp. 1571 (M.D. Ala. 1995). 14,
19, 24, 48
Sweeney v. Parke, 113 F.3d 716 (7th Cir. 1997). 11, 20, 22
Sweet v. Northern Neck Regional Jail, 857 F.Supp.2d 595
(E.D.Va. 2012). 2, 19, 37, 38, 39
Sweet v. Wende Correctional Facility, 514 F.Supp.2d 411
(W.D.N.Y. 2007). 11, 21
Swift v. Lewis, 901 F.2d 730 (9th Cir. 1990). 37, 38, 39
Swift v. Tweddell, 582 F.Supp.2d 437 (W.D.N.Y. 2008).
29, 30, 33, 39
Swiggett v. Batcho, 826 F.Supp.2d 722 (E.D.Pa. 2011). 36
Swisher v. Porter County Sheriff's Dept., 769 F.3d 553 (7th
Cir. 2014). 1, 21
Swoboda v. Dubach, 788 F.Supp. 519 (D. Kan. 1992),
modified, 992 F.2d 286. 9
Swofford v. Mandrell, 969 F.2d 547 (7th Cir. 1992). 1, 14,
32
Swope v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 439 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C.
2006). 2, 19, 33
Sykes v. Kreiger, 451 F.Supp. 421 (N.D. Ohio 1975). 1, 3,
19, 28, 29, 30
Sykes v. McPhillips, 412 F.Supp.2d 197 (N.D.N.Y. 2006).
27, 29, 33
Sylvester v. Hanks, 140 F.3d 713 (7th Cir. 1998). 11, 22
Sypert v. U.S., 559 F.Supp. 546 (D. D.C. 1983). 29
Szubielski v. Pierce, 152 F.Supp.3d 227 (D. Del. 2016). 3,
8, 9, 10, 12, 21, 30
T.S. v. Doe, 742 F.3d 632 (6th Cir. 2014). 24, 25, 26
Tabbaa v. Chertoff, 509 F.3d 89 (2nd Cir. 2007). 32, 41
Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 2008). 20, 22, 43
Tafari v. Hues, 539 F.Supp.2d 694 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). 1
Tafari v. McCarthy, 714 F.Supp.2d 317 (N.D.N.Y. 2010). 1,
3, 10, 14, 21, 24, 28, 29, 39, 47, 48
Tafoya v. McCall, 76 Fed.Appx. 266 (10th Cir. 2003)
[unpublished]. 1
Tafoya v. Salazar, 516 F.3d 912 (10th Cir. 2008). 14, 17
Taha v. Bucks County, 9 F.Supp.3d 490 (E.D.Pa. 2014). 2,
7, 32, 33
Taifa v. Bayh, 846 F.Supp. 723 (N.D. Ind. 1994). 9, 12, 15,
23, 30, 34, 35, 39, 42, 49
Tajeddini v. Gluch, 942 F.Supp. 772 (D.Conn. 1996). 1, 29
Talal v. White, 403 F.3d 423 (6th Cir. 2005). 9, 10, 29
Talbert v. Kelly, 799 F.2d 62 (3rd Cir. 1986). 6, 32
Talib v. Gilley, 138 F.3d 211 (5th Cir. 1998). 3, 10, 18
Talley-Bey v. Knebl, 168 F.3d 884 (6th Cir. 1999). 1, 4
Tal-Mason v. State, 515 So.2d 738 (Fla. 1987). 43
Tamez v. Manthey, 589 F.3d 764 (5th Cir. 2009). 14, 25, 29,
32
Tanner v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 433 F.Supp.2d 117
(D.D.C. 2006). 34, 47, 50
Tanney v. Boles, 400 F.Supp.2d 1027 (E.D.Mich. 2005). 7,
13, 29
Tapia-Ortiz v. Winter, 185 F.3d 8 (2nd Cir. 1999). 1
Tardiff v. Knox County, 397 F.Supp.2d 115 (D.Me. 2005).
24, 25, 27, 32, 41, 44
Tardiff v. Knox County, 425 F.Supp.2d 190 (D.Me.2006).
25, 32, 31

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Tardiff v. Knox County, 567 F.Supp.2d 201 (D.Me. 2008).
17, 27, 32, 41
Tardiff v. Knox County, 573 F.Supp.2d 301 (D.Me. 2008).
17, 25, 32, 41
Tardiff v. Knox County, 598 F.Supp.2d 115 (D.Me. 2009).
17, 25, 27, 32, 41
Tarpley v. Allen County, Indiana, 312 F.3d 895 (7th Cir.
2002). 1, 35, 37, 38, 42
Tarpley v. Dugger, 841 F.2d 359 (11th Cir. 1988), cert.
denied, 109 S.Ct. 101. 1
Tart v. Young, 168 F.Supp.2d 590 (W.D.Va. 2001). 37, 47
Tasker v. Moore, 738 F.Supp. 1005 (S.D. W.Va. 1990). 24,
27, 36
Tate v. Frey, 673 F.Supp. 880 (W.D. Ky. 1987). 4, 9
Tate v. Gusman, 459 F.Supp.2d 519 (E.D.La. 2006). 32, 39
Tate v. Kassulke, 409 F.Supp. 651 (W.D. Ky. 1976). 1, 3,
10, 11, 23, 29, 30, 40
Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395 (1971). 22, 43
Tate v. Troutman, 683 F.Supp.2d 897 (E.D.Wis. 2010). 9,
27, 29
Tatsch-Corbin v. Feathers, 561 F.Supp.2d 538 (W.D.Pa.
2008). 14, 27, 29, 30
Tatum v. Simpson, 399 F.Supp.2d 1159 (D.Colo. 2005). 29,
32
Tavares v. Amato, 954 F.Supp.2d 79 (N.D.N.Y.2013). 1, 3,
8, 10, 13, 24, 37
Taylor v. Adams, 221 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2000). 14, 29, 32
Taylor v. Anderson, 868 F.Supp. 1024 (N.D. Ill. 1994). 18,
29
Taylor v. Armontrout, 894 F.2d 961 (8th Cir. 1989). 49
Taylor v. Barkes, 135 S.Ct. 2042 (2015). 14, 24, 30
Taylor v. Barnett, 105 F.Supp.2d 483 (E.D.Va. 2000). 29
Taylor v. Bowers, 966 F.2d 417 (8th Cir. 1992), cert.
denied, 113 S.Ct. 394. 29
Taylor v. City of Mason, 970 F.Supp.2d 776 (S.D.Ohio
2013). 7, 16, 25, 32
Taylor v. Coughlin, 29 F.3d 39 (2nd Cir. 1994). 1, 35, 38
Taylor v. Cox, 912 F.Supp. 140 (E.D.Pa. 1995). 1, 35, 37
Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844 (9th Cir. 2002). 1
Taylor v. Dormire, 690 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2012). 9, 18, 27
Taylor v. Foltz, 803 F.Supp. 1261 (E.D.Mich. 1992),
affirmed, 14 F.3d 602. 8, 27
Taylor v. Freeman, 34 F.3d 266 (4th Cir. 1994). 9, 39, 45
Taylor v. Green, 868 F.2d 162 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied,
110 S.Ct. 127. 14, 27
Taylor v. Hale, 909 F.Supp.2d 1320 (N.D.Ala. 2012). 14,
32, 48
Taylor v. Hampton Roads Regional Jail Authority, 550
F.Supp.2d 614 (E.D.Va. 2008). 2, 31
Taylor v. Knapp, 871 F.2d 803 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied,
110 S.Ct. 192. 19, 35
Taylor v. Koon, 682 F.Supp. 475 (D. Nev. 1988). 11
Taylor v. Leidig, 484 F.Supp. 1330 (D. Colo. 1980). 28, 41
Taylor v. N.C. Dept. of Corrections, 363 S.E.2d 868 (N.C.
App. 1988). 14
Taylor v. Perini, 413 F.Supp. 189 (N.D. Ohio 1976). 38
Taylor v. Perini, 477 F.Supp. 1289 (N.D. Ohio 1979). 19,
38
Taylor v. Plousis, 101 F.Supp.2d 255 (D.N.J. 2000). 29, 32
Taylor v. Rodriguez, 238 F.3d 188 (2nd Cir. 2001). 11
Taylor v. Sawyer, 284 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2002). 22
Taylor v. Sebelius, 350 F.Supp.2d 888 (D.Kan. 2004). 2, 4,
36
Taylor v. State of Rhode Island, 101 F.3d 780 (1st Cir.
1996). 4, 43

TC-91
XXVI

Taylor v. Sterrett, 344 F.Supp. 411 (N.D. Tex. 1972), reh'g.
den., 420 U.S. 983. 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 18, 30, 34, 37,
44
Taylor v. Sterrett, 532 F.2d 462 (5th Cir. 1976), reh'g.
denied, 420 U.S. 983. 1, 28, 37
Taylor v. Sullivan, 980 F.Supp. 697 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). 24,
36
Taylor v. Swift, 21 F.Supp.3d 237 (E.D.N.Y. 2014). 1, 14,
18, 21, 27, 45, 48
Taylor v. Thornton, 107 F.Supp.2d 1061 (W.D.Mo. 2000).
19, 36, 37
Taylor v. United States, 103 F.Supp.3d 87 (D.D.C. 2015).
32, 48
Taylor v. Walker, 537 F.Supp.2d 966 (C.D.Ill. 2008). 19, 50
Taylor v. Wallace, 931 F.2d 698 (10th Cir. 1991). 11
Taylor v. Watkins, 623 F.3d 483 (7th Cir. 2010). 1, 7
Taylor v. Wausau Underwriters Ins. Co., 423 F.Supp.2d 882
(E.D.Wis. 2006). 14, 29, 32, 45
Teague v. Mayo, 553 F.3d 1068 (7th Cir. 2009). 3, 29, 48
Teague v. St. Charles County, 708 F.Supp.2d 935 (E.D.Mo.
2010). 2, 14, 25, 32, 45, 46
Teahan v. Wilhelm, 481 F.Supp.2d 1115 (S.D.Cal. 2007).
10, 41
Teamsters Local Union No. 117 v. Washington Dept. of
Corrections, 789 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2015). 31
Teas v. Ferguson, 608 F.Supp.2d 1070 (W.D.Ark. 2009).
13, 48
Teen Ranch v. Udow, 389 F.Supp.2d 827 (W.D.Mich.
2005). 19, 26, 34, 37
Teigen v. Renfrow, 511 F.3d 1072 (10th Cir. 2007). 31
Tellier v. Fields, 280 F.3d 69 (2nd Cir. 2000). 27
Temple v. Albert, 719 F.Supp. 265 (S.D.N.Y. 1989). 27
Temple v. Dahm, 905 F.Supp. 670 (D.Neb. 1995). 12
Templeman v. Gunter, 16 F.3d 367 (10th Cir. 1994). 3
Tenny v. Blagojevich, 659 F.3d 578 (7th Cir. 2011). 2, 4, 42,
44
Terbush v. Massachusetts ex rel. Hampden County Sheriff's
Office, 987 F.Supp.2d 109 (D.Mass. 2013). 29, 33, 38
Termunde v Cook, 684 F.Supp. 255 (D. Utah 1988). 3, 37
Terrell v. Bassett, 353 F.Supp.2d 658 (E.D.Va. 2005). 11
Terrell v. Godinez, 966 F.Supp. 679 (N.D.Ill. 1997). 3, 11
Terrell v. U.S., 564 F.3d 442 (6th Cir. 2009). 22, 36
Terrovona v. Brown, 783 F.Supp. 1281 (W.D. Wash. 1991).
41
Terry Ex Rel. Terry v. Hill, 232 F.Supp.2d 934 (E.D.Ark.
2002). 1, 30, 32
Terry v. Cook, 866 F.2d 373 (11th Cir. 1989). 31
Terry v. Rucker, 649 F.2d 563 (8th Cir. 1981). 36
Tesch v. County of Green Lake, 157 F.3d 465 (7th Cir.
1998). 7, 32
Tesoro v. Zavaras, 46 F.Supp.2d 1118 (D.Colo. 1999). 7,
29, 48
Teterud v. Burns, 522 F.2d 357 (8th Cir. 1975). 37, 38
Thacker v. Dixon, 784 F.Supp. 286 (E.D.N.C. 1991). 19, 37
Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 110 F.3d 1233 (6th Cir. 1997). 1,
10, 18
Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378 (6th Cir. 1999). 1, 7, 9
The Chicago Reader v. Sheahan, 141 F.Supp.2d 1142
(N.D.Ill. 2001). 19
The Luparar v. Stoneman, 382 F.Supp. 495 (D. Vt. 1974).
19
Theck v. Warden, I.N.S., 22 F.Supp.2d 1117 (C.D.Cal.
1998). 19, 22
Theriault v. Carlson, 339 F.Supp. 375 (N.D. Ga. 1972), cert.
denied, 434 U.S. 871, reh'g. denied, 434 U.S. 943. 37

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Theriault v. Magnusson, 698 F.Supp. 369 (D. Me. 1988).
19, 28
Theriault v. Quinlan, 609 F.Supp. 733 (2nd Cir. 1985). 36
Theriault v. Silber, 391 F.Supp. 578 (W.D. Tex. 1975), cert.
denied, 434 U.S. 871. 37
Theus v. Angelone, 895 F.Supp. 265 (D.Nev. 1995). 37, 39,
48
Thiel v. Nelson, 422 F.Supp.2d 1024 (W.D.Wis. 2006). 7,
10, 29
Thiel v. Wisconsin, 399 F.Supp.2d 929 (W.D.Wisc. 2005).
7, 32, 41, 47
Thielman v. Leean, 282 F.3d 478 (7th Cir. 2002). 7, 39, 47
Thomas ex rel. Smith v. Cook County Sheriff, 401
F.Supp.2d 867 (N.D.Ill. 2005). 14, 25, 27, 29, 32
Thomas v. Adams, 55 F.Supp.3d 552 (D.N.J. 2014). 7, 34,
47
Thomas v. Ashcroft, 470 F.3d 491 (2nd Cir. 2006). 29, 32
Thomas v. Baca, 514 F.Supp.2d 1201 (C.D. Cal. 2007). 9,
24, 32
Thomas v. Barker, 371 F.Supp.2d 636 (M.D.Pa. 2005). 1,
22, 27
Thomas v. Benton County, Ark., 702 F.Supp. 737 (W.D.
Ark. 1988). 14, 39, 45
Thomas v. Booker, 762 F.2d 654 (8th Cir. 1985), cert.
denied, 106 S.Ct. 1975. 14, 27
Thomas v. Booker, 784 F.2d 299 (8th Cir. 1986), cert.
denied, 106 S.Ct. 1975. 27, 45
Thomas v. Brierley, 481 F.2d 660 (3rd Cir. 1973). 7, 49
Thomas v. Brown, 824 F.Supp. 160 (N.D.Ind. 1993). 9, 10,
23, 40
Thomas v. Bruce, 428 F.Supp.2d 1161(D.Kan. 2006). 29
Thomas v. Bryant, 614 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2010). 2, 5, 10,
27, 30, 48
Thomas v. Calero, 824 F.Supp.2d 488 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). 3,
11
Thomas v. City of Clanton, 285 F.Supp.2d 1275 (M.D.Ala.
2003) 7, 24, 32, 41, 46
Thomas v. City of Peoria, 580 F.3d 633 (7th Cir. 2009). 16,
24
Thomas v. Cook County Sheriff's Dept., 604 F.3d 293 (7th
Cir. 2010). 2, 14, 27, 29
Thomas v. Cumberland County, 749 F.3d 217 (3rd Cir.
2014). 14, 27, 46
Thomas v. Deitz, 518 F.Supp. 794 (D. N.J. 1981). 36
Thomas v. Farley, 31 F.3d 557 (7th Cir. 1994). 19, 36
Thomas v. Ferguson, 361 F.Supp.2d 435 (D.N.J. 2004). 9,
48
Thomas v. Georgia State Bd. of Pardons and Paroles, 881
F.2d 1032 (11th Cir. 1989). 22, 36
Thomas v. Gunter, 103 F.3d 700 (8th Cir. 1997). 37
Thomas v. Gunter, 32 F.3d 1258 (8th Cir. 1994). 37
Thomas v. Irvin, 981 F.Supp. 794 (W.D.N.Y. 1997). 9, 15,
41
Thomas v. Jabe, 760 F.Supp. 120 (E.D. Mich. 1991). 3, 9,
18, 40
Thomas v. McBride, 3 F.Supp.2d 989 (N.D.Ind. 1998). 20,
22, 41
Thomas v. McBride, 306 F.Supp.2d 855 (N.D.Ind. 2004).
11, 22
Thomas v. Nassau County Correctional Center, 288
F.Supp.2d 333 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) 29
Thomas v. Newkirk, 905 F.Supp. 580 (N.D.Ind. 1995). 11
Thomas v. Northern, 574 F.Supp.2d 1029 (E.D.Mo. 2008).
18, 37, 48

TC-92
XXVI

Thomas v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corr., 615 F.Supp.2d 411
(W.D.Pa. 2009). 8, 14, 29
Thomas v. Pennsylvania, 375 F.Supp.2d 406 (M.D.Pa.
2005). 1, 22, 36
Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2010). 3, 9, 12,
39
Thomas v. Ramos, 130 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 1997). 11, 12, 42
Thomas v. Ramos, 918 F.Supp. 228 (N.D.Ill. 1996). 12
Thomas v. Reese, 787 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 2015). 1, 11, 21,
38, 48
Thomas v. Scully, 943 F.2d 259 (2nd Cir. 1991). 35
Thomas v. Sheahan, 499 F.Supp.2d 1062 (N.D.Ill. 2007).
14, 29, 32, 45, 46
Thomas v. Sheahan, 514 F.Supp.2d 1083 (N.D.Ill. 2007). 1,
29, 32, 46
Thomas v. St. Louis Bd. of Police Com'rs, 447 F.3d 1082
(8th Cir. 2006). 24
Thomas v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, 220 F.3d 389
(5th Cir. 2000). 31
Thomas v. U.S. Secretary of Defense, 730 F.Supp. 362
(D.Kan. 1990). 7, 19, 28
Thomas v. U.S., 779 F.Supp.2d 154 (D.C.C. 2011). 29
Thomas v. Walton, 461 F.Supp.2d 786 (S.D.Ill. 2006). 14,
29, 30, 48
Thomas v. Zelez, 731 F.Supp. 1462 (D. Kan. 1990). 8
Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298 (5th Cir. 1987). 29
Thompson v. Armontrout, 647 F.Supp. 1093 (W.D. Mo.
1986), cert. denied, 107 S.Ct. 2202, affirmed, 808
F.2d 28. 36
Thompson v. Carter, 284 F.3d 411 (2nd Cir. 2002). 22, 29
Thompson v. City of Arlington, Tex., 838 F.Supp. 1137
(N.D. Tex. 1993). 31, 33
Thompson v. City of Galveston, 979 F.Supp. 504 (S.D.Tex.
1997). 16, 26, 32
Thompson v. City of Los Angeles, 885 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir.
1989). 9, 41
Thompson v. Clarke, 848 F.Supp. 1452 (D.Neb. 1994). 19,
24, 37
Thompson v. Cockrell, 263 F.3d 423 (5th Cir. 2001). 36
Thompson v. Com. of Ky., Dept. of Corrections, 109 S.Ct.
1904 (1989). 38, 49
Thompson v. County of Cook, 428 F.Supp.2d 807 (N.D.Ill.
2006). 25, 29, 32, 41
Thompson v. Davis, 282 F.3d 780 (9th Cir. 2002). 7, 36
Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 2002). 7, 34, 36
Thompson v. District of Columbia Dept. of Corrections,
511 F.Supp.2d 111 (D.D.C. 2007). 36, 43
Thompson v. Duke, 882 F.2d 1180 (7th Cir. 1989), cert.
denied, 110 S.Ct. 2167. 36
Thompson v. Eason, 258 F.Supp.2d 508 (N.D.Tex. 2003).
14
Thompson v. Enomoto, 915 F.2d 1383 (9th Cir. 1990), cert.
denied, 117 LE2d 131. 27
Thompson v. Federal Prisons Industries, Inc., 546
F.Supp.2d 456 (S.D.Tex. 2008). 50
Thompson v. Gibson, 289 F.3d 1218 (10th Cir. 2002). 2, 18,
42
Thompson v. Hawk, 978 F.Supp. 1421 (D.Kan. 1997). 11,
11
Thompson v. Holm, 809 F.3d 376 (7th Cir. 2016). 18, 37
Thompson v. Joslin, 536 F.Supp.2d 799 (S.D.Tex. 2008).
50
Thompson v. King, 730 F.3d 742 (8th Cir. 2013). 14, 24, 25,
27, 29, 32
Thompson v. Oklahoma, 108 S.Ct. 2687 (1988). 26, 43

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Thompson v. Olson, 798 F.2d 552 (1st Cir. 1986), cert.
denied, 480 U.S. 908. 16
Thompson v. Owens, 889 F.2d 500 (3rd Cir. 1989). 11, 41
Thompson v. Roy, 793 F.3d 843 (8th Cir. 2015). 22, 26
Thompson v. Smeal, 54 F.Supp.3d 339 (M.D.Pa. 2014). 18,
37, 38, 39
Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694 (9th Cir. 1997). 33, 41
Thompson v. Spears, 336 F.Supp.2d 1224 (S.D.Fla. 2004).
14, 32, 39, 44, 45
Thompson v. Upshur County, TX, 245 F.3d 447 (5th Cir.
2001). 14, 27, 29, 32
Thompson v. Wyandotte County Detention, 869 F.Supp.
893 (D.Kan. 1994). 7, 17, 33
Thomsen v. Ross, 368 F.Supp.2d 961 (D.Minn. 2005). 1,
29, 32, 41, 48
Thomson v. Jones, 619 F.Supp. 745 (7th Cir. 1985). 27, 48
Thomson v. Washington, 362 F.3d 969 (7th Cir. 2004). 1
Thongvanh v. Thalaker, 17 F.3d 256 (8th Cir. 1994). 19, 28
Thornburgh v. Abbott, 109 S.Ct. 1874 (1989). 28, 38, 39
Thorne v. City of El Segundo, 802 F.2d 1131 (9th Cir.
1986). 2, 24, 31, 33
Thorne v. Jones, 585 F.Supp. 910 (D. La. 1984), cert.
denied, 475 U.S. 1016. 41, 49
Thorne v. Jones, 765 F.2d 1270 (1st Cir. 1985), affirmed,
983 F.2d 1332, cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1016. 19, 27,
41
Thornhill v. Breazeale, 88 F.Supp.2d 647 (S.D.Miss. 2000).
2, 14, 30, 32
Thornley v. Edwards, 671 F.Supp. 339 (M.D. Pa. 1987). 1,
28
Thornton v. Brown, 47 F.3d 194 (7th Cir. 1995). 14
Thornton v. Brown, 757 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2014). 24, 36, 43
Thornton v. City of Montgomery, 78 F.Supp.2d 1218
(M.D.Ala. 1999). 14, 32, 46
Thornton v. Jackson, 998 F.Supp.2d 1365 (N.D.Ga. 2014).
8, 9, 14, 39
Thornton v. Phillips County, Arkansas, 240 F.3d 728 (8th
Cir. 2001). 14, 39, 48
Thornton v. Snyder, 428 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2005). 1, 9, 12
Thornton v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 93 F.Supp.2d 1057
(D.Minn. 2000). 25, 29, 32
Thorpe v. Little, 804 F.Supp.2d 174 (D.Del. 2011). 1, 32,
48
Thunderhorse v. Pierce, 418 F.Supp.2d 875 (E.D.Tex.
2006). 3, 37, 38
Thye v. U.S., 109 F.3d 127 2 (2nd Cir. 1997). 47
Tibbs v. City of Chicago, 469 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2006). 16,
25, 32, 48
Tidwell v. Hicks, 791 F.3d 704 (7th Cir. 2015). 14, 48
Tikalsky v. City of Chicago, 687 F.2d 175 (Chicago Ill.
1981). 27, 41
Tilbe v. Entitas Foundation, Inc., 499 F.Supp. 817 (D. Nev.
1980). 36
Tillery v. Owens, 907 F.2d 418 (3rd Cir. 1990). 9, 15
Tillman v. Burge, 813 F.Supp.2d 946 (N.D.Ill. 2011). 1, 7,
16, 24
Tillman v. Lebanon County Correctional Facility, 221 F.3d
410 (3rd Cir. 2000). 4, 35
Tilmon v. Prator, 292 F.Supp.2d 898 (W.D.La. 2003) 11, 32
Tilmon v. Prator, 368 F.3d 521 (5th Cir. 2004). 11, 32
Timm v. Gunter, 917 F.2d 1093 (8th Cir. 1990), cert.
denied, 111 S.Ct. 2807. 33, 41, 45
Tindal v. Goord, 530 F.Supp.2d 465 (W.D.N.Y. 2008). 29
Tinius v. Carroll County Sheriff Dept., 321 F.Supp.2d 1064
(N.D.Iowa 2004). 16, 29, 32

TC-93
XXVI

Tinsley v. Pittari, 952 F.Supp. 384 (N.D.Tex. 1996). 37
Tipler v. Douglas County, Neb., 482 F.3d 1023 (8th Cir.
2007). 31, 45
Tisdale v. Dobbs, 807 F.2d 734 (8th Cir. 1986). 37
Tittle v. Jefferson County Com'n., 10 F.3d 1535 (11th Cir.
1994). 14, 25
Tkochenko v. Sabol, 792 F.Supp.2d 733 (M.D.Pa. 2011). 6,
22, 36
Tlamka v. Serrell, 244 F.3d 628 (8th Cir. 2001). 29, 46
Tobias v. Campbell, 202 F.Supp.2d 934 (E.D.Mo. 2001). 14
Todaro v. Bowman, 872 F.2d 43 (3rd Cir. 1989). 11, 19
Todaro v. Ward, 431 F.Supp. 1129 (S.D. N.Y. 1977). 10, 29
Todd v. Graves, 217 F.Supp.2d 958 (S.D.Iowa 2002). 1, 27
Todd v. Montoya, 877 F.Supp.2d 1048 (D.N.M. 2012). 14,
27, 32
Todd v. Navarro, 698 F.Supp. 871 (S.D. Fla. 1988). 31
Toeller v. Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections, 461 F.3d 871
(7th Cir. 2006). 31
Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2004). 29
Tokar v. Armontrout, 97 F.3d 1078 (8th Cir. 1996). 7, 8, 9,
10, 29, 33
Tolden v. Coughlin, 457 N.Y.S.2d 942 (App. Div. N.Y.
1982). 11
Tommassello v. Stine, 642 F.Supp.2d 910 (D.Minn. 2009).
29
Tookes v. U.S., 811 F.Supp.2d 322 (D.C.Cir. 2011). 16, 27,
45, 46
Toolasprashad v. Bureau of Prisons, 286 F.3d 576 (D.C.
Cir. 2002). 21, 33, 47
Toolasprashad v. Bureau of Prisons, 474 F.Supp.2d 14
(D.D.C. 2007). 2
Tooley v. Boyd, 936 F.Supp. 685 (E.D.Mo. 1996). 3, 50
Toombs v. Bell, 798 F.2d 297 (8th Cir. 1986). 29
Toombs v. Bell, 915 F.2d 345 (8th Cir. 1990). 27, 29
Toombs v. Hicks, 773 F.2d 995 (1985). 10, 50
Torcasio v. Murray, 862 F.Supp. 1482 (E.D. Va. 1994). 7,
9, 10, 15
Torraco v. Maloney, 923 F.2d 231 (1st Cir. 1991). 14, 30
Torrence v. Musilek, 899 F.Supp. 380 (N.D.Ill. 1995). 14
Torres Garcia v. Puerto Rico, 402 F.Supp.2d 373 (D.Puerto
Rico 2005). 14, 47, 50
Torres Rios v. Pereira Castillo, 545 F.Supp.2d 204
(D.Puerto Rico 2007). 1, 14
Torres v. Alvarado, 143 F.Supp.2d 172 (D.Puerto Rico
2001). 1
Torres v. Amato, 22 F.Supp.3d 166 (N.D.N.Y. 2014). 14,
32, 39
Torres v. Corrections Corp. of America, 372 F.Supp.2d
1258 (N.D.Okla. 2005). 1, 27
Torres v. Fauver, 292 F.3d 141 (3rd Cir. 2002). 3, 11, 13
Torres v. O'Quinn, 612 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2010). 1, 2, 4, 9,
15, 28, 35
Torres v. Stewart, 263 F.Supp.2d 463 (D.Conn. 2003). 8,
20, 32
Torres v. Trombly, 421 F.Supp.2d 527 (D.Conn. 2006). 29
Torres v. Walker, 356 F.3d 238 (2nd Cir. 2004). 5
Torres v. Wis. Dept. of Health & Social Services, 838 F.2d
944 (7th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 109 S.Ct. 1133, 109
S.Ct. 1537. 31, 33
Torres v. Wisc. Dept. of Health & Social Services, 859 F.2d
1523 (7th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 109 S.Ct. 1133. 31
Torres-Viera v. Laboy-Alvarado, 311 F.3d 105 (1st Cir.
2002). 39, 48
Torricellas v. Poole, 954 F.Supp. 1405 (C.D.Cal. 1997). 11,
37, 49

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Toston v. Thurmer, 689 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2012). 11, 19, 39,
42
Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236 (3rd Cir. 1999). 1,
32, 50
Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080 (9th Cir. 1986), cert.
denied, 481 U.S. 1069. 3, 49, 50
Toussaint v. McCarthy, 926 F.2d 800 (9th Cir. 1990), cert.
denied, 112 S.Ct. 213. 3
Toussaint v. Rowland, 711 F.Supp. 536 (N.D. Cal. 1989),
modified, 926 F.2d 800. 3
Townsend v. Cooper, 759 F.3d 678 (7th Cir. 2014). 8, 9, 29,
30
Townsend v. Fuchs, 522 F.3d 765 (7th Cir. 2008). 3, 9, 10,
23
Townsend v. Jefferson County, 601 F.3d 1152 (11th Cir.
2010). 17, 24, 29
Townsend v. Moya, 291 F.3d 859 (5th Cir. 2002). 14, 27
Trapnell v. Ralston, 819 F.2d 182 (8th Cir. 1987). 1, 47
Trapnell v. Riggsby, 622 F.2d 290 (7th Cir. 1980). 19, 24
Trask v. County of Strafford, 772 F.Supp. 42 (D. N.H.
1991). 14, 32
Travis v. Lockhart, 607 F.Supp. 1083 (D.C. Ark. 1985). 19
Travis v. Lockhart, 925 F.2d 1095 (8th Cir. 1991). 22, 43
Travis v. Norris, 805 F.2d 806 (8th Cir. 1986). 19, 38
Treadwell v. Murray, 878 F.Supp. 49 (E.D.Va. 1995). 8, 25,
29, 45
Treats v. Morgan, 308 F.3d 868 (8th Cir. 2002). 39, 48
Treff v. Galetka, 74 F.3d 191 (10th Cir. 1996). 1, 4, 28
Trentadue v. Integrity Committee, 501 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir.
2007). 2, 14
Triestman v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471 (2nd
Cir. 2006). 14, 27, 45
Trigillo v. Snyder, 547 F.3d 826 (7th Cir. 2008). 31
Tripati v. U.S.I.N.S., 784 F.2d 345 (10th Cir. 1986), cert.
denied, 484 U.S. 1028. 24
Triplett v. District of Columbia, 108 F.3d 1450 (D.C.Cir.
1997). 14, 27, 48
Tritico v. U.S. Parole Com'n., 760 F.Supp. 154 (W.D. Mo.
1991). 36, 43
Trobaugh v. Hall, 176 F.3d 1087 (8th Cir. 1999). 21, 27, 32
Troster v. Pennsylvania State Dept. of Corrections, 65 F.3d
1086 (3rd. Cir 1995). 19, 31
Troville v. Venz, 303 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2002). 1, 9, 27,
32
Troy D. v. Mickens, 806 F.Supp.2d 758 (D.N.J. 2011). 1, 3,
8, 9, 21, 26, 29
True v. Nebraska, 612 F.3d 676 (8th Cir. 2010). 31, 41
Trueblood v. Washington State Dept. of Social and Health
Services, 73 F.Supp.3d 1311 (W.D.Wash. 2014). 29,
30, 32, 47
Trueblood v. Washington State Dept. of Social and Health,
101 F.Supp.3d 1010 (W.D. Wash. 2015). 7, 27, 30,
32
Tuckel v. Grover, 660 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2011). 14, 21
Tucker v, Branker, 142 F.3d 1294 (D.C. Cir. 1998). 1
Tucker v. Angelone, 954 F.Supp. 134 (E.D.Va. 1997). 47
Tucker v. Carlson, 925 F.2d 330 (9th Cir. 1991). 22, 36
Tucker v. Evans, 276 F.3d 999 (8th Cir. 2002). 14, 46
Tucker v. Hardin County, 448 F.Supp.2d 901 (W.D.Tenn.
2006). 7, 25, 29, 32, 42
Tucker v. Randall, 840 F.Supp. 1237 (N.D. Ill. 1993). 9,
19, 29, 32
Tucker v. Randall, 948 F.2d 388 (7th Cir. 1991). 1, 32
Tucker v. Rose, 955 F.Supp. 810 (N.D.Ohio 1997). 18, 40
Tucker v. Suinlan, 748 F.Supp. 32 (U.S.D.C. 1990). 29

TC-94
XXVI

Tucker v. Tennessee, 539 F.3d 526 (6th Cir. 2008). 1, 7, 32,
42
Tucker v. Thompson, 421 F.Supp. 297 (M.D. Ga. 1976). 14,
27
Tulloch v. Coughlin, 50 F.3d 114 (2nd Cir. 1995). 11, 24
Tully v. Department of Justice, 481 F.3d 1367 (Fed.Cir.
2007). 31
Turiano v. Schnarrs, 904 F.Supp. 400 (MD.Pa. 1995). 1, 32
Turkmen v. Ashcroft, 915 F.Supp.2d 314 (E.D.N.Y. 2013).
3, 9
Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2013). 9, 12, 15,
21, 23, 39
Turner v. Barry, 856 F.2d 1539 (D.C. Cir. 1988). 24, 43
Turner v. Burnside, 541 F.3d 1077 (11th Cir. 2008). 1, 21
Turner v. Caspari, 38 F.3d 388 (8th Cir. 1994). 11
Turner v. Correctional Medical Services, 494 F.Supp.2d
281 (D.Del. 2007). 13, 29
Turner v. Hamblin, 995 F.Supp.2d 859 (W.D.Wis. 2014).
24, 37
Turner v. Hickman, 342 F.Supp.2d 887 (E.D.Cal. 2004). 34,
37
Turner v. Huibregtse, 421 F.Supp.2d 1149 (W.D.Wis.
2006). 7, 14, 24
Turner v. Johnson, 46 F.Supp.2d 655 (S.D.Tex. 1999). 11,
16, 22, 50
Turner v. Kight, 192 F.Supp.2d 391 (D.Md. 2002). 17, 25,
29, 32, 41, 48
Turner v. Kight, 217 F.Supp.2d 680 (D.Md. 2002). 32, 41
Turner v. Maschner, 777 F.Supp. 875 (D. Kan. 1991),
affirmed, 962 F.2d 17. 11
Turner v. Miller, 301 F.3d 599 (7th Cir. 2002). 9
Turner v. Miller, 679 F.Supp. 441 (M.D. Pa. 1987). 11, 14
Turner v. Mull, 784 F.3d 485 (8th Cir. 2015). 7, 9, 29, 39,
40, 47
Turner v. Mull, 997 F.Supp.2d 985 (E.D.Mo. 2014). 29, 39
Turner v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Com'rs., 624 F.Supp.
318 (D. Nev. 1985). 2, 4, 35, 50
Turner v. Palmer, 84 F.Supp.3d 880 (S.D.Iowa 2015). 9, 15,
26, 34
Turner v. Rataczak, 28 F.Supp.3d 818 (W.D.Wis. 2014). 48
Turner v. Safley, 107 S.Ct. 2254 (1987). 19, 28
Turner v. State, 395 So.2d 1242 (Ct. App. Fla. 1981). 43
Turner v. Wilkinson, 92 F.Supp.2d 697 (S.D.Ohio 1999). 5,
19, 36
Turney v. Scroggy, 831 F.2d 135 (6th Cir. 1987). 11, 24
Turney v. Waterbury, 375 F.3d 756 (8th Cir. 2004). 14, 25,
32, 45, 46
Turquitt v. Jefferson County, Ala., 137 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir.
1998). 8, 14, 27, 32
Tuttle v. City of Oklahoma City, 728 F.2d 456 (10th Cir.
1984), reh'g. denied, 106 S.Ct. 16. 7, 27, 46, 48
Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, 861 F.2d 295
(D.C. Cir. 1988). 9, 27
Twitty v. Ashcroft, 712 F.Supp.2d 30 (D.Conn. 2009). 1, 22
Tyler v. Barton, 901 F.2d 689 (8th Cir. 1990). 24, 33, 41
Tyler v. Black, 811 F.2d 424 (8th Cir. 1987), cert. denied,
109 S.Ct. 1760. 3, 8, 9, 15, 39
Tyler v. Harris, 226 F.Supp. 852 (W.D. Mo. 1964). 8, 32,
50
Tyler v. McCaughtry, 293 F.Supp.2d 920 (E.D.Wis. 2003).
11, 20, 22, 42
Tyler v. U.S., 737 F.Supp. 531 (E.D. Mo. 1990). 9
Tyler v. United States, 602 F.Supp. 476 (E.D. Mo. 1984). 9,
32
Tyler v. White, 811 F.2d 1204 (8th Cir. 1987). 48

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Tyson v. Tilghman, 764 F.Supp. 251 (D. Conn. 1991). 22,
47
U.S. Dept. of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons Federal
Correctional Complex Coleman, Fla. v. Federal Labor
Relations Authority 737 F.3d 779 (D.C.Cir. 2013). 2,
31, 39
U.S. Dept. of Justice v. Julian, 108 S.Ct. 1606 (1988). 36,
43
U.S. ex rel. Adams v. O'Leary, 659 F.Supp. 736 (N.D. Ill.
1987). 49
U.S. ex rel. George v. Lane, 718 F.2d 226 (7th Cir. 1983).
1
U.S. Ex Rel. Moore v. Conner, 284 F.Supp.2d 1092
(N.D.Ill. 2003) 22, 36, 43
U.S. ex rel. Stevenson v. Mancusi, 325 F.Supp. 1028 (W.D.
N.Y. 1971). 1
U.S. v. A.F.F., 144 F.Supp.2d 797 (E.D.Mich. 2001). 26
U.S. v. A.J., 190 F.3d 873 (8th Cir. 1999). 26, 36
U.S. v. Addison, 984 F.Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1997). 6
U.S. v. Agnello, 101 F.Supp.2d 108 (E.D.N.Y. 2000). 6, 36
U.S. v. Al-Arian, 280 F.Supp.2d 1345 (M.D.Fla. 2003). 6
U.S. v. Alatishe, 37 CrL 1070 (D.C. Cir. 1985). 6, 32
U.S. v. Al-Azzawy, 768 F.2d 1141 (9th Cir. 1985). 6, 32
U.S. v. Ali, 396 F.Supp.2d 703 (E.D.Va. 2005). 1, 7, 19, 32,
39
U.S. v. Allen, 190 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 1999). 39, 50
U.S. v. Amen, 831 F.2d 373 (2nd Cir. 1987), cert. denied,
108 S.Ct. 1573. 19, 33
U.S. v. Ammar, 919 F.2d 13 (3rd Cir. 1990). 22, 36
U.S. v. Anderson, 15 F.3d 278 (2nd Cir. 1994). 36, 43
U.S. v. Anderson, 583 F.3d 504 (7th Cir. 2009). 36, 43
U.S. v. Anthony Y,, 990 F.Supp. 1310 (D.N.M. 1998). 26
U.S. v. Anthony Y., 172 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 1999). 26
U.S. v. Antone, 742 F.3d 151 T.S. v. Doe, 742 F.3d 632 (6th
Cir. 2014). 7, 36
U.S. v. Baker, 45 F.3d 837 (4th Cir. 1995). 1
U.S. v. Baker, 836 F.Supp. 1237 (E.D.N.C. 1993). 1
U.S. v. Ballard, 704 F.Supp. 620 (E.D.N.C. 1987). 29, 30
U.S. v. Ballek, 170 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 1999). 7, 43, 50
U.S. v. Barfield, 396 F.3d 1144 (11th Cir. 2005). 43
U.S. v. Barker, 19 F.Supp.2d 1380 (S.D.Ga. 1998). 27
U.S. v. Barnard, 770 F.Supp.2d 366 (D.Me. 2011). 36
U.S. v. Barnes, 506 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 2008). 32, 41
U.S. v. Barnett, 986 F.Supp. 385 (W.D.La. 1997). 6
U.S. v. Basciano, 369 F.Supp.2d 344 (E.D.N.Y. 2005). 1, 3,
22, 32
U.S. v. Battle, 59 F.Supp.2d 17 (D.D.C. 1999). 6, 32
U.S. v. Batts, 758 F.3d 915 (8th Cir. 2014). 39, 43
U.S. v. Beckwith, 987 F.Supp. 1345 (D.Utah 1997). 1, 32
U.S. v. Bell, 820 F.2d 980, (9th Cir. 1987). 6, 43
U.S. v. Bender, 566 F.3d 748 (8th Cir. 2009). 36, 43
U.S. v. Bermudez-Plaza, 221 F.3d 231 (1st Cir. 2000). 36,
43
U.S. v. Betts, 511 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2007). 36, 43
U.S. v. Beulke, 892 F.Supp.2d 1176 (D.S.D. 2012). 4, 35,
43
U.S. v. Bout, 860 F.Supp.2d 303 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). 3, 8, 22,
39
U.S. v. Bracy, 510 F.3d 792 (8th Cir. 2007). 30, 32
U.S. v. Brandon, 158 F.3d 947 (6th Cir. 1998). 30, 32
U.S. v. Braxtonbrown-Smith, 278 F.3d 1348 (D.C. Cir.
2002). 43
U.S. v. Broncheau, 645 F.3d 676 (4th Cir. 2011). 7, 36, 44
U.S. v. Broncheau, 759 F.Supp.2d 694 (E.D.N.C. 2010). 30,
36

TC-95
XXVI

U.S. v. Brown, 346 F.3d 808 (8th Cir. 2003). 41
U.S. v. Brown, 878 F.2d 222 (8th Cir. 1989). 28
U.S. v. Browning, 761 F.Supp. 681 (C.D. Cal. 1991). 20,
22, 36, 43
U.S. v. Bryant, 670 F.Supp. 840 (D. Minn. 1987). 29, 30
U.S. v. Burhoe, 692 F.Supp.2d 137 (D.Me. 2010). 29, 30
U.S. v. Caldwell, 750 F.2d 341 (5th Cir. 1984), cert. denied,
471 U.S. 1007, 105 S.Ct. 1873. 41
U.S. v. Campbell, 28 F.Supp.2d 805 (W.D.N.Y. 1998). 6
U.S. v. Cantley, 130 F.3d 1371 (10th Cir. 1997). 36, 41
U.S. v. Caraballo, 47 F.Supp.2d 190 (D.Puerto Rico 1999).
6
U.S. v. Carneglia, 238 F.Supp.2d 502 (E.D.N.Y. 2003). 29,
36
U.S. v. Carnes, 987 F.Supp. 551 (E.D.Mich. 1997). 36, 41
U.S. v. Caro, 461 F.Supp.2d 478 (W.D.Va. 2006). 2
U.S. v. Carrozza, 2 F.Supp.2d 126 (D.Mass. 1998). 28, 33
U.S. v. Carta, 503 F.Supp.2d 405 (D.Mass. 2007). 7, 36, 44
U.S. v. Carter, 996 F.Supp. 260 (W.D.N.Y. 1998). 6
U.S. v. Catalan-Roman, 329 F.Supp.2d 240 (D.Puerto Rico
2004). 3, 8, 22, 32
U.S. v. Chairse, 18 F.Supp.2d 1021 (D.Minn. 1998). 30, 36
U.S. v. Chappel, 208 F.3d 1069 (8th Cir. 2000). 11
U.S. v. Charters, 829 F.2d 479 (4th Cir. 1987), cert. denied,
110 S.Ct. 1317. 29, 30
U.S. v. Ciccone, 312 F.3d 535 (2nd Cir. 2002). 6
U.S. v. Clark, 651 F.Supp. 76 (M.D. Pa. 1986), cert. denied,
109 S.Ct. 2082. 19, 33
U.S. v. Clark, 865 F.2d 1433 (4th Cir. 1989). 6
U.S. v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941). 7
U.S. v. Conatser, 514 F.3d 508 (6th Cir. 2008). 14, 29
U.S. v. Conley, 531 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2008). 33
U.S. v. Contreras, 776 F.2d 51 (2nd Cir. 1985). 6, 32
U.S. v. Cook County, Illinois, 761 F.Supp.2d 794 (N.D.Ill.
2011). 9, 15, 27, 36
U.S. v. Cooper, 375 F.3d 1041 (10th Cir. 2004). 1, 32
U.S. v. Cossey, 637 F.Supp.2d 881 (D.Mont. 2009). 6, 36
U.S. v. Cote, 544 F.3d 88 (2nd Cir. 2008). 14, 32
U.S. v. Crowder, 738 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2013). 36, 43
U.S. v. Cuello, 357 F.3d 162 (2nd Cir. 2004). 26, 43
U.S. v. D.H., 12 F.Supp.2d 472 (D.Virgin Islands 1998). 26
U.S. v. D.R., 225 F.Supp.2d 694 (E.D.Va. 2002). 26
U.S. v. Daggao, 28 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 1994). 43
U.S. v. Daniels, 281 F.3d 168 (5th Cir. 2002). 14, 48
U.S. v. DeBeir, 16 F.Supp.2d 592 (D.Md. 1998). 6, 32
U.S. v. DeCologero, 821 F.2d 39 (1st Cir. 1987). 29, 43
U.S. v. District of Columbia, 897 F.2d 1152 (D.C. Cir.
1990). 25
U.S. v. Dresbach, 806 F.Supp.2d 1039 (E.D.Mich. 2011).
36, 43
U.S. v. Duff, 831 F.2d 176 (9th Cir. 1987). 43
U.S. v. Durham, 219 F.Supp.2d 1234 (N.D.Fla. 2002). 1, 48
U.S. v. Durham, 287 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir. 2002). 1,39,48
U.S. v. El-Hage, 213 F.3d 74 (2nd Cir. 2000). 32
U.S. v. Enriquez, 35 F.Supp.2d 176 (D.Puerto Rico 1999).
6, 32
U.S. v. Epps, 987 F.Supp. 22 (D.D.C. 1997). 6
U.S. v. Erie County, N.Y., 763 F.3d 235 (2nd Cir. 2014). 27
U.S. v. Evanoff, 10 F.3d 559 (8th Cir. 1993). 36, 43
U.S. v. Evans, 1 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 1993). 20
U.S. v. Evans, 404 F.3d 227 (4th Cir. 2005). 30, 32
U.S. v. Faulkner, 323 F.Supp.2d 1111 (D.Kan. 2004). 32,
33
U.S. v. Felipe, 148 F.3d 101 (2nd Cir. 1998). 19, 28, 43
U.S. v. Ferreira, 665 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 2011). 1, 32, 43

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

U.S. v. Figueroa, 828 F.2d 70 (1st Cir. 1987). 43
U.S. v. Flanagan, 868 F.2d 1544 (11th Cir. 1989). 43
U.S. v. Flores, 214 F.Supp.2d 1193 (D.Utah 2002). 1, 3, 19,
22, 28, 32, 39, 49
U.S. v. Floyd, 11 F.Supp.2d 39 (D.D.C. 1998). 6, 32
U.S. v. Flynn, 49 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 1995). 36, 43
U.S. v. Franco, 632 F.3d 880 (5th Cir. 2011). 35, 39, 44
U.S. v. Fricosu, 844 F.Supp.2d 1201 (D.Color. 2012). 33,
41
U.S. v. Frierson, 208 F.3d 282 (1st Cir.2000). 30
U.S. v. Gabaldon, 522 F.3d 1121 (10th Cir. 2008). 1, 35
U.S. v. Gangi, 57 Fed.Appx. 809 (10th Cir. 2003)
[unpublished]. 32, 33, 49
U.S. v. Garcia, 135 F.3d 951 (5th Cir. 1998). 1, 4
U.S. v. Garcia, 470 F.3d 1001 (10th Cir. 2006). 47
U.S. v. Garcia-Mejia, 394 F.3d 396 (5th Cir. 2004). 43
U.S. v. Gelfuso, 838 F.2d 358 (9th Cir. 1988). 32
U.S. v. Gementera, 379 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2004). 43
U.S. v. Ghailani, 751 F.Supp.2d 508 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). 39,
41
U.S. v. Goad, 788 F.3d 873 (8th Cir. 2015). 36, 39
U.S. v. Goba, 220 F.Supp.2d 182 (W.D.N.Y. 2002). 6
U.S. v. Goba, 240 F.Supp.2d 242 (W.D.N.Y. 2003). 6
U.S. v. Goddard, 537 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2008). 36
U.S. v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 560 (5th Cir. 2006). 14, 29, 32,
48
U.S. v. Gonzales, 995 F.Supp. 1299 (D.N.M. 1998). 6
U.S. v. Gonzalez, 675 F.Supp. 208 (D. N.J. 1987). 6, 32
U.S. v. Gonzalez, 945 F.2d 525 (2nd Cir. 1991). 8, 43
U.S. v. Gordon, 168 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir. 1999). 28, 33
U.S. v. Gotti, 219 F.Supp.2d 296 (E.D.N.Y. 2002). 6
U.S. v. Gotti, 755 F.Supp. 1159 (E.D.N.Y. 1991). 3, 32
U.S. v. Gould, 563 F.Supp.2d 1224 (D.N.M. 2008). 14, 48
U.S. v. Graham, 683 F.Supp.2d 129 (D.Mass. 2010). 7, 30
U.S. v. Green, 157 F.3d 617 (8th Cir. 1998). 26
U.S. v. Green, 532 F.3d 538 (6th Cir. 2008). 29, 30, 32
U.S. v. Green, 842 F.Supp. 68 (W.D.N.Y. 1994). 19, 33
U.S. v. Gregory, 818 F.2d 1114 (4th Cir. 1987), cert.
denied, 108 S.Ct. 143. 31, 33
U.S. v. Gregory, 871 F.2d 1239 (4th Cir. 1989), cert.
denied, 110 S.Ct. 720. 31
U.S. v. Grimes, 54 F.3d 489 (8th Cir. 1995). 43
U.S. v. Groce, 838 F.Supp. 411 (E.D. Wis. 1993). 1
U.S. v. Guagliardo, 278 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2002). 43
U.S. v. Guerrette, 289 F.Supp.2d 10 (D.Me. 2005). 43
U.S. v. Hager, 288 F.3d 136 (4th Cir. 2002). 43
U.S. v. Hammer, 121 F.Supp.2d 794 (M.D.Pa. 2000). 37
U.S. v. Hammer, 226 F.3d 229 (3rd Cir. 2000). 43
U.S. v. Hammond, 204 F.Supp.2d 1157 (E.D.Wis. 2002). 6,
32
U.S. v. Hancox, 49 F.3d 223 (6th Cir. 1995). 36, 43
U.S. v. Hardy, 724 F.3d 280 (2nd Cir. 2013). 29, 30, 32
U.S. v. Harmon, 999 F.Supp. 467 (W.D.N.Y. 1998). 8, 22
U.S. v. Harris, 876 F.2d 1502 (11th Cir. 1989), cert. denied,
110 S.Ct. 417, 110 S.Ct. 569. 43
U.S. v. Heatley, 41 F.Supp.2d 284 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). 28, 32,
33
U.S. v. Hebert, 201 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2000). 38, 41
U.S. v. Hernandez, 281 F.3d 746 (8th Cir. 2002). 1, 16, 32
U.S. v. Herrera, 29 F.Supp.2d 756 (N.D.Tex. 1998). 6, 32
U.S. v. Hillstrom, 837 F.Supp. 1324 (M.D. Pa. 1993). 43
U.S. v. Holloway, 128 F.3d 1254 (8th Cir. 1997). 41
U.S. v. Holman, 532 F.3d 284 (4th Cir. 2008). 36
U.S. v. Horr, 963 F.2d 1124 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied,
113 S.Ct. 143. 33, 39

TC-96
XXVI

U.S. v. Humphress, 878 F.Supp. 168 2 (D.Or. 1994). 22, 43
U.S. v. Insley, 927 F.2d 185 (4th Cir. 1991). 36
U.S. v. Janis, 820 F.Supp. 512 (S.D.Cal. 1992), affirmed, 46
F.3d 1147. 1
U.S. v. Jaramillo-Ayala, 526 F.Supp.2d 1094 (S.D.Cal.
2007). 29
U.S. v. Jefferson, 175 F.Supp.2d 1123 (N.D.Ind. 2001). 36,
37
U.S. v. Jefferson, 816 F.3d 1016 (8th Cir. 2016). 26
U.S. v. Johnson, 225 F.Supp.2d 982 (N.D.Iowa 2002). 1,
32, 47
U.S. v. Johnson, 352 F.Supp.2d 596 (D.Md. 2005). 1, 32
U.S. v. Jones, 152 F.3d 680 (7th Cir. 1998). 36, 41
U.S. v. Jones, 869 F.Supp.2d 373 (D.Vt. 2012). 8, 22, 38
U.S. v. Jones, 980 F.Supp. 359 (D.Kan. 1997). 6, 32
U.S. v. Juvenile (I.H.), 1 F.Supp.2d 509 (D.Virgin Islands
1998). 26
U.S. v. Juvenile JG, 139 F.3d 584 (8th Cir. 1998). 26
U.S. v. Juvenile K.J.C., 976 F.Supp. 1219 (N.D.Iowa 1997).
26
U.S. v. Juvenile Lwo, 160 F.3d 1179 (8th Cir. 1998). 26
U.S. v. Juvenile Male, 670 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2012). 26, 36,
43
U.S. v. Juvenile, 347 F.3d 778 (9th Cir. 2003) 26
U.S. v. Kazenbach, 824 F.2d 649 (8th Cir. 1987). 11, 29
U.S. v. Keeven, 115 F.Supp.2d 1132 (E.D.Mo. 2000). 29,
30, 32
U.S. v. Kortgaard, 26 F.Supp.2d 1239 (D.Hawai'i 1997). 22
U.S. v. Kriesel, 508 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2007). 33, 36, 41, 43
U.S. v. Kunzman, 125 F.3d 1363 (10th Cir. 1997). 22
U.S. v. Laughlin, 933 F.2d 786 (9th Cir. 1991). 43
U.S. v. LaVallee, 439 F.3d 670 (10th Cir. 2006). 14, 31
U.S. v. Lee, 79 F.Supp.2d 1280 (D.N.M. 1999). 6
U.S. v. Lemons, 302 F.3d 769 (7th Cir. 2002). 27, 50
U.S. v. Leon, D.M., 132 F.3d 583 (10th Cir. 1997). 26
U.S. v. Ligambi, 886 F.Supp.2d 492 (E.D.Pa. 2012). 28, 32,
33, 38, 39
U.S. v. LoFranco, 620 F.Supp. 1324 (N.D.N.Y. 1985). 6, 32
U.S. v. Lopez, 327 F.Supp.2d 138 (D.Puerto Rico 2004). 8,
32
U.S. v. Loughner, 672 F.3d 731 (9th Cir. 2012). 29, 30, 32
U.S. v. Loy, 237 F.3d 251 (3rd Cir. 2001). 36, 43
U.S. v. Mackie, 876 F.Supp. 1489 (E.D. La. 1994). 6, 36
U.S. v. Mahmood, 19 F.Supp.2d 33 (E.D.N.Y. 1998). 43
U.S. v. Malloy, 11 F.Supp.2d 583 (D.N.J. 1998). 6, 32, 36
U.S. v. Marcello, 370 F.Supp.2d 745 (N.D.Ill. 2005). 6, 32,
36
U.S. v. Maricopa County, Ariz., 915 F.Supp.2d 1073
(D.Ariz. 2012). 1, 8, 9, 16, 38
U.S. v. Marion, 708 F.Supp.2d 1131 (D.Or. 2010). 3, 7, 11
U.S. v. Martin, 356 F.Supp.2d 621 (W.D.Va. 2005). 1
U.S. v. Massachusetts, 781 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.Mass. 2011). 2,
31
U.S. v. Massey, 461 F.3d 177 (2d Cir. 2006). 36, 41
U.S. v. Maull, 768 F.2d 211 (8th Cir. 1985). 6, 32
U.S. v. McCormick, 54 F.3d 214 (5th Cir. 1995). 36
U.S. v. McGee, 981 F.2d 271 (7th Cir. 1992). 43
U.S. v. McGregor, 866 F.Supp. 215 (E.D. Pa. 1994). 36, 43
U.S. v. McKinley, 228 F.Supp.2d 1158 (D.Or. 2002). 6, 32
U.S. v. McQueen, 727 F.3d 1144 (11th Cir. 2013). 14, 48
U.S. v. Melendez-Carrion, 790 F.2d 984 (2nd Cir. 1986),
cert. denied, 107 S.Ct. 562. 6, 32
U.S. v. Mike, 632 F.3d 686 (10th Cir. 2011). 36, 43
U.S. v. Mikhel, 552 F.3d 961 (9th Cir. 2009). 1, 38, 39
U.S. v. Miller, 477 F.3d 644 (8th Cir. 2007). 14, 29, 32, 48

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

U.S. v. Miller, 526 F.Supp. 691 (W.D. Okl. 1981). 41
U.S. v. Miller, 547 F.3d 1207 (9th Cir. 2008). 36, 50
U.S. v. Mills, 186 F.Supp.2d 965 (E.D.Wis. 2002). 43
U.S. v. Mohamed, 103 F.Supp.3d 281 (E.D.N.Y. 2015). 3,
19, 32, 39, 49
U.S. v. Montgomery, 675 F.Supp. 164 (S.D. N.Y. 1987),
cert. denied, 109 S.Ct. 846. 19, 33, 39
U.S. v. Moore, 525 F.3d 1033 (11th Cir. 2008). 17, 31
U.S. v. Morales, 45 F.3d 693 (2nd Cir. 1995). 36
U.S. v. Morales-Morales, 985 F.Supp. 229 (D.Puerto Rico
1997). 36
U.S. v. Morgan, 193 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 1999). 30, 32
U.S. v. Morin, 437 F.3d 777 (8th Cir. 2006). 32, 33, 39
U.S. v. Moruzin, 583 F.Supp.2d 535 (D.N.J. 2008). 29, 30,
32
U.S. v. Mostafa, 14 F.Supp.3d 515 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). 1
U.S. v. Muhammad, 165 F.3d 327 (5th Cir. 1999). 30
U.S. v. Mujahid, 799 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 2015). 2, 14, 47
U.S. v. Nedd, 415 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.Me. 2006). 32
U.S. v. Newby, 11 F.3d 1143 (3rd Cir. 1993), cert. denied,
115 S.Ct. 111. 11, 20
U.S. v. Noriega, 764 F.Supp. 1480 (S.D. Fla. 1991). 33
U.S. v. Noriega, 917 F.2d 1543 (11th Cir. 1990), cert.
denied, 498 U.S. 976. 19, 33
U.S. v. Novak, 531 F.3d 99 (1st Cir. 2008). 1
U.S. v. Oakley, 731 F.Supp. 1363 (S.D. Ind. 1990). 39, 41
U.S. v. Oakley, 944 F.2d 384 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. denied,
112 S.Ct. 1508. 41
U.S. v. One Juvenile Male, 51 F.Supp.2d 1094 (D.Or.
1999). 26
U.S. v. Paige, 369 F.Supp.2d 1257 (D.Mont. 2005). 1, 22,
36, 43
U.S. v. Paskow, 11 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 1993). 36, 43
U.S. v. Patrick V., 359 F.3d 3 (1st Cir. 2004). 26, 43
U.S. v. Payne, 181 F.3d 781 (6th Cir. 1999). 36, 41
U.S. v. Peoples, 71 F.Supp.2d 967 (W.D.Mo. 1999). 19, 33,
39, 49
U.S. v. Perez, 565 F.3d 344 (7th Cir. 2009). 36, 43
U.S. v. Perez, 940 F.Supp. 540 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). 33
U.S. v. Peterson, 544 F.Supp.2d 1363 (M.D.Ga. 2008). 4,
50
U.S. v. Phillips, 977 F.Supp. 1418 (D.Colo. 1997). 36, 41
U.S. v. Pratt, 52 F.3d 671 (7th Cir. 1995). 36
U.S. v. Ramirez, 297 F.3d 185 (2nd Cir. 2002). 26
U.S. v. Ramirez-Gutierrez, 503 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2007). 9,
32
U.S. v. Reed, 522 F.3d 354 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 9, 32
U.S. v. Reese, 71 F.3d 582 (6th Cir. 1995). 36, 43
U.S. v. Replogle, 176 F.Supp.2d 960 (D.Neb. 2001). 33, 41,
43
U.S. v. Reyes, 283 F.3d 446 (2nd Cir. 2002). 33, 41, 43, 45
U.S. v. Richards, 105 F.Supp.2d 256 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). 29
U.S. v. Rios-Flores, 318 F.Supp.2d 452 (W.D.Tex. 2003).
22
U.S. v. Rivera, 104 F.Supp.2d 159 (D.Mass. 2000). 6
U.S. v. Rivera-Guerrero, 426 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2005). 29,
30
U.S. v. Rivera-Morales, 365 F.Supp.2d 1139 (S.D.Cal.
2005). 30, 32
U.S. v. Robinson, 27 F.Supp.2d 1116 (S.D.Ind. 1998). 6
U.S. v. Robinson, 913 F.2d 712 (9th Cir. 1990), cert.
denied, 111 S.Ct. 1006, cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 1102.
1
U.S. v. Rojas-Yepes, 630 F.Supp.2d 18 (D.D.C. 2009). 8,
22

TC-97
XXVI

U.S. v. Rollack, 90 F.Supp.2d 263 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). 7, 19,
28, 32, 33, 41
U.S. v. Rose, 802 F.3d 114 (1st Cir. 2015). 31
U.S. v. Roy, 349 F.Supp.2d 60 (D.Mass. 2003). 32, 33
U.S. v. Rudisill, 43 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C. 1999). 6, 32
U.S. v. Rush, 853 F.Supp.2d 159 (D.D.C. 2012). 4
U.S. v. S.A., 129 F.3d 995 (8th Cir. 1997). 26
U.S. v. Sack, 379 F.3d 1177 (10th Cir. 2004). 39
U.S. v. Salerno, 107 S.Ct. 2095 (1987). 6, 32
U.S. v. Salyer, 853 F.Supp.2d 1014 (E.D.Cal. 2012). 1, 32,
33
U.S. v. Sanchez, 30 F.Supp.2d 595 (E.D.N.Y. 1998). 36, 43
U.S. v. Sanchez-Gomez, 798 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. 2015). 1, 2,
39, 45
U.S. v. Sanders, 622 F.3d 779 (7th Cir. 2010). 7, 13, 19, 33,
36
U.S. v. Sanders, 663 F.2d 1 (1981). 41
U.S. v. Sarno, 73 F.3d 1470 (9th Cir. 1995). 1
U.S. v. Scales, 231 F.Supp.2d 437 E.D.Va. 2002). 7, 13
U.S. v. Scales, 344 F.Supp.2d 213 (D.Me. 2004). 6
U.S. v. Schoenrock, 868 F.2d 289 (8th Cir. 1989). 41, 43
U.S. v. Scott, 424 F.3d 888 (9th Cir. 2005). 6, 7, 36, 41
U.S. v. Secretary, Florida Dept. of Corrections, 778 F.3d
1223 (11th Cir. 2015). 1, 27, 37
U.S. v. Serafini, 233 F.3d 758 (3rd Cir. 2000). 43
U.S. v. Serrata, 425 F.3d 886 (10th Cir. 2005). 14, 48
U.S. v. Shelton, 431 F.Supp.2d 675 (E.D.Tex. 2006). 11,
14, 43
U.S. v. Shields, 522 F.Supp.2d 317 (D.Mass. 2007). 7
U.S. v. Silva, 133 F.Supp.2d 104 (D.Mass. 2001). 6
U.S. v. Smith, 178 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 1999). 26
U.S. v. Smith, 826 F.Supp. 1282 (D. Kan. 1993). 47
U.S. v. Sotelo, 94 F.3d 1037 (7th Cir. 1996). 19, 28, 43
U.S. v. Sparger, 79 F.Supp.2d 714 (W.D.Tex. 1999). 6
U.S. v. Spriggs, 827 F.Supp. 372 (E.D. Va. 1993), affirmed,
30 F.3d 132. 41, 49
U.S. v. State of Mich., 868 F.Supp. 890 (W.D. Mich. 1994).
7
U.S. v. State of Michigan, 680 F.Supp. 270 (W.D. Mich.
1988). 11, 18
U.S. v. Stegman, 295 F.Supp.2d 542 (D.Md. 2003). 33, 41,
43
U.S. v. Stotts, 925 F.2d 83 (4th Cir. 1991). 1, 19, 28
U.S. v. Taylor, 183 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 1999). 1
U.S. v. Taylor, 47 F.3d 508 (2nd Cir. 1995). 36, 43
U.S. v. Taylor, 679 F.3d 1005 (8th Cir. 2012). 34, 36, 43
U.S. v. Terrell County, Ga., 457 F.Supp.2d 1359 (M.D.Ga.
2006). 2, 9, 14, 29, 30, 32
U.S. v. Terrigno, 838 F.2d 371 (9th Cir. 1988). 43
U.S. v. Territory of Virgin Islands, 748 F.3d 514 (3rd Cir.
2014). 7
U.S. v. Thomas, 992 F.Supp. 782 (D.Virgin Islands 1998).
6
U.S. v. Thornberg, 676 F.3d 703 (8th Cir. 2012). 1, 30, 43
U.S. v. Torres-Palma, 290 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 2002). 1
U.S. v. Trujillo, 404 F.3d 1238 (10th Cir. 2005). 36, 41
U.S. v. Tucker, 305 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2002). 36, 41
U.S. v. Tyerman, 701 F.3d 552 (8th Cir. 2012). 1, 32, 39, 43
U.S. v. Van Poyck, 77, F.3d 285 (9th Cir. 1996). 25, 32, 33
U.S. v. Verdin-Garcia, 516 F.3d 884 (10th Cir. 2008). 1, 25,
33
U.S. v. Villanueva, 32 F.Supp.2d 635 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). 36
U.S. v. Wallen, 177 F.Supp.2d 455 (D.Md. 2001). 29, 32
U.S. v. Walsh, 194 F.3d 37 (2nd Cir. 1999). 7, 31, 32, 48
U.S. v. Walters, 89 F.Supp.2d 1217 (D.Kan. 2000). 6

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

U.S. v. Walton, 935 F.Supp. 1161 (D.Kan. 1996). 28, 32, 33
U.S. v. Warden, 291 F.3d 363 (5th Cir. 2002). 4, 43
U.S. v. Warner, 830 F.2d 651 (7th Cir. 1987). 43
U.S. v. Warren, 566 F.3d 1211 (10th Cir. 2009). 36, 41
U.S. v. Watson, 893 F.2d 970 (8th Cir. 1990), cert. denied,
110 S.Ct. 3243. 29, 30
U.S. v. Webb, 30 F.3d 687 (6th Cir. 1994). 43
U.S. v. West, 557 F.2d 151 (8th Cir. 1977). 1
U.S. v. Weston, 134 F.Supp.2d 115 (D.D.C. 2001. 29, 30,
32
U.S. v. Weston, 206 F.3d 9 (D.C.Cir. 2000). 30, 32
U.S. v. Wetmore, 700 F.3d 570 (1st Cir. 2012). 7
U.S. v. Williams, 356 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2004). 43
U.S. v. Wilson, 686 F.3d 868 (8th Cir. 2012). 14, 31
U.S. v. Wolvin, 339 F.Supp.2d 1062 (W.D.Wis. 2004). 36
U.S. v. Wooden, 693 F.3d 440 (4th Cir. 2012). 7
U.S. v. Woods, 127 F.3d 990 (11th Cir. 1997). 36
U.S. v. Workman, 80 F.3d 688 (2nd Cir. 1996). 14, 28, 33
U.S. v. Wray, 980 F.Supp. 534 (D.D.C. 1997). 6, 32
U.S. v. Young, 533 F.Supp.2d 1086 (D.Nev. 2007). 4, 43,
50
Udey v. Kastner, 805 F.2d 1218 (5th Cir. 1986). 18, 37
Uduko v. Cozzens, 975 F.Supp.2d 750 (E.D.Mich. 2013). 3,
27, 37
Ueland v. U.S., 291 F.3d 993 (7th Cir. 2002). 27
Ulibarri v. City & County of Denver, 742 F.Supp.2d 1192
(D.Colo. 2010). 14, 17, 25, 29, 36
Union County Jail Inmates v. Di Buono, 713 F.2d 984
(1983), cert. denied, 104 S.Ct. 1600. 9, 12, 15, 32
United States ex rel. Goings v. Aaron, 350 F.Supp. 1 (D.
Minn. 1972). 19, 38
United States ex rel. Goldberg v. Warden, 622 F.2d 60 (3rd
Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 871. 36
United States ex rel. McCalvin v. Irving, 504 F.Supp. 368
(C.D. Ill. 1980). 36
United States ex rel. Petri v. Warden, 507 F.Supp. 5 (M.D.
Pa. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 871. 36
United States ex rel. Pullia v. Luther, 635 F.2d 612 (7th
Cir. 1980). 36
United States ex rel. Smith v. Robinson, 495 F.Supp. 696
(E.D. Penn. 1980). 2, 3, 11
United States ex rel. Steigler v. Board of Parole, 501
F.Supp. 1077 (D. Del. 1980). 36
United States ex rel. Wolfish v. Levi, 439 F.Supp. 114 (S.D.
N.Y. 1977). 42, 47
United States v. A.W.J., 639 F.Supp. 1558 (D. Minn. 1986).
26
United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178 (1979). 36, 43
United States v. Basso, 632 F.2d 1007 (2nd Cir. 1980), cert.
denied, 450 U.S. 965. 43
United States v. Becerra-Cobo, 790 F.2d 427 (5th Cir.
1986). 6
United States v. Bell, 785 F.2d 640 (8th Cir. 1986). 43
United States v. Binh Tang Vo, 78 F.Supp.3d 171 (D.D.C.
2015). 1
United States v. Brown, 656 F.2d 1204 (5th Cir. 1981), cert.
denied, 454 U.S. 1156. 43
United States v. Caldera, 631 F.2d 1227 (5th Cir. 1980). 43
United States v. Cummings, 633 F.Supp. 38 (E.D. N.Y.
1986). 1, 43
United States v. Deitz, 629 F.Supp. 655 (N.D. N.Y. 1986).
6, 16, 32
United States v. Domingues, 783 F.2d 702 (7th Cir. 1986).
6

TC-98
XXVI

United States v. Fahnbulleh, 796 F.2d 239 (8th Cir. 1986).
43
United States v. Ferguson, 624 F.2d 81 (9th Cir. 1980). 43
United States v. Fontana, 510 F.Supp. 158 (W.D. Pa. 1981),
cert. denied, 102 S.Ct. 1468. 43
United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152 (1982). 22, 43
United States v. Frisone, 795 F.2d 1 (2nd Cir. 1986). 32
United States v. Gentile, 610 F.2d 541 (8th Cir. 1979). 36
United States v. Grant, 807 F.2d 837 (9th Cir. 1987). 36, 43
United States v. Himler, 797 F.2d 156 (3rd Cir. 1986). 6, 32
United States v. House, 808 F.2d 508 (7th Cir. 1986). 4, 43
United States v. Knights, 121 S.Ct. 1955 (2001). 41, 43
United States v. Lowe, 654 F.2d 562 (9th Cir. 1981). 43
United States v. Lynch, 647 F.Supp. 1293 (D. S.C. 1986).
43
United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317 (1976). 1, 22
United States v. Margala, 662 F.2d 622 (9th Cir. 1981). 43
United States v. Martinez, 650 F.2d 744 (5th Cir. 1981). 43
United States v. McDonald, 611 F.2d 1291 (9th Cir. 1980).
43
United States v. McLaughlin, 512 F.Supp. 907 (D. Md.
1981). 43
United States v. McLeod, 608 F.2d 1076 (5th Cir. 1979). 43
United States v. Muniz, 374 U.S. 150 (1963). 24
United States v. Raunazzi, 434 F.Supp. 619 (S.D. N.Y.
1977). 43
United States v. Rea, 524 F.Supp. 427 (E.D. N.Y. 1981). 43
United States v. Rivera, 614 F.2d 1049 (5th Cir. 1980). 36
United States v. Rivera, 83 F.Supp.3d 1130 (D.Colo. 2015).
1, 49
United States v. Rivera, 83 F.Supp.3d 1154 (D.Colo. 2015).
1, 39
United States v. Roberts, 638 F.2d 134 (9th Cir. 1981), cert.
denied, 452 U.S. 909. 43
United States v. Ruggiero, 796 F.2d 35 (2nd Cir. 1986). 6
United States v. Sharpe, 105 S.Ct. 1568 (1985). 16
United States v. Smith, 618 F.2d 280 (5th Cir. 1980), cert.
denied, 449 U.S. 868. 43
United States v. Smith, 774 F.2d 1005 (1985). 41
United States v. Spilotro, 786 F.2d 808 (8th Cir. 1986). 6,
32
United States v. Stine, 521 F.Supp. 808 (E.D. Pa. 1981),
cert. denied, 102 S.Ct. 3493. 43
United States v. Torrez-Flores, 624 F.2d 776 (7th Cir.
1980). 43
United States v. Turner, 628 F.2d 461 (5th Cir. 1980), cert.
denied, 451 U.S. 988. 43
United States v. Vasta, 649 F.Supp. 974 (S.D. N.Y. 1986).
19, 33
United States v. Wheeler, 795 F.2d 839 (9th Cir. 1986). 6
United States v. Williams, 787 F.2d 1182 (7th Cir. 1986).
41, 43
United States v. Workman, 617 F.2d 48 (4th Cir. 1980). 43
United States v. York, 578 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir. 1978), cert.
denied, 439 U.S. 1005. 41
University Emergency Serv. v. City of Detroit, 367 N.W.2d
344 (Mich. App. 1984). 4, 29
Unterberg v. Correctional Medical Systems, Inc., 799
F.Supp. 490 (E.D.Pa. 1992). 17, 29
Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir. 1988). 24, 39,
48
Upthegrove v. Kuka, 408 F.Supp.2d 708 (W.D.Wisc. 2006).
1, 29
Upton v. Thompson, 930 F.2d 1209 (7th Cir. 1991), cert.
denied, 112 S.Ct. 1262. 31

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Uritsky v. Ridge, 286 F.Supp.2d 842 (E.D.Mich. 2003) 22
Ussery v. Mansfield, 786 F.3d 332 (4th Cir. 2015). 48
Utah County v. Orem City, 699 P.2d 707 (Utah Sup.Ct.
1985). 4
Uzzell v. Scully, 893 F.Supp. 259 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). 3, 11
Vaden v. Lantz, 459 F.Supp.2d 149 (D.Conn. 2006). 31
Vaden v. U.S. Department of Justice, 79 F.Supp.3d 207
(D.D.C. 2015). 1, 33
Valade v. City of New York, 949 F.Supp.2d 519 (S.D.N.Y.
2013). 14, 17, 25, 32, 48
Valadez v. City of Des Moines, 324 N.W.2d 475 (Iowa
Sup.Ct. 1982). 16, 27, 29
Valdes v. Crosby, 390 F.Supp.2d 1084 (M.D.Fla. 2005). 2,
10, 14, 24, 27, 29
Valdes v. Crosby, 450 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2006). 14, 48
Valdez v. Farmon, 766 F.Supp. 1529 (E.D. Cal. 1991). 17,
41, 48
Valdez v. Rosenbaum, 302 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2002). 19,
32
Valdivia v. Davis, 206 F.Supp.2d 1068 (E.D.Cal. 2002). 7,
36
Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger, 548 F.Supp.2d 852 (E.D.Cal.
2008). 36
Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger, 599 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2010).
27, 36
Valencia v. Wiggins, 981 F.2d 1440 (5th Cir. 1993), cert.
denied, 113 S.Ct. 2998. 27, 32, 48
Valentin v. Murphy, 95 F.Supp.2d 99 (D.Conn. 2000). 3, 39
Valentine v. Beyer, 850 F.2d 951 (3rd Cir. 1988). 1
Valentine v. Honsinger, 894 F.Supp. 154 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).
11
Valiant-Bey v. Morris, 829 F.2d 1441 (8th Cir. 1987). 28,
37
Vallario v. Vandehey, 554 F.3d 1259 (10th Cir. 2009). 27,
30, 39, 48
Vallina v. Meese, 704 F.Supp. 769 (E.D. Mich. 1989). 3
Valona v. U.S. Parole Com'n, 165 F.3d 508 (7th Cir. 1998).
22, 36
Van Curen v. Jago, 641 F.2d 411 (6th Cir. 1981) reversed
102 S.Ct. 31. 36
Van den Bosch v. Raemisch, 658 F.3d 778 (7th Cir. 2011).
19, 28, 39
Van Poyck v. Dugger, 779 F.Supp. 571 (M.D. Fla. 1991).
49
Van Poyck v. Singletary, 106 F.3d 1558 (11th Cir. 1997).
28, 42
Van Straten v. Schwartz, 38 F.Supp.2d 1038 (E.D.Wisc.
1999). 22, 36
Van v. Miami-Dade County, 509 F.Supp.2d 1295 (S.D.Fla.
2007). 31
Van Wyhe v. Reisch, 581 F.3d 639 (8th Cir. 2009). 1, 24,
37, 38
Vance v. Barrett, 345 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2003). 2, 4, 11, 21,
35, 50
Vance v. Peters, 97 F.3d 987 (7th Cir. 1996). 17, 29
Vance v. Rice, 524 F.Supp. 1297 (S.D. Iowa 1981). 24
Vandelft v. Moses, 31 F.3d 794 (9th Cir. 1994). 1
Vanderburg v. Harrison County, Miss. ex rel. Bd. of
Supervisors, 716 F.Supp.2d 482 (S.D.Miss. 2010).
14, 32, 48
Vandiver v. Prison Health Services, Inc., 727 F.3d 580 (6th
Cir. 2013). 1, 29
Vann v. Vandenbrook, 596 F.Supp.2d 1238 (W.D.Wis.
2009). 1, 14, 29, 30, 34

TC-99
XXVI

Vantassel v. Brooks, 355 F.Supp.2d 788 (W.D.Pa. 2005).
31
Vargas v. Pataki, 899 F.Supp. 96 (N.D.N.Y. 1995). 36, 43
Varnado v. Collins, 920 F.2d 320 (5th Cir. 1991). 29
Varricchio v. County of Nassau, 702 F.Supp.2d 40
(E.D.N.Y. 2010). 1, 9, 18, 19, 32
Varrone v. Bilotti, 123 F.3d 75 (2nd Cir. 1997). 41, 49
Varrone v. Bilotti, 867 F.Supp. 1145 (E.D.N.Y. 1994). 41,
49
Vasquez v. Cooper, 862 F.2d 250 (10th Cir. 1988). 43
Vasquez v. Coughlin, 726 F.Supp. 466 (S.D.N.Y. 1989). 11,
24
Vasquez v. Raemisch, 480 F.Supp.2d 1120 (W.D.Wis.
2007). 1, 28, 41, 48
Vaughan v. Lacey, 49 F.3d 1344 (8th Cir. 1995). 29, 30
Vaughn v. Gray, 557 F.3d 904 (8th Cir. 2009). 14, 25, 29,
30, 32
Vaughn v. Greene County, Arkansas, 438 F.3d 845 (8th Cir.
2006). 14, 24, 25, 29, 32
Vaughn v. Kerley, 897 F.Supp. 1413 (M.D.Fla. 1995). 29
Vaughn v. Ricketts, 663 F.Supp. 401 (D. Ariz. 1987). 27,
41
Vaughn v. Ricketts, 950 F.2d 1464 (9th Cir. 1991). 24, 41
Vaughn v. Willis, 853 F.2d 1372 (7th Cir. 1988). 14, 27
Vazquez v. Carver, 729 F.Supp. 1063 (E.D. Pa. 1989). 9
Vazquez v. Gray, 523 F.Supp. 1359 (S.D. N.Y. 1981). 9,
15, 44
Vega v. Parsley, 700 F.Supp. 879 (W.D. Tex. 1988). 14, 24,
26, 45, 46
Velarde v. Ricketts, 480 F.Supp. 261 (D. Colo. 1979). 35,
38
Velasco v. Head, 166 F.Supp.2d 1100 (W.D.Va. 2000). 48
Velasquez v. Woods, 329 F.3d 420 (5th Cir. 2003). 2, 41
Velez v. Johnson, 395 F.3d 732 (7th Cir. 2005). 14, 32, 45
Velez-Ramirez v. Puerto Rico, 98 F.Supp.3d 388 (D.P.R.
2015). 2, 31
Veloz v. New York, 339 F.Supp.2d 505 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
29
Veloz v. New York, 35 F.Supp.2d 305 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). 29
Venable v. Thornburgh, 766 F.Supp. 1012 (D. Kan. 1991).
22, 47
Venegas v. Henman, 126 F.3d 760 (5th Cir. 1997), cert.
denied 118 S.Ct. 1679. 22, 43
Veney v. Wyche, 293 F.3d 726 (4th Cir. 2002). 3, 7, 8, 9
Verdecia v. Adams, 327 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2003). 14
Verner v. U.S. Parole Com'n, 150 F.3d 1172 (10th Cir.
1998). 43, 47
Verser v. Barfield, 741 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2013). 1, 48
Verser v. Elyea, 113 F.Supp.2d 1211 (N.D.Ill. 2000). 21,
27, 29
Verser v. Ghosh, 925 F.Supp.2d 1028 (N.D.Ill. 2013). 29
Vest v. Lubbock County, 444 F.Supp. 824 (N.D. Tex.
1977). 12, 15, 18, 28, 29, 32, 49
Vester v. Murray, 683 F.Supp. 140 (E.D. Va. 1988). 1, 5, 29
Vester v. Rogers, 795 F.2d 1179 (4th Cir. 1986), cert.
denied, 482 U.S. 916. 19, 38
Via v. Taylor, 224 F.Supp.2d 753 (D.Del. 2002). 13, 31
Victoria W. v. Larpenter, 369 F.3d 475 (5th Cir. 2004). 17,
29
Vienneau v. Shanks, 425 F.Supp. 676 (W.D. Wisc. 1977).
28, 32
Viens v. Daniels, 871 F.2d 1328 (7th Cir. 1989). 11
Viero v. Bufano, 901 F.Supp. 1387 (N.D.Ill. 1995). 14, 26,
27
Vigliotto v. Terry, 873 F.2d 1201 (9th Cir. 1989). 1

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Villante v. Dept. of Corrections of City of New York, 786
F.2d 516 (2nd Cir. 1986). 3, 11, 14
Villanueva v. George, 659 F.2d 851 (1981). 8, 9, 11, 32
Villarreal v. Woodham, 113 F.3d 202 (11th Cir. 1997). 32,
50
Villars v. Kubiatowski, 45 F.Supp.3d 791 (N.D.Ill. 2014).
6, 7, 16, 24
Villegas v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, 709
F.3d 563 (6th Cir. 2013). 1, 17, 29
Vincent v. Sitnewski, 117 F.Supp.3d 329 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).
14, 21, 48
Vine v. County of Ingham, 884 F.Supp. 1153 (W.D.Mich.
1995). 14, 25, 29, 46
Vines v. Howard, 676 F.Supp. 608 (E.D. Pa. 1987). 11
Vineyard v. County of Murray,Ga., 990 F.2d 1207 (llth Cir.
1993), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 636. 2, 32, 48
Vinnedge v. Gibbs, 550 F.2d 926 (4th Cir. 1977). 10, 29
Vinning-El v. Evans, 657 F.3d 591 (7th Cir. 2011). 18, 27,
37
Vinning-El v. Long, 482 F.3d 923 (7th Cir. 2007). 3, 9, 40
Vinson v. Barkley, 646 F.Supp. 39 (W.D. N.Y. 1986). 24,
36
Vinson v. Clarke County, Ala., 10 F.Supp.2d 1282
(S.D.Ala. 1998). 14, 32, 46
Vinson v. Texas Bd. of Corrections, 901 F.2d 474 (5th Cir.
1990). 1
Virgili v. Gilbert, 272 F.3d 391 (6th Cir. 2001). 31
Vitek v. Jones, 100 S.Ct. 1254 (1980). 1, 30, 47
Vodica v. Phelps, 624 F.2d 569 (5th Cir. 1980). 19
Vogelfang v. Capra, 889 F.Supp.2d 489 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). 1,
9, 11, 17, 21
Volk v. Gozalez, 262 F.3d 528 (5th Cir. 2001). 5
Volkman v. Ryker, 736 F.3d 1084 (7th Cir. 2013). 2, 24, 31
Vollette v. Watson, 937 F.Supp.2d 706 (E.D.Va. 2013). 2,
16, 24, 27, 31, 33, 41
Vollette v. Watson, 978 F.Supp.2d 572 (E.D.Va. 2013). 2,
27, 31, 41
Volpe v. U.S., 543 F.Supp.2d 113 (D.Mass. 2008). 13
Von Kahl v. Bureau of Nat. Affairs, Inc., 810 F.Supp.2d
138 (D.D.C. 2011). 19
Von Kahl v. Bureau of Nat. Affairs, Inc., 934 F.Supp.2d
204 (D.D.C. 2013). 7, 27, 33
Vondrak v. City of Las Cruces, 535 F.3d 1198 (10th Cir.
2008). 16, 24, 29, 32, 48
Vore v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 281 F.Supp.2d 1129 (D.Ariz.
2003) 41
Vosburg v. Solem, 845 F.2d 763 (8th Cir. 1988), cert.
denied, 109 S.Ct. 313. 10, 14, 27
Vuncannon v. U.S., 650 F.Supp.2d 577 (N.D.Miss. 2009).
4, 29, 36, 50
Vuncannon v. U.S., 711 F.3d 536 (5th Cir. 2013). 2, 4, 29,
44, 50
W.C. v. DeBruyn, 883 F.Supp. 354 (S.D. Ind. 1995). 5
Waddell v. Brandon, 528 F.Supp. 1097 (W.D. Okl. 1981).
5, 14, 41
Waddell v. Department of Correction, 680 F.3d 384 (4th Cir.
2012). 20, 22, 43
Wade v. Castillo, 658 F.Supp.2d 906 (W.D.Wis. 2009). 29,
30
Wade v. Farley, 869 F.Supp. 1365 (N.D. Ind. 1994). 11, 22
Wade v. Mayo, 334 U.S. 672 (1948). 22
Waganfeald v. Gusman, 674 F.3d 475 (5th Cir. 2012). 1, 13,
32
Wagner v. Bay City, Tex., 227 F.3d 316 (5th Cir. 2000). 29,
32, 48

TC-100
XXVI

Wagner v. County of Maricopa, 706 F.3d 942 (9th Cir.
2013). 25, 29, 30, 48
Wagner v. Gilligan, 609 F.2d 866 (6th Cir. 1979). 36
Wagner v. Hanks, 128 F.3d 1173 (7th Cir. 1997). 3, 22
Wagner v. Henman, 902 F.2d 578 (7th Cir. 1990). 11
Wagner v. Thomas, 608 F.Supp. 1095 (D.C. Tex. 1985). 19,
41
Wagoner v. Lemmon, 778 F.3d 586 (7th Cir. 2015). 29, 39
Wahl v. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169 (1985). 1
Wakat v. Montgomery County, 471 F.Supp.2d 759
(S.D.Tex 2007). 2, 25, 27, 29, 32, 46
Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 1999). 29,
30, 36
Waker v. Brown, 754 F.Supp.2d 62 (D.D.C. 2010). 1, 16,
32, 36
Waldrop v. Evans, 871 F.2d 1030 (11th Cir. 1989). 29, 30
Waletzki v. Keohane, 13 F.3d 1079 (7th Cir. 1994). 20, 22,
50
Walker v. Artus, 998 F.Supp.2d 18 N.D.N.Y. 2014). 37, 39
Walker v. Bain, 65 F.Supp.2d 591 (E.D.Mich. 1999). 5
Walker v. Bates, 23 F.3d 652 (2nd Cir. 1994). 7, 11
Walker v. Beard, 789 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2015). 8, 37
Walker v. Benjamin, 293 F.3d 1030 (7th Cir. 2002). 29
Walker v. Blackwell, 411 F.2d 23 (5th Cir. 1969). 37, 39
Walker v. Bowersox, 526 F.3d 1186 (8th Cir. 2008). 11, 48
Walker v. Butler, 967 F.2d 176 (5th Cir. 1992). 29
Walker v. City of Elba, Ala., 874 F.Supp. 361 (M.D. Ala.
1994). 50
Walker v. City of Orem, 451 F.3d 1139 (10th Cir. 2006).
16, 32, 46
Walker v. Epps, 550 F.3d 407 (5th Cir. 2008). 10
Walker v. Epps, 587 F.Supp.2d 763 (N.D.Miss. 2008). 9, 10
Walker v. Gomez, 370 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2004). 7, 50
Walker v. Gomez, 609 F.Supp.2d 1149 (S.D.Cal. 2009). 27,
33, 47
Walker v. Kubicz, 996 F.Supp. 336 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). 29
Walker v. Mahoney, 915 F.Supp. 548 (E.D.N.Y. 1996). 3,
11
Walker v. Mintzes, 771 F.2d 920 (6th Cir. 1985). 12, 23
Walker v. Nelson, 863 F.Supp. 1059 (D.Neb. 1994). 36
Walker v. Norris, 917 F.2d 1449 (6th Cir. 1990). 14, 46
Walker v. Pate, 356 F.2d 502 (7th Cir. 1966), cert. denied,
384 U.S. 966. 13, 49
Walker v. Peters, 233 F.3d 494 (7th Cir. 2000). 29
Walker v. Peters, 863 F.Supp. 671 (N.D. Ill. 1994). 29
Walker v. Peters, 989 F.Supp. 971 (N.D.Ill. 1997). 29
Walker v. Reed, 104 F.3d 156 (8th Cir. 1997). 1, 27
Walker v. Rowe, 791 F.2d 507 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. denied,
107 S.Ct. 597. 2, 27, 31, 39, 46
Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d 119 (2nd Cir. 2013). 9, 10, 15,
23, 27, 39, 40
Walker v. Shansky, 28 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 1994), affirmed,
51 F.3d 276. 10, 24, 30
Walker v. Sheahan, 526 F.3d 973 (7th Cir. 2008). 32, 46, 48
Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415 (9th Cir. 1994). 11
Walker v. Sumner, 917 F.2d 382 (9th Cir. 1990). 41
Walker v. Thompson, 288 F.3d 1005 (7th Cir. 2002). 1, 21,
22, 36
Walker v. Wainwright, 390 U.S. 335 (1968), reh'g. denied,
390 U.S. 1036. 22
Walker v. Woodford, 454 F.Supp.2d 1007 (S.D.Cal. 2006).
9, 10
Walker v. Woodford, 593 F.Supp.2d 1140 (S.D.Cal. 2008).
2, 9, 10, 15, 39
Wall v. Dion, 257 F.Supp.2d 316 (D.Me. 2003). 27, 29

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Wall v. Wade, 741 F.3d 492 (4th Cir. 2014). 18, 35, 37
Wallace v. Adkins, 115 F.3d 427 (7th Cir. 1997). 14, 31
Wallace v. Burbury, 305 F.Supp.2d 801 (N.D.Ohio 2003). 1
Wallace v. Robinson, 940 F.2d 243 (7th Cir. 1991), cert.
denied, 112 S.Ct. 1563. 50
Wallin v. Minnesota Dept. of Corrections, 153 F.3d 681
(8th Cir. 1998). 31
Wallin v. Norman, 317 F.3d 558 (6th Cir. 2003). 13, 29
Walling v Slusher, 976 F.Supp. 1402 (D.Kan. 1997). 3, 11
Walls v. Tadman, 762 F.3d 778 (8th Cir. 2014). 9, 14
Walsh v. Mellas, 837 F.2d 789 (7th Cir. 1988), cert. denied,
108 S.Ct. 2832. 8, 14
Walters v. County of Charleston, 63 Fed.Appx. 116 (4th
Cir. 2003) [unpublished]. 32, 48
Walters v. Edgar, 900 F.Supp. 197 (N.D.Ill. 1995). 1, 3
Walters v. Grossheim, 990 F.2d 381 (8th Cir. 1993). 4, 27,
39
Walters v. Thompson, 615 F.Supp. 330 (U.S.D.C. Ill.
1985). 1, 3
Walton v. Fairman, 836 F.Supp. 511 (N.D. Ill. 1993). 9, 40
Walton v. Norris, 59 F.3d 67 2 (8th Cir. 1995). 29, 30
Walton v. U.S., 551 F.3d 1367 (Fed.Cir. 2009). 50
Wang v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 130 (2nd Cir. 2003). 6, 22
Wanninger v. Davenport, 697 F.2d 992 (11th Cir. 1983). 1
Warburton v. Goord, 14 F.Supp.2d 289 (W.D.N.Y. 1998).
1, 7, 14, 33
Warburton v. Underwood, 2 F.Supp.2d 306 (W.D.N.Y.
1998). 1, 33, 34, 37
Ward v. Brown, 891 F.Supp.2d 1149 (E.D.Cal. 2012). 13,
16, 36
Ward v. County of San Diego, 791 F.2d 1329 (9th Cir.
1986), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1020. 17, 25, 41
Ward v. Dowd, 707 F.Supp. 417 (E.D. Mo. 1989). 29
Ward v. Dyke, 58 F.3d 271 (6th. Cir. 1995). 14, 47
Ward v. Johnson, 437 F.Supp. 1053 (E.D. Vir. 1977). 1, 9,
29, 47
Ward v. Johnson, 690 F.2d 1098 (1981). 11
Ward v. Rabideau, 732 F.Supp.2d 162 (W.D.N.Y. 2010). 1,
18, 21, 37
Ward v. Ryan, 623 F.3d 807 (9th Cir. 2010). 4, 35, 44, 50
Ward v. Stewart, 511 F.Supp.2d 981 (D.Ariz. 2007). 4, 35,
50
Ward v. Walsh, 1 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied,
114 S.Ct. 1297. 37
Ward v. Washtenaw County Sheriff's Dept., 881 F.2d 325
(6th Cir. 1989). 19
Wardell v. Duncan, 470 F.3d 954 (10th Cir. 2006). 1, 19, 39
Ware v. Fairman, 884 F.Supp. 1201 (N.D.Ill. 1995). 9, 29,
40
Ware v. Morrison, 276 F.3d 385 (8th Cir. 2002). 11, 49
Wares v. Simmons, 392 F.3d 1141 (10th Cir. 2004). 37
Wares v. Simmons, 524 F.Supp.2d 1313 (D.Kan. 2007). 37,
38, 39
Wares v. VanBebber, 231 F.Supp.2d 1120 (D.Kan. 2002).
24, 27, 37, 38
Wares v. Vanbebber, 319 F.Supp.2d 1237 (D.Kan. 2004).
37
Waring v. Meachum, 175 F.Supp.2d 230 (D.Conn. 2001). 9,
18, 23, 39
Warner v. County of Washoe, 620 F.Supp. 59 (D.C. Nev.
1985). 2, 14, 27
Warren v. Baskerville, 233 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2000). 20, 22,
36
Warren v. District of Columbia, 353 F.3d 36 (D.C.Cir.
2004). 27, 29

TC-101
XXVI

Warren v. Fanning, 950 F.2d 1370 (8th Cir. 1991), cert.
denied, 113 S.Ct. 111. 4, 5, 29
Warren v. Goord, 476 F.Supp.2d 407 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). 14,
21
Warren v. Goord, 579 F.Supp.2d 488 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). 14,
39
Warren v. Irvin, 985 F.Supp. 350 (W.D.N.Y. 1997). 3, 10,
18, 20
Warren v. Keane, 196 F.3d 330 (2nd Cir. 1999). 9, 10, 29
Warren v. Keane, 937 F.Supp. 301 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). 9, 10,
27, 29
Warren v. Miles, 230 F.3d 688 (5th Cir. 2000). 34, 43
Warren v. Shelby County, Tenn., 191 F.Supp.2d 980
(W.D.Tenn. 2001). 13, 29
Warren v. State of Mo., 754 F.Supp. 150 (W.D. Mo. 1990),
affirmed, 995 F.2d 130. 10, 24, 50
Warren v. State of Mo., 995 F.2d 130 (8th Cir. 1993). 29,
50
Warren v. Stempson, 800 F.Supp. 991 (D.D.C. 1992),
affirmed, 995 F.2d 306. 9, 11, 40
Warren v. United States Parole Commission, 659 F.2d 183
(D.C. Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 950. 36
Warren v. Westchester County Jail, 106 F.Supp.2d 559
(S.D.N.Y. 2000). 4, 10, 48
Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005). 19,
27, 37, 38, 39
Washington v. Afify, 968 F.Supp.2d 532 (W.D.N.Y. 2013).
11, 18, 37, 40, 50
Washington v. California City Correction Center, 871
F.Supp.2d 1010 (E.D.Cal. 2012). 2, 31
Washington v. Chrans, 769 F.Supp. 1045 (C.D. Ill. 1991).
11
Washington v. District of Columbia, 538 F.Supp.2d 269
(D.D.C. 2008). 2, 31
Washington v. District of Columbia, 802 F.2d 1478 (D.C.
Cir. 1986). 2, 14, 31
Washington v. Garcia, 977 F.Supp. 1067 (S.D.Cal. 1997).
7, 37
Washington v. Hively, 695 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2012). 14, 27,
32, 41
Washington v. Klem, 497 F.3d 272 (3rd Cir. 2007). 37, 38,
39
Washington v. Lake County, Ill, 969 F.2d 250 (7th Cir.
1992). 31
Washington v. Lake County, Ill., 762 F.Supp. 199 (N.D. Ill.
1991), affirmed 969 F.2d 250. 2, 31
Washington v. LaPorte County Sheriff's Dept., 306 F.3d
515 (7th Cir. 2002). 8, 14, 32
Washington v. Reno, 35 F.3d 1093 (6th Cir. 1994). 19
Washington v. Silber, 805 F.Supp. 379 (W.D.Va. 1992),
affirmed, 993 F.2d 1541. 30
Washington v. State, 405 So.2d 62 (Ct. Crim. App. Ala.
1981). 11, 22
Washington v. Tinsley, 809 F.Supp. 504 (S.D.Tex. 1992).
32, 38
Washlefske v. Winston, 234 F.3d 179 (4th Cir. 2000). 2, 35
Washpon v. Parr, 561 F.Supp.2d 394 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). 19,
39
Wasserman v. Rodacker, 557 F.3d 635 (D.C. Cir. 2009). 32,
36, 48
Waterman v. Commandant, U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, 337
F.Supp.2d 1237 (D.Kan. 2004). 19, 28
Waterman v. Farmer, 183 F.3d 208 (3rd Cir. 1999). 19, 34
Waterman v. Farmer, 84 F.Supp.2d 579 (D.N.J. 2000). 5

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Watford v. Bruce, 126 F.Supp.2d 425 (E.D.Va. 2001). 32,
48
Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2012). 1, 9, 21,
33
Watkins v. City of Battle Creek, 273 F.3d 682 (6th Cir.
2001). 14, 32, 46
Watkins v. Kasper, 599 F.3d 791 (7th Cir. 2010). 1, 19, 21,
35
Watson v. Caton, 984 F.2d 537 (lst Cir. 1993). 29, 35
Watson v. Graves, 909 F.2d 1549 (5th Cir. 1990). 50
Watson v. McGee, 527 F.Supp. 234 (S.D. Oh. 1981). 14
Watson v. McGinnis, 964 F.Supp. 127 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). 14,
48
Watson v. Norris, 729 F.Supp. 581 (M.D. Tenn. 1989). 1, 3,
24
Watson v. Riggle, 315 F.Supp,2d 963 (N.D.Ind. 2004). 39,
48
Watson v. Smith, 682 F.Supp. 225 (S.D. N.Y. 1988). 11, 36
Watson v. U.S., 485 F.3d 1100 (10th Cir. 2007). 27, 29
Watts v. McKinney, 394 F.3d 710 (9th Cir. 2005). 14, 48
Watts v. Ramos, 948 F.Supp. 739 (N.D.Ill. 1996). 3, 12
Way v. County of Ventura, 445 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2006).
17, 32, 41
Way v. Johnson, 893 F.Supp.2d 15 (D.D.C. 2012). 8, 21, 34
Wayland v. City of Springdale, Ark., 933 F.2d 668 (8th Cir.
1991). 32
Weaver v. Clarke, 120 F.3d 852 (8th Cir. 1997). 5, 9, 10, 29
Weaver v. Clarke, 45 F.3d 1253 (8th Cir. 1995). 9, 29
Weaver v. Tipton County, Tenn., 41 F.Supp.2d 779
(W.D.Tenn. 1999). 24, 29, 32, 45, 46
Weaver v. Toombs, 756 F.Supp. 335 (W.D. Mich. 1989). 1
Weaver v. Toombs, 948 F.2d 1004 (6th Cir. 1991). 1, 4, 35
Webb v. Ada County, 285 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2002). 5
Webb v. Ada County, Idaho, 195 F.3d 524 (9th Cir. 1999).
5
Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649 (7th Cir. 2000). 4, 22
Webb v. Budz, 480 F.Supp.2d 1050 (N.D. Ill. 2007). 7, 32
Webb v. Goldstein, 117 F.Supp.2d 289 (E.D.N.Y. 2000).
29, 33
Webb v. Jessamine County Fiscal Court, 802 F.Supp.2d 870
(E.D.Ky. 2011). 17, 27, 29
Webb v. Keohane, 804 F.2d 413 (7th Cir. 1986). 47
Webb v. Lawrence County, 144 F.3d 1131 (8th Cir. 1998).
14, 24, 32
Webb v. Lawrence County, 950 F.Supp. 960 (D.S.D. 1996).
8, 14, 24, 27
Webber v. Crabtree, 158 F.3d 460 (9th Cir. 1998). 10, 38
Webber v. Hammack, 973 F.Supp. 116 (N.D.N.Y. 1997).
29
Weber v. Dell, 804 F.2d 796 (2nd Cir. 1986), cert. denied,
483 U.S. 1020. 24, 25, 27, 41
Weber v. Village of Hanover Park, 768 F.Supp. 630 (N.D.
Ill. 1991). 16
Webster v. Chevalier, 834 F.Supp. 628 (W.D.N.Y. 1993).
35
Webster v. City of New York, 333 F.Supp.2d 184
(S.D.N.Y. 2004). 32, 48
Webster v. Fischer, 694 F.Supp.2d 163 (N.D.N.Y. 2010). 3,
11, 28, 29
Weeks v. Bayer, 246 F.3d 1231 (9th Cir. 2001). 31
Weeks v. Chaboudy, 984 F.2d 185 (6th Cir. 1993). 27, 29
Weeks v. Hodges, 871 F.Supp.2d 811 (N.D.Ind. 2012). 4,
29
Weems v. Little Rock Police Dept,, 453 F.3d 1010 (8th Cir.
2006). 7, 13, 19, 43

TC-102
XXVI

Weicherding v. Riegel, 160 F.3d 1139 2 (7th Cir. 1998). 31
Weicherding v. Riegel, 981 F.Supp. 1143 (C.D.Ill. 1997).
19, 31
Weiler v. Purkett, 137 F.3d 1047 (8th Cir. 1998). 1, 28
Weinberger v. State of Wis., 906 F.Supp. 485 (W.D.Wis.
1995). 14, 45
Weir v. Nix, 114 F.3d 817 (8th Cir. 1997). 35, 37
Weir v. Nix, 890 F.Supp. 769 (S.D.Iowa 1995). 3, 19, 35,
37
Weiss v. Cooley, 230 F.3d 1027 (7th Cir. 2000). 8, 14, 25,
32
Welch v. Bartlett, 196 F.3d 389 (2nd Cir. 1999). 3
Welch v. Mukasey, 589 F.Supp.2d 178 (N.D.N.Y. 2008).
22
Welch v. Sheriff, Lubbock County, Tex., 734 F.Supp. 765
(N.D. Tex. 1990). 8
Welch v. Spangler, 939 F.2d 570 (8th Cir. 1991). 27, 41
Welch v. Thompson, 20 F.3d 636 (5th Cir. 1994). 36, 50
Weller v. Grant County Sheriff, 75 F.Supp.2d 927
(N.D.Ind. 1999). 36, 38, 50
Wellmaker v. Dahill, 836 F.Supp. 1375 (N.D. Ohio 1993).
24, 37, 38
Wells v. Bureau County, 723 F.Supp.2d 1061 (C.D.Ill.
2010). 14, 25, 26, 29, 30, 32, 45
Wells v. City of Chicago, 896 F.Supp.2d 725 (N.D.Ill.
2012). 16, 24, 27, 29, 32, 36
Wells v. City of Chicago, 925 F.Supp.2d 1036 (N.D.Ill.
2013). 5, 27
Wells v. Franzen, 777 F.2d 1258 (7th Cir. 1985). 30, 48
Wells v. Jefferson County Sheriff Dept., 159 F.Supp.2d
1002 (S.D.Ohio 2001). 9, 13, 14, 32
Wells v. McGinnis, 344 F.Supp. 594 (S.D. N.Y. 1972). 1
Wells v. Wade, 36 F.Supp.2d 154 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). 11
Wells v. Walker, 852 F.2d 368 (8th Cir. 1988), cert. denied,
109 S.Ct. 1121. 27, 36
Wendt v. Lynaugh, 841 F.2d 619 (5th Cir. 1988). 50
Wenzler v. Warden of G.R.C.C., 949 F. Supp. 399 (E.D.Va.
1996). 1, 35
Wereb v. Maui County, 727 F.Supp.2d 898 (D.Hawai‘i
2010). 14, 24, 29, 45, 46
Wereb v. Maui County, 830 F.Supp.2d 1026 (D.Hawai‘I
2011). 14, 29, 32, 46
Werner v. McCotter, 49 F.3d 1476 (10th Cir. 1995). 37
Wesolowski v. Bockelman, 506 F.Supp.2d 118 (N.D.N.Y.
2007). 31
Wesolowski v. Harvey, 784 F.Supp.2d 231 (W.D.N.Y.
2011). 10, 29
Wesolowski v. Kamas, 590 F.Supp.2d 431 (W.D.N.Y.
2008). 9, 15, 23, 40
Wesolowski v. Sullivan, 524 F.Supp.2d 251 (W.D.N.Y.
2007). 1, 21, 35, 38
Wesolowski v. Washburn, 615 F.Supp.2d 126 (W.D.N.Y.
2009). 1, 24, 28
Wesson v. Oglesby, 910 F.2d 278 (5th Cir. 1990). 29, 48
West v. Atkins, 108 S.Ct. 2250 (1988). 2, 27, 29
West v. Frank, 492 F.Supp.2d 1040 (W.D.Wis. 2007). 2,
28, 38
West v. Lamb, 497 F.Supp. 989 (D. Nev. 1980). 9, 15
West v. Macht, 235 F.Supp.2d 966 (E.D.Wis. 2002). 8, 30
West v. Macht, 986 F.Supp. 1141 (W.D.Wis. 1997). 1
West v. McCaughtry, 971 F.Supp. 1272 (E.D.Wis. 1997). 3,
29
West v. Murphy, 771 F.3d 209 (4th Cir. 2014). 25, 32, 41
West v. Schwebke, 333 F.3d 745 (7th Cir. 2003). 8, 34, 36

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

West v. Virginia Dept. of Corrections, 847 F.Supp. 402
(W.D. Va. 1994). 7, 17, 34
West v. Whitehead, 484 F.Supp.2d 1011 (D.S.D. 2007). 22,
36
West v. Wright, 747 F.Supp. 329 (E.D. Va. 1990). 9, 10
Westbrook, III v. Wilson, 896 F.Supp. 504 (D.Md. 1995). 3,
29
Westefer v. Neal, 682 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 2012). 7, 8, 27, 39,
47
Westefer v. Snyder, 422 F.3d 570 (7th Cir. 2005). 1, 7, 8,
19, 21, 39, 47
Westmoreland v. Brown, 883 F.Supp. 67 (E.D. Va. 1995).
14, 27
Weston v. Pennsylvania, 251 F.3d 420 (3rd Cir. 2001). 31
Wetmore v. Gardner, 735 F.Supp. 974 (E.D. Wash. 1990).
24, 41
Wever v. Lincoln County, Nebraska, 388 F.3d 601 (8th Cir.
2004). 14, 27, 32, 45, 46
Whatley v. Warden, Ware State Prison, 802 F.3d 1205 (11th
Cir. 2015). 1, 9, 21, 48
Wheeler v. Sims, 951 F.2d 796 (7th Cir. 1992), cert. denied,
113 S.Ct. 320. 11
Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680 (7th
Cir. 2012). 27, 29
White v. Bukowski, 800 F.3d 392 (7th Cir. 2015). 17, 21,
29, 47
White v. Clement, 116 F.Supp.3d 183 (W.D.N.Y. 2015).
21, 29
White v. Cooper, 55 F.Supp.2d 848 (N.D.Ill. 1999). 14, 15,
39
White v. Crane, 45 Fed.Appx. 552 (8th Cir. 2002). 14, 32
White v. Crow Ghost, 456 F.Supp.2d 1096 (D.N.D. 2006).
6, 9, 14, 29, 32
White v. Department of Correctional Services, 814
F.Supp.2d 374 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). 2, 31
White v. Department of Justice. 952 F.Supp.2d 213
(D.D.C., 2013). 2, 19
White v. Farrier, 849 F.2d 322 (8th Cir. 1988). 29
White v. Fauver, 19 F.Supp.2d 305 (D.N.J. 1998). 7, 14, 17,
21
White v. Fauver, 530 A.2d 37 (N.J. Super. A.D. 1987). 8
White v. Gregory, 1 F.3d 267 (4th Cir. 1993), cert. denied,
114 S.Ct. 931. 1, 18
White v. Gregory, 87 F.3d 429 (10th Cir. 1996). 1
White v. Holmes, 21 F.3d 277 (8th Cir. 1994). 10, 48
White v. Johnson, 429 F.3d 572 (5th Cir. 2005). 10
White v. Kane, 860 F.Supp. 1075 (E.D.Pa. 1994), affirmed,
52 F.3d 319. 11
White v. Kautsky, 386 F.Supp.2d 1042 (N.D.Iowa, 2005).
1, 27
White v. Kautzky, 269 F.Supp.2d 1054 (N.D.Iowa 2003). 1
White v. Kautzky, 494 F.3d 677 (8th Cir. 2007). 1
White v. Lemacks, 183 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 1999). 14, 31
White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103 (3rd Cir. 1990). 29
White v. New Hampshire Dept. of Corrections, 221 F.3d
254 (1st Cir. 2000). 31
White v. Nix, 7 F.3d 120 (8th Cir. 1993). 9, 11
White v. Nix, 805 F.Supp. 721 (S.D.Iowa 1992), affirmed,
7 F.3d 120. 9, 10, 11
White v. Ottinger, 442 F.Supp.2d 236 (E.D.Pa. 2006). 11,
14
White v. Paulsen, 997 F.Supp. 1380 (E.D.Wash. 1998). 29
White v. Roper, 901 F.2d 1501 (9th Cir. 1990). 39, 48
White v. State of Colorado, 82 F.3d 364 (10th Cir. 1996). 7,
29, 50

TC-103
XXVI

White v. Washington County, Tenn., 85 F.Supp.3d 955
(E.D.Tenn. 2015). 14, 29, 30, 32
White v. White, 886 F.2d 721 (4th Cir. 1989). 1, 28
Whitford v. Boglino, 63 F.3d 527 (7th Cir. 1995). 11
Whiting v. Marathon County Sheriff’s Dept., 382 F.3d 700
(7th Cir. 2004). 14, 17
Whitington v. Ortiz, 472 F.3d 804 (10th Cir. 2007). 1, 23,
29, 35
Whitley v. Albers, 106 S.Ct. (1986). 39, 48
Whitley v. Lewis, 844 F.Supp. 276 (E.D. Va. 1994),
affirmed, 48 F.3d 1218. 29
Whitley v. Miller, 57 F.Supp.3d 152 (N.D.N.Y. 2014). 11
Whitlock v. Johnson, 153 F.3d 380 (7th Cir. 1998). 11, 20
Whitman v. Nesic, 368 F.3d 931 (7th Cir. 2004). 41
Whitmire v. Arizona, 298 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2002). 7, 38,
49
Whitnack v. Douglas County, 16 F.3d 954 (8th Cir. 1994).
9, 40
Whitney v. Brown, 882 F.2d 1068 (6th Cir. 1989). 37
Whitson v. Stone County Jail, 602 F.3d 920 (8th Cir. 2010).
14, 17, 47
Whitt v. Stephens County, 529 F.3d 278 (5th Cir. 2008). 14,
25, 32, 47
Whittington v. Lynaugh, 842 F.2d 818 (5th Cir. 1988), cert.
denied, 109 S.Ct. 108. 1, 8
Whittington v. Vaughn, 289 F.Supp.2d 621 (E.D.Pa. 2003)
11, 30
Wickliffe v. Clark, 783 F.Supp. 389 (N.D. Ind. 1991). 20,
22, 36, 43
Wicks v. Shields, 181 F.Supp.2d 423 (E.D.Pa. 2002). 1, 19,
50
Wiggins v. Nelson, 510 F.Supp. 666 (D. Conn. 1981). 36
Wiggins v. Wise, 951 F.Supp. 614 (S.D.W.Va. 1996). 22,
36
Wiideman v. Angelone, 848 F.Supp. 136 (D.Nev. 1994). 1
Wilbert v. Quarterman, 647 F.Supp.2d 760 (S.D.Tex.
2009). 14, 21, 47
Wilborn v. Walsh, 584 F.Supp.2d 384 (D.Mass. 2008). 7,
36
Wilbur v. City of Mount Vernon, 989 F.Supp.2d 1122
(W.D.Wash. 2013). 1, 7, 42
Wildberger v. Bracknell, 869 F.2d 1467 (11th Cir. 1989).
11, 19, 21
Wildermuth v. Furlong, 147 F.3d 1234 (10th Cir. 1998). 22,
34, 36
Wiley v. Buncombe County, 846 F.Supp.2d 480 (W.D.N.C.
2012). 7, 22, 32, 36, 43
Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2012). 29
Wilkens v. Moore, 40 F.3d 954 (8th Cir. 1994). 10, 14, 48
Wilkerson v. Goodwin, 774 F.3d 845 (5th Cir. 2014). 8, 11,
12
Wilkerson v. Maggio, 703 F.2d 909 (5th Cir. 1983). 8, 10,
12
Wilkerson v. Stalder, 639 F.Supp.2d 654 (M.D.La. 2007).
3, 9, 10, 24
Wilkes v. Borough of Clayton, 696 F.Supp. 144 (D.N.J.
1988). 17, 32, 33
Wilkins v. Davis, 780 F.Supp. 646 (E.D. Mo. 1991),
affirmed, 963 F.2d 377. 14
Wilkins v. District of Columbia, 879 F.Supp.2d 35 (D.D.C.
2012). 1, 2, 14, 15, 32, 39, 44
Wilkins v. Gaddy, 734 F.3d 344 (4th Cir. 2013). 1, 5, 14, 27,
48
Wilkins v. Roper, 843 F.Supp. 1327 (E.D. Mo. 1994). 11

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Wilkins v. Timmerman-Cooper, 512 F.3d 768 (6th Cir.
2008). 1, 35
Wilkins-Jones v. County of Alameda, 859 F.Supp.2d 1039
(N.D.Cal. 2012). 9, 15, 17, 23, 29
Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 109 S.Ct. 2304
(1989). 7, 27
Willey v. Kirkpatrick, 664 F.Supp.2d 218 (W.D.N.Y.
2009). 7, 11, 16
Willey v. Kirkpatrick, 801 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2015). 1, 9, 18,
40
William v. Edwards, 547 F.2d 1206 (5th Cir. 1977). 45
Williams v. Anderson, 959 F.2d 1411 (7th Cir. 1992). 24,
29, 30
Williams v. Armontrout, 852 F.2d 377 (8th Cir. 1988), cert.
denied, 109 S.Ct. 564. 3, 8
Williams v. Bass, 63 F.3d 483 (6th Cir. 1995). 11, 36
Williams v. Beard, 482 F.3d 637 (3rd Cir. 2007). 1, 21
Williams v. Beltran, 569 F.Supp.2d 1057 (C.D.Cal. 2008).
24, 27, 37
Williams v. Benjamin, 77 F.3d 756 (4th Cir. 1996). 39, 48
Williams v. Bennett, 689 F.2d 1370 (11th Cir. 1982), cert.
denied, 464 U.S. 932, 104 S.Ct. 335. 10, 24, 27
Williams v. Bitner, 359 F.Supp.2d 370 (M.D.Pa. 2005). 37,
50
Williams v. Bitner, 455 F.3d 186 (3rd Cir. 2006). 37, 50
Williams v. Blackburn, 761 F.Supp. 24 (M.D. La. 1991),
affirmed, 14 F.3d 52. 14
Williams v. Board of Regents of University of New
Mexico, 20 F.Supp.3d 1177 (D.N.M. 2014). 30, 32
Williams v. Boles, 841 F.2d 181 (7th Cir. 1988). 48
Williams v. Borough of West Chester, Pa., 891 F.2d 458
(3rd Cir. 1989). 14, 25, 32
Williams v. Bradshaw, 459 F.3d 846 (8th Cir. 2006). 17,
25, 29, 32
Williams v. Brimeyer, 116 F.3d 351 (8th Cir. 1997). 27, 28,
37
Williams v. Briscoe, 641 F.2d 274 (5th Cir. 1981), cert.
denied, 454 U.S. 1056. 36
Williams v. Burton, 943 F.2d 1572 (11th Cir. 1991), cert.
denied, 112 S.Ct. 3002. 29, 48
Williams v. Cain, 117 F.3d 863 (5th Cir. 1997). 1, 22
Williams v. Calderon, 48 F.Supp.2d 979 (C.D.Cal. 1998). 1,
22, 33
Williams v. Carter, 10 F.3d 563 (8th Cir. 1993). 1
Williams v. Cash, 836 F.2d 1318 (11th Cir. 1988). 27, 48
Williams v. Cearlock, 993 F.Supp. 1192 (C.D.Ill. 1998). 29
Williams v. Champagne, 13 F.Supp.3d 624 (E.D.La. 2014).
37, 38, 48
Williams v. City of Las Vegas, 34 Fed.Appx. 297 (9th Cir.
2002). 25, 32, 39, 48
Williams v. City of New York, 728 F.Supp. 1067 (S.D.N.Y.
1990). 5, 11
Williams v. Community Solutions, Inc., 932 F.Supp.2d 323
(D.Conn. 2013). 7, 10, 14, 33
Williams v. Consovoy, 333 F.Supp.2d 297 (D.N.J. 2004).
20, 24, 36
Williams v. Consovoy, 453 F.3d 173 (3rd Cir. 2006). 24,
30, 36
Williams v. Correctional Medical Services, 629 F.Supp.2d
360 (D.Del. 2009). 29
Williams v. Coughlin, 875 F.Supp. 1004 (W.D.N.Y. 1995).
10, 11, 18
Williams v. Delo, 49 F.3d 442 (8th Cir. 1995). 9, 23
Williams v. Department of Corrections, 208 F.3d 681 (8th
Cir. 2000). 39, 48

TC-104
XXVI

Williams v. District of Columbia, 439 F.Supp.2d 34
(D.D.C. 2006). 9, 10, 13, 29
Williams v. District of Columbia, 530 F.Supp.2d 119
(D.D.C. 2008). 9, 13, 29
Williams v. Elyea, 163 F.Supp.2d 992 (N.D.Ill. 2001). 29
Williams v. Erickson, 962 F.Supp.2d 1038 (N.D.Ill. 2013).
9, 23, 29
Williams v. First Correctional Medical, 377 F.Supp.2d 473
(D.Del. 2005). 29
Williams v. Fitch, 550 F.Supp.2d 413 (W.D.N.Y. 2008). 39,
41
Williams v. Fountain, 77 F.3d 372 (11th Cir. 1996). 11
Williams v. Gomez, 795 F.Supp. 978 (N.D.Cal. 1992). 1
Williams v. Goord, 111 F.Supp.2d 280 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). 3,
7, 10, 11, 12, 39
Williams v. Goord, 142 F.Supp.2d 416 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). 3,
12, 24, 39
Williams v. Greifinger, 918 F.Supp. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).
11, 12, 24
Williams v. Hampton, 797 F.3d 276 (5th Cir. 2015). 14, 39
Williams v. Hayman, 657 F.Supp.2d 488 (D.N.J. 2008). 7,
21, 29, 34
Williams v. Heard, 533 F.Supp. 1153 (S.D. Tex. 1982). 24,
27, 36
Williams v. Herron, 687 F.3d 971 (8th Cir. 2012). 2, 31
Williams v. Hobbs, 662 F.3d 994 (8th Cir. 2011). 3, 8, 11,
27
Williams v. Hopkins, 130 F.3d 333 (8th Cir. 1997). 10, 43
Williams v. Hopkins, 983 F.Supp. 891 (D.Neb. 1997). 10.
43
Williams v. ICC Committee, 812 F.Supp. 1029 (N.D.Cal.
1992). 1, 9, 23, 28, 29
Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235 (1970). 43
Williams v. Jackson, 600 F.3d 1007 (8th Cir. 2010). 11, 13,
14, 15, 24, 29
Williams v. Johnson, 171 F.3d 300 (5th Cir. 1999). 22, 36
Williams v. Kaufman County, 352 F.3d 994 (5th Cir. 2003)
16, 27, 32, 41
Williams v. Keane, 940 F.Supp. 566 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). 29
Williams v. Kelly, 624 F.2d 695 (5th Cir. 1980), cert.
denied, 451 U.S. 1019. 14, 27, 39, 48
Williams v. Kelone, 560 So.2d 915 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1990).
10, 23, 40
Williams v. Kelso, 201 F.3d 1060 (8th Cir. 2000). 14, 25,
29, 30, 32, 45
Williams v. King, 56 F.Supp.3d 308 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). 7, 37
Williams v. Klien, 20 F.Supp.3d 1171 (D.Colo .2014). 9,
11, 21
Williams v. Kling, 849 F.Supp. 1192 (E.D. Mich. 1994).
11, 21
Williams v. Kyler, 680 F.Supp. 172 (M.D. Pa. 1986). 33, 41
Williams v. Lee, 33 F.3d 1010 (8th Cir. 1994). 36
Williams v. Liefer, 491 F.3d 710 (7th Cir. 2007). 29
Williams v. Luna, 909 F.2d 121 2 (5th Cir. 1990). 1, 48
Williams v. Manternach, 192 F.Supp.2d 980 (N.D.Iowa
2002). 1, 7, 11, 50
Williams v. McGinnis, 755 F.Supp. 230 (N.D. Ill. 1991).
34, 47
Williams v. McKeithen, 939 F.2d 1100 (5th Cir. 1991). 15
Williams v. McKeithen, 963 F.2d 70 (5th Cir. 1992). 2, 15
Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994 (10th Cir. 1991). 50
Williams v. Mehra, 186 F.3d 685 (6th Cir. 1999). 14, 29, 30
Williams v. Meyer, 346 F.3d 607 (6th Cir. 2003). 7, 8, 22
Williams v. Missouri Bd. of Probation and Parole, 661 F.2d
697 (8th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 993. 36

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Williams v. Norris, Arkansas Dept. Of Corrections, 148
F.3d 983 (8th Cir. 1998). 29, 50
Williams v. O'Leary, 805 F.Supp. 634 (N.D.Ill. 1992). 29
Williams v. One Female Corrections Officer Sgt. Kolaczyk,
940 F.Supp. 31 (D.Mass. 1996). 7, 29
Williams v. Ozmint, 716 F.3d 801 (4th Cir. 2013). 7, 19, 49
Williams v. Ozmint, 726 F.Supp.2d 589 (D.S.C. 2010). 9,
11, 39
Williams v. Price, 25 F.Supp.2d 605 (W.D.Pa. 1997). 1, 10,
12, 33, 41
Williams v. Price, 25 F.Supp.2d 623 (W.D.Pa. 1997). 1, 33
Williams v. Ramos, 71 F.3d 1246 (7th Cir. 1995). 3, 8, 29
Williams v. Rhoden, 629 F.2d 1099 (5th Cir. 1980). 36
Williams v. Rodriguez, 509 F.3d 392 (7th Cir. 2007). 25,
29, 32
Williams v. Smith, 717 F.Supp. 523 (W.D. Mich. 1989). 11,
21
Williams v. Stewart, 441 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2006). 1
Williams v. Sweeney, 882 F.Supp. 1520 (E.D. Pa. 1995). 3
Williams v. Thomas, 692 F.2d 1032 (1982), cert. denied,
103 S.Ct. 3115. 1, 5
Williams v. Treen, 671 F.2d 892 (1982), cert. denied, 103
S.Ct. 762. 24, 27, 29
Williams v. U.S., 747 F.Supp. 967 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). 27, 29
Williams v. Vidor, 17 F.3d 857 (6th Cir. 1994). 10, 48
Williams v. Wade, 354 F.Supp.2d 894 (W.D.Wis. 2005).
19, 37
Williams v. Wahner, 731 F.3d 731 (7th Cir. 2013). 1, 14
Williams v. Ward, 845 F.2d 374 (2nd Cir. 1988), cert.
denied, 109 S.Ct. 818. 32
Williams v. Warden-Central Detention Facility, 538
F.Supp.2d 74 (D.D.C. 2008). 22, 32
Williams v. White, 897 F.2d 942 (8th Cir. 1990). 1, 15, 27
Williams v. Willits, 853 F.2d 586 (8th Cir. 1988). 9, 14
Williams v. Wisconsin, 336 F.3d 576 (7th Cir. 2003). 19, 22,
36
Williams-El v. McLemore, 213 F.Supp.2d 783 (E.D.Mich.
2002). 29, 39, 47
Williamson v Brewington-Carr, 173 F.Supp.2d 235 (D.Del.
2001). 29
Williamson v. Black, 537 F.Supp.2d 792 (M.D.N.C. 2008).
28
Williamson v. Correct Care Solutions LLC, 890 F.Supp.2d
487 (D.Del. 2012). 29
Williamson v. Correctional Medical Services, 494
F.Supp.2d 285 (D.Del. 2007). 29
Willis v. Artuz, 301 F.3d 65 (2nd Cir. 2002). 33, 41
Willis v. Clemente, 882 F.Supp. 133 (S.D.Ind. 1994). 29
Willis v. Commissioner, Indiana Dept. of Correction, 753
F.Supp.2d 768 (S.D.Ind. 2010). 2, 18, 37
Willis v. Lane, 738 F.Supp. 1198 (C.D. Ill. 1989). 1, 28
Willis v. Mullins, 517 F.Supp.2d 1206 (E.D.Cal. 2007.) 41
Willis v. Youngblood, 384 F.Supp.2d 883 (D.Md. 2005). 48
Willoughby v. Luster, 717 F.Supp. 1439 (D. Nev. 1989). 11
Wills v. Terhune, 404 F.Supp.2d 1226 (E.D.Cal. 2005). 9,
10, 15
Willson v. Buss, 370 F.Supp.2d 782 (N.D.Ind. 2005). 19,
28, 38
Wilson v. Bailey, 934 F.2d 301 (11th Cir. 1991). 31
Wilson v. Beame, 380 F.Supp. 1232 (E.D. N.Y. 1974). 1, 3,
12, 32, 34, 37
Wilson v. Blankenship, 163 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 1998). 1,
12, 24, 32
Wilson v. Brown, 889 F.2d 1195 (1st Cir. 1989). 27, 47
Wilson v. Chang, 955 F.Supp. 18 (D.R.I. 1997). 29

TC-105
XXVI

Wilson v. City of Chanute, 43 F.Supp.2d 1202 (D.Kan.
1999). 14, 27, 29, 32
Wilson v. City of Fountain Valley, 372 F.Supp.2d 1178
(C.D.Cal. 2004). 36, 41
Wilson v. City of Kalamazoo, 127 F.Supp.2d 855
(W.D.Mich. 2000). 7, 25, 32, 33
Wilson v. Collins, 517 F.3d 421 (6th Cir. 2008). 33, 41, 44
Wilson v. Cook County Bd. of Commissioners, 878 F.Supp.
1163 (N.D. Ill. 1995). 9, 18, 23, 29, 32
Wilson v. Cooper, 922 F.Supp. 1286 (N.D.Ill. 1996). 9, 39,
47, 48
Wilson v. Epps, 776 F.3d 296 (5th Cir. 2015). 1, 21
Wilson v. Flaherty, 689 F.3d 332 (4th Cir. 2012). 13, 22, 36
Wilson v. Franceschi, 735 F.Supp. 395 (M.D. Fla. 1990). 8,
29
Wilson v. Greetan, 571 F.Supp.2d 948 (W.D.Wis. 2007).
11, 19
Wilson v. Groaning, 25 F.3d 581 (7th Cir. 1994). 48
Wilson v. Harper, 949 F. Supp. 714 (S.D.Iowa 1996). 11
Wilson v. Hauck, 141 F.Supp.3d 226 (W.D.N.Y. 2015). 1,
13, 14, 48
Wilson v. Holman, 793 F.Supp. 920 (E.D.Mo. 1992). 28
Wilson v. Horn, 971 F.Supp. 943 (E.D.Pa. 1997). 21
Wilson v. Johnson, 535 F.3d 262 (4th Cir. 2008). 22, 36
Wilson v. Johnson, 999 F.Supp. 394 (W.D.N.Y. 1998). 29,
50
Wilson v. Jones, 251 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2001). 8, 17, 32,
41
Wilson v. Jones, 430 F.3d 1113 (10th Cir. 2005). 11, 20, 22,
43
Wilson v. Kelley, 294 F.Supp. 1005 (N.D. Ga. 1968). 7, 8,
31, 39
Wilson v. Lawrence County, Mo., 154 F.3d 757 (8th Cir.
1998). 13, 16
Wilson v. Lockhart, 949 F.2d 1051 (8th Cir. 1991). 22
Wilson v. Loftus, 489 F.Supp. 996 (D. Del. 1980). 36
Wilson v. Maricopa County, 463 F.Supp.2d 987 (D.Ariz.
2006). 14, 32, 45, 46
Wilson v. Maricopa County, 484 F.Supp.2d 1015 (D.Ariz.
2006). 14, 39, 45
Wilson v. Montano, 715 F.3d 847 (10th Cir. 2013). 1, 2, 16,
24, 27, 31, 32, 44, 45, 46
Wilson v. Philadelphia Detention Center, 986 F.Supp. 282
(E.D.Pa. 1997). 3, 11, 27
Wilson v. Sargent, 313 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2002). 1, 2
Wilson v. Schomig, 863 F.Supp. 789 (N.D. Ill. 1994). 9, 10,
24, 50
Wilson v. Seiter, 111 S.Ct. 2321 (1991). 9, 10
Wilson v. Seiter, 893 F.2d 861 (6th Cir. 1990). 10
Wilson v. Shannon, 982 F.Supp. 337 (E.D.Pa. 1997). 7, 12,
41, 48
Wilson v. Shelby County, Ala., 95 F.Supp.2d 1258
(N.D.Ala. 2000). 17, 32, 41
Wilson v. Taylor, 466 F.Supp.2d 567 (D.Del. 2006). 1, 7, 8,
50
Wilson v. Taylor, 515 F.Supp.2d 469 (D.Del. 2007). 7, 21,
50
Wilson v. Taylor, 597 F.Supp.2d 451 (D.Del. 2009). 14, 27,
30, 36, 46
Wilson v. Vannatta, 291 F.Supp.2d 811 (N.D.Ind. 2003) 3,
9, 12, 18, 29
Wilson v. Watters, 348 F.Supp.2d 1031 (W.D.Wis. 2004).
7, 32
Wilson v. Wilkinson, 608 F.Supp.2d 891 (S.D.Ohio 2007).
33, 41, 44

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Wilson v. Wright, 998 F.Supp. 650 (E.D.Va. 1998). 14
Wilson v. Zellner, 200 F. Supp.2d 1356 (M.D.Fla. 2002).
16, 36
Wilson-El v. Finnan, 544 F.3d 762 (7th Cir. 2008). 11, 22
Wilson-Simmons v. Lake County Sheriff's Dept., 982
F.Supp. 496 (N.D.Ohio 1997). 31
Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249 (1971). 9, 11, 22
Wimbley v. Cashion, 588 F.3d 959, (8th Cir. 2009). 2, 31
Winburn v. Bologna, 979 F.Supp. 531 (W.D.Mich. 1997).
19, 28, 37, 39
Winder v. Leak, 790 F.Supp. 1403 (N.D.Ill. 1992). 11, 48
Winder v. Maynard, 2 F.Supp.3d 709 (D.Md. 2014). 18, 37,
42
Winfield v. Steele, 755 F.3d 629 (8th Cir. 2014). 43
Winkelman v. Magne, 173 F.Supp.2d 821 (C.D.Ill. 2001).
2, 31
Winnie v. Clarke, 893 F.Supp. 875 (D.Neb. 1995). 3, 50
Winston v. Campbell, 868 F.Supp. 1242 (D.Kan. 1994). 9
Winters ex rel. Estate of Winters v. Arkansas Department of
Health and Human Services, 437 F.Supp.2d 851
(E.D.Ark. 2006). 14, 29, 30, 32
Winters v. Arkansas Dept. of Health and Human Services,
491 F.3d 933 (8th Cir. 2007). 29, 30, 32
Wirsching v. Colorado, 360 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir. 2004). 7,
12, 20, 34, 49
Wise v. Carlson, 902 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1990). 48
Wisenbaker v. Farwell, 341 F.Supp.2d 1160 (D.Nev. 2004).
1
Wishon v. Gammon, 978 F.2d 446 (8th Cir. 1992). 3, 9, 12,
18, 34, 40
Witherow v. Paff, 52 F.3d 264 (9th Cir. 1995). 28, 38
Withers v. Levine, 615 F.2d 158 (4th Cir. 1980), cert.
denied, 449 U.S. 849. 8, 14, 27
Withers v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 710 F.3d 688 (7th
Cir. 2013). 8, 14, 29
Withrow v. Bartlett, 15 F.Supp.2d 292 (W.D.N.Y. 1998).
37, 39
Witte v. Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections, 434 F.3d 1031
(7th Cir. 2006). 31
Wittmer v. Peters, 87 F.3d 916 (7th Cir. 1996). 31
Witzke v. Femal, 376 F.3d 744 (7th Cir. 2004). 1, 21
Wojtczak v. Cuyler, 480 F.Supp. 1288 (E.D. Penn. 1979). 1,
3, 14, 50
Wolf v. Ashcroft, 297 F.3d 305 (3rd Cir. 2002). 12, 19
Wolfe v. Horn, 130 F.Supp.2d 648 (E.D.Pa. 2001). 17, 29,
38
Wolfe v. State, 759 P.2d 950 (Idaho App. 1988). 8
Wolfel v. Bates, 707 F.2d 932 (6th Cir. 1983). 11, 27
Wolfel v. Ferguson, 689 F.Supp. 756 (S.D. Ohio 1987). 29
Wolfel v. Morris, 972 F.2d 712 (6th Cir. 1992). 11, 19, 21,
38
Wolfel v. Sanborn, 666 F.2d 1005 (1981), cert. denied, 459
U.S. 1115. 24, 27
Wolff v. Hood, 242 F.Supp.2d 811 (D.Or. 2002). 35
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). 1, 7, 11, 20, 28
Wolfish v. Levi, 406 F.Supp. 1243 (S.D. N.Y. 1976). 32,
39, 49
Woloszyn v. County of Lawrence, 396 F.3d 314 (3rd Cir.
2005). 1, 14, 29, 32, 42
Women Prisoners of Corrections v. Dist. of Columbia, 968
F.Supp. 744 (D.D.C. 1997) 7, 9, 17, 29, 39
Women Prisoners of D.C. Correct. v. D.C., 93 F.3d 910
(D.C. Cir. 1996). 7, 9, 17
Women Prisoners v. District of Columbia, 877 F.Supp. 634
(D.D.C. 1994). 7, 17, 27, 29, 34, 37, 39, 50

TC-106
XXVI

Wong v. Coughlin, 526 N.Y.S.2d 640 (A.D. 3 Dept. 1988).
11
Wong v. Warden, FCI Raybrook, 171 F.3d 148 (2nd Cir.
1999). 22, 47
Wong v. Warden, FCI Raybrook, 999 F.Supp. 287
(N.D.N.Y. 1998). 7, 22
Wood v. Beauclair, 692 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2012). 14, 21,
45
Wood v. Clemons, 89 F.3d 922 (1st Cir. 1996). 41, 49
Wood v. Hancock County Sheriff's Dept., 354 F.3d 57 (1st
Cir. 2003). 32, 41, 49
Wood v. Hancock County, 245 F.Supp.2d 231 (D.Me.
2002) 25, 38, 39
Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332 (9th Cir. 1990). 1, 29
Wood v. Idaho Dept. of Corrections, 391 F.Supp.2d 852
(D.Idaho 2005). 29
Wood v. Sunn, 865 F.2d 982 (9th Cir. 1988). 5, 27, 29
Wood v. Woracheck, 618 F.2d 1225 (7th Cir. 1980). 16, 25,
27, 29
Wood v. Yordy, 753 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2014). 1, 37
Woodall v. Foti, 648 F.2d 268 (5th Cir. 1981). 29, 30
Woodard v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority, 107 F.3d 1178
(6th Cir. 1997). 43
Woodbridge v. Dahlberg, 954 F.2d 1231 (6th Cir. 1992). 39
Woodley v. Department of Corrections, 74 F.Supp.2d 623
(E.D.Va. 1999). 4, 20, 22, 36
Woods v. Carey, 722 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2013). 4, 5
Woods v. City of Utica, 902 F.Supp.2d 273 (N.D.N.Y.
2012). 9, 24, 25, 29, 32, 33, 39, 46, 47
Woods v. Commissioner of the Ind. Dept. of Corrections,
652 F.3d 745 (7TH Cir. 2011). 19, 28
Woods v. Evatt, 876 F.Supp. 756 (D.S.C. 1995). 37
Woods v. Lecureux, 110 F.3d 1215 (6th Cir. 1997). 14, 27
Woods v. O'Leary, 890 F.2d 883 (7th Cir. 1989). 28, 37, 38
Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161 (5th Cir. 1995). 1, 11, 21
Woods v. Thieret, 903 F.2d 1080 (7th Cir. 1990). 11
Woods v. White, 689 F.Supp. 874 (W.D. Wis. 1988). 29, 33
Woodson v. Attorney General, 990 F.2d 1344 (D.C. Cir.
1993), reversed, 990 F.2d 1344. 36, 43
Woodson v. City of Richmond, Va., 2 F.Supp.3d 804
(E.D.Va. 2014). 9, 15, 29, 32
Woodson v. City of Richmond, Virginia, 88 F.Supp.3d 551
(E.D.Va. 2015). 9, 14, 29, 45
Woodson v. Lack, 865 F.2d 107 (6th Cir. 1989). 3, 22
Woodson v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 770 F.Supp. 25 (D. D.C.
1991). 20, 36
Woodward v. Correctional Medical Services, 368 F.3d 917
(7th Cir. 2004). 27, 29, 30, 32, 46
Wool v. Hogan, 505 F.Supp. 928 (D. Vt. 1981). 41, 49
Word v. Croce, 169 F.Supp.2d 219 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). 29
Word v. Croce, 230 F.Supp.2d 504 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). 3, 29,
38
Workman v. Levy, 136 F.Supp.2d 899 (M.D.Tenn. 2001).
37
Workman v. Summers, 136 F.Supp.2d 896 (M.D.Tenn.
2001). 43
Wormley v. U.S., 601 F.Supp.2d 27 (D.D.C. 2009). 27, 36
Wottlin v. Fleming, 136 F.3d 1032 (5th Cir. 1998). 22, 43
Wrenn v. Freeman, 894 F.Supp. 244 (E.D.N.C. 1995). 1
Wright v. Baker, 849 F.Supp. 569 (N.D. Ohio 1994). 29,
43
Wright v. Caspari, 779 F.Supp. 1025 (E.D. Mo. 1992). 11,
47
Wright v. County of Franklin, Ohio, 881 F.Supp.2d 887
(S.D.Ohio 2012). 29, 32, 46

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Wright v. Crowell, 674 F.2d 521 (6th Cir. 1982). 5
Wright v. Enomoto, 462 F.Supp. 397 (N.D. Calif. 1976). 3,
8
Wright v. Genovese, 694 F.Supp.2d 137 (N.D.N.Y. 2010).
29, 50
Wright v. Goord, 554 F.3d 255 (2nd Cir. 2009). 14, 48
Wright v. Jones, 907 F.2d 848 (8th Cir. 1990). 14, 27
Wright v. Lacy, 664 F.Supp. 1270 (D. Minn. 1987). 36
Wright v. Riveland, 219 F.3d 905 (9th Cir. 2000). 4, 35
Wright v. Smith, 21 F.3d 496 (2nd Cir. 1994). 3, 27
Wright v. Whiddon, 747 F.Supp. 694 (M.D. Ga. 1990)
reversed 951 F.2d 297. 32, 39, 48
Wrinkles v. Davis, 311 F.Supp.2d 735 (N.D.Ind. 2004). 3,
12, 18, 37, 39, 49
Wuori v. Concannon, 551 F.Supp. 185 (D. Me. 1982). 5
Wyatt By and Through Rawlins v. Horsely, 793 F.Supp.
1053 (M.D.Ala. 1991). 27, 30
Wyatt By And Through Rawlins v. Rogers, 985 F.Supp.
1356 (M.D.Ala. 1997). 27, 44
Wyatt v. Stickney, 344 F.Supp. 373 (M.D. Ala. 1972). 34,
42
Wycoff v. Hedgepeth, 34 F.3d 614 (8th Cir. 1994). 35, 41
Wycoff v. Nichols, 94 F.3d 1187 (8th Cir. 1996). 3, 11
Wynn v. Mundo, 367 F.Supp.2d 832 (M.D.N.C. 2005). 29
Wynn v. Southward, 251 F.3d 588 (7th Cir. 2001). 29
Yaacov v. Collins, 649 F.Supp.2d 679 (N.D.Ohio 2009).
18, 37
Yahweh v. U.S. Parole Com’n, 158 F.Supp.2d 1332
(S.D.Fla. 2001). 22, 36, 37
Yahweh v. U.S. Parole Com'n, 428 F.Supp.2d 1293
(S.D.Fla. 2006). 36
Yarbaugh v. Roach, 736 F.Supp. 318 (D.D.C. 1990). 29
Yarber v. Indiana State Prison, 713 F.Supp. 271 (N.D. Ind.
1988). 31
Yates v. Stalder, 217 F.3d 332 (5th Cir. 2000). 7
Yeager v. Corrections Corp. of America, 944 F.Supp.2d
913 (E.D.Cal. 2013). 2, 31
Yellow Horse v. Pennington County, 225 F.3d 923 (8th Cir.
2000). 14, 32
Yellowbear v. Lampert, 741 F.3d 48 (10th Cir. 2014). 37, 39
Yeskey v. Com. of Pa. Dept. of Corrections, 118 F.3d 168
(3rd Cir. 1997). 7, 34
Yeskey v. Pennsylvania, 76 F.Supp.2d 572 (M.D.Pa. 1999).
7, 36
Yi v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 412 F.3d 526 (4th Cir.
2005). 20, 22
Yoder v. Oestreich, 820 F.Supp. 405 (W.D.Wis. 1993). 19
Yoder v. Ryan, 318 F.Supp.2d 601 (N.D.Ill. 2004). 14
Young v. Adams, 693 F.Supp.2d 635 (W.D.Tex. 2010). 10,
29
Young v. Berks County Prison, 940 F.Supp. 121 (E.D.Pa.
1996). 10, 22
Young v. Choinski, 15 F.Supp.3d 172 (D.Conn. 2014). 14,
29, 30
Young v. Choinski, 15 F.Supp.3d 194 (D.Conn. 2014). 14,
29, 30
Young v. City of Ann Arbor, 336 N.W.2d 24 (Mich. App.
1983). 14, 24, 27
Young v. City of Atlanta, 631 F.Supp. 1498 (N.D. Ga.
1986). 17, 29, 48
Young v. City of Augusta, Ga. through DeVaney, 59 F.3d
1160 (11th Cir, 1995). 29, 30, 46
Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F.3d 567 (4th Cir.
2001).14, 32, 46, 48

TC-107
XXVI

Young v. County of Cook, 616 F.Supp.2d 834 (N.D.Ill.
2009). 32, 41
Young v. County of Cook, 616 F.Supp.2d 856 (N.D.Ill.
2009). 32, 41
Young v. Cutter Biological, 694 F.Supp. 651 (D. Ariz.
1988). 50
Young v. District of Columbia, 107 F.Supp.3d 69 (D.D.C.
2015). 29, 32, 46
Young v. Ericksen, 758 F.Supp.2d 777 (E.D.Wis. 2010).
12, 37, 39
Young v. Freer, 829 F.Supp. 32 (N.D.N.Y. 1993). 11
Young v. Hayes, 218 F.3d 850 (8th Cir. 2000). 22, 43
Young v. Hightower, 395 F.Supp.2d 583 (E.D.Mich. 2005).
1, 21, 39
Young v. Hoffman, 970 F.2d 1154 (2nd Cir. 1992), cert.
denied, 114 S.Ct. 115. 11
Young v. Kann, 926 F.2d 1396 (3rd Cir. 1991). 11
Young v. Keohane, 809 F.Supp. 1185 (M.D.Pa. 1992). 9, 32
Young v. Kihl, 720 F.Supp. 22 (W.D.N.Y. 1989). 11
Young v. Lane, 733 F.Supp. 1205 (N.D. Ill. 1990),
reversed, 922 F.2d 370. 37
Young v. Lane, 922 F.2d 370 (7th Cir. 1991). 37, 38, 39
Young v. Larkin, 871 F.Supp. 772 (M.D. Pa. 1994),
affirmed, 47 F.3d 1163. 1, 8, 32, 33, 49
Young v. Molloy, 760 F.Supp. 43 (W.D.N.Y. 1991). 11
Young v. Selk, 508 F.3d 868 (8th Cir. 2007). 14
Young v. Wall, 359 F.Supp.2d 84 (D.R.I. 2005). 4, 35, 50
Young v. Wall, 642 F.3d 49 (1st Cir. 2011). 2, 35
Youngbear v. Thalacker, 174 F.Supp.2d 902 (N.D.Iowa
2001). 37
Younger v. Gilmore, 404 U.S. 15 (1971). 1, 38
Yousef v. Reno, 254 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2001). 3, 39
Ysasi v. Brown, 3 F.Supp.3d 1088 (D.N.M. 2014). 1, 16, 32
Zabala-Calderon v. U.S., 616 F.Supp.2d 195 (D.Puerto Rico
2008). 14, 17, 27
Zaire v. Dalsheim, 698 F.Supp. 57 (S.D.N.Y. 1988),
affirmed, 904 F.2d 33. 24, 33
Zakiya v. Reno, 52 F.Supp.2d 629 (E.D.Va. 1999). 22, 36,
43
Zamakshari v. Dvoskin, 899 F.Supp. 1097 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).
11
Zargary v. The City of New York, 607 F.Supp.2d 609
(S.D.N.Y. 2009). 2, 17, 25, 37
Zarnes v. Rhodes, 64 F.3d 285 (7th Cir. 1995). 14, 17, 27,
32
Zatko v. California, 112 S.Ct. 355 (1991). 1
Zavala v. Barnik, 545 F.Supp.2d 1051 (C.D.Cal. 2008). 7,
23
Zavaro v. Coughlin, 970 F.2d 1148 (2nd Cir. 1992). 11, 27
Zboralski v. Monahan, 446 F.Supp.2d 879 (N.D.Ill. 2006).
33, 41, 49
Zboralski v. Monahan, 616 F.Supp.2d 792 (N.D.Ill. 2008).
33, 41
Zembiec v. County of Monroe, 766 F.Supp.2d 484
(W.D.N.Y. 2011). 31
Zentmyer v. Kendall County, Ill., 220 F.3d 805 (7th Cir.
2000). 29, 32
Ziccarelli v. Leake, 767 F.Supp. 1450 (N.D. Ill. 1991). 31
Ziemba v. Armstrong, 343 F.Supp.2d 173 (D.Conn. 2004
Ziemba v. Armstrong, 430 F.3d 623 (2nd Cir. 2005). 14, 27,
29, 46, 48
Ziemba v. Armstrong, 433 F.Supp.2d 248 (D.Conn. 2006).
14, 24, 27, 48
Ziemba v. Rell, 409 F.3d 553 (2nd Cir. 2005). 14

Table of Cases

Sections in Which Each Case Appears Follow the Citation

Ziemba v. Thomas, 390 F.Supp.2d 136 (D.Conn. 2005). 1,
35
Zimmerlee v. Keeney, 831 F.2d 183 (9th Cir. 1987), cert.
denied, 108 S.Ct. 2851. 11
Zimmerman v. Hoard, 5 F.Supp.2d 633 (N.D. Ind. 1998). 1,
32, 41, 44
Zimmerman v. Schaeffer, 654 F.Supp.2d 226 (M.D.Pa.
2009). 1, 9, 13, 14, 21, 45, 48
Zimmerman v. Tippecanoe Sheriff's Dept., 25 F.Supp.2d
915 (N.D.Ind. 1998). 1, 19, 28, 29, 32, 33, 42
Zimmerman v. Tribble, 226 F.3d 568 (7th Cir. 2000). 1, 20,
28, 34
Zinn v. McKune, 143 F.3d 1353 (10th Cir. 1998). 27, 31
Zitto v. Crabtree, 185 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 1999). 36
Zook v. Brown, 865 F.2d 887 (7th Cir. 1989). 31
Zorzi v. County of Putnam, 30 F.3d 885 (7th Cir. 1994). 19,
31
Zuhair v. Bush, 592 F.Supp.2d 16 (D.D.C. 2008). 22, 29
Zulu v. Botta, 613 F.Supp.2d 391 (W.D.N.Y. 2009). 21, 42
Zunker v. Bertrand, 798 F.Supp. 1365 (E.D.Wis. 1992). 41,
49
Zupan v. Brown, 5 F.Supp.2d 792 (N.D.Cal. 1998). 36
Zwalesky v. Manistee County, 749 F.Supp. 815 (W.D.
Mich. 1990). 14, 25, 32

TC-108
XXVI

XIX

XIX

XIX

XIX

XIX

XIX

XIX

XIX

XIX

XIX

XIX

XIX

XIX

XIX

XIX

XIX

XIX

XIX

XIX

XIX

XIX

XIX

XIX

XIX

County, Virginia)
U.S. District Court
EXHAUSTION

U.S. v. Paige, 369 F.Supp.2d 1257 (D.Mont. 2005). A federal prisoner filed a habeas petition
challenging the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) policy that precluded his placement in a community
corrections center, as recommended by the sentencing court. The district court granted the
petition, finding that the prisoner was not required to first exhaust his administrative
remedies before the court could consider the petition, because by the time the inmate
exhausted every available administrative remedy he would nearly be done serving his entire
sentence. The court held that the statutes governing placement of inmates in prerelease
custody did not authorize the BOP policy, under which inmates were designated to a
community corrections center only for the lesser of six months or ten percent of their sentence.
The court ordered the BOP to consider the appropriateness of transferring the inmate to a
community confinement center. (Federal Correctional Center, Florence, Colorado)

U.S. Appeals Court
EXHAUSTION
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Westefer v. Snyder, 422 F.3d 570 (7th Cir. 2005). State prisoners brought a ' 1983 action
challenging their transfers to a higher-security prison. The district court granted summary
judgment for the defendants and the prisoners appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part,
reversed in part, and remanded. The court held that the prisoners= suit challenging transfers
to a high security prison was not subject to dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), where the transfer review
process was not available to prisoners in disciplinary segregation, and the prisoners=
grievances were sufficient to alert the prison that the transfer decisions were being
challenged. The court held that the alleged change in a prison policy that required transferring
gang members to a high security facility did not constitute an ex post facto violation. The court
ruled that the prisoners stated a claim for denial of due process, where the conditions at the
high security prison were arguably different enough to give the prisoners a liberty interest in
not being transferred there, and there was a dispute as to whether the state provided
sufficient pre- and post-transfer opportunities for the prisoners to challenge the propriety of
the transfers. The court held that the transfers did not violate the gang members= First
Amendment associational rights, noting that prisoners had no right to associate with gangs.
(Tamms Correctional Center, Illinois)

U.S. District Court
LAW LIBRARY
LEGAL ASSISTANCE

White v. Kautsky, 386 F.Supp.2d 1042 (N.D.Iowa, 2005). A state prison inmate sued a state
corrections director and a warden, claiming that a policy that did not allow attorneys to do
legal research for inmates in appropriate cases violated his right to have access to the courts.
The district court held that the inmate was injured by the policy for the purposes of a
constitutional claim, where he did not pursue his non-frivolous claim that noncompliance with
extradition procedures invalidated his conviction. The court concluded that the corrections
department did not provide the inmate with a reasonably adequate opportunity to present
claimed violations, where there was no legal library and the attorney who was provided to
consult with the inmate was only allowed to confer and consult about the lack of merit of any
proposed litigation, without being allowed to conduct any legal research. The court noted that
the inmate=s question that required research carried a great deal of significance for the
inmate. The court awarded only nominal damages in the amount of $1 and held that the
inmate was not entitled to the compensatory damages he had requested, equal to the
estimated amount of legal fees that would have been incurred with his lawsuit. The court
declined to award punitive damages where there was no showing that the department acted
maliciously when it provided attorneys to inmates for the limited purpose of advising and
conferring, but did not allow the attorneys to conduct any legal research. (Anamosa State
Penitentiary, Iowa)

U.S. Appeals Court
EXPERT WITNESS

Woloszyn v. County of Lawrence, 396 F.3d 314 (3rd Cir. 2005). The administratrix of a pretrial

U.S. District Court
PLRA-Prison Litigation
Reform Act
EXHAUSTION

XX

detainee who committed suicide in jail brought a ' 1983 action and wrongful death claims
against and county and corrections officers. The district court granted summary judgment in
favor of the defendants and the administratrix appealed. The appeals court affirmed, finding
that the administratrix failed to establish that the corrections officers were aware of the
detainee=s vulnerability to suicide. The court noted that even though a captain said he would
put the detainee on five-minute checks, he also said that he would follow a nurse=s advice. The
nurse found the detainee to be polite, cooperative and alert, and cleared the detainee for onehour checks for signs of alcohol withdrawal. The detainee told a booking officer he was not
suicidal and appeared to be in good spirits. The court found that the administratrix=s expert
failed to identify what specific type of training would have alerted officers to the fact that the
detainee was suicidal. (Lawrence County Correctional Facility, Pennsylvania)

Young v. Hightower, 395 F.Supp.2d 583 (E.D.Mich. 2005). A state prison inmate brought a pro
se civil rights action against prison officials, alleging they were deliberately indifferent to his
safety when they refused to buckle his seatbelt when he was transported in chains in a prison
van and when the vehicle was then involved in a collision that resulted in injuries to the
inmate. The district court held that the inmate had satisfied the exhaustion requirement of
the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) even though he did not return a document requested

1.135

in response to his completed step III grievance form. The court found that prison policy did not
require that documents to be filed with the step III form and the request for documents
suggested that the request was procedural rather than substantive. According to the court,
when an inmate takes the prison grievance procedure to its last step, the PLRA exhaustion
requirement has been satisfied if the state forgoes an opportunity to decide matters internally.
(Chippewa Correctional Facility, Michigan)
U.S. District Court
LEGAL MATERIAL

Ziemba v. Thomas, 390 F.Supp.2d 136 (D.Conn. 2005). An inmate brought a ' 1983 action

against state officials, alleging use of force and related civil rights violations. The district court
granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants in part, and denied it in part. The court
held that the alleged failure of prison officials to return his legal materials did not hinder his
access to courts, as required to maintain a claim under ' 1983, where there was no reliable
evidence that any actual injury stemmed from the alleged violation. (Corrigan Correctional
Institution, Connecticut)
2006

U.S. Appeals Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act
EXHAUSTION

Acosta v. U.S. Marshals Service, 445 F.3d 509 (1st Cir. 2006). A detainee brought an action

U.S. District Court
ACCESS TO COUNSEL

Adem v. Bush, 425 F.Supp.2d 7 (D.D.C. 2006). In a habeas case, the petitioner, who was
detained at the United States Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, filed a motion to hold
federal respondents in contempt of a protective order governing access to counsel for
Guantanamo detainees and a motion to expedite his access to counsel. The district court held
that the protective order did not require evidence of authority to represent a detainee as a
prerequisite to counsel meeting with a detainee, but rather, the protective order provided that
counsel who purportedly represented a particular detainee provide evidence of their authority
to represent that detainee within 10 days of counsel's second visit with the detainee. (United
States at the Naval Base, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba)

U.S. Appeals Court
EXPERT WITNESS

Alberson v. Norris, 458 F.3d 762 (8th Cir. 2006). A state prisoner's mother, on the prisoner's

U.S. District Court
RETALIATION FOR
LEGAL ACTION

XX

against the United States Marshals Service, various county jails where he was detained,
doctors in a federal prison, a private medical center, a private doctor, and others, alleging
claims under ' 1983 and the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), and alleging negligence under
state law. The district court dismissed the action and the detainee appealed. The appeals court
affirmed. The court held that filing of an administrative claim with the United States
Marshals Service was insufficient to satisfy the administrative exhaustion requirement of the
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), for the purpose of ' 1983 claims against county jails and
a federal prison doctor. The court noted that administrative claims against the county jails had
to be directed to those facilities, and claims alleging wrongdoing by a doctor at a federal prison
had to be filed with the federal Bureau of Prisons. The court ruled that FTCA claims against
county facilities were barred by the independent contractor exemption of the FTCA. According
to the court, allegations did not state deliberate indifference claims against a private medical
center or a private doctor with allegations that someone at a private medical center
overmedicated him, and that a private doctor failed to properly diagnose the severity of his
foot injury. The detainee had been arrested on federal drug and firearm charges and he was
held without bail. During his pretrial detention, the United States Marshals Service lodged
him in several county jail facilities with which it contracts, and he also spent time in two
federal facilities. (Hillsborough County Department of Corrections, NH; Cumberland County
Jail, Maine; Merrimack County House of Corrections, NH; FMC Rochester, MN; Strafford
County House of Corrections, NH; FCI Raybrook, NY)

behalf and as the special administrator of his estate, brought a ' 1983 action against prison
officials, alleging deliberate indifference with respect to the medical treatment of the prisoner,
who died from complications arising from Goodpasture Syndrome. The district court granted
summary judgment to the defendants and the mother appealed. The appeals court affirmed,
finding that Goodpasture Syndrome was a sophisticated medical condition, and thus, the
estate, which was alleging inadequate medical treatment, was required to present expert
testimony proving causation. The court noted that after the prisoner complained of earaches
and other afflictions, he received extensive medical treatment, including treatment from a
physician on six separate dates in a period of about two months, followed shortly thereafter by
admission to the infirmary ward. (Wrightsville Unit, Arkansas Department of Corrections)

Anderson-Bey v. District of Columbia, 466 F.Supp.2d 51 (D.D.C. 2006). Prisoners transported
between out-of-state correctional facilities brought a civil rights action against the District of
Columbia and corrections officers, alleging common law torts and violation of their
constitutional rights under First and Eighth Amendments. The prisoners had been
transported in two groups, with trips lasting between 10 and 15 hours. The defendants
brought motions to dismiss or for summary judgment which the court denied with regard to
the District of Columbia. The court held that: (1) a fact issue existed as to whether the
restraints used on prisoners during the prolonged transport caused greater pain than was
necessary to ensure they were securely restrained; (2) a fact issue existed as to whether the

1.136

officers acted with deliberate indifference to the prisoners’ health or safety in the transport of
the prisoners; (3) a causal nexus existed between the protected speech of the prisoners in
bringing the civil lawsuit against the corrections officers and subsequent alleged retaliation by
the officers during the transport of prisoners; (4) a fact issue existed as to whether the officers
attempted to chill the prisoners’ participation in the pending civil lawsuit against the officers;
and (5) a fact issue existed as to whether conditions imposed on the prisoners during the
transport were justified by valid penological needs. The court found that the denial of food
during a bus ride that lasted between 10 and 15 hours was insufficiently serious to state a
stand-alone cruel and unusual punishment civil rights claim under the Eighth Amendment.
The court also found that the denial of bathroom breaks during the 10 to 15 hour bus trip, did
not, without more, constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
The court stated that the extremely uncomfortable and painful shackles applied for the
numerous hours during transports, exacerbated by taunting, threats, and denial of food,
water, medicine, and toilets, was outrageous conduct under District of Columbia law,
precluding summary judgment on the prisoners’ intentional infliction of emotional distress
claim against the corrections officers. (District of Columbia)
U.S. District Court
RETALIATION FOR
LEGAL ACTION
LEGAL MATERIAL

Bacon v. Taylor, 414 F.Supp.2d 475 (D.Del. 2006). A state prisoner brought a ' 1983 action
against three correctional officers, alleging denial of his First Amendment right of access to
courts, retaliation for exercising his First Amendment free speech rights, and cruel and
unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The district court granted
summary judgment for the defendants in part, and denied it in part. The court held that the
prisoner's allegations that a correctional officer, on one occasion, smoked a cigarette on the tier
by another inmate's cell and blew smoke into that inmate's cell, and that on several occasions
the correctional officer smoked in the isolated control pod, did not sufficiently allege that the
prisoner was exposed to unreasonably high levels of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) to the
degree necessary to state claim a under ' 1983 for violation of the Eighth Amendment. The
court found that the prisoner's allegation that a correctional officer opened and read the draft
of his lawsuit against her and then refused to return it to him did not sufficiently allege an
actual injury as required to state a claim under ' 1983 for violation of First Amendment
constitutional right of access to the courts. The prisoner alleged only that as a result of not
receiving his original draft back he had forgotten the exact dates he saw the officer smoking in
the prison, but the prisoner did not allege that his inability to remember specific dates had
unduly prejudiced his case against the officer. The court held that summary judgment was
precluded by a genuine issue of material fact as to whether prison authorities could have
reasonably interpreted the prisoner's draft of a ' 1983 lawsuit against a correctional officer as
a threat to the security and safety of the prison, or that a reasonable person would have
known that the document was the draft of a legal complaint against the officer, justifying his
placement in administrative segregation rather than constituting retaliation for the prisoner
having exercised his First Amendment free speech rights by drafting the lawsuit against the
officer. (Howard R. Young Correctional Institution, Delaware)

U.S. District Court
PRIVILEGED CORRESPONDENCE
FRIVOLOUS SUITS

Barber v. U.S. Attorney General, 458 F.Supp.2d 1378 (S.D.Ga. 2006). An inmate filed a pro se

U.S. District Court
APPOINTED
ATTORNEY

Barbour v. Haley, 410 F.Supp.2d 1120 (M.D.Ala. 2006). A class of death row inmates brought a
' 1983 action alleging that the state's denial of legal assistance prior to their filing of
postconviction challenges deprived them of their right of access to courts. The district court
held that Alabama's failure to provide counsel to indigent death row inmates for investigation
and preparation of postconviction challenges to their convictions did not violate their federal
constitutional right of meaningful access to courts. According to the court, indigent death row
inmates had no Sixth Amendment right to appointment of counsel prior to their filing of
postconviction petitions. The court held that death row inmates could not challenge Alabama's
postconviction relief procedures as being so onerous that they constituted denial of their right
of access to courts, without identifying some existing claim that had been lost, or whose
presentation had been hindered, as the result of the challenged procedures. (Alabama
Department of Corrections)

U.S. Appeals Court
LEGAL ASSISTANCE

Barbour v. Haley, 471 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir. 2006). Death row inmates brought a § 1983 class

XX

action against the United States Attorney General. The district court held that the inmate's
repeated filing of frivolous pro se actions in district courts warranted imposition of a sanction
permitting the warden to open and inspect each outgoing envelope from the inmate addressed
to a court, to withhold postage from any document that was not a notice of appeal (NOA) from
the sanction order, and to block all of the inmate's mail to court if he used his own resources to
pay postage. The court opened its opinion by stating Ainmate-plaintiff Edward Barber's
recreational-litigation days have come to an end.@ (Georgia)

action, alleging that Alabama's failure to provide them with legal assistance prior to their
filing post-conviction challenges deprived them of their Fourteenth Amendment right of access
to the courts. The district court entered judgment for the state, and plaintiffs appealed. The
appeals court affirmed. The court held that death-sentenced inmates have no federal
constitutional right to counsel for the preparation and presentation of claims for post-

1.137

conviction relief, as part of Fourteenth Amendment right of access to courts, and that the
inmates were not entitled to relief on their claim for a lesser form of legal assistance than
provision of counsel. The court noted that death-sentenced inmates have no Sixth or Eighth
Amendment right to post-conviction counsel. (William E. Donaldson Correctional Facility and
Holman State Prison, Alabama)
U.S. Appeals Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act
EXHAUSTION

Bell v. Konteh, 450 F.3d 651 (6th Cir. 2006). A state prison inmate brought pro se § 1983
action against a prison’s warden and correction officers, alleging they failed to protect him
from violence by the other inmates in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The district court
dismissed the action, citing the inmate’s failure to comply with the requirements of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The inmate appealed and the appeals court reversed. The
appeals court held that the inmate had satisfied the adequate-control component of PLRA’s
exhaustion requirement with respect to his claim against the warden, given the details
contained in two grievances he filed against the warden. The inmate had filed a pair of
grievances that, together, alleged that the warden had the inmate moved to a different unit for
no justifiable reason, that both the inmate and his case manager had informed the warden
that the inmate could be in danger if housed with the other prisoners in that unit, and that the
inmate was subsequently attacked by two fellow prisoners in his cell while sleeping. (Trumbull
Correctional Institution, Ohio)

U.S. District Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act
EXAUSTION

Campos v. Correction Officer Smith, 418 F.Supp.2d 277 (W.D.N.Y. 2006). A state inmate filed

U.S. Appeals Court
EXHAUSTION
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804 (7th Cir. 2006). A prisoner brought a ' 1983 action against
correction officers, alleging he was beaten in retaliation for punching an assistant warden. The
district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the ground that the
prisoner failed to exhaust administrative remedies and the prisoner appealed. The appeals
court reversed and remanded, finding that the prisoner exhausted his administrative
remedies, even though his grievance was lost and was not received by a board. The court noted
that the exhaustion of administrative remedies is necessary under the Prison Litigation
Reform Act (PLRA) even if the prisoner is requesting relief that the relevant administrative
review board has no power to grant, such as monetary damages, or if the prisoner believes that
exhaustion is futile. But the court found that prison officials may not take unfair advantage of
the exhaustion requirement and that an administrative remedy becomes unavailable if prison
employees do not respond to a properly filed grievance or otherwise use affirmative misconduct
to prevent a prisoner from exhausting. (Menard Correctional Center, Illinois)

U.S. District Court
LEGAL MATERIAL
PRIVILEGED CORRESPONDENCE

Felton v. Lincoln, 429 F.Supp.2d 226 (D.Mass. 2006). Federal prisoner brought civil rights

XX

a ' 1983 action alleging that correctional officers violated his constitutional rights by failing to
protect him from an assault by a fellow inmate and used excessive force against him. The
district court granted the officers= motion for summary judgment. The court held that
dismissal was an appropriate sanction for the inmate's submission of a falsified document, and
that the inmate failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The inmate had submitted a
document to support his claim that he had exhausted his administrative appeals and the court
found it was falsified. The inmate contended that his failure to file a timely appeal of the
denial of his grievance was due to prison officials' interception of his outgoing mail. The court
found that the inmate's contention was supported only by an obviously sham, backdated letter,
and was otherwise purely conclusory. According to the court, AThe conclusion is inescapable,
then, that plaintiff has knowingly submitted a falsified exhibit in an attempt to rebut
defendants' contention that he never appealed the '03 grievance.@ (Attica Correctional Facility,
New York)

action under ' 1983 against jail officials, in their individual and official capacities, asserting
claims for violations of his constitutional rights. The prisoner alleged that jail personnel
wrongfully reviewed and confiscated material which was part of the discovery in his
underlying criminal case and which had been sent to him by counsel, that he was wrongfully
disciplined for possessing such material, and that there was wrongful interference with other
incoming and outgoing mail, in violation of various regulations. The district court held that: (1)
the temporary confiscation of the prisoner=s legal materials did not violate his rights to due
process and to meaningful access to courts, where the prisoner's counsel engaged in extensive
discussions with prison personnel to make sure that the material was available for the
prisoner's review in preparation for his trial, and the prisoner's defense was in no way
impaired as a result of having the material temporarily confiscated; (2) the alleged wrongful
disciplinary isolation imposed against the prisoner for possessing the legal material did not
violate prisoner's right to due process; (3) officials' alleged failure to allow prisoner to be
represented at disciplinary hearing did not amount to a violation of the prisoner's
constitutional rights; (4) any wrongful interference with the prisoner's incoming and outgoing
mail, in violation of various regulations, was de minimis, and did not rise to level of a
constitutional violation; (5) the sheriff had qualified immunity where the prisoner failed to
show that the sheriff actually participated in acts that allegedly deprived prisoner of his
constitutional rights, formulated a policy of tolerating such violations, or was deliberately
indifferent; but (6) a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether a prison director,

1.138

captain, and deputy superintendent were personally involved in acts that allegedly deprived
the prisoner of his constitutional rights, precluding summary judgment for those officials on
basis of qualified immunity. (Plymouth County Correctional Facility, Massachusetts)
U.S. District Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Figueroa v. Dean, 425 F.Supp.2d 448 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). A state prisoner who was born deaf

U.S. District Court
EXHAUSTION
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Flanyak v. Hopta, 410 F.Supp.2d 394 (M.D.Penn. 2006). A state prison inmate filed a ' 1983
Eighth Amendment action against the supervisor of the unit overseeing prison jobs and
against the prison's health care administrator, alleging that he had been subjected to unsafe
conditions while working as a welder. The inmate also alleged that the administrator had been
deliberately indifferent to his medical needs arising from those conditions. The defendants
moved for summary judgment and the district court granted the motion. The court held that
the inmate's failure to exhaust the prison's three-step grievance procedure precluded his '
1983 action, regardless of the reasons given, including futility. The court noted that there is no
futility exception to the Prison Litigation Reform Act's (PLRA) administrative exhaustion
requirement. (State Correctional Institution at Mahanoy, Pennsylvania)

U.S. District Court
ACCESS TO COUNSEL

Glisson v. Sangamon County Sheriff=s Department, 408 F.Supp.2d 609 (C.D.Ill. 2006). A

brought an action against a superintendent of programs at a prison, alleging failure to provide
interpreters, visual fire alarms, access to text telephone, and a television with closed-captioned
device in contempt of a consent order in class action in which the court entered a decree
awarding declaratory relief to prohibit disability discrimination against hearing impaired
prisoners by state prison officials. The superintendent moved for summary judgment and the
district court granted the motion. The court held that the exhaustion requirement of Prison
Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) did not apply to an action seeking exclusively to enforce a
consent order. The court found that the superintendent was not in contempt of the consent
order, noting that sign language interpreters were provided at educational and vocational
programs and at medical and counseling appointments for hearing-impaired inmates as
required by consent decree, the prison was equipped with visual fire alarms that met the
requirements of the decree, and diligent efforts were being made to comply with the consent
decree regarding access to text telephones. (Wende Correctional Facility, New York)

detainee brought a civil rights action against county defendants and a police officer, alleging
various violations of his constitutional rights in connection with his arrest and detention. The
defendants moved to dismiss. The district court dismissed in part and declined to dismiss in
part. The court held that the detainee sufficiently stated claims under the Eighth Amendment
and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against a jail and a correctional officer
with respect to both his first and second detentions. The court found that the detainee, who
was awaiting a probation revocation hearing, sufficiently stated a claim under the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments by alleging that the county jail maintained policies and customs that
tolerated cruel and unusual punishment of convicted prisoners and pretrial detainees, and
that the correctional officer strapped him to a wheelchair for several hours, forcing him to
urinate on himself and to sit in his urine for several hours, while he was in a manic state. The
inmate alleged that the jail and correctional officer knew of his mental condition because it
was documented and that the officer's and jail's acts were intentional with malice and reckless
I disregard for his federally protected rights. The court held that the detainee sufficiently
stated denial of access to courts claims against a county jail and correctional officers by
alleging that the jail maintained a policy and practice of arbitrarily denying inmates=
confidential consultations with their attorneys and that the officers directly participated in the
arbitrary and capricious denial of his access to counsel. The court found that the detainee
stated an equal protection claim against a county jail and officer by alleging that the jail
maintained a policy and practice that discriminated against him because of his mental illness,
and that an officer discriminated against him in terms of the type of confinement on the basis
of his mental illness. (Sangamon County Jail, Village of Grandview Police, Illinois)

U.S. Appeals Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act
EXHAUSTION
IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Green v. Young, 454 F.3d 405 (4th Cir. 2006). The district court dismissed on its merits a
prisoner’s civil rights suit that alleged various state prison officials were deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical needs. The prisoner appealed and moved to proceed without
prepayment of fees. The appeals court held that routine dismissal under the Prison Litigation
Reform Act (PLRA) for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies does not count as a
“strike” for the purpose of the Three-Strike Rule limiting in forma pauperis filings. The court
cited the PLRA provision prohibiting a prisoner who has filed three previous suits that were
dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, from proceeding in forma
pauperis in subsequent suits. (Virginia)

U.S. District Court
ACCESS TO ATTORNEY

J.P. v. Taft, 439 F.Supp.2d 793 (S.D.Ohio 2006). A former juvenile corrections facility inmate

XX

sued the facility and individuals, claiming the lack of access to courts to pursue a claim of
injury from being assaulted by an officer, and claims of substandard accommodations. The
district court denied the defendants= motion for summary judgment. The court held that the
inmate had standing to bring a claim that the facility interfered with his access to courts by
not making adequate efforts to provide attorneys, and that the inmate stated a claim that the

1.139

facility interfered with his right of access to court, by not providing an attorney to pursue a
legitimate claim that officers unconstitutionally restricted his bathroom privileges. (Ohio
Department of Youth Services, Marion Juvenile Correctional Facility)
U.S. Appeals Court
PRIVILEGED CORRESPONDENCE

Jones v. Brown, 461 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2006). State prisoners brought an action against prison
officials, claiming that a policy of opening and inspecting their legal mail outside of their
presence violated their First Amendment rights. The district court granted judgment for the
prisoners and the officials appealed. Another district court on similar claims granted judgment
for the officials and the prisoners in that case also appealed. The cases were consolidated on
appeal. The court entered judgment for the prisoner, finding that the policy of opening legal
mail outside the presence of the addressee prisoner impinged upon the prisoner's right to
freedom of speech under the First Amendment, and that the legal mail policy was not
reasonably related to the prison's legitimate penological interest in protecting the health and
safety of prisoners and staff. The court held that reasonable prison administrators would not
have realized that they were violating the prisoners' First Amendment free speech rights by
opening prisoners' legal mail outside of the prisoners' presence, entitling them to qualified
immunity. The court noted that although the administrators maintained the policy after three
relatively uneventful years had passed after the September 11 terrorist attacks and
subsequent anthrax concerns, the policy was reasonable when it was established. (New Jersey
Department of Corrections)

U.S. District Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act
EXHAUSTION

Laird v. Mattox, 430 F.Supp.2d 636 (E.D.Tex. 2006) An inmate filed a ' 1983 suit complaining
of alleged violations of his constitutional rights during his confinement. The district court
dismissed the case in toto, finding that the inmate failed to exhaust administrative remedies
as required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The court noted that completion
of the exhaustion of administrative remedies process is a mandatory prerequisite for an
inmate's filing of a ' 1983 suit with respect to prison conditions, and that even complete
exhaustion following the filing of the lawsuit is not sufficient. (Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Gib Lewis Unit)

U.S. Appeals Court
APPOINTED
ATTORNEY

Lindell v. Houser, 442 F.3d 1033 (7th Cir. 2006). A white-supremacist inmate brought an

U.S. District Court
PRIVILEGED CORRESPONDENCE

Lonegan v. Hasty, 436 F.Supp.2d 419 (E.D.N.Y. 2006). Defense attorneys brought a Bivens

U.S. Appeals Court
INITIAL APPEARANCE
INTERROGATION

Lopez v. City of Chicago, 464 F.3d 711 (7th Cir. 2006). An arrestee brought an action against a
city and city police officers, alleging the duration and conditions of his detention violated his
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and asserting a claim for intentional infliction of
emotional distress. The district court entered judgment as matter of law in favor of the
defendants. The arrestee appealed. The appeals court reversed and remanded. The court found
that the police officers violated the arrestee's Fourth Amendment right to a prompt judicial
probable cause determination by holding him for a period of five days after his arrest without

XX

action alleging that prison official violated the Eighth Amendment by housing him with a
black inmate. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the official and the
inmate appealed. The court of appeals held that the official did not violate the inmate=s Eighth
Amendment rights by placing him in a cell with a black inmate, even though the official knew
of the black inmate's involvement with a gang and the white inmate's expression of fear. The
court found that the official did not have reason to believe that the white inmate was at a
serious risk since eighteen months had passed without incident after the cellmates' initial
fight and nothing indicated specific threats had been made by the black inmate or other
members of the gang. The court noted that the inmate had no constitutional right to be
housed with members of his own race, culture, or temperament. The court held that the
inmate was not entitled to a court-appointed lawyer to help him prosecute his case against
prison officials, noting that the inmate was experienced in litigation, and that any difficulty
prosecuting his case was largely caused by the inmate=s choice to pursue other cases at the
same time. (Waupun Correctional Institution, Wisconsin)
action against officials of a federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facility, claiming that the
statutory and constitutional rights of themselves and their inmate clients were violated
through the practice of videotaping meetings. The district court denied the defendants= motion
to dismiss in part, and granted it in part. The court held that: (1) a claim was stated under the
Fourth Amendment; (2) there was no qualified immunity from the Fourth Amendment claim;
(3) a claim of personal involvement by a warden was stated; and (4) the availability of Fourth
Amendment relief precluded a claim under Fifth Amendment. The plaintiffs, attorneys
employed by the Legal Aid Society of New York, claimed that, by secretly recording their
conversations with certain detainees at the federal Bureau of Prisons' Metropolitan Detention
Center (AMDC@), located in Brooklyn, New York, the defendants violated Title III of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended (the AWiretap Act@ or ATitle
III@), and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. BOP personnel told the
attorneys that video cameras were not on during their meeting with their clients, but a
subsequent BOP investigation concluded that visual and sound recordings existed for many of
the attorney/client meetings. (Metropolitan Detention Center, Fed. Bureau of Prisons, N.Y.)

1.140

a probable cause hearing, for the purpose of arrestee's § 1983 Fourth Amendment claim,
absent any justification for the delay. The arrestee had been arrested for a murder he did not
commit. Following his arrest, the defendants-- all police detectives-- kept him shackled to the
wall of a windowless, nine-by-seven-foot interrogation room for four days and nights while
they investigated the case. The arrestee had nowhere to sleep but a four-foot-by-ten-inch metal
bench or the dirty brick floor. The interrogation room had no toilet or sink; he had to “scream”
for the detectives to let him out to use a bathroom. He was given only one bologna sandwich
and one serving of juice as food and drink during the entire four days and nights that he was
kept in the interrogation room. The detectives questioned him from time to time and made
him stand in two lineups. After two-and-a-half days in these conditions, the arrestee started to
become disoriented and began hearing voices telling him to confess. He ultimately gave a
statement containing a false confession that did not match the details of the crime. On the
fifth day of his detention, the arrestee was moved to a city lockup, charged, and finally taken
to court. The following day, the police investigation led detectives to another individual who
confessed to the murder. The arrestee was released the next day. (Chicago Police
Department's Area 5, Illinois)
U.S. District Court
TRANSFER

Mark v. Gustafson, 482 F.Supp.2d 1084 (W.D.Wis. 2006). A state prison inmate sued a prison
and individuals, alleging that “magic seals” were removed from the interior of his prison cell in
violation of his religious rights, and that officials conspired to transfer him to another facility.
The district court entered judgment for the defendants. The court held that prison officials did
not violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) when they
prohibited the inmate from affixing “magic seals,” presumably part of the inmate's practice of
religion involving magic, to the walls of his cell. The court found that the absence of any
evidence that officials made any kind of concerted effort to send the inmate to a state prison
that lacked adequate legal research facilities precluded his claim that his transfer was the
result of a conspiracy to deny his right to pursue legal remedies, rather than the stated
purposes of sending him closer to home to ease his return to the outside world. (Oakhill
Correctional Institution, Wisconsin)

U.S. Appeals Court
LAW LIBRARY

Marshall v. Knight, 445 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 2006). A pro se state prisoner brought a ' 1983
action against a prison superintendent and other unnamed prison employees, alleging that
they unconstitutionally deprived him of access to the courts by impeding his access to the
prison law library. The district court dismissed the action and the prisoner appealed. The
appeals court reversed and remanded, finding that the prisoner=s allegations stated a ' 1983
claim for unconstitutional denial of the prisoner's right of access to the courts. The prisoner
alleged that a prison superintendent and other unnamed prison employees enforced policies
that diminished his access to the prison law library to the point of being non-existent, and that
his lack of library access adversely affected his attempt to challenge the length of his
incarceration. The appeals court found that these allegations were sufficient, when liberally
construed, to state a ' 1983 claim for unconstitutional denial of the prisoner's right of access to
the courts. (Miami Correctional Facility, Indiana)

U.S. Appeals Court
PLRA-Prison Litigation
Reform Act
LAW LIBRARY

Michau v. Charleston County, S.C., 434 F.3d 725 (4th Cir. 2006). A former state prison inmate

U.S. District Court
LEGAL MATERIAL
LAW LIBRARY
ACCESS TO COUNSEL

Murray v. Edwards County Sheriff's Dept., 453 F.Supp.2d 1280 (D.Kan. 2006). A former
pretrial detainee at a county jail brought a ' 1983 action against a county sheriff's department,
sheriff, undersheriff, and county attorney, alleging various constitutional violations. The
district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court held that the
inmate's alleged weight loss while he was a pretrial detainee at the county jail did not satisfy
the section of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requiring a showing of physical injury
in addition to mental or emotional injury in order to obtain compensatory damages. The court
held that the detainee was not deprived of access to the courts and competent counsel, even if
he was not permitted direct, physical access to a law library, was not separately assigned a
paralegal to assist him, and was unable to call counsel on a few instances, where the detainee
was given frequent and heavy access to law library materials, the county had limited resources
for providing physical access to a law library, the detainee was an able and experienced prison
litigator, the detainee decided not to file civil actions while at the jail, the detainee spoke with
counsel on many occasions, and the detainee was satisfied with counsel's representation.
(Edwards County Jail, Kansas)

XX

who was being detained under a state=s Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) brought civil
actions. The district court dismissed the complaints for failure to state a claim and the inmate
appealed. The appeals court affirmed. The court held that the former inmate was not a
Aprisoner@ for the purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and therefore his
complaint was not subject to the PLRA=s screening requirements. The court noted that the
former inmate was under Acivil detention@ not Acriminal detention.@ The court held that the
former inmate=s complaint failed to state a claim for damages for denial of access to a law
library, where the complaint did not explain how he was injured by any limitations on his
access to the law library. (Charleston County Detention Center, South Carolina)

1.141

U.S. Appeals Court
LAW LIBRARY

Myron v. Terhune, 457 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2006). A state prisoner brought a ' 1983 action
against several correctional officers and medical personnel at a prison. The district court
dismissed the action and the prisoner appealed. The appeals court affirmed. According to the
court, a regulation governing library services in prisons did not give the prisoner a liberty
interest, protected by the due process clause, in library access hours. The court noted that
while the regulation may have created a liberty interest in requiring prison officials to have a
law library, the warden was vested with discretion to regulate access to library facilities.
(Salinas Valley State Prison, California)

U.S. District Court
SEARCHES

Navarro v. Adams, 419 F.Supp.2d 1196 (C.D.Cal. 2006). A state prisoner filed a pro se petition
for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging his state court conviction and his sentence for first
degree murder. The district court held that a deputy sheriff's search of his cell and seizure of
attorney-client privileged documents did not warrant federal habeas relief because it did not
substantially prejudice the prisoner's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The court noted that
the prisoner=s cell was searched to locate evidence regarding gang activity and threats to
witnesses, not to interfere with his relationship with his defense counsel, and the information
seized was turned over to the trial court for an in-camera review without being viewed by any
member of the prosecution team. (California)

U.S. District Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act
EXHAUSTION

Nelson v. Warden of C.F.C.F., 461 F.Supp.2d 316 (E.D.Pa. 2006). A state prisoner brought a §

U.S. District Court
LAW LIBRARY
ACCESS TO COUNSEL
SEARCHES
RETALIATION

Pepper v. Carroll, 423 F.Supp.2d 442 (D.Del. 2006). A state inmate filed a ' 1983 action
alleging that prison officials violated his constitutional rights. The court granted the officials=
motion for summary judgment. The court held that the officials did not deny the inmate's
request to call an attorney, and thus did not violate the inmate's First Amendment right to
access courts, where the officials made several attempts to contact the inmate's attorney but
were told that she was too busy or did not want to speak to the inmate, the attorney had filed
a motion to withdraw as the inmate's counsel, and the public defender's office informed the
officials that the inmate was not a client. According to the court, the officials gave the inmate
adequate law library time and legal assistance, and thus did not violate the inmate's First
Amendment right to access courts, even though the inmate did not have access to the prison's
legal resources 24 hours per day. The court noted that during a two-and-a-half month period,
the inmate requested and received law library services 23 times, and had access to the law
library 77 times. The court found that the officials' decision to Ashake down@ the inmate's cell
was not in retaliation for his having filed a civil rights action, and thus did not violate the
inmate's First Amendment right to access courts, where shakedowns were routine, and the
inmate was thought to have prohibited materials in his cell. The court found that the inmate
had no constitutionally protected right to purchase food or other items as cheaply as possible
through the prison commissary, and therefore prison officials did not violate the inmate=s
Eighth Amendment rights by allegedly overcharging for commissary products. (Delaware
Correctional Center)

U.S. Appeals Court
APPOINTED
ATTORNEY

Phillips v. Jasper County Jail, 437 F.3d 791 (8th Cir. 2006). An inmate at a county jail brought

XX

1983 action against warden, corrections officers, and others, challenging his medical
quarantine. The corrections officers moved for summary judgment. The district court granted
the motion, finding that the prisoner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, so that his
suit was barred under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). Although the prisoner
received an inmate handbook explaining the rules and procedures for filing an administrative
grievance, he failed to file a grievance challenging the medical quarantine. (Curran-Fromhold
Correctional Facility, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)

a ' 1983 action against various jail employees and the jail's doctor, alleging violation of his
constitutional rights. The district court granted the defendants' motions for summary
judgment and the inmate appealed. The court of appeals held that the inmate was not entitled
to appointed counsel where discovery had just begun at the time the inmate requested counsel
and there was no conflicting testimony, there was no indication that the inmate was unable to
investigate or present his case, the inmate correctly identified the applicable legal standard
governing his claims and successfully amended his complaint to include essential information,
his claims involved information readily available to him, the inmate was able to avoid
procedural default, the complaint was sufficient to survive the first motion for summary
judgment, and the inmate had been able to file more than thirty documents with the court.
The court held that the jail's doctor who prescribed anti-seizure medicine to the inmate was
not deliberately indifferent to the inmate's serious medical needs, even though the medication
prescribed was different from the medication the inmate had taken in the past. According to
the court, the doctor did not know that the medication prescribed would present a danger to
the inmate or that he was prescribing less medication than was required. The court found that
summary judgment was precluded by a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether jail
employees assigned the inmate to a top bunk, despite the fact that he suffered from a seizure
disorder. (Jasper County Jail, Missouri)

1.142

U.S. Appeals Court
LAW BOOKS
LEGAL MATERIAL
WRITING MATERIAL

Pratt v. Tarr, 464 F.3d 730 (7th Cir. 2006). A state prison inmate brought a pro se § 1983

U.S. District Court
RETALIATION FOR
LEGAL ACTION

Price v. Wall, 428 F.Supp.2d 52 (D.R.I. 2006). An inmate brought a ' 1983 suit against
corrections officials, alleging that he was intentionally transferred to the facility where he was
confined in an effort to frustrate his rehabilitation, in retaliation for his filing of a motion to
compel compliance with a state court order, in violation of the First Amendment. The
defendants moved to dismiss. The district court held that the inmate stated a First
Amendment retaliation claim where he alleged that corrections officials intentionally
transferred him to the facility in retaliation for his court action. According to the court, the
question was not whether the defendants had a right to transfer the inmate, but whether such
action was accomplished for an unlawful purpose. The inmate had been required, as a
condition of his sentence, to complete certain rehabilitative programs, including psychological
and psychiatric treatment while incarcerated. After not receiving any of the court-mandated
treatment, the inmate filed a motion in the state courts seeking to compel the Department of
Corrections to comply with the state court order. After several skirmishes, the Department of
Corrections agreed to provide the inmate with the court-mandated treatment. The parties
further agreed that if the inmate successfully completed the first round of treatment, the
Department of Corrections would upgrade his classification status, permitting him to
participate in further rehabilitative treatment as mandated by the state court. The inmate
successfully completed his first round of treatment and appeared before a classification board
for review of his classification status. Based on his successful completion of the initial round of
treatment and pursuant to the agreement between the inmate and the Department, the board
recommended that the inmate=s classification be upgraded. But the defendants refused to
permit an upgrade and instead launched no less than three separate, unrelated investigations
into various matters, delaying the inmate=s classification status upgrade and prohibiting him
from participating in further rehabilitation. (Rhode Island Department of Corrections)

U.S. District Court
RETALIATION FOR
LEGAL ACTION
TRANSFER

Price v. Wall, 464 F.Supp.2d 90 (D.R.I. 2006). A state prisoner brought a pro se civil rights

U.S. District Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act
EXHAUSTION

Rand v. Simonds, 422 F.Supp.2d 318 (D.N.H. 2006). A pretrial detainee brought a pro se action
against a superintendent, assistant superintendent, and physician's assistant for a county
correctional facility, alleging that they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical
needs. The defendants moved for summary judgment and the district court granted the
motion. The court held that the detainee administratively exhausted his claim that the
superintendent and assistant superintendent were deliberately indifferent to his serious
medical needs, even though he did not file a formal grievance, given that Arules@ on grievance
procedures in the inmate handbook did not require that the grievance take a particular form.
The court noted that the detainee submitted a request form asking for referral to a specialist,
as specified in the medical procedures section of handbook, and that inquiries made by an
investigator for the detainee's criminal defense attorney into the facility's refusal to refer the
detainee to an outside medical care provider for his shoulder pain gave the superintendent and
assistant superintendent the requisite opportunity to address the detainee's complaints, which
they took advantage of by explaining the decision made. The court held that the detainee
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(PLRA), on his claim that a physician's assistant at the county correctional facility was
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by failing to refer him to specialist outside
the facility for his shoulder injury. According to the court, the complaints made on the
detainee's behalf by an investigator for the detainee's criminal defense attorney did not allege
any misfeasance on the part of the physician's assistant or even mention him, and therefore
did not give the facility's officials sufficient notice of the detainee's concerns about treatment

XX

action against prison officials, alleging that the officials had violated his right of access to the
courts by denying him adequate materials. The district court granted the officials' motion for
judgment on the pleadings, and the inmate appealed. The appeals court reversed, finding that
the inmate stated a claim by alleging that the officials' denial of adequate materials had
caused him to lose court cases, and by submitting information about those cases. In his
complaint, the inmate alleged that officials “den[ied] him adequate scribe materials, a desk, a
chair and personal legal property to defend pending litigation in state and federal courts,
which caused plaintiff's cases to now be lost and/or dismissed” and that the officials “violate[d]
access to the courts' standards by refusing to release law books, briefs, transcripts, case law
materials, [and] carbon paper.” (Wisconsin)

action under § 1983 against various prison officials, alleging the officials retaliated against
him in violation of his First Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment
in favor of the defendants. The court held that: (1) the prisoner’s transfer to an out-of-state
correctional system was not adverse; (2) the prisoner’s classification while confined in the outof-state correctional facility to a restrictive or harsh classification was not adverse, for the
purposes of his First Amendment retaliation claim; (3) the prisoner’s transfer was not in
retaliation for his legal activities; and (4) the officials were not liable for retaliation based on
the prisoner’s classification while confined in the out-of-state correctional facility. The court
noted that the prisoner’s classification was not significantly more severe than his classification
while confined at the in-state correctional facility. (Rhode Island Department of Corrections)

1.143

received from the physician's assistant to allow those concerns to be dealt with
administratively. (Merrimack County House of Corrections, New Hampshire)
U.S. Appeals Court
EXHAUSTION
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Roles v. Maddox, 439 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2006). A prisoner brought a pro se ' 1983 claim
asserting violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights in connection with the
confiscation of magazines by prison officials. The district court dismissed the action and the
prisoner appealed. The appeals court affirmed, finding that the exhaustion requirement of the
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) applied to prisoners who were held in private prisons,
and the prisoner's claim that his constitutional rights were violated by the confiscation of his
magazines was subject to the PLRA exhaustion requirement. (Idaho Correctional Center,
operated by Corrections Corporation of America, Inc.)

U.S. District Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act
EXHAUSTION

Sample v. Lappin, 424 F.Supp.2d 187 (D.D.C. 2006). An inmate brought suit for declaratory
and injunctive relief, claiming that a denial of his request for wine violated the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
Act (RLUIPA), and that the Bureau of Prisons' (BOP) Director failed to train, supervise, and
promulgate policies requiring his subordinates to comply with RFRA and RLUIPA. The
defense moved to dismiss, and the parties cross-moved for summary judgment. The district
court held that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether an outright ban on an
inmate's consumption of wine was the least restrictive means of furthering the government's
compelling interest in controlling intoxicants. The inmate described himself as Aan observant
Jew@ who Apracticed Judaism before his incarceration and continues his practice of Judaism
while confined,@ and who Asincerely believes that he must drink at least 3.5 ounces of red wine
(a reviit) while saying Kiddush, a prayer sanctifying the Sabbath, during Friday night and
Saturday shabbos services.@ The court found that the inmate exhausted his administrative
remedies, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), with respect to his request
for wine, regardless of whether he asked that a rabbi, a chaplain, or a Bureau of Prisons (BOP)
staff member administer the wine to him. According to the court, the inmate's obligation to
exhaust his administrative remedies did not require that he posit every conceivable
alternative means by which to achieve his goal, which was the unburdened exercise of his
sincere religious belief. (Federal Correctional Institution, Beaumont, Texas)

U.S. District Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Scott v. Ozmint, 467 F.Supp.2d 564 (D.S.C. 2006). A state prisoner brought a civil rights action

U.S. Appeals Court
RETALIATION

Senty-Haugen v. Goodno, 462 F.3d 876 (8th Cir. 2006). A civilly-committed sex offender

U.S. District Court
LAW LIBRARY
PHOTOCOPYING
LEGAL MATERIAL

Shidler v. Moore, 409 F.Supp.2d 1060 (N.D.Ind. 2006). A prisoner brought a pro se action
against prison officials under ' 1983 and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
(RLUIPA), alleging denial of his rights to worship, to petition for redress of grievances, and to
have access to courts. The prisoner requested a preliminary injunction and the district court
denied the request. The court held that the prisoner stated cause of action against prison
officials under ' 1983 seeking monetary damages for First Amendment and RLUIPA violations
by alleging that all inmates in his housing unit were denied communal worship. The court
noted that the statute prohibiting prisoners from bringing federal civil actions for mental or
emotional injury absent a showing of physical injury does not restrict damages in a First
Amendment constitutional claim. The court found that the prisoner stated cause of action for
First Amendment violations in ' 1983 complaint against a prison chaplain and administrative
assistant, in connection with alleged denial of communal worship, in that it was reasonable to
infer from the prisoner's factual allegations that such officials might have implemented or

XX

seeking an injunction requiring a state corrections director and prison chaplains to recognize
the Neterian faith as a religion. The defendants moved for summary judgment and the district
court granted the motion. The court held that: (1) the prisoner did not satisfy the requirement
of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) that he show physical injury as required for a civil
rights suit for mental or emotional injury; and (2) the decision was reasonably related to
legitimate penological concerns. (McCormick Correctional Institution, South Carolina)

brought an action against the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services,
other Department officials, and sex offender program employees, alleging violations of federal
and state law for being placed in isolation, receiving inadequate medical attention, and being
retaliated against. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants
and the offender appealed. The appeals court affirmed. The court held that placement of the
civilly-committed sex offender in isolation because of rule infractions did not infringe on his
procedural due process rights, given that his commitment was indefinite, that he received
notice and had the right to be heard, that the decision to use isolation was a discretionary
decision by state officials, and that the State had a vital interest in maintaining a secure
environment. The court found that the offender's transfer was not in retaliation for his alleged
advocacy for another patient, so as to violate the offender's speech rights, where the sex
offender program officials indicated that they transferred the offender to lessen his contact
with the patient, whom the offender was suspected of exploiting, and where the offender failed
to present any evidence that the transfer took place for any other reason. (Minnesota Sex
Offender Program, Minnesota Department of Human Services)

1.144

enforced, or could have lifted, the restrictions at issue while the prisoner was in certain
housing units. The court ruled that prison officials' alleged actions of denying the prisoner
access to a law library, denying him the ability to make copies, and confiscating his legal
materials, if proven, did not violate his constitutional right of access to courts, in that he could
write to the court and thus could file a complaint, he could send an original document and
state that he was unable to obtain copies, and he did not maintain that unreturned legal
papers were not replaceable. The court noted that there is no abstract, freestanding right to a
law library, and a prisoners' constitutional right of access to courts goes no further than
access. The court found that the confiscation of a prisoner's legal paperwork is merely a
property loss, not a denial of the constitutional right of access to courts, if the papers are
replaceable. (Miami Correctional Facility, Indiana)
U.S. Appeals Court
FRIVOLOUS SUITS
PRE SE LITIGATION

Sieverding v. Colorado Bar Ass'n, 469 F.3d 1340 (10th Cir. 2006). A pro se plaintiff petitioned
for a writ of mandamus challenging the filing restrictions imposed by the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado, that prohibited filing of a pro se action in any court
without the district court’s approval. The appeals court held that the filing restrictions were
overbroad as to appellate courts, state courts, and district courts in other circuits and should
have been limited to a ban on suits on any subject matter against the persons, entities,
counsel, and insurance companies of the parties involved in prior litigation by the plaintiff.
The court noted that the right of access to the courts is neither absolute nor unconditional, and
there is no constitutional right of access to the courts to prosecute an action that is frivolous or
malicious. The court also found that a federal district court in the District of Colorado may
impose filing restrictions that include other federal district courts within the Tenth Circuit,
but it is not appropriate to extend those restrictions to include federal district courts outside
the Tenth Circuit, nor is it reasonable for a court in the Tenth Circuit to speak on behalf of
courts in other circuits as those courts are capable of taking appropriate action on their own.
(United States District Court for the District of Colorado)

U.S. Appeals Court
RETALIATION FOR
LEGAL ACTION

Simpson v. Nickel, 450 F.3d 303 (7th Cir. 2006). A state inmate filed a § 1983 action alleging
that prison officials retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment rights. The
inmate asserted that, after he wrote a letter and filed a suit complaining about abuse by the
staff of the prison where he was confined, the targets of his accusations retaliated by issuing
bogus conduct reports and arranging for him to be disciplined. The prisoner spent 300 days in
segregation and lost 25 days of recreation privileges. The district court dismissed the
complaint and the inmate appealed. The appeals court vacated and remanded. The court held:
(1) the inmate was not required to establish or demonstrate in his complaint that the original
speech was truthful where the complaint set out the inmate's grievance clearly enough to put
officials on notice; (2) the inmate did not vouch for the correctness of the prison disciplinary
board’s findings against him because the board’s report was included with his filing; and (3)
the disciplinary board’s finding did not collaterally prevent the inmate from filing the § 1983
action. (Wisconsin)

U.S. District Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Skinner v. Uphoff, 410 F.Supp.2d 1104 (D.Wyo. 2006). A state prison inmate brought a ' 1983
class action against prison officials, alleging failure to safeguard inmates against assaults by
other inmates, and seeking individual compensatory as well as class injunctive relief. The
district court granted injunctive relief and declaratory relief, finding that the defendants failed
to adequately train and supervise employees, failed to properly review policy violations, and
failed to properly discipline employees, all of which led to risks to inmate safety. In an effort to
alleviate the problems at the prison, a remedial plan was adopted and approved by the court.
The parties filed various motions to modify the remedial plan and the state moved for
termination of the final decree. The district court granted the motions in part, and denied in
part. The court held that state inmates and prison officials were entitled, under the remedial
plan, to the opportunity to ask an outside investigator about reports of his investigation of
suspected premeditated inmate-on-inmate assaults. The investigator was an independent
contractor, and his reports bore directly upon whether officials were complying with plan. The
court held that the inmates had the right under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) to
pursue discovery as to existence of the alleged ongoing and continuing constitutional violations
before the court could terminate the remedial plan entered in the inmates' action challenging
officials' responses to inmate-on-inmate violence. The court concluded that the inmates
demonstrated good cause for a 60-day postponement of an automatic stay of the remedial plan
after the officials filed a motion for termination, where the inmates made allegations of
ongoing inmate-on-inmate violence and delays in the officials' remedial actions, and a joint
expert raised various concerns. (Wyoming State Penitentiary)

U.S. District Court
PRIVILEGED CORRESPONDENCE

Strong v. Woodford, 428 F.Supp.2d 1082 (C.D.Cal. 2006). A prisoner filed a ' 1983 action,
alleging prison officials mishandled or destroyed his outgoing legal mail. The defendants filed
a motion to dismiss. The district court held that the prisoner failed to state a First
Amendment violation with respect to access to the courts and that the prisoner's allegations
that prison officials negligently destroyed or mishandled his legal mail did not support an
actionable claim under ' 1983. The court held that the prisoner's allegations of supervisor

XX

1.145

liability did not state a claim under ' 1983 and that the officials were immune from liability
for money damages or other retroactive relief. According to the court, a delay in filing a legal
document without any attendant adverse consequences does not constitute actual harm, as
required for an inmate to assert claims based on a denial of his First Amendment rights in
legal correspondence. (California)
U.S. District Court
EXHAUSTION
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Upthegrove v. Kuka, 408 F.Supp.2d 708 (W.D.Wisc. 2006). An inmate brought a ' 1983 action
arising from an alleged failure to provide him with pain medication. The defendant officers
moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion, finding that the inmate
failed to file an inmate complaint so as to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to one
correctional officer. The court found that a correctional sergeant who, prior to dispensing the
inmate's pain medication, was called away to a prison emergency, did not act with deliberate
indifference to the inmate's serious medical need because another officer replaced the sergeant
and continued to dispense medications. The court noted that the inmate inexplicably did not
remain in line to receive his medication and therefore any pain he suffered as the result of
missing his medication was the result of his own choice, not of any Eighth Amendment
violation. (Jackson Correctional Institution, Wisconsin)

U.S. Appeals Court
LAW BOOKS
LEGAL MATERIAL
LEGAL MAIL

Wardell v. Duncan, 470 F.3d 954 (10th Cir. 2006). A state prisoner brought a pro se § 1983
action against prison officials, alleging that a prison policy that required prisoners to purchase
all hobby materials, legal materials, books, and magazines from their prison accounts, and
prohibiting gifts to prisoners of such materials from unauthorized sources, violated his due
process rights, his right of access to the courts, and his First Amendment rights. The district
court granted summary judgment in favor of the officials. The prisoner appealed. According to
the court, the confiscation of documents mailed to the prisoner which were purchased by a
person who was a visitor of another inmate, did not violate the prisoner's First Amendment
rights, where the ban was content neutral, it was rationally related to the penological interest
of preventing bartering, extortion, possession of contraband, and other criminal activity by
prisoners, the prisoner was still able to purchase the same materials himself using funds from
his prison account, and he had access to the same materials in the prison law library. The
court noted that permitting such third-party gifts and then trying to control the resultant
security problems through reactive efforts of prison officers would impose an undue burden on
prison staff and resources. The court held that the inmate’s proposed accommodation, allowing
third party gifts if third parties provided relevant information, such as the source, amount,
and manner of payment, would entail data collection, processing, and substantial staff
resources. The suit was prompted by prison officials' interception of three parcels mailed to
plaintiff. The first contained books from a “Mystery Guild” book club; the other two contained
legal documents from the Colorado State Archives and the Library of Congress which had been
purchased for the plaintiff by a third party who was listed as another inmate's visitor and,
thus, fell within a Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC) prohibition on gifts from
unauthorized sources. The court also held that denial of the prisoner's access to courts claim
that challenged the prison policy restricting receipt of his legal mail, was warranted, absent a
showing that the prisoner's failure to receive his legal mail actually frustrated, impeded, or
hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim. (Fremont Correctional Facility, Colorado)

U.S. Appeals Court
CLOTHING-COURT
APPEARANCES

Williams v. Stewart, 441 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2006). Following affirmance on the appeal of the
defendant's state conviction for first degree murder and armed burglary in the first degree,
and imposition of the death penalty, the defendant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
The district court denied the petition and the defendant appealed. The court of appeals held
that a witness's identification of the defendant, who appeared at a deposition in prison attire
and manacles, did not violate due process. The court noted that the defendant compelled the
witness to attend a deposition where it was obvious that he was the only suspect, and he chose
to conduct the deposition himself rather than have advisory counsel do so. According to the
court, while the manacles and prison garb were involuntary, they were reasonable in light of
security concerns and added only marginally to the suggestiveness created by the defendant's
voluntary presence and self-identification as the defendant. (Arizona Department of
Corrections)

U.S. District Court
RETALIATION FOR
LEGAL ACTION

Wilson v. Taylor, 466 F.Supp.2d 567 (D.Del. 2006). Thirty-one Black inmates filed a § 1983
action alleging that state prison officials routinely denied their right to procedural due process
during disciplinary hearings and security classification determinations. The officials moved to
dismiss the complaint and the inmates asked for summary judgment. The motions were
granted in part and denied in part. The court held that Delaware has created no
constitutionally protected liberty interest in an inmate’s security classification, even when the
change in classification is for disciplinary reasons. The court held that an inmate’s allegation
that he was transferred to a housing unit with far fewer privileges after filing a civil rights
action against the prison officials, in violation of his First Amendment right of access to courts,
sufficiently alleged a retaliation claim against the officials, and that a genuine issue of
material fact as to the reason for the inmate’s transfer to a more restrictive facility precluded

XX

1.146

summary judgment. (Delaware Department of Correction)
2007
U.S. Appeals Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act
EXHAUSTION

Abdul-Muhammad v. Kempker, 486 F.3d 444 (8th Cir. 2007). State prisoners brought a § 1983 action against
prison officials, challenging certain prison policies, and alleging that officials retaliated against them for filing an
earlier lawsuit. The district court dismissed the complaint and the prisoners appealed. The appeals court affirmed.
The United States Supreme Court vacated and remanded. On remand, the appeals court held that the district court
could not dismiss the prisoner's claims without determining which of the prisoner's claims had been properly
exhausted and which of the claims, if any, were meritorious. The court noted that if an inmate fails to exhaust one
or more discrete claims raised in a § 1983 complaint, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires only that
the unexhausted claim or claims be dismissed, but does not require that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
(Potosi Correctional Facility, Missouri)

U.S. District Court
STUN BELT
RESTRAINTS

Adams v. Bradshaw, 484 F.Supp.2d 753 (N.D.Ohio 2007). After his convictions for aggravated murder and other
offenses were affirmed, an offender sought a writ of habeas corpus. The district court held that, even if a due
process violation occurred, the improper use of a stun belt placed on the defendant his during trial was a harmless
error because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming. The court noted that due process prohibits the use of
shackles on a defendant during a criminal trial, unless there exists an essential state interest, such as the interest in
courtroom security. (Trumbell County, Ohio)

U.S. Appeals Court
RECOUPMENT

Americans United for Separation of Church and State v. Prison Fellowship Ministries, Inc., 509 F.3d 406 (8th
Cir. 2007). A separation of church and state advocacy group, state prison inmates, and others, sued the State of
Iowa and a Christian provider of rehabilitation services, claiming that funding of a contract with the Christian
organization providing pre-release rehabilitation services to inmates violated the Establishment Clause. The
district court granted declaratory and equitable relief in favor of advocacy group and the inmates. The provider
and state corrections officials appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The appeals court
held that the state funding constituted an endorsement of religion, but that the district court abused its discretion in
awarding recoupment of state funds that had been paid to the provider. The court noted that even though the
provider had the ability to repay the funds, the district court gave no weight to the fact that specific statutes
authorized the funding, made no finding of bad faith by the state legislature and governor, and did not consider the
testimony of state prison officials that the program was beneficial and that the state received much more value
than it paid for. (Iowa Department of Corrections)

U.S. Appeals Court
IN FORMA PAUPERIS
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007). A prisoner filed a pro se action against prison officials,
alleging that the threat he faced from contagious diseases violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against
cruel and unusual punishment. The prisoner sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) but the district court
denied the motion. The prisoner appealed. The appeals court reversed and remanded. The appeals court held that
the prisoner's qualification for an imminent danger exception to the Prison Litigation Reform Act's (PLRA) threestrikes rule was determined at the time of filing of the complaint and that under the imminent danger exception the
prisoner could file an entire complaint IFP. The prisoner alleged that he was at risk of contracting HIV and that he
had already contracted hepatitis C, because of his exposure to other prisoners who had those contagious diseases
due to prison officials' policy of not screening prisoners for such diseases. (California State Prison, Solano)

U.S. District Court
LAW LIBRARY
LEGAL MAIL
TRANSFER
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Banks v. York, 515 F.Supp.2d 89 (D.D.C. 2007). A detainee in a jail operated by the District of Columbia
Department of Corrections (DOC), and in a correctional treatment facility operated by the District's private
contractor, brought a § 1983 action against District employees and contractor's employees alleging negligent
supervision under District of Columbia law, over-detention, deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, harsh
living conditions in jail, and extradition to Virginia without a hearing. The district court granted the defendants’
motion to dismiss in part and denied in part. The court held that the provision of Prison Litigation Reform Act
(PLRA) requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies before bringing a civil action against prison officials
regarding prison conditions applied to the detainee who brought a § 1983 action before he was released from jail,
even though the detainee had been released from jail by the time that the defendants brought their motion to
dismiss. The court held that the detainee did not state a claim under § 1983 that inadequacies in the jail's law
library violated his First Amendment right of access to the courts, even if he alleged that such inadequacies caused
the filing of his appeals to be untimely, in the absence of an allegation that such untimeliness had an actual
adverse impact on the appeals. The court held that the detainee's allegations that his legal mail was opened by
officials at the jail outside of his presence on numerous occasions during a four-month period, and that such
actions were intentional and pursuant to a policy or systemic practice, stated a claim under § 1983 for violation of
First Amendment free speech rights. (Central Detention Facility. D.C. and Correctional Treatment Facility
operated by the Corrections Corporation of America)

U.S. District Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act
EXHAUSTION

Baylis v. Taylor, 475 F.Supp.2d 484 (D.Del. 2007). An inmate brought a § 1983 action against various defendants,
alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The defendants moved for dismissal. The district
court granted the motion in part and denied in part. The court held that the inmate’s administrative remedies with
respect to his claim that prison personnel were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs were presumed
to have been exhausted, for the purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s requirement that administrative
remedies be exhausted before a § 1983 action could be brought, since no further remedies were available to the
inmate. (Delaware Correctional Center)

XXI

1.147

U.S. District Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act
IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Brown v. Beard, 492 F.Supp.2d 474 (E.D.Pa. 2007). A prisoner brought a civil rights suit alleging that medical
personal were intentionally not providing adequate medical care to combat his risk factors for heart disease. Prison
officials moved to vacate an order allowing the prisoner to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). The district court
granted the motion. The court held that the prisoner was not in imminent danger of serious physical injury, as
required to proceed IFP under the Prison Litigation Reform Act after having three or more prior IFP actions
dismissed as frivolous. The court noted that the prisoner did not dispute that he was receiving medical attention
for high blood pressure, low blood sugar, and high cholesterol, but merely disputed the findings and quality of
treatment he was receiving. (SCI Graterford, Pennsylvania)

U.S. District Court
EXPERT WITNESS

Bullock v. Sheahan, 519 F.Supp.2d 760 (N.D.Ill. 2007). Male former inmates of a county jail brought a class
action against a county and a sheriff, alleging that the defendants had a policy and/or practice of subjecting male
inmates to strip-searches prior to their release, and that such differing treatment of male inmates violated their
rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs' expert. The
district court denied the motion, finding that the expert’s testimony was admissible. According to the court, the
expert testimony of a registered architect who specialized in the design of prisons and jails, concerning whether
there was adequate space in the jail for the construction of additional bullpens to hold male detainees was relevant
and reliable. The court noted that while the expert did not review all of the written discovery in the case, the
expert reached his opinions after a tour of the jail and after reviewing other expert reports, jail floor plans, a
sheriff's status report and charts summarizing certain computer records on male detainees. (Cook County
Department of Corrections, Illinois)

U.S. District Court
EXHAUSTION
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Cameron v. Allen, 525 F.Supp.2d 1302 (M.D.Ala. 2007). A state inmate filed a § 1983 action against the
commissioner of a state department of corrections, a contract medical care provider, and a prison physician
challenging the constitutionality of medical treatment provided to him. The defendants moved for summary
judgment. The district court granted the motion. The court held that the commissioner was not subject to liability
under § 1983 for the prison medical staff's alleged deliberate indifference to the inmate's serious medical needs,
where the commissioner did not personally participate in, or have any direct involvement with, the inmate's
medical treatment, that medical personnel made all decisions relative to the course of treatment provided to the
inmate, and such treatment did not result from a policy instituted by the commissioner.
The court found that the inmate's failure to properly exhaust the prison's grievance procedure barred his § 1983
action. According to the court, even though the inmate filed grievance forms addressing his medical treatment, the
treatment that was the subject of the forms was wholly unrelated to the medical treatment about which he
complained in his § 1983 action. (Bullock County Correctional Facility, Alabama)

U.S. Appeals Court
FILING FEES
LAW BOOKS
COMPUTERS
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Campbell v. Clarke, 481 F.3d 967 (7th Cir. 2007). A prisoner sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis in an
action against prison officials, alleging deprivation of access to legal materials. The district court dismissed the
case and the prisoner appealed. The court of appeals affirmed, finding that the prisoner was barred from
proceeding in forma pauperis under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), until all the fees for all of the
prisoner's past and pending litigation have been paid in full. The prisoner alleged that the jail violates the
Constitution because it provides computer-assisted legal research rather than a library of physical law books. The
court noted that the prisoner had legal counsel in all criminal cases pending against him and that access to legal
materials is required only for unrepresented litigants. (Milwaukee County Jail, Wisconsin)

U.S. Appeals Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act
EXHAUSTION

Carbe v. Lappin, 492 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. 2007). A federal prisoner filed a Bivens action against federal prison
officials, alleging that he was subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement when officials ignored a
mandatory evacuation order for a hurricane and abandoned him and other prisoners without adequate food, water,
and ventilation. The district court dismissed the action and the prisoner appealed. The appeals court vacated and
remanded. The court held that the dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) was not proper, as the lack of exhaustion was an affirmative defense, the complaint
was silent as to exhaustion, and the defendants had not yet filed a responsive pleading. (Federal Correctional
Complex, Beaumont, Texas)

U.S. District Court
EX-OFFENDER
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Crawford v. Doe, 484 F.Supp.2d 446 (E.D.Va.2007). A federal inmate brought a Bivens action against corrections
officials. The inmate moved to proceed in forma pauperis. The district court denied the motion, finding that the
inmate was subject to the “three strike” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), even though he
had been released. The former prisoner claimed that he asked a correctional officer to copy a document that he
intended to file in the United States Supreme Court. The officer allegedly asked an inmate, who worked for a Unit
Manager, to copy the document and it was shredded. The former prisoner sought $15,000,000. (West Virginia)

U.S. District Court
RETALIATION FOR
LEGAL ACTION

Daker v. Ferrero, 506 F.Supp.2d 1295 (N.D.Ga. 2007). A former prison inmate brought a § 1983 action against
corrections officials, challenging alleged denials of publications and mail, as well as alleged retaliatory acts by
officials. The district court granted summary judgment as to certain claims and the officials moved for
reconsideration as to a portion of that order and for summary judgment, and the inmate moved for summary
judgment. The district court held that reconsideration of summary judgment was warranted by genuine issues of
fact that existed as to whether prison officials violated the inmate's First Amendment rights by retaliating against
him after he brought numerous grievances and a civil rights action. The court found that the officials were entitled
to qualified immunity as to books containing sexually explicit materials, instructions on fighting techniques and
military procedures and materials, criminal investigatory techniques, and instructions on building electronic
devices, but issues of fact existed as to whether prison officials denied a book about revolution and four legal
books based on their content. (Georgia Department of Corrections)

XXI

1.148

U.S. District Court
EXPERT WITNESS

Estate of Hill v. Richards, 525 F.Supp.2d 1076 (W.D.Wis. 2007. The estate of a county jail inmate who committed
suicide sued the social worker who interviewed the inmate shortly before her suicide, claiming deliberate
indifference to the inmate's suicidal mental condition, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The social worker
moved for summary judgment. The court held that summary judgment was precluded by fact issues as to whether
the worker was aware of a suicide risk, as the result of a statement by the inmate that she had poked herself with a
thumbtack, and as to the adequacy of the worker’s response to the inmate's statement. The court noted that expert
testimony was not required to establish that the social worker violated the Eighth Amendment by being
deliberately indifferent to the health and safety of the jail inmate; under those circumstances a jury of laypersons
could conclude that there was a duty to protect the inmate. The social worker knew, from her experiences with the
inmate, that the inmate had a history of depression, that she had been prescribed multiple medications for
depression and that she previously had expressed a desire to die. The social worker also knew that the inmate had
not been taking her medication for several weeks and that she was being housed in segregation at the jail, where
neither other prisoners nor staff could easily monitor her. (Dane County Jail, Wisconsin)

U.S. District Court
IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Estrada v. Reed, 508 F.Supp.2d 699 (W.D.Wis. 2007). An allegedly indigent federal prisoner brought a proposed
Bivens action against a warden, prison doctor, two prison health services administrators, and a captain on the
prison's medical staff, alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The district court granted the
prisoner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, in part, finding that the prisoner alleged potentially serious
medical needs and allowed an inference of deliberate indifference on the part of several of the defendants. The
prisoner alleged that prison medical staff failed to monitor his blood pressure consistently after doctors
recommended such monitoring, and that a serious stroke left him with limited ability to use much of his left side
and with difficulty speaking, so that he required consistent therapy to regain his motor skills. (Federal Correctional
Institution, Oxford, Wisconsin)

U.S. Appeals Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act
EXHAUSTION

Fields v. Oklahoma State Penitentiary, 511 F.3d 1109 (10th Cir. 2007). A state prisoner brought a pro se civil
rights action under § 1983 against the Oklahoma State Penitentiary (OSP) and nine OSP employees, alleging
claims for violations of various constitutional rights and other federal-law and state-law claims. The district court
dismissed all the federal-law claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and then exercised its discretion
to dismiss the state-law claims. The prisoner appealed. The appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that the
prisoner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA)
before bringing suit and that the district court was within its discretion in denying the prisoner's motions to amend
his complaint. The court noted that although the prisoner filed grievances with the Oklahoma Department of
Correction (ODOC) he failed to comply with the required grievance procedures. (Oklahoma State Penitentiary)

U.S. Appeals Court
LAW LIBRARY
LEGAL ASSISTANCE

Finch v. Miller, 491 F.3d 424 (8th Cir. 2007). A prisoner convicted in state court of first-degree murder and
sentenced to life in prison filed a second petition for habeas relief, which the district court dismissed. The prisoner
appealed and the appeals court affirmed. The court held that the prisoner failed to establish that his lack of access
to a state prison law library or legal assistance presented a sufficient impediment to toll the statutory period for
filing a habeas petition. (Iowa)

U.S. District Court
LEGAL MAIL

Fontroy v. Beard, 485 F.Supp.2d 592 (E.D.Pa. 2007). Inmates sued state prison officials, claiming that a policy of
opening legal and court mail outside their presence violated the First Amendment. The district court granted
summary judgment for the inmates, in part. The court held that the policy of opening inmate legal and court mail
outside of their presence, inspecting for contraband, and resealing the mail without reading it, violated the First
Amendment right of inmates to have mail opened in their presence. The court noted that the policy did not further
the prison's objective of blocking contraband entering prison through the mails, over an alternate procedure of
opening mail in inmate's presence. (SCI-Graterford, Pennsylvania)

U.S. District Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Franklin v. Pocono Ranch Lands Property Owners Ass'n, 484 F.Supp.2d 286 (D.Del. 2007). A prisoner brought
an in forma pauperis civil action against a property owners' association and other defendants. The district court
dismissed the action, finding that the amended complaint failed to provide sufficient notification of the nature and
factual basis of the claimed wrong and therefore should be dismissed under the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(PLRA). (Delaware)

U.S. Appeals Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act
EXHAUSTION

Freeman v. Watkins, 479 F.3d 1257 (10th Cir. 2007). A state prisoner brought a pro se civil rights complaint
attacking various prison conditions as well as the process afforded him in disciplinary proceedings. The district
court dismissed the suit for failure to totally exhaust administrative remedies, and the prisoner appealed. The court
of appeals vacated and remanded. The court held that under an intervening precedent, the prisoner was not
required to plead exhaustion of administrative remedies. According to the court, failure to exhaust was an
affirmative defense, and the prisoner did not have a duty under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) to plead
or to demonstrate exhaustion of administrative remedies on his civil rights claims, and thus the district court could
not require an affirmative showing of exhaustion upon its preliminary screening of the case. (Fremont
Correctional Facility and Colorado State Penitentiary)

U.S. District Court
LAW LIBRARY
LEGAL MATERIAL
PHOTOCOPYING
INDIGENT INMATES

Harrison v. Moketa/Motycka, 485 F.Supp.2d 652 (D.S.C. 2007). A pretrial detainee sued various prison officials
and medical care providers under § 1983, claiming violations of a variety of his constitutional rights. The district
court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The court held that the detainee did not suffer a violation of
his Fourteenth Amendment rights when he was allegedly served cold food and two nutritionally deficient
breakfasts. According to the court, merely serving food cold did not present a serious risk of harm or an
immediate danger to the health of the detainee, and while he had significant pre-existing health problems, there
was no indication that those conditions were caused or exacerbated by the diet provided. The court held that the
detainee's right of access to the courts was not violated by any restriction on his access to a law library, despite his

XXI

1.149

claim that his “wrongful” conviction was proof of his actual injury. He did not identify a specific defense or legal
claim that he was unable to pursue due to his alleged lack of access to legal materials, and any finding that he had
been injured by a “wrongful” conviction would have impermissibly implied the invalidity of his conviction. The
court noted that lack of free photocopying of law library materials did not deny the indigent detainee access to the
courts. (Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center, South Carolina)
U.S. District Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act
EXHAUSTION

Henderson v. Ayers, 476 F.Supp.2d 1168 (C.D.Cal. 2007). An inmate brought a pro se and in forma pauperis suit
under § 1983 against an acting warden, in his individual and official capacities, claiming that the warden had
denied the inmate his right to attend Friday Islamic prayer services and seeking injunctive relief. The warden
moved to dismiss. The district court denied the motion. The court held that the inmate satisfied the exhaustion
requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), even though he did not specifically name the warden in
his grievance. The court noted that exhaustion under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) is not necessarily
inadequate simply because an individual later sued was not named in the grievances, but rather, compliance with
prison grievance procedures is all that is required by the PLRA to properly exhaust. The court held that the inmate
stated a claim for violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) and
stated a claim for violation of his First Amendment rights. The inmate alleged that he had been denied excused
time-off work to attend Friday Islamic prayer services, as his religion required, and that he had been subjected to
progressive discipline, including loss of privileges, for attempting to attend these prayer services. (California State
Prison, Los Angeles County)

U.S. Appeals Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act
IN PORMA PAUPERIS

Jackson v. Johnson, 475 F.3d 261 (5th Cir. 2007). An individual who had been released from prison on
mandatory supervision and who resided in a privately operated halfway house, apparently as a condition of his
mandatory supervision, brought an action under § 1983 and § 1985, asserting that his access to the courts had
been diminished in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court dismissed his suit, denied
his motion for reconsideration, and, following his appeal, denied his request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(IFP) on appeal. The court of appeals held that the individual was a “prisoner” within the meaning of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act’s (PLRA) three strikes provision and, thus, could not proceed IFP on appeal. The appeals
court denied the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the appeal. The court noted that, to the extent
that the halfway house resident argued that the state could not detain him in the halfway house because his
residence there was voluntary and not a condition of his release, the proper vehicle for his challenge was a habeas
petition rather than a § 1983 action. According to the court, PLRA’s three-strikes provision does not bar prisoners
from proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP) in a habeas action, even if the prisoner has accumulated three strikes.
According to the court, although the supervisee had been released from confinement in prison, his release was not
to the general public, but was to a facility where he was locked up 16 to 24 hours a day and from which he could
leave only for very limited purposes. The court noted that even if the supervisee’s time at the halfway house was
for primarily non-punitive purposes, that is, to reintegrate him into society, his confinement resulted from his
criminal violation, as he remained under the supervision of the Pardons and Paroles Division. (Pardons and
Paroles Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Fort Worth, Texas)

U.S. Supreme Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act
EXHAUSTION

Jones v. Bock, 127 S.Ct. (2007). State prison inmates brought separate § 1983 actions against corrections officials.
The district courts dismissed the actions for failure to satisfy procedural rules, implementing the administrative
exhaustion requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The appeals courts affirmed the respective
dismissals. Certiorari was granted, and the actions were consolidated. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and
remanded. The court held that an inmate's failure to exhaust under PLRA is an affirmative defense-- an inmate is
not required to specially plead or demonstrate exhaustion in his complaint. According the court, the inmates' §
1983 actions were not automatically rendered noncompliant with PLRA exhaustion requirement by the fact that
not all defendants named in the complaints had been named in previous administrative grievances. The court
found that an inmate's compliance with the PLRA exhaustion requirement as to some, but not all, claims does not
warrant dismissal of an entire action. (Michigan Department of Corrections)

U.S. District Court
TRIAL

Jordan v. Pugh, 484 F.Supp.2d 1185 (D.Colo. 2007). A federal prisoner brought an action against prison officials
challenging the constitutionality of a federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) regulation prohibiting prisoners from acting
as a reporter or publishing under a byline. The prisoner petitioned for permission to attend his trial in person and
moved for reconsideration of a court order granting the defendants' motion to preclude the testimony of two
witnesses who were also prisoners. The district court held that circumstances did not warrant granting the petition
in light of the security risks associated with transferring the prisoner to lower security facility to facilitate
participation in the trial. The court found that the proffered testimony of the other prisoners was not relevant.
(United States Penitentiary, Florence, Colorado)

U.S. District Court
IN FORMA PAUPERIS
LAW LIBRARY
RETALIATION

Kaufman v. Schneiter, 474 F.Supp.2d 1014 (W.D.Wis. 2007). An inmate at a supermaximum security prison filed
a § 1983 action alleging that prison officials violated his constitutional rights. The inmate filed a motion seeking
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The district court granted the motion in part and denied in part. The court held
that the inmate’s claim that he was transferred to a maximum security facility in retaliation for his decision to
name a warden as a defendant in a civil rights action was not frivolous, and thus the inmate was entitled to
proceed in forma pauperis in his § 1983 action, where fact issues remained as to whether the lawsuit motivated the
warden’s decision to transfer the inmate. (Wisconsin Secure Program Facility)

U.S. District Court
LAW LIBRARY

Kaufman v. Schneiter, 524 F.Supp.2d 1101 (W.D.Wis. 2007). A former state inmate sued prison officials for
declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief, alleging that he was subjected to retaliatory transfer and that his rights
under the First and Eighth Amendments and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA)
were violated. The court granted the officials’ motion for summary judgment. The court held that the warden was
not involved in the inmate's transfer to a maximum security institution, precluding the warden's liability on the

XXI

1.150

claim alleging that he transferred the inmate in retaliation for the inmate's filing of an earlier lawsuit against him.
The court found that there was no evidence that any of the prison officials sued by the inmate were personally
involved in denying delivery to the inmate of the letter underlying his free speech claim, and therefore the officials
could not be held liable under § 1983. The court held that the former state inmate did not show that while he was
incarcerated at a maximum security facility, he ever chose to use out-of-cell time to visit the law library, as
opposed to out-of-door exercise, and thus to show an injury-in-fact required for the former inmate to have
standing to challenge the prison official's policy of requiring inmates to choose between out-of-cell exercise time
and law library time under the Eighth Amendment. (Wisconsin Secure Program Facility)
U.S. District Court
APPOINTED
ATTORNEY
LEGAL MATERIAL
LEGAL ASSISTANCE

Koerschner v. Warden, 508 F.Supp.2d 849 (D.Nev. 2007). A state prisoner brought a motion for appointment of
counsel for a federal habeas proceeding. The district court granted the motion. The court held that appointment of
counsel was warranted in light of the serious, and potentially constitutionally suspect, limitations placed by the
state prison on the due process right of access to courts by segregation-unit inmates. The court noted that access to
court for inmates in segregation consisted of a new “paging system,” under which inmates can request a maximum
of five specified legal materials at a time, and the assistance of essentially untrained inmate legal assistants.
(Lovelock Correctional Center, Nevada)

U.S. District Court
OTHER STATE

Lee v. Corrections Corp. of America, 525 F.Supp.2d 1238 (D.Hawai‘i 2007). A Hawai'i prisoner, who was
incarcerated in a Mississippi prison pursuant to a contract between Hawai'i and the private corporation that
operated the prison, brought a § 1983 action against the corporation, the Hawai'i Department of Public Safety, and
prison officials, arising from an incident in which the prisoner was allegedly beaten by other inmates. The
defendants moved to transfer venue. The district court granted the motion, changing the venue to Mississippi.
According to the court, the proper venue was Mississippi because the alleged beating, as well as the allegedly
negligent monitoring, supervision, training, and hiring by the corporation and prison officials, all occurred in
Mississippi. The court noted that convenience factors also supported the transfer of the action to Mississippi
because all of the parties except for the Hawai'i Department of Public Safety were on the mainland, the majority of
witnesses resided in Mississippi or on the mainland, and there was a local interest in having the controversy
decided in Mississippi. The plaintiff alleged that he had been attacked by inmates confined with him in the Special
Housing Incentive Program (“SHIP”) unit when the cell doors in the segregation unit were inadvertently
unlocked, which allowed the inmates to exit their cells. (Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility, Tutwiler,
Mississippi. Operated by Corrections Corporation of America)

U.S. Appeals Court
EXHAUSTION
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Macias v. Zenk, 495 F.3d 37 (2nd Cir. 2007). A federal prisoner brought a pro se suit against prison officials,
alleging Bivens claims for indifference to his serious medical needs and tort claims under the Federal Tort Claims
Act (FTCA). The district court dismissed the Bivens claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under
the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and dismissed the tort claims without prejudice. The prisoner appealed.
The appeals court affirmed in part and vacated in part. The court held that the unavailability of monetary damages
in the prison grievance system did not excuse noncompliance with PLRA, and that the prisoner did not
procedurally exhaust his remedies by bringing administrative tort claims and making informal complaints. But the
court found that the alleged threats directed at the prisoner may have rendered administrative procedures
unavailable, preventing the officials from raising non-exhaustion as defense. (Metropolitan Detention Center,
Federal Bureau of Prisons, New York City)

U.S. Appeals Court
IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Maness v. District Court of Logan County-Northern Div., 495 F.3d 943 (8th Cir. 2007). After a state court clerk
refused his repeated requests to present his application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), the federal district
court dismissed a prisoner's § 1983 action arising from his state court conviction. The appeals court affirmed,
finding that the judge and prosecutor enjoyed absolute immunity, and the district court clerk's ministerial decision
to not present the prisoner's IFP application to the Arkansas state court did not violate the prisoner's right of access
to the court. The appeals court noted that the clerk who allegedly refused to present the criminal prisoner's IFP
application to a circuit judge was not shielded by absolute quasi-judicial immunity in the prisoner's subsequent
civil rights action. (Logan County District Court, Arkansas)

U.S. District Court
EXHAUSTION
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Maraglia v. Maloney, 499 F.Supp.2d 93 (D.Mass. 2007). A state prisoner brought a civil rights suit against several
Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC) prison security officers. The state moved to dismiss the claims for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), and the
motion was converted into one for summary judgment. At a prior hearing, the court determined that the question
of whether the prisoner exhausted remedies involved disputed issues of fact. The district court held that the issue
of fact as to whether the prisoner exhausted remedies presented a question for the jury, not the court, to resolve.
The court noted that evidence of the prisoner's failure to file another grievance, challenging the fact that he had
not received responses to other allegedly filed grievances went to the issue of the prisoner's credibility regarding
exhaustion. (Massachusetts)

U.S. District Court
FRIVOLOUS SUITS

Miles v. Angelone, 483 F.Supp.2d 491 (E.D.Va. 2007). After his petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied, a
petitioner filed numerous unsuccessful motions for reconsideration. The district court reclassified the petitioner's
twelfth such motion as a new and successive habeas petition and entered A separate order advising the petitioner
that he should not file any additional motions for reconsideration or seek any additional review absent a remand or
allowance of a successive petition by the court of appeals. The court of appeals dismissed the petitioner's appeal
and, in a separate order, affirmed the order advising the petitioner not to file additional motions. The petitioner
then filed his seventeenth motion seeking reconsideration, which the court of appeals denied. The court held that
the petitioner's history of filing frivolous and harassing pleadings supported a limited pre-filing injunction against
the petitioner, noting that the successive and frivolous motions for reconsideration of dismissal of his original
habeas petition were a substantial burden on judicial resources. (Virginia)

XXI

1.151

U.S. District Court
LEGAL MAIL

Moore v. Schuetzle, 486 F.Supp.2d 969 (D.N.D. 2007). A state prison inmate brought a § 1983 action against
officials, claiming cruel and unusual punishment and violation of his right of access to courts. The district court
granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court held that the Eighth Amendment rights of the
inmate, who had been placed in administrative segregation, were not violated when he was limited to five hours of
outside exercise per week. The court found that the inmate's right of access to courts, and right to counsel, were
not violated when prison officials inadvertently opened letters to the inmate from a state court judge and the
Department of Justice, on two occasions. (North Dakota State Penitentiary)

U.S. District Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Murray v. Prison Health Services, 513 F.Supp.2d 9 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). A pro se prisoner brought a § 1983 action
against prison health services, among others, alleging that a superintendent, nurse administrator and two nurses at
the prison were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs and denied him daily medication for his HIV
infection. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and the district court granted the motion. The court held
that the prisoner's alleged actions, sending letters to the nurse administrator and superintendent, were not sufficient
to satisfy the exhaustion requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). (Green Haven Correctional
Facility, N.Y.)

U.S. Appeals Court
BINDING
42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1983

Phillips v. Hust, 477 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2007). A state prisoner brought a pro se § 1983 action against a prison
librarian in her personal and official capacities, alleging violation of his right to free speech and right of access to
court under the First Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the prisoner, and
subsequently awarded compensatory damages of $1,500. The librarian appealed. The appeals court affirmed in
part, vacated in part, and remanded. The court held that the librarian’s refusal to allow the prisoner to comb-bind
his petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court violated the state prisoner’s First
Amendment right of access to the courts, where the prisoner raised a nonfrivolous claim in his certiorari petition, a
state court applied an incorrect legal standard in determining the prisoner’s ineffective assistance to counsel claim
in his postconviction petition, and the denial of the use of comb-binding machine frustrated his attempt to press
his claim in the Supreme Court. The court noted that even if Supreme Court rules did not require comb-binding, it
was the binding method the prison routinely made available to the prisoner and others, it was foreseeable that the
librarian’s refusal would obstruct the prisoner’s ability to file a petition in a timely manner, and the prisoner had
no independent tort cause of action against the librarian for violation of his rights. The court found that the
librarian was not entitled to qualified immunity for her conduct in refusing to allow the prisoner to use a combbinding machine, where her conduct violated the prisoner’s clearly established right to prepare, serve, and file
court documents in a timely manner, and not to be subjected to arbitrary enforcement of prison rules. The
prisoner’s petition missed the Supreme Court filing deadline and was denied as untimely. The appeals court held
that the librarian’s refusal was blatantly contrary to past practice and state prison regulations, and under existing
precedent, the librarian should have known that refusal of the prisoner’s request could result in missing the filing
deadline. According to the court, the damages award could be based on costs that the prisoner expended in
prosecuting his postconviction relief petition over the course of many years and any mental or emotional injury
the prisoner suffered, but the district court was required to make specific findings concerning the amount of the
costs expended as well as specific findings concerning mental or emotional injury. The court concluded that where
the district court’s findings are insufficient to indicate the factual basis for its ultimate conclusion concerning
damages in a § 1983 claim, its finding as to the amount of damages is clearly erroneous. (Snake River
Correctional Institution, Oregon)

U.S. Appeals Court
BINDING

Phillips v. Hust, 507 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2007). A state prisoner brought a pro se § 1983 action against a prison
librarian in her personal and official capacities, alleging violations of his right to free speech and right to access
courts under the First Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of prisoner, and
subsequently awarded compensatory damages of $1,500. The librarian appealed. The appeals court affirmed in
part, reversed in part and remanded. The court held that the librarian's refusal to allow the prisoner to comb-bind
his petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court violated the prisoner's First Amendment
right of access to the courts, the librarian was not entitled to qualified immunity, and the district court was
required to make specific findings to support the damages award. The appeals court denied the librarian’s petition
for rehearing. In a dissent, Circuit Judge Kozinski expressed his “utter astonishment that we're leaving an opinion
on the books that not only denies the prison librarian qualified immunity but actually holds her liable. Her
transgression? Failing to help a prisoner bind a brief in a way that's not even permitted, and certainly not required,
by the Supreme Court's rules….How the prison librarian violated any of his rights, let alone his clearly established
rights, is a mystery that repeated readings of the majority opinion do not dispel.” (Snake River Correctional
Institution, Oregon)

U.S. District Court
LAW LIBRARY

Platt v. Brockenborough, 476 F.Supp.2d 467 (E.D.Pa. 2007). A prisoner brought a § 1983 action against prison
officials, alleging that he was repeatedly placed in punitive segregation, was not permitted to exercise regularly,
and was denied an opportunity to appeal disciplinary decisions. The defendants moved to dismiss. The district
court granted the motion in part and denied in part. The court held that the prison's failure to respond to the
prisoner's numerous grievances regarding his conditions of confinement did not infringe on the prisoner's due
process right of access to the courts, since the prisoner could file suit in federal court. The court found that the
prisoner failed to state a due process claim based on denial of access to a prison law library, where the prisoner
failed to explain even in minimal detail what injury he suffered as a result of the alleged denial of access. The
court noted that access to the prison law library is not a freestanding right, and a prisoner challenging the denial of
access must allege some actual injury to have standing to assert a claim on this basis. (Philadelphia Industrial
Correctional Center)

XXI

1.152

U.S. Appeals Court
IN FORMA PAUPERIS
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Polanco v. Hopkins, 510 F.3d 152 (2nd Cir. 2007). A prisoner filed a pro se § 1983 action against several
correctional employees claiming violations of his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments rights for his
alleged exposure to mold in a gym shower and for unjust discipline. The district court denied the prisoner's
motion to proceed in forma pauperis and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. The prisoner appealed,
and the appeals court dismissed the appeal. The appeals court held that the prisoner was not in imminent
danger of a serious physical injury as required for in forma pauperis status under the exception to the threestrikes rule of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The court found that the imminent danger exception
does not violate equal protection and that the in forma pauperis statute is not overbroad. (Auburn Correctional
Facility, New York)

U.S. Appeals Court
INDIGENT INMATES
DUE PROCESS

Powers v. Hamilton County Public Defender Com'n, 501 F.3d 592 (6th Cir. 2007). A former prisoner filed a
putative § 1983 class action, alleging that his constitutional rights were violated by the county public
defender's policy or custom of failing to seek indigency hearings on behalf of criminal defendants facing jail
time for unpaid fines. The district court granted the motion for class certification, and granted summary
judgment in favor of the arrestee on the issue of liability. The defendants appealed. The appeals court affirmed
in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The court held that: (1) the alleged automatic incarceration of the
arrestee for his failure to pay fine, without conducting an indigency hearing to determine his ability to pay the
fine, violated due process; (2) the public defender's failure to request an indigency hearing was the moving
force behind prisoner's failure to receive an indigency hearing; (3) the public defender acted under the color of
state law; and (4) fact issues precluded summary judgment. (Hamilton County Public Defender Office and
Hamilton County Public Defender Commission, Ohio)

U.S. District Court
APPOINTED ATTORNEY

Price v. Correctional Medical Services, 493 F.Supp.2d 740 (D.Del. 2007). An inmate brought a § 1983
action against a prison's medical services provider and prison officials, alleging deliberate indifference to his
serious medical needs. The provider moved to dismiss, and the inmate moved for appointment of counsel. The
district court denied the motions. The court held that the prisoner stated a claim under § 1983 against the
prison's medical services provider for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, in violation of the
Eighth Amendment. The prisoner alleged that the refusal of prompt medical care to his recently surgically
repaired wrists, upon his transfer from another facility, by employees of the prison's medical services provider,
was, or could have been, partially responsible for the permanent damage to his wrists that was independently
verified by an outside doctor. The court noted that the seriousness of the prisoner’s medical need was so
obvious, from the condition he arrived in, his description of the events to nurses, and from the obvious pain he
was under for a period of weeks, that any lay person would have recognized the need for a doctor. The court
declined to appoint counsel for inmate, noting that the prisoner had been capably representing himself, and
there were no special circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel. (Delaware Correctional Center)

U.S. Appeals Court
VIDEO COMMUNICA
-TION
ADA- Americans With
Disabilities Act

Robertson v. Las Animas County Sheriff's Dept., 500 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 2007). A deaf pretrial detainee
brought suit under § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) against deputies and a sheriff,
claiming wrongful arrest and failure to accommodate his disability. The district court dismissed all claims
against the defendants on their motion for summary judgment and the detainee appealed. The appeals court
reversed and remanded. The court held that a fact issue as to whether the totally deaf detainee with a
surgically implanted cochlear implant was substantially limited in his ability to hear, precluded summary
judgment as to whether he was a qualified individual under ADA. The court also found that summary
judgment was precluded by fact issues as to whether the jail knew, or should have been aware of, the deaf
inmate's limitations. The court found that the detainee was qualified to receive benefits and services of the
county jail, within the meaning of ADA, with respect to phone services and televised closed-circuit viewing of
his probable cause hearing, as such services were available to all inmates. (Las Animas County Jail, Colorado)

U.S. District Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act
FILING FEES
INDIGENT INMATES
IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Samonte v. Frank, 517 F.Supp.2d 1238 (D.Hawai’i 2007). A prisoner, who had filed several civil rights
actions, moved to have funds withdrawn from his prison trust account sequentially, rather than
simultaneously, to satisfy court orders granting him in forma pauperis (IFP) status and directing collection
and payment of filing fees. The district court denied the motion. The court held that indigent prisoners are
required to pay filing fees on a per case basis, rather than per prisoner basis, and that per case payments did
not burden the prisoner's constitutional right of meaningful access to the courts. The court noted that the
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) filing fee provision requiring indigent prisoners to make monthly
payments of 20 percent of the preceding month's income should be applied by simultaneously collecting fees
for all of a prisoner's outstanding cases, as long as a minimum of $10 remains in the prisoner's account.
(Hawai’i)

U.S. District Court
EXPERT WITNESS

Thomas v. Sheahan, 514 F.Supp.2d 1083 (N.D.Ill. 2007). A special administrator filed a § 1983 suit against
a county, sheriff, county board, correctional officers, supervisors and correctional medical technician on
behalf of a pretrial detainee who died at a county jail from meningitis and pneumonia, alleging violations of
constitutional rights and state law claims for wrongful death, survival action, and intentional infliction of
emotional distress. The court held that the administrator's failure to produce documentary evidence of lost
wages or child support payments did not preclude her from introducing evidence at trial. The court found that
the physician was not qualified to testify as to the manifestations of meningitis absent evidence that the
physician was an expert on meningitis or infectious diseases. According to the court, a jail operations expert's
proposed testimony that the county did not meet minimum standards of the conduct for training of
correctional staff was inadmissible. The court also found that evidence of jail conditions was relevant and thus
admissible, where the administrator of the detainee's estate argued that county officials should have known
that the detainee was sick because he was throwing up in his cell and in a day room. (Cook County, Illinois)

XXII

1.153
1.
153

U.S. District Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act
EXHAUSTION

Torres Rios v. Pereira Castillo, 545 F.Supp.2d 204 (D.Puerto Rico 2007). The mother of a prisoner who died
from injuries he received from another inmate while under custody at a Puerto Rico facility filed a civil rights
action against prison officials. The officials moved to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
The district court denied the motion, finding that neither the mother nor the estate of the prisoner were subject
to the Prison Litigation Reform Act's (PLRA) exhaustion requirement. (Puerto Rico)

U.S. District Court
LEGAL MAIL

Vasquez v. Raemisch, 480 F.Supp.2d 1120 (W.D.Wis. 2007). A prisoner sought leave to proceed under the in
forma pauperis statute in a proposed civil rights action for declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief brought
against prison officials and corrections officers. The court held that the prisoner failed by state a First
Amendment claim by alleging that his legal mail was opened by prison officials three times outside his
presence, and that his legal mail was given to another prisoner with the same last name on one occasion,
where the prisoner did not suggest that any of the four instances he described prevented him from litigating a
case, and none of the mail at issue involved correspondence from his criminal defense lawyer. (Wisconsin)

U.S. District Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act
EXHAUSTION

Wesolowski v. Sullivan, 524 F.Supp.2d 251 (W.D.N.Y. 2007). An inmate in the custody of the New York
State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) brought a § 1983 action against DOCS employees alleging
his constitutional rights were violated while he was confined at a correctional facility when employees
confiscated fundraising materials. The employees moved for summary judgment. The district court granted
the motion. The court held that the inmate failed to comply with the Prison Litigation Reform Act's exhaustion
requirement by never appealing the denial of a grievance filed with the Inmate Grievance Resolution
Committee (IGRC) to Central Office Review Committee (CORC). The court found that the confiscation of
materials describing how someone could conduct a political fundraising event to benefit Families Against
Mandatory Minimums (FAMM) did not violate the inmate's rights under the First Amendment, considering
the possibilities for abuse that would have arisen if inmates were freely allowed to engage in fundraising from
fellow inmates. According to the court, the restriction and regulation of such activities by prisoners was
unquestionably a legitimate penological interest, and it was uncontroverted that the inmate did not follow
established procedures for obtaining authorization to engage in such activities. The court noted that even
assuming the employees' actions in confiscating the materials violated the inmate's First Amendment rights,
the employees were entitled to qualified immunity, as no authority had clearly established the inmate's First
Amendment right to possess the materials in question at the time of events giving rise to lawsuit. (New York
State Department of Correctional Services)

U.S. Appeals Court
LEGAL ASSISTANCE
LEGAL RESEARCH

White v. Kautzky, 494 F.3d 677 (8th Cir. 2007). A pro se state prisoner sued the Director of the Iowa
Department of Corrections and warden of the prison where he was incarcerated under § 1983, claiming that
the policy of not allowing contract attorneys to do legal research for inmates in appropriate cases violated his
right to have access to the courts. The district court entered judgment for the prisoner and awarded nominal
damages. The defendants appealed. The appeals court reversed and vacated, finding that the prisoner was not
actually injured by the policy, as required to establish a violation of his right to access to the courts. (Anamosa
State Penitentiary, Iowa)

U.S. Appeals Court
EXHAUSTION

Whitington v. Ortiz, 472 F.3d 804 (10th Cir. 2007). A state prisoner brought a § 1983 action alleging his
rights were violated by the denial of access to free hygiene items. The district court dismissed the action and
the prisoner appealed. The appeals court held that the prison’s failure to timely respond to the prisoner’s Step
Three grievance regarding access to hygiene products established that the prisoner exhausted his available
administrative remedies, as required by PLRA. A Step 3 grievance requires the prison to respond within 45
days. 196 days after he filed his Step 3 grievance he still had not received a response and then filed suit. The
court held that the prisoner’s elaboration on the way the prison’s policies caused him to suffer dental
problems satisfied his obligation to state an injury to support his Eighth Amendment claim but did not equate
to a delay in dental treatment claim. The prisoner contended that he was unable to pay for hygiene items out
of his prison income after the prison debits his prison account to pay for restitution, medical care, legal
photocopies, and legal postage. (Colorado Department of Corrections)

U.S. Appeals Court
EXHAUSTION
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Williams v. Beard, 482 F.3d 637 (3rd Cir. 2007). A state prisoner brought a § 1983 action against a prison's
unit manager, alleging he violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to protect him from an attack by another
prisoner. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendant and the prisoner appealed. The
appeals court reversed and remanded, finding that the prisoner's procedural default should have been excused.
The court held that, although the prisoner procedurally defaulted his claim when he did not name the unit
manager in his initial grievance that asked to be moved from his cell because he feared he would be hurt by
his cellmate, the default should have been excused in his § 1983 action, because the unit manager responded
to the grievance and acknowledged conversations the prisoner had with staff regarding his transfer request,
but rejected the grievance as lacking merit. (Pennsylvania State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon)
2008

U.S. District Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

XXII

Adams v. Bouchard, 591 F.Supp.2d 1191 (W.D.Okla. 2008). A jail inmate brought a § 1983 action against
sheriff's deputies and a sheriff, alleging the deputies assaulted him, used excessive force, and that the sheriff
failed to properly supervise the deputies. The defendants moved for summary judgment and qualified
immunity. The district court granted the motion in part and denied in part. The court held that summary
judgment was precluded by genuine issues of material fact as to whether the inmate properly exhausted
administrative remedies prior to bringing the federal action. The court found that the inmate's efforts towards
exhausting his § 1983 excessive force claim against sheriff's deputies were insufficient to satisfy the
exhaustion requirement under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) as to his claim that the sheriff failed
to supervise the deputies. The court held that summary judgment was precluded by genuine issues of material

1.154
1.
154

fact as to whether the force used by the sheriff's deputies against the inmate was necessary. According to the
court, the sheriff's deputies were not entitled to qualified immunity from the inmate's Eighth Amendment
excessive force claim because it was clearly established at the time of the alleged excessive force that prison
officials could not maliciously and sadistically inflict injury for the very purpose of causing harm. (Oklahoma
County Detention Center, Oklahoma)
U.S. Appeals Court
LEGAL MAIL

Al-Amin v. Smith, 511 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2008). A state prison inmate brought a § 1983 action against
state corrections officials, alleging that the officials repeatedly opened his privileged attorney mail outside of
his presence in violation of his rights to access to the courts and free speech. The district court denied the
officials’ motion for summary judgment and the officials appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part and
reversed in part. The appeals court held that the prisoner’s constitutional right of access to the courts requires
that incoming legal mail may be opened only in the inmate's presence and only to inspect for contraband.
According to the court, the inmate’s right to have properly marked incoming attorney mail opened only in his
presence was clearly established. The court found that the lack of showing of actual injury precluded
recovery on the right-of-access claim. The court held that the inmate had a free speech right to communicate
with his attorneys separate from his right of access to the courts and that the pattern and practice of opening
the prisoner's attorney mail outside his presence impinges on his freedom of speech. The court noted that
actual injury is not required for the prisoner to state a free speech claim arising from the opening of attorney
mail and that the First Amendment prohibition against opening the inmate's attorney mail outside his presence
was clearly established. (Georgia State Prison)

U.S. District Court
EXPERT WITNESS

Antoine v. County of Sacramento, 566 F.Supp.2d 1045 (E.D.Cal. 2008). A pretrial detainee brought a civil
rights action against corrections officers based upon the officers' use of a “grating” restraint practice. After a
jury verdict in favor of the detainees, the officers moved for a new trial. The district court granted the motion
in part and denied in part. The court held that it was proper to permit an expert witness to express his
opinions regarding the propriety of the “grating” practice in the context of whether the officers' decision to
employ that practice rather than the “prostraint” restraining chair was appropriate. The court found that the
compensatory damages instruction given in the detainee's civil rights action was in error since it permitted the
jury to believe that it could award an unlimited amount of non-compensatory damages to compensate the
plaintiff for the abstract “value” of his constitutional rights. According to the court, the use of the term
“constitutional injuries”--combined with the instruction allowing the jury to award nominal damages, and the
omission of the $1.00 limit--invited the jury to award an unlimited amount of damages based on the
importance of the plaintiff's constitutional rights in lieu of awarding compensatory damages. The jury
awarded the detainee $20,000 in compensatory damages as well as $25,000 in punitive damages against each
of four defendants, and $50,000 against one defendant. (Sacramento County, California)

U.S. District Court
LEGAL MATERIAL
PHOTOCOPYING
POSTAGE

Atwell v. Lavan, 557 F.Supp.2d 532 (M.D.Pa. 2008). A state inmate brought a pro se § 1983 action against
prison employees, probation and parole board members and medical personnel, alleging he was denied access
to courts in violation of the First Amendment. The district court held that the inmate’s allegation that he was
denied access to court because he was not provided with free photocopies and postage failed to state a claim
under the First Amendment. The court noted that the copying service at the prison was not tantamount to an
adequate law library, the inmate did not show he was actually injured in any of his cases with respect to not
having adequate copies, and the inmate could have filed handwritten copies of his documents. The court
found that the allegation that the inmate was denied access to the courts because he was denied access to
stored legal material failed to state a claim under the First Amendment. The court noted that the inmate was
allowed access to his stored materials in exchange for a like number of items from his cell, and prison staff did
not care which of the inmate's items were in his cell as long as he kept within the allowed limit of items. (State
Correctional Institution at Dallas, Pennsylvania)

U.S. Appeals Court
APPOINTED ATTORNEY

Barnes v. Black, 544 F.3d 807 (7th Cir. 2008). A state prisoner petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus to order
a prison warden to have him transported to the district court where his personal injury suit was pending. The
district court denied the petition and denied the prisoner's request for a lawyer. The prisoner appealed. The
appeals court dismissed the action. The court held that the district court's order denying the state prisoner's
request for a lawyer to represent him in his personal injury lawsuit and in his habeas petition were non-final
and therefore the appeals court did not have jurisdiction. (Wisconsin)

U.S. Appeals Court
ATTENDANCE-COURT

Briscoe v. Klaus, 538 F.3d 252 (3rd Cir. 2008). A state prison inmate brought a § 1983 Eighth Amendment
action against corrections officers and a prison nurse, alleging the use of excessive force and failure to provide
needed medical treatment. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants as to some claims,
and subsequently dismissed the remaining claims for failure to prosecute, following the inmate's failure to
appear at a final pretrial conference. The inmate appealed. The appeals court vacated and remanded, finding
that there was insufficient evidence to support the district court's finding that the inmate had refused to attend
the pretrial conference, its finding of prejudice from the inmate's failure to appear, and the finding of
willfulness or bad faith. The appeals court ruled that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the
action without affording the inmate the opportunity to be heard. The appeals court criticized the district court
for assuming the truth of prison officials' assertion that the prisoner had refused to attend the pretrial
conference, without hearing from the prisoner or seeking his explanation. (State Correctional Institution at
Camp Hill, State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)

U.S. Appeals Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act
EXHAUSTION

Bryant v. Rich, 530 F.3d 1368 (11th Cir. 2008). State inmates brought § 1983 suits against prison officials,
claiming that they had been beaten. The district court dismissed the complaints without prejudice. The
inmates appealed. The appeals court affirmed. The court held that the district judge properly acted as a fact
finder in resolving, on motions to dismiss, a factual dispute as to whether an inmate had exhausted

XXII

1.155
1.
155

administrative remedies as required by PLRA. The court found that in dismissing a state inmate's § 1983 suit
for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the district court did not clearly err in finding that the inmate's
allegation that he was denied access to grievance forms at a prison was not credible, especially given the
unrebutted evidence that he successfully filed a grievance there, although it was one for property loss.
According to the court, a state inmate's untimely appeal of a warden's denial of his grievance did not satisfy
the PLRA exhaustion requirement for him to pursue a § 1983 claim. The court found that, despite an inmate's
contention that he failed to report an incident of prison abuse because he feared additional violent reprisals by
prison officials, the inmate failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, as required by PLRA for him to
pursue a § 1983 claim. The court noted that the inmate was later transferred to another prison where the
threat of violence was removed and he could have filed an out-of-time grievance and then shown good cause
for its untimeliness. (Rogers State Prison, Georgia)
U.S. District Court
NOTARY

Carmon v. Duveal, 554 F.Supp.2d 281 (D.Conn. 2008). A state inmate brought a § 1983 action against
several prison officials, alleging various violations of his constitutional rights. The court held that absent any
showing that he was actually injured by a prison counselor's refusal to notarize certain court documents, the
inmate was not deprived of his constitutional right of access to the courts. According to the court, although the
counselor's refusal to notarize the papers was due to the inmate's failure to submit necessary documentation,
the inmate did not thereafter submit such documentation, he did not allege that the request for documentation
was improper, and he did not show how the lack of notarization hindered his efforts to pursue his legal
claims. The court found that the prolonged period of segregation might implicate a protected liberty interest.
(Cheshire Correctional Institution, Connecticut)

U.S. District Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Cockcroft v. Kirkland, 548 F.Supp.2d 767 (N.D.Cal. 2008). A state inmate brought a pro se § 1983 action
against prison officials, alleging Eighth Amendment violations related to toilet and cleaning supply problems.
The district court dismissed the action in part. The court held that the defendants were not entitled to qualified
immunity from claims that they refused to give the inmate adequate supplies and tools to sanitize his toilet in
response to a widespread backflushing toilet problem caused by a design defect, in which sewage would rise
up in the toilet of a cell when the toilet in an adjoining cell was flushed. According to the court, the officials'
conduct, as alleged, violated the prisoner's clearly established rights under the Eighth Amendment to a
minimum level of cleanliness and sanitation. The court found that the official was not entitled to qualified
immunity from the state prisoner's § 1983 claim that the official was deliberately indifferent to his safety. The
court held that the prisoner's § 1983 claim that a prison official was deliberately indifferent to his safety, in
violation of the Eighth Amendment, was not barred by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) provision
that a prisoner may not bring an action for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a
prior showing of physical injury, even though the prisoner never suffered any physical injury as a result of the
official's alleged acts. The prisoner alleged that the official disclosed to three other inmates that they had been
placed on his enemy list at his request, and that this caused him to be considered an informant, which in turn
caused him to place nine more inmates on his enemy list. (Pelican Bay State Prison, California)

U.S. Appeals Court
EXHAUSTION
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Cohen v. Corrections Corp. of America, 588 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2008). A federal prisoner filed a pro se § 1983
action, claiming that a private prison and corrections personnel failed to accommodate the practice of his
religion of Judaism by not providing kosher food. The district court dismissed the action for failure to exhaust
under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The prisoner petitioned for a writ of certiorari. The United
States Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the decision, and remanded based on intervening law. On
remand, the prisoner filed a supplemental brief. The appeals court reversed and remanded, finding that PLRA
did not require exhaustion prior to filing complaint. The court noted that a new decision by the U.S. Supreme
Court held that under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a prisoner is not required to specifically plead or
demonstrate exhaustion in his complaint. The Court further held that “exhaustion is not per se inadequate
simply because an individual later sued was not named in the grievance.” The Supreme Court found that the
appeals court imposition of the prerequisite to properly exhaust a claim prior to filing a complaint was
“unwarranted.” (Corrections Corporation of America, Northeast Ohio Correctional Center.)

U.S. District Court
LEGAL MATERIAL
PHOTOCOPYING
RETALIATION FOR
LEGAL ACTION

Collins v. Goord, 581 F.Supp.2d 563 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). An inmate brought a pro se § 1983 action against a
commissioner of a state corrections department and a correctional facility's superintendent, law library
administrator, and law library supervisors, asserting claims for denial of access to the courts, deprivation of
property without due process, and retaliation for the exercise of constitutionally protected rights. The court
held that summary judgment was precluded by factual issues on the inmate's claim alleging denial of his right
of access to the courts. The court found that there was no evidence that the administrator or a second
supervisor received or denied the inmate's requests for photocopying, as required to establish a claim against
them for denial of the inmate's right of access to the courts. The court found that factual issues existed as to
whether denial of the inmate's request for an advance for the purchase of photocopying frustrated his pursuit
of a non-frivolous legal claim in his state-court litigation. According to the court, material issues of fact existed
as to whether the law library supervisor acted deliberately and maliciously in denying the inmate's requests for
an advance for the purchase of photocopying to make copies of an order to show cause that he was to serve in
connection with state-court litigation, after the inmate established that the copies were required by the court
and that the documents could not be replicated in longhand. The court also found fact issues as to whether a
supervisor acted as a decision-maker with respect to the inmate's request for an advance. (Fishkill Correctional
Facility, New York)
Craft v. County of San Bernardino, 624 F.Supp.2d 1113 (C.D.Cal. 2008). County jail inmates brought a
class action alleging that a county's practice of routinely strip-searching inmates without probable cause or
reasonable suspicion that the inmates were in possession of weapons or drugs violated the Fourth
Amendment. After the court granted the inmates’ motion for partial summary judgment, the parties entered
into private mediation and reached a settlement agreement providing for, among other things, a class fund

U.S. District Court
ATTORNEY FEE

XXII

1.156
1.
156

award of $25,648,204. The inmates moved for the award of attorney's fees and costs. The district court held
that class counsel were entitled to an attorney's fees award in the amount of 25% of the settlement fund plus
costs. The court noted that counsel obtained excellent pecuniary and nonpecuniary results in a complex and
risky case involving 150,000 class members, 20,000 claims, and five certified classes, each of which
presented unsettled legal issues. According to the court, tens or hundreds of thousands of future inmates
benefited from policy changes brought about by the suit, and the attorneys were highly experienced and
highly regarded civil rights lawyers with extensive class action experience. (San Bernardino County Jail,
California)
U.S. District Court
RESTRAINTS
SEARCHES
TRANSPORTATION

Davis v. Peters, 566 F.Supp.2d 790 (N.D.Ill. 2008). A detainee who was civilly committed pursuant to the
Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act sued the current and former facility directors of the Illinois
Department of Human Services' (DHS) Treatment and Detention Facility (TDF), where the detainee was
housed, as well as two former DHS Secretaries, and the current DHS Secretary. The detainee claimed that the
conditions of his confinement violated his constitutional rights to equal protection and substantive due
process. After a bench trial, the district court held that: (1) the practice of searching the detainee prior to his
visits with guests and attorneys violated his substantive due process rights; (2) the practice of using a “blackbox” restraint system on all of the detainee's trips to and from court over a 15-month period violated his
substantive due process rights; (3) requiring the detainee to sleep in a room illuminated by a night light did
not violate the detainee's substantive due process rights; (4) a former director was not protected by qualified
immunity from liability for the constitutional violations; and (5) the detainee would be awarded compensatory
damages in the amount of $30 for each hour he wore the black box in violation of his rights. The court found
that a 21-day lockdown following an attempt at organized resistance by a large number of detainees at the
facility, shortly after the breakout of several incidents of violence, was not outside the bounds of professional
judgment for the purposes of a substantive due process claim asserted by the detainee. The court noted that
strip searches of a detainee prior to his court appearances and upon his return to the institution did not violate
substantive due process, where detainees were far more likely to engage in successful escapes if they could
carry concealed items during their travel to court, and searches upon their return were closely connected with
the goal of keeping contraband out of the facility. The court held that the practice of conducting strip searches
of the detainee prior to his visits with guests and attorneys was not within the bounds of professional
judgment, and thus, violated the detainee's substantive due process rights, where the only motivation for such
searches appeared to be a concern that a detainee would bring a weapon into the meeting, and most weapons
should have been detectable through a pat-down search. (Treatment and Detention Facility, Illinois)

U.S. District Court
LAW LIBRARY

Decker v. Dunbar, 633 F.Supp.2d 317 (E.D.Tex. 2008). Affirmed 358 Fed.Appx. 509. An inmate filed a pro
se § 1983 action against prison officials, asserting Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, among other
constitutional claims. The officials moved for summary judgment and the district court granted the motion.
The court held that the inmate failed to demonstrate that his alleged lack of access to the prison's law library
resulted in dismissal of his multiple previously filed criminal appeals and civil cases, and thus the inmate
failed to establish an actual injury, as required to prevail on the claim that he was denied access to court.
(Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division)

U.S. District Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Dolberry v. Levine, 567 F.Supp.2d 413 (W.D.N.Y. 2008). A prisoner brought a § 1983 action against prison
officials asserting his constitutional rights were violated in a number of ways. Both parties moved for
summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants in part and denied in part. The
court held that denial of showers and cleaning supplies for several weeks did not give rise to a violation under
the Eighth Amendment. The court found that a skin rash suffered by the prisoner, allegedly due to the lack of
showers, was a de minimis injury insufficient to satisfy the “physical injury” requirement for a prisoner
bringing a civil action for a mental or emotional injury under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).
(Wyoming Correctional Facility, New York)

U.S. District Court
ADA-Americans With
Disabilities Act
TELEPHONE

Douglas v. Gusman, 567 F.Supp.2d 877 (E.D.La. 2008). A deaf prisoner brought a civil rights suit alleging
violation of his equal protection rights, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Eighth
Amendment as the result of his limited access to a telephone typewriter (TTY) device for phone calls, lack of
access to closed captioning for television, and verbal abuse from officers. The district court dismissed the
action. The court held that the prisoner’s civil rights claims arising from denial of full access to a telephone
typewriter (TTY) and denial of closed captioning on a television in a parish prison accrued each time he was
denied access to a TTY or captioning or was threatened or assaulted for requesting access. The court found
that the differential treatment permitting other inmates unlimited telephone access, while permitting the deaf
inmate only limited access, did not violate the deaf inmate's equal protection rights where the deaf inmate,
who required the use of telephone typewriter (TTY) device for the deaf in a separate office, failed to show that
limited access burdened a fundamental right. The court found that the deaf prisoner was not similarly situated
to hearing inmates who could use inmate telephones, as required to support an equal protection claim based
on failure to afford him the same access that hearing inmates received to the phone system. The court
concluded that the limited access provided to the deaf prisoner was rationally related to legitimate security
interests of the prison, where a deputy was required to escort the prisoner outside his housing area each time
the prisoner used the phone, precluding the claim that he was denied equal protection based on the greater
phone privileges afforded to hearing inmates who had access to phones in the housing tier. The court held that
failure to provide a telephone typewriter (TTY) device on the deaf prisoner's housing tier, while providing
unlimited access to phones to other prisoners, did not discriminate against the disabled inmate in violation of
Title II of the ADA. According to the court, allowing the prisoner twice daily use of a TTY device on a prison
facility phone outside the housing tier was meaningful access, and lack of a TTY in the housing tier affected
disabled persons in general, precluding a finding of specific discrimination against the inmate in particular.
The court held that alleged verbal abuse from correctional officers when the deaf prisoner complained about

XXII

1.157
1.
157

the lack of a telephone typewriter (TTY) was too trivial to rise to the level of a violation of the Eighth
Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. (Orleans Parish Prison, Louisiana)
U.S. Appeals Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Douglas v. Yates, 535 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2008). A prisoner brought a § 1983 action against prison officials
alleging his Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated. The district court dismissed the
complaint and the prisoner appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The
appeals court held that the district court had the authority under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) to
dismiss without prejudice the prisoner's § 1983 complaint against prison officials requesting damages for
emotional injury, where the complaint disclosed that the prisoner was requesting damages for emotional injury
without a prior showing of a physical injury. The court found that the prisoner's allegations that his family had
informed a prison supervisor of ongoing misconduct by the supervisor's subordinates, and that the supervisor
failed to stop the misconduct, supported the prisoner's § 1983 claim of retaliation against the supervisor.
According to the court, the allegations allowed a reasonable inference that the supervisor knew that the
subordinates would continue to engage in the unconstitutional misconduct but failed to stop them from doing
so. (Bay Correctional Facility, Florida)

U.S. Appeals Court
EXPERT WITNESS

Fegans v. Norris, 537 F.3d 897 (8th Cir. 2008). A state inmate sued prison officials, alleging that they violated
the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), as well as his free exercise and equal
protection rights, by enforcing a grooming policy and denying him Kosher meals. The district court entered
judgment for the inmate with respect to the Kosher meals, but entered judgment for the prison officials with
respect to the grooming policy. The inmate appealed. The appeals court affirmed. The court noted that the
district court's finding that the corrections department director's expert testimony that male inmates presented
greater security risks than female inmates was credible, and was not clearly erroneous. (East Arkansas
Regional Unit of the Arkansas Department of Corrections)

U.S. Appeals Court
EXPERT WITNESS

Ford v. County of Grand Traverse, 535 F.3d 483 (6th Cir. 2008). A state inmate brought a § 1983 action
against jail officials and the county claiming, among other things, that the county's policy or custom regarding
the provision of medical care at the jail on weekends reflected deliberate indifference to her medical needs and
caused injuries resulting from a fall from the top bunk in her cell when she had a seizure. After a jury found
against the county, the district court denied the county's motions for judgment as a matter of law. The county
appealed. The appeals court affirmed, finding that sufficient evidence existed for reasonable minds to find a
direct causal link between county's policy of permitting jail officials to “contact” medical staff simply by
leaving a medical form in the nurse's inbox, even though a nurse might not see the notice for 48 hours, and the
alleged denial of the inmate's right to adequate medical care, allegedly leading to the inmate suffering a seizure
and falling from a top bunk. According to the court, the deposition testimony of a doctor provided a basis for
finding that the inmate would not have suffered a seizure had she been given medication within a few hours of
her arrival at the jail. The inmate, a self-described recovering alcoholic who also suffers from epilepsy, was
arrested on a probation violation and taken to the jail. That afternoon, she had a seizure, fell from the top
bunk of a bed in her cell, and sustained significant injuries to her right hip and right clavicle. Her case
proceeded to trial and the jury found that none of the jail officials were deliberately indifferent to her serious
medical needs, but determined that the county's policy regarding weekend medical care exhibited deliberate
indifference to, and was the proximate cause of, her injuries. The jury awarded her $214,000 in damages.
(Grand Traverse County Jail, Michigan)

U.S. District Court
LEGAL MAIL
LEGAL MATERIAL

Frazier v. Diguglielmo, 640 F.Supp.2d 593 (E.D.Pa. 2008). A prisoner brought an action against several
prison officers and supervisors, alleging that the defendants violated his rights by interfering with his mail and
seizing legal materials from his cell. The defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The district
court granted the motion in part and denied in part. The court held that the prisoner's bare allegation, that
prison officials' seizure of a writ of coram nobis “obstructed” his right to “petition the government for redress
of grievances,” was insufficient to allege the infringement of an exercise of a First Amendment right of access
to the courts to secure judicial relief, as required to state a claim for violation of the right of access. The court
noted that the prisoner did not describe the contents of the writ or the judgment he sought to challenge, nor
did the prisoner allege or even allude to any prejudice in any legal action caused by the writ's confiscation.
The court found that the prisoner's allegation that prison officials seized legal documents relating to his
criminal and habeas cases was insufficient to state a claim for violation of First Amendment right of access to
the courts, absent an allegation that the alleged seizure caused him prejudice in a legal challenge to his
conviction or to his conditions of confinement. (State Correctional Institution at Graterford, Pennsylvania)

U.S. Appeals Court
RECORDS
FOIA- Freedom of
Information Act

Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298 (4th Cir. 2008). A state prisoner brought a § 1983 action against the
director of a state Department of Corrections challenging the constitutionality of the statutory exclusion of
prisoners from making requests for public records under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (VFOIA).
The district court dismissed the action and the prisoner appealed. The appeals court affirmed, finding that the
allegations were insufficient to state a claim for facial violation of the equal protection clause and were
insufficient to state a claim for an “as-applied” violation of the equal protection clause. According to the court,
denial of the prisoner's request for records did not violate his right to access the courts. (Red Onion State
Prison, Virginia)

U.S. Appeals Court
EXHAUSTION
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Grinter v. Knight, 532 F.3d 567 (6th Cir. 2008). A state prisoner, proceeding pro se, brought §§ 1981 and
1983 actions against prison officials, alleging violations of his right to due process, right to equal protection,
and Eighth Amendment rights. The district court dismissed the action and the prisoner appealed. The appeals
court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court held that the prisoner had no due process liberty interest
in freedom from use of four-point restraints or in having a prison nurse arrive before corrections officers
placed the prisoner in the restraints. The court found that the prisoner's Eighth Amendment § 1983 claims for

XXII

1.158
1.
158

excessive force and equal protection race discrimination could not be dismissed under the Prison Litigation
Reform Act (PLRA) at the screening stage for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. According to the
court, if a prisoner's complaint contains claims that are administratively exhausted and claims that are not
exhausted, the district court should proceed with the exhausted claims while dismissing the claims that are not
exhausted and should not dismiss the complaint in its entirety. (Kentucky State Penitentiary)
U.S. Appeals Court
EXPERT WITNESS

Hannah v. U.S., 523 F.3d 597 (5th Cir. 2008). A federal prisoner filed a pro se complaint under the Federal
Tort Claims Act (FTCA) against the United States and others involved in the medical treatment that he
received while suffering from Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureas (MRSA), a sinus infection. After
the prisoner's untimely motion for appointment of an expert witness was denied, the United States moved for
summary judgment. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the lawsuit. The prisoner appealed.
The appeals court affirmed. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to
appoint an expert witness, and that under Texas law, the prisoner was required to present expert testimony to
establish the applicable standard of care with respect to the treatment of MRSA and to show how the care he
received breached that standard. According to the court, his failure to designate or hire an expert to testify on
his behalf entitled the United States to judgment as a matter of law. (Federal Medical Center, Fort Worth,
Texas)

U.S. Appeals Court
JAIL HOUSE LAWYERS
LEGAL MATERIAL
RETALIATION
TRANSFER

Hannon v. Beard, 524 F.3d 275 (1st Cir. 2008). A prisoner who was formerly incarcerated in Pennsylvania
and transferred to Massachusetts brought an action against the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections, alleging that he was transferred out-of-state in retaliation for prior lawsuits. The previous
lawsuits were against a Pennsylvania prison librarian, who allegedly denied his requests for legal materials,
and against numerous Massachusetts prison officials. The district court dismissed the action and the prisoner
appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings
regarding the Secretary of the Department of Corrections. The court held that the conduct by the Secretary of
the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, in authorizing, directing, and arranging the Pennsylvania
prisoner's transfer from a Pennsylvania prison to a Massachusetts prison, pursuant to an Interstate Corrections
Compact, was sufficient to constitute the “transaction of business” in Massachusetts, as would support the
exercise of personal jurisdiction by the district court. The court found that the prison librarian's conduct in
responding to requests for legal materials by the prisoner incarcerated in Massachusetts was insufficient to
constitute the “transaction of business” in Massachusetts, within the meaning of the Massachusetts long-arm
statute. The court noted that the prisoner “…has been the quintessential ‘jailhouse lawyer,’ pursuing postconviction relief and filing numerous grievances and lawsuits on behalf of himself and other prisoners
challenging their conditions of confinement.” The prisoner estimated that he had represented “thousands” of
his fellow inmates in proceedings. He alleged that the Pennsylvania DOC grew tired of his lawsuits and
agitation and, in order to prevent him from filing more lawsuits and in retaliation for the actions he had
already taken, began a strategy of transferring him to out-of-state prisons. (Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections, Massachusetts Department of Corrections)

U.S. Appeals Court
LAW LIBRARY
LEGAL ASSISTANCE
RETALIATION

Hartsfield v. Nichols, 511 F.3d 826 (8th Cir. 2008). A state prisoner brought a § 1983 action against prison
officials alleging denial of access to courts and retaliatory discipline. The district court dismissed his access to
courts claim and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the retaliation claim. The prisoner
appealed. The appeals court affirmed. The court held that some evidence supported the disciplinary actions
taken against the prisoner and thus he failed to establish a § 1983 retaliatory discipline claim. The court noted
that a corrections officer filed reports of disciplinary violations against the prisoner for disruptive conduct,
verbal abuse, and making threats. An independent hearing officer found the prisoner guilty of the violations.
The court found that the prisoner failed to establish an actual injury necessary for an access to courts claim.
The prisoner alleged that officials intentionally denied him access to law books in the prison library and
adequate legal assistance from a prison attorney. The court noted that the prisoner only roughly and generally
alleged that he was prevented from filing. The prisoner alleged that he did not know what arguments to make
not that he was actually prevented from filing a complaint or that a filed complaint was dismissed for lack of
legal adequacy. The court found the prisoner’s claim that any complaint he would have filed would have been
insufficient was speculative. (Iowa State Penitentiary)

U.S. Appeals Court
APPOINTED ATTORNEY

Jackson v. Kotter, 541 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2008). A prisoner brought an action against federal prison
employees and the federal government, alleging negligence under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and
constitutional claims pursuant to Bivens. The district court dismissed the action and the prisoner appealed.
The appeals court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. The court held that a Physician's
Assistant (PA) in the prison did not act with deliberate indifference toward the prisoner in response to an
alleged back injury suffered by the prisoner after being escorted out of his cell for a strip search. According to
the court, the PA saw the prisoner shortly after his alleged injuries and ordered an x-ray, personally observed
the prisoner's condition and took into consideration prior x-rays of his spine, and afforded some of the pain
treatment that the prisoner demanded. The court found that the district court's decision not to recruit counsel
for the prisoner was reasonable, and thus not an abuse of discretion. The court noted that the case was not
overly difficult, the prisoner's submissions were coherent and organized as were his requests for documents
and interrogatories, the prisoner was able to testify about his own injuries and he successfully secured medical
records that were not overly complex, and the prisoner was able to take direct testimony from several
witnesses and conducted cross-examination. (United States Penitentiary, Terre Haute, Indiana)

U.S. District Court
EXHAUSTION
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Jacobs v. Wilkinson, 529 F.Supp.2d 804 (N.D.Ohio 2008). An inmate brought a § 1983 suit, claiming
constitutional violations arising from prison officials' forcing him to shave his beard in contravention of his
religious beliefs. The inmate also alleged denial of proper medical work restrictions. The district court
dismissed the suit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform

XXII

1.159
1.
159

Act (PLRA). The inmate moved to reopen, and to consolidate his complaint and the court's prior screening
order. The court held that a Supreme Court decision holding that courts should not dismiss prisoner
complaints under the PLRA in their entirety when the prisoner presents both exhausted and unexhausted
claims did not apply retroactively to the inmate's case. (Mansfield Correctional Institution, Ohio)
U.S. District Court
EXHAUSTION
PLRA-Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Jensen v. Knowles, 621 F.Supp.2d 921 (E.D.Cal. 2008). A state prisoner brought a pro se § 1983 action
against prison officials, claiming deprivation of his Eighth Amendment rights by allegedly denying the
prisoner a medically necessary diabetic diet and forcing him to reside in a cell with a prisoner who smoked,
and deprivation of his First Amendment rights by the alleged confiscation of the prisoner's Bible and Christian
doctrine books. The district dismissed the action on the grounds that the prisoner was not entitled to in forma
pauperis (IFP) status, under the three strikes rule. The appeals court reversed and remanded. On remand, the
defendants moved to dismiss, and the prisoner moved to re-serve a correctional officer. The district court
granted the defendants’ motions in part and denied in part, and granted the plaintiff’s motion. The court held
that the prisoner's claim that he was deprived of his First Amendment rights due to the confiscation of his
Bibles and Christian doctrine books by prison officials was precluded on exhaustion grounds, under the
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), even though the prisoner exhausted his claim, where the prisoner filed
suit two days before the prison grievance process itself was exhausted. The court found that the prisoner's
claim that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated, due to exposure to second-hand smoke by his forced
housing with a prisoner who smoked and due to prison officials' failure to issue a medical order prohibiting
his housing with a smoker, satisfied the exhaustion requirements by completing the grievance process, as
required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). (Mule Creek State Prison, California)

U.S. District Court
SEARCHES

Johnson v. Government of District of Columbia, 584 F.Supp.2d 83 (D.D.C. 2008). Female former arrestees
filed a class action against the District of Columbia and a former United States Marshal for the Superior Court
of District of Columbia, under § 1983, claiming violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The arrestees
alleged that the marshal strip searched all females awaiting presentment to a superior court judge, without
reasonable and particularized suspicion that any female was carrying contraband on her person and without
strip searching any male arrestees. The District of Columbia moved for summary judgment and the district
court granted the motion. The court held that the former United States Marshal for the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia was a federal official who was not amenable to suit, under § 1983, as an employee,
servant, agent, or actor under the control of the District of Columbia, precluding the female former arrestees'
class action. The court noted that the marshal was empowered to act under the color of the federal Anti-Drug
Abuse Act, and a District of Columbia law provided that the marshal acted under the supervision of the
United States Attorney General. According to the court, the District of Columbia lacked authority to control
the conduct of the former United States Marshal, precluding the female former arrestees' class action under §
1983. The arrestees were held for presentment for an offense that did not involve drugs or violence, but they
were subjected to a blanket policy of a strip, visual body cavity search and/or squat search without any
individualized finding of reasonable suspicion or probable cause that they were concealing drugs, weapons or
other contraband. (District of Columbia, Superior Court Cellblock)

U.S. District Court
PHOTOCOPIES
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act
POSTAGE

Johnson v. Ozmint, 567 F.Supp.2d 806 (D.S.C. 2008). A state prison inmate brought a state court § 1983
action against the director of a state's department of corrections, alleging improper debiting of his trust
account to pay for legal copies and postage, improper classification, improper conditions of confinement, and
denial of rehabilitative opportunities. The director removed the action to federal court. The district court
granted summary judgment for the director and remanded. The court held that the inmate's written requests to
prison staff, and correspondence addressing issues of prison conditions, did not satisfy the Prison Litigation
Reform Act's (PLRA) administrative exhaustion requirement, so as to permit the inmate's § 1983 action
involving the same prison conditions to go forward. According to the court, the inmate's filing of grievances,
after commencing the § 1983 action, could not satisfy the PLRA administrative exhaustion requirement with
respect to claims made in the § 1983 suit. (South Carolina Department of Corrections)

U.S. District Court
PLRA- PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT

Johnston v. Maha, 584 F.Supp.2d 612 (W.D.N.Y. 2008). A pretrial detainee brought an action against
employees of a county jail, alleging violations of his constitutional rights under § 1983 and violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The defendants moved for summary judgment and the district court
granted the motion. The court held that the inmate failed to exhaust administrative remedies for the purposes
of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) as to some of his § 1983 and Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) claims against employees of the county jail, where the inmate either did not pursue appeals at all, or
did not pursue appeals to the final step. The court held that evidence was insufficient to show that medical
staff at the county jail acted with deliberate indifferent to the inmate's medical needs as to requested dental
care, as required to support his § 1983 claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court noted that
although the inmate had to wait two months to see a dentist, the dentist filled the inmate's cavities and took xrays related to that treatment. (Genesee County Jail, New York)

U.S. District Court
LAW LIBRARY
LEGAL MATERIAL
RIGHT TO COUNSEL

Jones v. Lexington County Detention Center, 586 F.Supp.2d 444 (D.S.C. 2008). A pretrial detainee brought
a pro se civil rights action against a county detention center and sheriff, alleging his inability to have access to
legal research materials violated his constitutional rights. The district court dismissed the case. The court held
that the detainee did not have a constitutional right of access to a law library while being temporarily held in a
county detention facility awaiting trial on criminal charges, where the detainee did not allege that he had been
incarcerated for too long and was not pursuing any speedy trial claims. The court noted that a state is only
required to provide criminal defendants legal counsel, not legal research materials. According to the court, the
detainee's lack of access to a law library while being temporarily held in a county detention facility was not an
“actual injury,” as required to confer standing for the detainee to allege a deprivation of a constitutional right
of access to the courts. (Lexington County Detention Center, South Carolina)

XXII

1.160
1.
160

U.S. Appeals Court
ACCESS TO COURT
DUE PROCESS
STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS

Laurence v. Wall, 551 F.3d 92 (1st Cir. 2008). A pro se inmate brought a civil rights action against prison
employees. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to effect timely service of process. The
inmate appealed. The appeals court vacated and remanded. The court held that the inmate showed good cause
for failure to timely serve the defendants, where the trial court failed to direct the United States Marshal to
serve process for the inmate. (Adult Correctional Institution, Rhode Island)

U.S. District Court
TELECONFERENCE

Lunsford v. RBC Dain Rauscher, Inc., 590 F.Supp.2d 1153 (D.Minn. 2008). Prisoners brought a pro se suit
against a securities clearing house, brokerage firm, and brokerage firm employees, alleging a civil rights
conspiracy, due process, contract, and securities law violations in closing of their brokerage accounts.
Following arbitration of some prisoners' common law and securities law claims, the prisoners moved to vacate
the award. The defendants moved to confirm the award and to dismiss the remaining claims. The district court
granted the motion in part and denied in part. The court held that requiring the prisoners to testify
telephonically did not merit vacation of the award. The court noted that prisoners were not a protected class
and had no fundamental right to maintain securities brokerage accounts with private entities, as required to
support claims for a Fifth Amendment due process violation, civil rights conspiracy, and neglect to prevent
civil rights conspiracy. (RBC Dain Correspondent Services, Nations Financial Group, Inc., Federal Corr’l
Institute, Edgeville, South Carolina)

U.S. District Court
RETALIATION FOR
LEGAL ACTION

May v. Rich, 531 F.Supp.2d 998 (C.D.Ill. 2008). A state prisoner brought suit against a prison employee,
alleging civil rights claims for denial of access to the courts and retaliation for filing grievances and litigation.
Following a jury trial, the jury returned a general verdict in favor of the prisoner, awarding $2,388. The prison
employee moved for judgment as matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial. The district court granted
the motion, entering a judgment for the defendant as a matter of law. The court held that the prisoner did not
suffer an actual injury, as required for a denial of access claim. The court found that the employee did not
retaliate against the prisoner by filing a disciplinary report based on his possession of prison contraband. The
court noted that the employee had an absolute duty to file a disciplinary report against the prisoner for
possession of carbon paper, which was contraband in the prison system, such that reporting the prisoner
could not be deemed retaliation for the prisoner's exercise of First Amendment rights in filing civil rights suits.
(Pontiac Correctional Center, Illinois)

U.S. Appeals Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Mayfield v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, 529 F.3d 599 (5th Cir. 2008). A state prisoner, who practiced the
Odinist/Asatru faith, brought claims pursuant to § 1983 against a state criminal justice department and prison
officials, alleging First Amendment violations, as well as violations of the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary
judgment, and appeal was taken. The appeals court affirmed in part, vacated in part, reversed in part, and
remanded. The court held that the claims brought by the prisoner pursuant to the § 1983 action alleging First
Amendment violations and pursuant to RLUIPA seeking declaratory relief as well as a permanent injunction
against prison officials in their official capacity were not barred by sovereign immunity. The court found that
the prisoner's claims for compensatory damages against prison officials in their official capacity on claims
brought pursuant to § 1983 alleging First Amendment violations and RLUIPA violations were barred by the
provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) prohibiting actions for mental or emotional injury
suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury. (Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Hughes Unit)

U.S. Appeals Court
DUE PROCESS
STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS

McNair v. Allen, 515 F.3d 1168 (11th Cir. 2008). A death row inmate moved for a stay of his execution, on
the theory that the method of execution to which he was subject, death by lethal injection, violated his right to
be free from cruel and unusual punishment. The district court granted the motion to allow the inmate to
litigate his § 1983 claims and the defendants appealed. The appeals court vacated. The court held that the
two-year statute of limitations on the § 1983 claim brought by the inmate began to run when the inmate
became subject to the new execution protocol, not at the time of the inmate's execution or on the date that a
federal habeas review was completed. (Holman Correctional Facility, Alabama)

U.S. Appeals Court
FILING FEES
FRIVOLOUS SUITS
IN FORMA PAUPERIS
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091 (11th Cir. 2008). A paraplegic state inmate, a frequent litigant as a plaintiff
in the federal courts in Georgia, brought a pro se § 1983 action against the Commissioner of the Department
of Correction and various Department officials, asserting violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act, and seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). The district court
dismissed the complaint without prejudice as frivolous and enjoined the inmate from submitting further filings
with the court, except in limited circumstances, without first paying the unpaid filing fees that he had accrued.
The inmate appealed. The appeals court reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The court held that
the injunction against the inmate, which, with three narrow exceptions, prohibited him from filing any new
papers with the court under the “three strikes” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) until he
paid all accrued filing fees, was overbroad and exceeded the bounds of judicial discretion. The three
exceptions allowed the inmate to file new papers in response to criminal cases brought against him, to request
reconsideration, and to plead that he had been denied access to state court. The court noted that the inmate
had filed several suits alleging similar core facts, but held that a narrower injunction could have targeted the
filings arising from transactions already raised and litigated in earlier cases. The court found that the alleged
similarity between the allegations in the plaintiff's current complaint and those presented in his earlier lawsuits
did not provide grounds for dismissal of the complaint. (Georgia Department of Correction, Augusta State
Medical Prison)

U.S. Appeals Court
DUE PROCESS
FRIVOLOUS SUITS
LEGAL MATERIAL

Monroe v. Beard, 536 F.3d 198 (3rd Cir. 2008). Prisoners brought a § 1983 action against various prison
employees alleging their constitutional rights were violated when legal materials were confiscated. The district
court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and their motion for summary judgment. The prisoners
appealed. The appeals court affirmed. The court held that the prisoners failed to state a claim for denial of

XXII

1.161
1.
161

right of access to courts. The court held that the prisoners, claiming that prison officials confiscated all of their
legal materials including legal briefs and reference books, failed to state a claim for denial of right of access to
courts, absent specific facts demonstrating that underlying claims were non-frivolous or that underlying
claims could no longer be pursued as a result of the officials' actions. (State Correctional Institute at
Graterford, Pennsylvania)
U.S. District Court
TYPEWRITER

Nevada Dept of Corrections v. Cohen, 581 F.Supp.2d 1085 (D.Nev. 2008).The Nevada Department of
Corrections (DOC) brought an action against inmates, seeking declaratory judgment that its ban on the
personal possession of typewriters by inmates was constitutional. The DOC moved for summary judgment
and the district court granted the motion. The court held that the ban: (1) was reasonably related to legitimate
penological interests; (2) did not infringe upon inmates' right of access to courts; (3) reasonably advanced
legitimate correctional goals; and (4) was not an unconstitutional “taking” where the prison regulated property
that prisoners could legitimately possess while incarcerated and offered options to dispose of the property, and
prisoners were not deprived of all economically beneficial use of typewriters. The court noted that prison
officials had determined that possession of typewriters aided the ability of inmates to breach safety and
security due to the potential use of typewriter parts as weapons. According to the court, since inmates were
not required to file typewritten documents with courts, there was no evidence of actual injury or that the ban
would foreclose any meaningful opportunities for inmates to pursue arguable claims. (Nevada Department of
Corrections)

U.S. District Court
INITIAL APPEARANCE

Petaway v. City of New Haven Police Dept., 541 F.Supp.2d 504 (D.Conn. 2008). An arrestee brought a §
1983 action against a city, its police department, and individual officers, alleging that his constitutional rights
were violated when he was not arraigned within the time prescribed under state law. The court held that the
municipal police department was not subject to suit pursuant to § 1983 and that the arrestee was not falsely
imprisoned during the 29-day period between his arrest and arraignment. According to the court, the
Connecticut arraignment statute did not give rise to a due process liberty interest. The court noted that the
arrestee was lawfully in the custody of the Department of Corrections pursuant to a remand to custody order
for a separate parole violation during the 29 days prior to his arraignment. (New Haven Police Department,
New Haven Correctional Center, Connecticut)

U.S. Appeals Court
SLEEP
LAW BOOKS
JAILHOUSE LAWYERS

Pierce v. County of Orange, 519 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2008). Pretrial detainees in a county's jail facilities
brought a § 1983 class action suit against the county and its sheriff seeking relief for violations of their
constitutional and statutory rights. After consolidating the case with a prior case challenging jail conditions,
the district court rejected the detainees' claims and the detainees appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part,
reversed in part and remanded. The court held that the injunctive orders relating to the jail's reading materials,
mattresses and beds, law books, population caps, sleep, blankets, dayroom access (not less than two hours
each day), telephone access and communication with jailhouse lawyers were not necessary to correct current
ongoing violations of the pretrial detainees' constitutional rights. Inmates had alleged that they were denied the
opportunity for eight hours of uninterrupted sleep on the night before and the night after each court
appearance. The court affirmed termination of 12 of the injunctive orders, but found that the district court
erred in its finding that two orders were unnecessary. (Orange County, California)

U.S. District Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act
RETALIATION FOR
LEGAL ACTION

Piggie v. Riggle, 548 F.Supp.2d 652 (N.D.Ind. 2008). A prisoner brought a pro se action against a prison
official, alleging that she transferred him to another facility because he filed grievances and lawsuits against
prison staff. The district court denied summary judgment for the defendants. The court held that summary
judgment was precluded by fact issues as to whether: the official was personally involved in the transfer; the
asserted reasons for the transfer were pretextual; and the prisoner exhausted remedies under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). (Miami Correctional Facility, Pendleton Correctional Facility, Indiana)

U.S. District Court
LEGAL MATERIAL

Rollins v. Magnusson, 542 F.Supp.2d 114 (D.Me. 2008). An inmate sued multiple defendants, alleging they
were responsible for the confiscation of his legal briefs and research notes stored on prison-owned hard drives
and back-up diskettes, in violation of his right of access to the courts. The district court held that the alleged
confiscation did not impede his ability to litigate his appeal to such an extent that it impacted the outcome of
the appeal, as required for an “actual injury” supporting his claim that he was denied his right of access to the
courts. The court noted that his complaint was that he was having difficulty complying with deadlines because
of impaired vision/medical conditions, and while he may not have had as much access to his legal materials as
he wanted in the form he wanted, he was able to see his appeal through and obtain a ruling on the merits.
(Maine State Prison)

U.S. District Court
LAW LIBRARY

Shell v. Brun, 585 F.Supp.2d 465 (W.D.N.Y. 2008). An inmate brought a § 1983 action against the
employees of the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS), alleging various
constitutional violations. Following the dismissal of certain claims, the defendants moved for summary
judgment on access to courts and failure-to-protect claims. The district court granted the motion. The court
held that there was no evidence that a prison superintendent knew of the inmate's alleged problems with the
law library that allegedly caused him difficulties in prosecuting a proceeding challenging a disciplinary report.
According to the court, there was no evidence that any limitations on prison law library hours and book
withdrawals were unreasonable, made it more difficult for the inmate to prosecute a state administrative
proceeding challenging a misbehavior report, or that the outcome of the inmate's administrative proceeding
would have been different but for those policies. The court noted that prison officials may place reasonable
restrictions on inmates' use of facility law libraries, as long as those restrictions do not interfere with inmates'
access to the courts. (Attica Corr’l Facility, New York)

XXII

1.162
1.
162

U.S. Appeals Court
ACCESS TO ATTORNEY
TELEPHONE

Sherbrooke v. City of Pelican Rapids, 513 F.3d 809 (8th Cir. 2008). An arrestee sued a city and its police
officers alleging that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when officers recorded one side of his
conversation with his attorney. The district court entered summary judgment for the arrestee and the
defendants appealed. The appeals court reversed and remanded, finding that the recording of the conversation
with the attorney did not constitute a search. The court found that the police officers' recording of one side of
the suspect's conversation with his attorney, pursuant to a standard operating procedure of recording detainees
who were awaiting a blood alcohol content breath test, did not constitute a search inasmuch as the suspect
could not reasonably expect that the conversation was private. The court noted that officers were present
when the call was made in an open room at the police station and the suspect acknowledged that the recording
was “fine” with him. (City of Pelican Rapids, Minnesota)

U.S. District Court
ACCESS TO ATTORNEY
LEGAL MAIL
LEGAL MATERIAL

Shine v. Hofman, 548 F.Supp.2d 112 (D.Vt. 2008). A federal pretrial detainee in the custody of the Vermont
Department of Corrections brought a pro se action, alleging violation of his constitutional rights. The detainee
alleged that his mail was opened and returned to him, thereby impeding his ability to communicate with his
attorney, that his placement in close custody limited his ability to access legal materials, and that his
placement in segregation barred him from contacting his attorney and potential witnesses. The district court
dismissed in part. The court held that the inmate did not state a First Amendment claim for deprivation of
access to courts, absent an allegation of actual injury in connection with his challenge to his conviction or
sentence. (Vermont Department of Corrections)

U.S. District Court
TELEPHONE

Silas v. City of New York, 536 F.Supp.2d 353 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). An inmate sued a city and a city correctional
officer for violations of § 1983 in connection with a claim for the use of excessive force. The defendants
moved to enforce the terms of an oral settlement agreement, settling the matter for $1,500, that was made
during a court proceeding at which the plaintiff participated by telephone. The court held that the oral
agreement, made on the telephone by the inmate, was not made “in open court,” as required under New York
law to be enforceable. According to the court, the proceeding was entirely informal, and there was neither a
transcription nor any other form of contemporaneous documentation of the terms of the agreement. (Marcy
Correctional Facility, New York City Department of Corrections)

U.S. Appeals Court
PRO SE LITIGATION
VIDEO COMMUNICATION

Solis v. County of Los Angeles, 514 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2008). A state prisoner brought civil rights claims
against a prison guard and others alleging that the guard was deliberately indifferent to his rights in failing to
prevent an attack by other inmates. The district court entered summary judgment on some claims for the
defendants and judgment for the prison guard following a bench trial on the remaining claims. The prisoner
appealed. The appeals court reversed and remanded. The court held that the pro se prisoner was not given fair
notice of the requirements of responding to, or consequences of losing on, a summary judgment motion and
thus the entry of summary judgment against him was a reversible error. According to the court, the prisoner
did not, by participating in the district court's bench trial by videotape depositions, which was conducted
without the parties' presence, consent to the erroneous withdrawal of his prior jury demand. The court found
that the erroneous denial of the prisoner's right to a jury trial was not harmless, where a reasonable jury could
have found the prisoner's version of events more credible than the guard's and determined that the guard acted
with deliberate indifference in failing to protect the prisoner from an attack by other inmates. (Los Angeles
County, California)

U.S. District Court
ACCESS TO COUNSEL
CIVIL SUITS
LAW LIBRARY
LEGAL ASSISTANCE

Stanko v. Patton, 568 F.Supp.2d 1061 (D.Neb. 2008). A pretrial detainee brought two actions against jail
personnel alleging a number of constitutional violations. The district court granted summary judgment for the
defendants. The court noted that the detainee “…is a white supremacist. He is also a prolific pro se litigator
who makes a habit of suing jail and prison officials when he is charged with a crime. Those facts are central to
understanding these related civil cases.” The court held that the detainee's alleged belief in the Church of the
Creator and “White Man's Bible” was not protected and the jail had valid reasons for denying the detainee's
alleged religious dietary requests. The court found that the detainee was not denied his right of access to the
courts, notwithstanding his placement in segregation, where the detainee had been offered, and either
accepted or declined, counsel in both underlying criminal prosecutions. The court noted that the detainee was
provided with legal assistance and law library access, and the detainee was not substantially impeded
regarding his legal matters whether he was in segregation or otherwise. According to the court, the detainee
had no right to assistance from jail officials regarding his general civil litigation activities. The court held that
a charge of $65 to the detainee's account by county jail officials, as discipline for ripping pages from or
otherwise defacing several law books, did not violate due process, as the disciplinary procedures the detainee
underwent provided him with all the process he was due and because he had additional remedies in state court
if such procedures were insufficient. (Douglas County Correctional Center, Nebraska)
Tafari v. Hues, 539 F.Supp.2d 694 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). A state inmate brought a § 1983 action against
corrections officials, alleging mistreatment. The district court revoked the inmate's in forma pauperis (IFP)
status pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), and subsequently dismissed for failure to pay a
filing fee. The inmate appealed. The appeals court vacated and remanded and the defendants moved for
revocation of the inmate's IFP status. The district court denied the revocation motion, finding that partial
dismissal of the inmate's complaint in a prior action was not a strike under the three-strikes rule. (Eastern
Correctional Facility, New York)

U.S. District Court
FILING FEES
IN FORMA PAUPERIS
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

U.S. Appeals Court
ADA-Americans With
Disabilities Act

XXII

Tucker v. Tennessee, 539 F.3d 526 (6th Cir. 2008). Deaf and mute arrestees and their deaf mother sued a city
and county, alleging that denial of an interpreter or other reasonable accommodations during criminal
proceedings violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court granted the county's
motion for summary judgment and the plaintiffs appealed. The appeals court affirmed. The court held that the
county's use of the deaf mother's services as an interpreter during her deaf sons' dispositional hearing on
criminal charges did not violate Title II of the ADA, which prohibits discrimination in public services. The

1.163
1.
163

court noted that the mother voluntarily served as the interpreter and that her service was requested in light of
her sign language skills, not for any discriminatory purpose. The court found that the deaf and mute arrestees
were not denied a “service, program, or activity” when the city failed to provide an interpreter during a
domestic disturbance call which resulted in their arrest, and the city thus was not liable under ADA's Title II.
According to the court, the arrests were made not because the arrestees were disabled, but because the
arrestees assaulted police officers, individual citizens, or attempted to interfere with a lawful arrest. The court
concluded that the arresting officers were able to effectively communicate with the arrestees. The court held
that the county did not violate Title II of the ADA, which prohibits discrimination in public services, by using
relay operators to allow the deaf arrestees to communicate with their mother, rather than providing them with
a teletypewriter (TTY) telephone. Jailers assisted the arrestees in making their requested phone call by
utilizing relay operators, the phone call lasted nearly forty-five minutes, and the Department of Justice (DOJ)
provisions did not mandate the presence of a TTY telephone. (City of Savannah Police Department , Hardin
County Jail, Tennessee)
U.S. Appeals Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act
RETALIATION

Turner v. Burnside, 541 F.3d 1077 (11th Cir. 2008). A state prisoner brought a § 1983 action against various
officials and employees of the Georgia Department of Corrections (DOC), alleging that he was subjected to
cruel and unusual punishment and deliberately indifferent medical care. The district court dismissed the
action and the prisoner appealed. The appeals court vacated and remanded. The court held that the prisoner
was not required to file an additional grievance or seek leave to file an emergency or out-of-time grievance.
The court found that a prison official's serious threats of substantial retaliation against the prisoner for lodging
a grievance could make the administrative remedy “unavailable” for the purpose of the Prison Litigation
Reform Act (PLRA) exhaustion requirement, and the administrative remedy of filing an appeal would be
unavailable. (Men's State Prison, Hardwick, Georgia)

U.S. Appeals Court
LEGAL MATERIAL

U.S. v. Gabaldon, 522 F.3d 1121 (10th Cir. 2008). After a federal prisoner’s conviction for second-degree
murder and kidnapping resulting in death were affirmed, he moved for post conviction relief. The district
court dismissed the motion and the prisoner appealed. The appeals court vacated and remanded. The court
held that confiscation of the prisoner's legal materials constituted extraordinary circumstances, where the
prisoner exercised requisite due diligence by requesting the materials after they were seized. According to the
court, confiscation of the prisoner's legal materials upon his entry into disciplinary segregation, just six weeks
before the expiration of the limitations period on his post conviction relief claim, and the holding of such
materials until two weeks after the limitations period expired, constituted extraordinary circumstances for the
purposes of equitable tolling of the one-year limitations period on the prisoner's post conviction relief petition.
(New Mexico)

U.S. Appeals Court
ACCESS TO ATTORNEY
TELEPHONE

U.S. v. Novak, 531 F.3d 99 (1st Cir. 2008). In an attorney's prosecution for endeavoring to obstruct justice and
two counts of money laundering, he moved to suppress intercepted telephone calls with a prospective client,
made while that client was in pretrial detention. The district court granted the motion, and the government
appealed. The appeals court reversed. The court held that the Fourth Amendment was not violated by the jail's
monitoring of the detainee's telephone calls to his attorney. According to the court, a telephone call can be
monitored and recorded without violating the Fourth Amendment so long as one participant in the call
consents to the monitoring. By placing the calls after being informed that they would be monitored and
recorded, the detainee consented to such monitoring. The court decision begins by stating that “…the
government in this case brings an extraordinary appeal: It asks us to reverse a district court ruling barring
from evidence recordings of phone calls made between an attorney and his client. These calls were recorded in
clear violation of state and federal regulations.” The court noted that the attorney had not raised a Sixth
Amendment challenge, and for Fourth Amendment purposes, his client consented to the monitoring of his
calls. The court held that “On these narrow facts, we reverse the determination of the district court that the
calls must be excluded.” (Barnstable County Jail, Massachusetts)

U.S. Appeals Court
TELEPHONE

U.S. v. Verdin-Garcia, 516 F.3d 884 (10th Cir. 2008). A defendant was convicted in district court of multiple
crimes related to drug trafficking conspiracy and he appealed. The appeals court affirmed. The court held that
the defendant's consent to the recording of his prison phone calls could be implied from his decision to use the
prison telephone and therefore the voice exemplars used from prison recordings were admissible in trial. The
court noted that a prison employee testified that prominent signs next to the telephones proclaimed “all calls
may be recorded/monitored,” in both English and Spanish. The defendant underwent orientation at the prison
and received a handbook in his choice of English or Spanish which stated that all calls may be monitored.
When the defendant made phone calls, a recorded message prompted him to select English or Spanish and
then informed him in the language of his choice that all calls were subject to being monitored and recorded.
(Correctional Corp. of America (CCA), Leavenworth, Kansas)

U.S. Appeals Court
DUE PROCESS
VIDEO COMMUNICATION

Wilkins v. Timmerman-Cooper, 512 F.3d 768 (6th Cir. 2008). An offender convicted in state court of rape
filed a habeas petition challenging his parole revocation. The district court dismissed the petition and the
offender appealed. The appeals court affirmed. The court held that the state court's determination that the use
of videoconferencing technology for witness testimony at the parole revocation hearing did not violate the
offender’s right to confront witnesses and did not violate due process. The court found that the determination- that the use of videoconferencing was sufficiently similar to live testimony to permit the parolee to observe
and confront witnesses-- was not an unreasonable determination of the facts. The court noted that relevant
Supreme Court decisions recognized that parolees had fewer rights in parole revocation hearings than in
criminal trials and provided that conventional substitutes for live testimony were permitted at revocation
hearings. The court noted that videoconferencing provided the parolee with the ability to observe and respond
to the testimony of an accuser. The court commented that a videotape of the parole revocation hearing
demonstrated that the parolee and counsel observed, heard and questioned in real time the witnesses who

XXII

1.16
164
1.
16
4

testified via videoconferencing. (Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Southern Ohio
Correctional Facility)
2009
U.S. Appeals Court
LAW LIBRARY
RETALIATION

Bandy-Bey v. Crist, 578 F.3d 763 (8th Cir. 2009). A state prisoner brought a § 1983 action against prison
officials. The district court awarded summary judgment for the officials, and the prisoner appealed pro se. The
appeals court affirmed. The court held that the discipline imposed on the inmate for his alleged
misrepresentations about a prison official in an officer kite form, in stating that the officer insisted that the
inmate write his legal documents by hand, was not retaliatory. The court noted that the officer's directly
contradictory incident report provided “some evidence” to support the disciplinary action. According to the
court, the discipline imposed on the inmate for his alleged failure to follow an officer's direct order to go to
another officer's office was not retaliatory, where the undisputed evidence showed that the inmate failed to
follow the direct order. The court held that the inmate was not deprived of substantive due process, where he
was not deprived of access to the courts and was not subjected to retaliatory discipline, and the disciplinary
sanctions of 10 and 15 days' segregation imposed on him that prevented him from using the law library did
not impede his ability to pursue a non-frivolous claim or offend a protected liberty interest. (Minnesota
Correctional Facility in Lino Lakes, Minnesota)

U.S. Appeals Court
EXHAUSTION
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Boyd v. Driver, 579 F.3d 513 ((5th Cir. 2009). Following his acquittal on charges of assaulting prison
employees, a federal inmate filed a pro se Bivens action against numerous prison employees, alleging a
“malicious prosecution conspiracy.” The inmate alleged that prison employees committed perjury and
tampered with evidence in his prosecution for assaulting employees. The district court dismissed the action
and the inmate appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. The appeals
court held that the inmate was not required to exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to his claim in
his Bivens action, where the claim was not “about prison life” within the meaning of the exhaustion provision
of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). According to the court, the allegation by the inmate, that prison
employees committed perjury and tampered with evidence in conspiring to maliciously prosecute him for
assault, did not, without more, state any constitutional claim, as required to support a Bivens action. But the
court held that allegations that prison employees gave perjured testimony at the inmate's criminal trial and
destroyed and tampered with video evidence of the alleged assaults stated a claim for a due process violation,
sufficient to support his Bivens action. (Federal Correctional Institution Three Rivers, Texas)

U.S. Appeals Court
RETALIATION FOR
LEGAL ACTION

Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541 (7th Cir. 2009). A prisoner brought a § 1983 action against prison officials
alleging that they retaliated against him for providing an affidavit in a deceased inmate's mother's wrongful
death action, in violation of his First Amendment rights. The district court dismissed the complaint and the
prisoner appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court found that the prisoner
stated a claim for First Amendment retaliation, but failed to state a claim for denial of access to the courts.
According to the court, the prisoner stated a § 1983 claim for First Amendment retaliation by alleging that he
engaged in protected speech by filing an affidavit in the wrongful death action, that he suffered retaliation
through: delays in his incoming and outgoing mail; harassment by an officer kicking his cell door, turning his
cell light off an on, and opening his cell trap and slamming it shut in order to startle him; unjustified
disciplinary charges; and improper dismissal of his grievances. The prisoner alleged that he would not have
been harassed if he had not participated in the wrongful death action. The court found that the prisoner's
participation in filing the affidavit was not sufficiently connected to the deceased inmate's rights to allow the
prisoner to assert a denial of access retaliation claim based on his assistance to the deceased inmate.
(Wisconsin Secure Program Facility)

U.S. District Court
LEGAL MAIL

Covell v. Arpaio, 662 F.Supp.2d 1146 (D.Ariz. 2009). A prisoner brought a § 1983 action against a county
sheriff, alleging that the sheriff violated his First Amendment rights by instituting a policy that banned
incoming letters and restricted incoming mail to metered postcards. The prisoner alleged that the mail policy
prevented him from receiving legal mail from witnesses in his criminal case. The sheriff moved for summary
judgment and the district court granted the motion. The court held that the jail’s non-privileged mail policy
which banned incoming letters and restricted incoming mail to metered postcards was reasonably related to a
legitimate penological interest in reducing contraband smuggling. The court noted that alternative means,
including postcards, telephones, and jail visits, existed. According to the court, allowing stamped mails would
increase the likelihood of smuggling contraband into the jail, which would in turn lead to conflicts and
violence, and there was no evidence that the prisoner's suggested alternative, by having staff inspect each
piece of mail and remove the stamps, would accommodate the right at a de minimis cost to the jail. The court
held that even if correspondence from a witness on the prisoner's witness list was improperly excluded by the
county jail, in violation of the prisoner's right of access to the courts, the prisoner failed to allege any violation
of the policy that was at the direction of the county sheriff, as required to render him liable under § 1983.
(Maricopa County Lower Buckeye Jail, Arizona)

U.S. District Court
JAIL HOUSE LAWYERS
LEGAL ASSISTANCE
LEGAL MATERIAL
SEARCHES

Cox v. Ashcroft, 603 F.Supp.2d 1261 (E.D.Cal. 2009). A prisoner brought a § 1983 action against the United
States Attorney General, several federal prosecutors, and the owner and employees of a privately-owned
federal facility in which the prisoner was incarcerated, alleging constitutional violations arising from his
arrest, prosecution, and incarceration. The district court dismissed the action. The court held that the prisoner
did not have any Fourth Amendment rights to privacy in his cell, and thus did not suffer any constitutional
injury as a result of the search of his cell and the confiscation of another inmate's legal materials. According to
the court, the prison facility's imposition of a 30-day suspension of the prisoner's telephone privileges related
to a disciplinary action arising from the search of his cell and the confiscation of another inmates' legal papers,

XXII

1.165
1.
165

did not constitute an unreasonable limitation on the prisoner's First Amendment rights. The court noted that
prisoners have a First Amendment right to telephone access, subject to reasonable limitations. The court found
that regulations at a privately-owned federal prison facility prohibiting the prisoner from having the legal
papers of another inmates in his cell did not chill the prisoner's exercise of his First Amendment right to
provide legal assistance to fellow inmates, thus precluding liability on the part of the prison and its employees
in the prisoner's § 1983 action alleging First Amendment retaliation. The court noted that the regulations
reflected a legitimate penological objective in regulating when and where such assistance was provided. (Taft
Correctional Institution, Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, California)
U.S. Appeals Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Crawford v. Clarke, 578 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2009). Muslim inmates confined in a special management unit
(SMU) sued the Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC) under the Religious
Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), alleging that he violated their right to freely exercise
their religion by preventing them from participating in Jum'ah Friday group prayer. The district court entered
an injunction requiring closed-circuit broadcasting of Jum'ah in any SMU in which the plaintiff inmates were
housed or might be housed in the future, and subsequently denied the commissioner's motion for
reconsideration. The commissioner appealed. The appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the injunction requiring corrections officials to provide
closed circuit television broadcasts of services in any SMU in which the plaintiff inmates were housed or
might be housed in the future, as opposed to the SMU in which they were currently housed, without making
findings as to whether other SMUs were suitable for closed circuit broadcasts. The court found that the
injunction did not violate the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), where the prospective relief was narrowly
drawn and providing closed-circuit broadcasting was the least intrusive means to alleviate the burden on the
inmates’ rights. The court noted that the commissioner put nothing in the record to differentiate other SMUs
on the issues of a compelling governmental interest or least restrictive means. (Massachusetts Department of
Correction, MCI-Cedar Junction)

U.S. District Court
LEGAL MATERIAL
RETALIATION

Cusamano v. Sobek, 604 F.Supp.2d 416 (N.D.N.Y. 2009). A former state prisoner brought a pro se action
against department of corrections employees, alleging violation of his First, Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights as well as the New York Constitution. The district court granted summary judgment for
the defendants in part, and denied in part. The court held that summary judgment was precluded by a genuine
issue of material fact regarding whether a corrections officer was present during, and participated in, the
alleged assault of the prisoner. The court noted that an officer's failure to intervene during another officer's use
of excessive force can itself constitute excessive force. The court also held that summary judgment was
precluded by a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether excessive force was used against the prisoner.
The court found that a corrections officer's failure to include the prisoner's legal documents in the prisoner's
personal items when the prisoner was transferred to a special housing unit was unintentional and did not
cause the prisoner to be prejudiced during legal proceedings, as required for the prisoner's First Amendment
denial of access to courts claim against the officer. (Gouverneur Correctional Facility, Clinton Correctional
Facility, New York)

U.S. District Court
EXHAUSTION
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act
RETALIATION FOR
LEGAL ACTION

Dace v. Smith-Vasquez, 658 F.Supp.2d 865 (S.D.Ill. 2009). A state prisoner brought a § 1983 action against
prison employees, alleging that his exposure to excessively cold conditions during his incarceration resulted in
a deprivation of his Eighth Amendment rights, and that employees unconstitutionally retaliated against him by
exposing him to such conditions. The employees moved for summary judgment and the district court granted
the motion. The court held that the prisoner failed to administratively exhaust his § 1983 claims against prison
employees in accordance with Illinois Department of Corrections grievance procedures, as required by the
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). According to the court, even if the employees failed to directly respond
to some or all of the prisoner's grievances, the fact remained that the prisoner failed to take up those
unresolved grievances with a Grievance Officer as required by the grievance procedures. The court found that
the prisoner failed to establish that his prior lawsuit against prison officials and/or his filing of grievances was
the “motivat-ing factor” for the alleged actions of prison employees, including exposing the prisoner to
extreme cold, not allowing him to go to the commissary, handcuffing him, damaging his property, and not
responding to his grie-vances, as would support his § 1983 retaliation claim against the employees. (Menard
Correctional Center, Ill.)

U.S. District Court
ACCESS TO ATTORNEY

Delaney v. District of Columbia, 659 F.Supp.2d 185 (D.D.C. 2009). A former inmate and his wife brought a
§ 1983 action, on behalf of themselves and their child, against the District of Columbia and several D.C.
officials and employees, alleging various constitutional violations related to the inmate's incarceration for
criminal contempt due to his admitted failure to pay child support. They also alleged the wife encountered
difficulties when she and her child attempted to visit the husband at the D.C. jail. The defendants moved to
dismiss. The district court granted the motion in part and denied in part. The court held that an attorney, who
was an African-American woman, stated a § 1983 claim against the District of Columbia and D.C. jail official
for violations of her Fifth Amendment due process rights by alleging that an official refused to allow her to
visit her clients at the jail based on her gender and race. (Lorton and Rivers Correctional Centers, and District
of Columbia Jail)

U.S. Appeals Court
EXHAUSTION
PLRA-Prison Litigation
Reform Act
RETALIATION

Espinal v. Goord, 558 F.3d 119 (2nd Cir. 2009). A district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of
the state defendants on the prisoner's civil rights claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), and the prisoner appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part, and
reversed and remanded in part. The court held that state grievance procedures did not require an inmate to
specifically name the responsible parties, and therefore the inmate did not fail to exhaust his administrative
remedies under PLRA by omitting the names of the responsible parties from his prison grievance. The court
found that the passage of only six months between the dismissal of the prisoner's lawsuit and an allegedly

XXII

1.166
1.
166

retaliatory beating by officers, one of whom was a defendant in the prior lawsuit, was sufficient to support an
inference of a causal connection, and therefore a genuine issue of material fact existed as to the causal
connection element of the prisoner’s First Amendment retaliation claim. (New York State Department of
Correctional Services, Green Haven Correctional Facility)
U.S. Appeals Court
PRIVILEGED
CORRESPONDENCE

Fontroy v. Beard, 559 F.3d 173 (3rd Cir. 2009). Inmates sued state prison officials, claiming that a policy of
opening legal and court mail outside their presence violated the First Amendment. The district court declared
the policy unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment. The prison officials appealed. The appeals
court reversed, finding that the policy did not violate the First Amendment right of inmates to have mail
opened in their presence. According to the court, the policy of requiring a control number on legal and court
mail sent to inmates, opening mail without control numbers outside of inmates' presence, and inspecting for
contraband before delivering mail to inmates, did not violate the First Amendment right of inmates to have
mail opened in their presence. The court noted that the new legal mail policy was implemented to avoid abuse
of the legal mail privilege, that the new policy was less burdensome on prison employees than the prior policy,
that the inmates' proposed alternative could not be achieved at de minimis cost, and while inmates could not
control whether courts or attorneys actually obtained control numbers, that alternatives were provided by new
policy. (Pennsylvania Department of Corrections)

U.S. Appeals Court
TELECONFERENCE

Gevas v. Ghosh, 566 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 2009). A prisoner brought a § 1983 action alleging prison staff
members and administrators were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. After a telephonic
conference among all of the parties was held, an agreement was supposedly reached, but there was no court
reporter or recording of the conference. The district court granted the defendants' motion to enforce the
settlement agreement and ordered the prisoner to sign the release and settlement agreement within 30 days or
have his case dismissed. The prisoner appealed. The appeals court affirmed. According to the court, the
magistrate judge's failure to record the settlement agreement did not invalidate the settlement, and the
magistrate judge did not coerce the prisoner into settling. The court noted that both parties assumed the risk
that the judge would recall the discussion differently than they did, when neither asked that any part of the
discussion be placed on the record. According to the court, having made no such request to have the
discussion placed on the record, the prisoner had to live with the consequences. (Stateville Correctional
Center, Illinois)

U.S. Appeals Court
EXHAUSTION
PLRA-Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2009). A state inmate brought a § 1983 action against a county
sheriff and others, alleging cruel and unusual punishment and unsafe living conditions based on their failure
to assign him a lower bunk for medical reasons. The defendants moved to dismiss for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The district court granted the motion
and the inmate appealed. The appeals court affirmed. Although the court found that a prison grievance need
only alert the prison to the nature of the wrong for which redress is sought and the inmate's failure to grieve
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs did not invalidate his exhaustion attempt, the inmate did
not properly exhaust administrative remedies under PLRA. The court held that the inmate's grievance
regarding his need for a lower bunk assignment did not provide sufficient notice of the staff's alleged
disregard of his lower bunk assignments to allow officials to take appropriate responsive measures, as
required to properly exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) before
he brought a § 1983 action. The officials responding to the inmate's grievance reasonably concluded that a
nurse's order for a lower bunk assignment solved the inmate's problem. (Maricopa County Sheriff, Arizona)

U.S. Appeals Court
APPOINTED ATTORNEY
FILING FEES
IN FORMA PAUPERIS
PLRA-Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Hagan v. Rogers, 570 F.3d 146 (3rd Cir. 2009). Fourteen state prisoners jointly filed a single § 1983
complaint, on behalf of themselves and a purported class, claiming violation of their Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights by prison officials' purported deliberate indifference to the exposure of prisoners to an
outbreak of a serious and contagious skin condition, allegedly scabies. The prisoners sought class
certification, requested to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA),
and sought appointment of counsel. The district court denied joinder (combining actions), dismissed with
leave to amend for all except one prisoner, and denied class certification. The prisoners appealed. The appeals
court reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The appeals court held that: (1) IFP prisoners were not
barred from joinder by PLRA; (2) each joined prisoner was required to pay the full individual filing fee; and
(3) the typicality and commonality requirements were satisfied for class certification. The court noted that
prisoners proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP) remained within the definition of “persons” under the
permissive joinder rule, and thus, the prisoners were not categorically barred from joinder in their civil rights
action, despite concerns that joinder would undermine PLRA by permitting split fees or avoiding the threestrike rule that limited IFP status. (Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center, New Jersey)

U.S. Supreme Court
ACCESS TO COURT
CIVIL SUIT

Haywood v. Drown, 129 S.Ct. 2108 (2009). A state prisoner brought civil rights actions in the New York
Supreme Court against several correction employees for allegedly violating his civil rights in connection with
prisoner disciplinary proceedings. The action was dismissed as barred by a state “jurisdictional” statute
requiring that such causes of action for damages arising out of the conduct of state corrections officers within
the scope of their employment be filed against the state in the New York Court of Claims. The prisoner
appealed. The New York Supreme Court Appellate Division affirmed, and the prisoner appealed. The New
York Court of Appeals affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. The Supreme Court
reversed and remanded. The court held that, having made the decision to create courts of general jurisdiction
which regularly sat to entertain analogous civil rights actions against state officials other than corrections
officers, New York was not at liberty to shut the doors of these courts to civil rights actions to recover
damages from its corrections officers for acts within the scope of their employment, and to instead require that
such damages claims be pursued against the state in another court of only limited jurisdiction. (New York)

XXII

1.167
1.
167

U.S. Appeals Court
EXHAUSTION
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Hernandez v. Coffey, 582 F.3d 303 (2nd Cir. 2009). A prisoner brought a civil rights action alleging that he
was beaten by corrections officers and denied medical treatment by a nurse. The district court entered
summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the basis of the prisoner's failure to exhaust administrative
remedies. The prisoner appealed. The appeals court vacated and remanded. The appeals court held that the
district court was required to first explain the procedural requirements for responding to a summary judgment
motion and its potential consequences, and to provide the prisoner with an opportunity to take discovery and
submit evidence in response to the motion. According to the appeals court, the district court could not convert
the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings in the prisoner's pro se civil rights action into a motion
for summary judgment, then grant the motion, extinguishing the claim, without first giving the prisoner notice
of the conversion and an opportunity to take relevant discovery and to submit any evidence relevant to the
issues raised by the motion. (Clinton Correctional Facility, New York)

U.S. District Court
EXHAUSTION
PLRA-Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Hinton v. Corrections Corp. of America, 623 F.Supp.2d 61 (D.D.C. 2009). An inmate sued the operators of a
correctional facility under § 1983, asserting that overcrowded and unsanitary conditions had caused him to
become infected with the methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteria. The district court
granted the operators’ motion for summary judgment, finding that the inmate failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies. The court noted that the inmate had access to an inmate handbook, was familiar with
parts of it, and did not dispute that he had other means of informing himself of the requirements of the official
grievance process. (Central Treatment Facility, District of Columbia, operated by Corrections Corporation of
America)

U.S. District Court
STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS

Hunt ex rel. Chiovari v. Dart, 612 F.Supp.2d 969 (N.D.Ill. 2009). A mother brought a § 1983 action against
a county sheriff, unknown county corrections officers, unknown village police officers, and a village, for
deprivation of her son's constitutional rights, arising out of his death while being transported to a county jail.
The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the unknown officers. The court held that the
county sheriff's objection to a production request for personnel files of three officers did not lull the mother
into delaying the suit, so as to prevent the officials from asserting the Illinois statute of limitations defense
against the mother's claims under § 1983. (Cook County, Illinois)

U.S. District Court
EXHAUSTION
PLRA-Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Jones v. Carroll, 628 F.Supp.2d 551 (D.Del. 2009). A former inmate brought a § 1983 action against prison
employees, alleging that they failed to protect him from an attack by another inmate. The prison employees
moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted. The inmate moved for reconsideration. On
reconsideration, the district court found that summary judgment was precluded for certain issues. The court
held that summary judgment was precluded by a genuine issue of material fact as to whether an inmate's
medical condition after having been stabbed by another inmate excused his failure to exhaust his
administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The court also found that a genuine
issue of material fact as to whether the inmate told prison officials about the violent threats he received from
another inmate, precluded summary judgment on the inmate's Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim
brought under § 1983. The court held that prison officials were not entitled to qualified immunity in their
individual capacities in the § 1983 action alleging that officials failed to protect the inmate from serious harm
from another inmate in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court noted that case law put officials on
notice that failure to protect an inmate from violence at the hands of another inmate violated an inmate's
Eighth Amendment rights. (James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, Delaware Correctional Center, Smyrna,
Delaware)

U.S. District Court
LEGAL MATERIAL
TRANSFER

Kim v. Veglas, 607 F.Supp.2d 286 (D.Mass. 2009). A prisoner, who was initially convicted and incarcerated
in Maine, brought an action against various prison officials in Massachusetts and Maine alleging that his
transfer to a Massachusetts corrections facility violated a variety of his constitutional and statutory rights. The
district court dismissed the case in part. The court held that a Maine prison law librarian was subject to
Massachusetts' long-arm statute, for the purposes of a claim of denial of access to the courts brought by the
prisoner. The court noted that, in a letter to the prisoner in response to his request for legal materials, the
librarian stated that he was the individual to contact for Maine legal materials, and that he required the
prisoner to provide “exact citations” for requested legal materials. The prisoner contended that this
requirement essentially prohibited him from acquiring Maine legal materials, and thus caused his
constitutional injury. The court held that the prisoner’s allegations were sufficient to satisfy the relatedness
requirement for exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over the librarian, consistent with due process.
According to the court, the librarian's alleged conduct was both the “but-for” and proximate cause of the
prisoner's inability to access the courts, and the foreseeable result of the letter the librarian sent into
Massachusetts was that it would prevent the prisoner from having meaningful access to legal materials. The
court held that the exercise by the Massachusetts court of personal jurisdiction over the Maine prison law
librarian would be reasonable, as required to comply with due process. The court found that Massachusetts
had an interest in adjudicating the dispute because: (1) the Commonwealth would be less willing to accept
inmates pursuant to the New England Interstate Corrections Compact if the prisoners it accepted must bring
suit in Maine; (2) the prisoner had a great interest in accessing the federal courts in Massachusetts, given that
he had adequate access to Massachusetts legal materials; (3) litigating in Massachusetts would promote
judicial economy because the prisoner had already been appointed pro bono counsel and the case was pending
in Massachusetts for several years; and (4) the suit would promote a substantive social policy of ensuring that
interstate transfers of prisoners were not used as a means of cutting off inmates' ability to access the courts to
seek redress for injuries suffered at the hands of donor states. (Maine State Prison, Massachusetts
Correctional Institution-Cedar Junction)

XXII

1.168
1.
168

U.S. Appeals Court
PRIVILEGED
CORRESPONDENCE

Merriweather v. Zamora, 569 F.3d 307 (6th Cir. 2009). A former federal prisoner filed a Bivens complaint
claiming deprivation of his First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights by prison mailroom employees'
routinely opening and reading prisoner's mail outside of his presence, although the mail was marked as “legal
mail” or “special mail” pursuant to Bureau of Prison's (BOP) regulations. The district court denied the
employees summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity. The employees appealed. The appeals
court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The appeals court held that: (1) a fact issue precluded
summary judgment as to whether two envelopes from the prisoner's attorney were opened outside the
presence of the prisoner; (2) an envelope from federal community defenders was properly labeled legal mail;
(3) nine envelopes containing the word “attorney/client” were properly labeled legal mail; (4) prison
employees' opening of the prisoner's legal mail outside his presence violated his clearly established First and
Sixth Amendment rights; (5) prison mailroom supervisors were not protected by qualified immunity; but (6)
prison mailroom employees were protected by qualified immunity. According to the court, the former
prisoner's allegations that prison mailroom employees opened his legal mail outside his presence despite his
repeated complaints to mailroom supervisors, were sufficient to find that mailroom supervisors acted
unreasonably in response to the prisoner's complaints, precluding the supervisors' protection by qualified
immunity. The prisoner alleged that the supervisors' conduct encouraged an atmosphere of disregard for
proper mail-handling procedures, where one supervisor stated that the prison did not have to follow case law
but only the Bureau of Prisons' (BOP) policy, and that other supervisors knew of the prisoner's complaints
but did nothing to correct the admitted errors. (Mich. Fed. Det. Ctr., Fed Bureau of Prisons)

U.S. Appeals Court
FILING FEES
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Merryfield v. Jordan, 584 F.3d 923 (10th Cir. 2009). A person who had been involuntarily committed to a
state hospital brought an action against hospital officials, asserting a variety of claims relating to the
conditions of his confinement and treatment, and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court
dismissed the action and the committee appealed. He was granted permission to proceed in format pauperis
(IFP) on appeal and ordered to make partial payments of the appellate filing fee through monthly payments
from his institutional account. The appeals court held that, as a matter of first impression, the fee payment
provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) applicable to prisoners did not apply to those who
were civilly committed under the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act (KSVPA). (Sexual Predator
Treatment Program, Larned State Hospital, Kansas)

U.S. Appeals Court
FRIVOLOUS SUITS
IN FORMA PAUPERIS
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Mitchell v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 587 F.3d 415 (D.C. Cir. 2009). A prisoner brought an action against
the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), alleging that he needed medical treatment for Hepatitis B and C and that an
omitted notation regarding his need for protective custody resulted in his improper transfer to a high-security
facility known for murders and assaults on anyone known as a snitch. The district court denied the prisoner's
motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Prisoner moved to proceed IFP on appeal. The appeals court
denied the motion. The court held that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) did not bar the prisoner
from proceeding IFP, but the prisoner qualified as an abusive filer under Butler v. Department of Justice,
which held that a court could deny IFP status to a prisoner who, though not technically barred by the PLRA,
had nonetheless abused the privilege. The court noted that the prisoner had 63 prior cases, only two of which
were “strikes” under the PLRA. (USP Florence, Colorado, Federal Bureau of Prisons)

U.S. Appeals Court
ACCESS TO COURT
LAW LIBRARY
LEGAL MATERIAL
PHOTOCOPYING

Ortiz v. Downey, 561 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. 2009). A federal pretrial detainee brought a § 1983 action against the
chief of corrections at a detention center, alleging his rights under the First Amendment's Free Exercise
Clause were violated. The district court dismissed the complaint and the detainee appealed. The appeals
court reversed and remanded. The court held that the detainee stated a § 1983 claim that his First
Amendment free exercise rights were violated by alleging that he was denied a religious rosary and a prayer
booklet solely because a jail official did not find those items vital to worship. The court also found the
alleged denial stated a claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The
court found that the detainee failed to allege that any deprivations in obtaining legal materials caused him an
actual injury, as required to state a claim that his right of access to courts was denied. The court noted that a
prisoner's complaint must spell out, in minimal detail, the connection between the alleged denial of access to
legal materials and an inability to pursue a legitimate challenge to a conviction, sentence, or prison
conditions to state a claim that his right to access the courts was denied. The detainee had asked jail officials
to copy, at no charge, approximately fifty legal documents that pertained either to his pro se civil suit against
his jailers or to his criminal prosecution. The detainee was represented by counsel in the criminal case, but
was proceeding pro se in the civil matter. Jail officials told the detainee that he would be charged $1.00 per
page, but also noted that copies regarding his criminal case would be provided at no charge. The detainee
sought access to a law library and tried to subscribe to various legal periodicals, but his requests were denied.
(Jerome Combs Detention Center, Kankakee, Illinois)

U.S. District Court
APPOINTED ATTORNEY
PRO SE LITIGATION

Owens-Ali v. Pennell, 672 F.Supp.2d 647 (D.Del. 2009). A pro se state prisoner, a Moorish American
National adherent, brought an action pursuant to § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act (RLUIPA) against prison officials, in their individual and official capacities, alleging that the
officials violated his constitutional rights when they denied his request for a religious diet, and that the
officials retaliated against him for his attempts to exercise his religious beliefs. The prisoner requested
counsel. The court found that the prisoner's action was not so factually or legally complex that requesting an
attorney to represent the prisoner was warranted. The court noted that the prisoner's filings in this case
demonstrated his ability to articulate his claims and represent himself. (James T. Vaughn Correctional
Center, Smyrna, Delaware)

XXIV

1.169

U.S. District Court
ACCESS TO ATTORNEY
INTERROGATION

Padilla v. Yoo, 633 F.Supp.2d 1005 (N.D.Cal. 2009). Reversed 648 F3d 748. A detainee, a United States
citizen who was designated an “enemy combatant” and detained in a military brig in South Carolina, brought
an action against a senior government official, alleging denial of access to counsel, denial of access to court,
unconstitutional conditions of confinement, unconstitutional interrogations, denial of freedom of religion,
denial of right of information, denial of right to association, unconstitutional military detention, denial of
right to be free from unreasonable seizures, and denial of due process. The defendant moved to dismiss. The
district court granted the motion in part and denied in part. The court held that the detainee, who was a
United States citizen, had no other means of redress for alleged injuries he sustained as a result of his
detention, as required for Bivens claim against the senior government official, alleging the official's actions
violated constitutional rights. The court noted that the Military Commissions Act was only applicable to
alien, or non-citizen, unlawful enemy combatants, and the Detainee Treatment Act did not “affect the rights
under the United States Constitution of any person in the custody of the United States.” The court found that
national security was not a special factor counseling hesitation and precluding judicial review in the Bivens
action brought by the detainee. Documents drafted by the official were public record, and litigation may be
necessary to ensure compliance with the law. The court held that the detainee sufficiently alleged that the
official's acts caused a constitutional deprivation, as required for the detainee's constitutional claims against
the official. The detainee alleged that the senior government official intended or was deliberately indifferent
to the fact that the detainee would be subjected to illegal policies that the official set in motion, and to a
substantial risk that the detainee would suffer harm as a result, that the official personally recommended the
detainee's unlawful military detention and then wrote opinions to justify the use of unlawful interrogation
methods against persons suspected of being enemy combatants. According to the court, it was foreseeable
that illegal interrogation policies would be applied to the detainee, who was under the effective control of a
military authority and was one of only two suspected enemy combatants held in South Carolina.
The court found that the detainee's allegations that he was detained incommunicado for nearly two years
with no access to counsel and thereafter with very restricted and closely-monitored access, and that he was
hindered from bringing his claims as a result of the conditions of his detention, were sufficient to state a
claim for violation of his right to access to courts against a senior government official. The court held that
federal officials were cognizant of basic fundamental civil rights afforded to detainees under the United
States Constitution, and thus a senior government official was not entitled to qualified immunity from claims
brought by the detainee. The court also held that the official was not qualifiedly immune from claims brought
by the detainee under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). On appeal, 678 F3d 748, the appeals
court reversed the district court decision, finding that the official was entitled to qualified immunity because
there had not been a violation of well established law. (Military Brig, South Carolina)

U.S. Appeals Court
APPOINTED ATTORNEY
IN FORMA PAUPERIS
TELECONFERENCE

Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2009). A state prison inmate brought a pro se § 1983 action against
corrections officials, alleging use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of
cruel and unusual punishment. Following a bench trial, the district entered judgment for the officials, and the
inmate appealed. The appeals court affirmed. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion
by declining to appoint counsel for the inmate under the in forma pauperis statute. The prisoner claimed that
the district court improperly conditioned his use of telephonic testimony on his waiver of a jury trial, but the
appeals court found that a bench trial that featured telephonic testimony was the prisoner's strategic choice.
(California)

U.S. Appeals Court
BINDING

Phillips v. Hust, 588 F.3d 652 (9th Cir. 2009). An inmate brought a § 1983 action against a prison librarian,
claiming that her failure to allow him access to a comb-binding machine violated his First Amendment right
of access to the courts. The district court granted summary judgment to the inmate, and after a bench trial,
awarded the inmate $1,500 in compensatory damages. A panel of the court of appeals affirmed, and the
librarian's petition for a rehearing en banc was denied. The United States Supreme Court granted the
librarian's petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated the panel opinion, and remanded. On remand, the appeals
court reversed and remanded, finding that the librarian was entitled to qualified immunity. According to the
court, it was objectively legally reasonable for the prison librarian to conclude that her denial of access to the
comb-binding machine would not hinder the inmate's capability to file his petition for a writ of certiorari to
the Supreme Court of the United States, and thus the librarian was entitled to qualified immunity from the
inmate's § 1983 suit in light of the Supreme Court's flexible rules for pro se filings, which did not require and
perhaps did not even permit comb-binding. (Snake River Correctional Institution, Oregon)

U.S. District Court
PLRA-Prison Litigation
Reform Act
EXHAUSTION

Phipps v. Sheriff of Cook County, 681 F.Supp.2d 899 (N.D.Ill. 2009). Paraplegic and partially-paralyzed
pretrial detainees currently and formerly housed at a county prison brought a class action against the county
and county sheriff, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation
Act. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment. The district court denied the motions for summary
judgment. The court held that the sheriff waived the affirmative defense that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust
their administrative remedies, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), where the sheriff
raised that defense for the first time in his motion for summary judgment. The court held that paraplegic and
partially-paralyzed pretrial detainees who were formerly housed at the county prison were not “prisoners
confined in jail” for the purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), and thus their civil rights
claims were not subject to, or barred by, PLRA. The court held that the pretrial detainees adequately alleged
discrimination based on the prison's failure to provide wheelchair-accessible bathroom facilities. According
to the court, the detainees met the PLRA physical injury requirement. In addition to alleging mental and
emotional harm, the detainees complained of bed sores, infections, and injuries resulting from falling to the
ground from their wheelchairs and toilets, which were undeniably physical injuries. (Cook County
Department of Corrections, Illinois)

XXIV

1.170

U.S. District Court
LEGAL MATERIALS

Ratcliff v. Moore, 614 F.Supp.2d 880 (S.D.Ohio 2009). State prisoners brought a § 1983 action against
several prison officials and employees alleging a failure to accommodate their religious practices along with
other constitutional violations under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court
granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs. The court denied summary judgment for the defendants,
finding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether a prisoner was denied access to the court as
a result of the prison's policy of restricting access to excess legal materials once every 30 days. The court
found that any deprivation of the prisoner's exercise rights was not attributable to any “deliberate
indifference” on the part of prison officials or employees, as required to support the prisoner's Eighth
Amendment denial of exercise claim. The court noted that the prisoner voluntarily engaged in religious
hunger strikes, was put on medical idle status because of the hunger strikes, refused medical treatment and
continued his hunger strikes, all of which resulted in the extension of his medical idle status which affected
his access to exercise. (Ross Correctional Institution, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, Marion
Correctional Institution, and Trumbull Correctional Institution, Ohio)

U.S. District Court
LAW LIBRARY
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Shariff v. Coombe, 655 F.Supp.2d 274 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). Disabled prisoners who depended on wheelchairs
for mobility filed an action against a state and its employees asserting claims pursuant to Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title V of Rehabilitation Act, New York State Correction Law, and
First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The district court
granted the motion in part and denied in part. The court found that a prisoner who had his grievance denied
because he no longer was in custody of the prison, and who never appealed to the final stage of the
administrative program, did not exhaust his administrative remedies, as required by the Prison Litigation
Reform Act (PLRA) before bringing a lawsuit regarding that grievance. According to the court, the
inaccessibility of telephones throughout a state prison, inaccessibility of a family reunion site, inaccessibility
of a law library, and malfunctioning of a school elevator, that did not cause any physical harm or pain to
disabled prisoners who depended on wheelchairs for mobility, were not the kind of deprivations that denied a
basic human need, and thus did not constitute a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel
and unusual punishment. (N.Y. State Dept. of Correctional Services, Green Haven Correctional Facility)

U.S. District Court
EXHAUSTION
PLRA-Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Shaw v. Jahnke, 607 F.Supp.2d 1005 (W.D.Wis. 2009). A state prisoner brought a civil rights action against
a corrections officer alleging excessive force. The district court denied the officer’s motion for summary
judgment. The court held that the prisoner had exhausted his administrative remedies. According to the
court, the prisoner made sufficient efforts to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), and that it was the corrections department's misinformation rather than any
negligence or manipulation on the prisoner's part that prevented him from completing the grievance process.
(Columbia Correctional Institution, Wisconsin)

U.S. District Court
FRIVOLOUS SUITS
IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Shockley v. McCarty, 677 F.Supp.2d 741 (D.Del. 2009). A former inmate filed a pro se, in forma pauperis §
1983 action against prison officials alleging his Eighth Amendment rights were violated when an officer
labeled him a “snitch.” The district court denied the officials’ motion to dismiss. The court held that a prison
official's failure to include an affirmative defense of frivolousness in an answer to the former inmate's in
forma pauperis § 1983 complaint waived the defense. The court noted that while the inmate’s case might not
succeed on the merits, the complaint was not indisputably meritless, fantastic, delusional or trivial, and
contained sufficient factual matter to state a claim for relief. According to the court, the label of “snitch” in a
prison posed serious risks to the inmate and could have incited others to harm him by identifying him as
such. (Delaware Correctional Center)

U.S. District Court
VIDEO COMMUNITATION
TRANSPORTATION

Twitty v. Ashcroft, 712 F.Supp.2d 30 (D.Conn. 2009). A federal prisoner, who brought an action alleging that
a state department of correction employee used excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment,
moved for a writ of habeas corpus, requesting that Bureau of Prisons (BOP) transport him from Colorado to
Connecticut to attend his civil trial. The district court denied the motion. The court held that expense and
security concerns outweighed the prisoner's interest in physically appearing at the trial, precluding an
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. The court noted: (1) that it would cost the Bureau of Prisons about
$70,000 to transport the prisoner from Colorado to Connecticut for the trial; (2) that he would be temporarily
housed in a less secure facility than the one in Colorado; and (3) that transporting the prisoner between the
facility and the courthouse, a trip of eighty miles in each direction, and supervising him during trial would
require the assistance of multiple United States Marshals and presented a risk of escape, a risk of harm to law
enforcement officers and danger to public. According to the court, the Colorado facility offered to permit the
prisoner to appear at trial via videoconference, which was a reasonable alternative in the circumstances.
(United States Penitentiary, Administrative Maximum, Florence, Colorado)

U.S. Appeals Court
ACCESS TO ATTORNEY
RESTRICTIONS

U.S. v. Mikhel, 552 F.3d 961 (9th Cir. 2009). An alien inmate convicted of capital offenses moved to allow
attorney-client access without special administrative measures (SAM) restrictions that allegedly violated the
Due Process Clause and Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of appellate counsel. The appeals
court held that modification of the SAM was warranted to permit the attorney to use a translator in a meeting
with the inmate, and modification of the SAM was warranted to allow the attorney's investigators to
disseminate the inmate's communications. The court also found that modification of the SAM was warranted
to allow the attorney's investigator to meet with the inmate. The court found that the SAM was an
exaggerated response to the prison's legitimate security interests and unacceptably burdened the inmate's due
process and Sixth Amendment rights. (Central District, California)

XXIV

1.171

U.S. Appeals Court
CRREA- Civil Rights
Remedies Equalization
Act of 1986

Van Wyhe v. Reisch, 581 F.3d 639 (8th Cir. 2009). Two inmates each brought an action against state prison
officials, asserting various claims of interference with their free exercise of religion under the First
Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The district court
denied the officials' motions for summary judgment in part, and the officials appealed. The appeals court
affirmed in part, reversed in part, dismissed in part, and remanded. The appeals court held: (1) the section of
RLUIPA protecting inmates from imposition of substantial burdens on their religious exercise not justified
by compelling state interests was a valid exercise of Congress's Spending Clause authority; (2) the section of
RLUIPA conditioning a state's acceptance of federal funds on its consent to suit for appropriate relief did not
unambiguously encompass monetary damages so as to effect a waiver of sovereign immunity from suit for
monetary claims by acceptance of the federal money; (3) the section of RLUIPA protecting inmates from
substantial burdens on religious exercise was not a statute prohibiting discrimination within the meaning of
the Civil Rights Remedies Equalization Act of 1986 (CRREA); (4) the inmate made a threshold showing of a
substantial burden on his religious exercise by alleging that officials denied his request to possess and use a
succah and that the succah was a mandatory part of the Sukkot Festival and essential to the practice of his
Jewish faith; but (5) the officials did not substantially burden the inmate's religious exercise by denying his
request for additional weekly group religious and language study time; and (6) the officials did not
substantially burden the inmate's religious exercise by denying his request to have and use a tape player in
his cell for religious language studies. The court noted that RLUIPA promoted the general welfare by
furthering society's goal of rehabilitating inmates and respecting individual religious worship. (South Dakota
State Penitentiary)

U.S. District Court
APPOINTED ATTORNEY
IN FORMA PAUPERIS
PRO SE LITIGATION

Vann v. Vandenbrook, 596 F.Supp.2d 1238 (W.D.Wis. 2009). A prisoner brought a § 1983 action against a
crisis intervention worker, registered nurse, and several corrections officers, alleging deliberate indifference
to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The prisoner moved to proceed in forma
pauperis and for the appointment of counsel. The district court granted the motion to proceed in part and
denied in part, and denied the motion for appointment of counsel. The court held that the prisoner's proffered
reasons for appointment of counsel—that the case was legally and factually complex, that the claim required
the testimony of medical experts, and that he lacked legal training to present the case, especially in front of a
jury, were universal among pro se litigants and thus constituted insufficient grounds for the appointment of
counsel. (Columbia Correctional Institution, Wisconsin)

U.S. District Court
INDIGENT INMATES
LEGAL MAIL

Wesolowski v. Washburn, 615 F.Supp.2d 126 (W.D.N.Y. 2009). A state prisoner brought a § 1983 action
against corrections employees, alleging that the employees violated his rights by interfering with his ability
to send outgoing mail. The employees moved for summary judgment and the district court granted the
motion. The court held that the employees did not violate the prisoner's right of access to the courts protected
under the First Amendment when they correctly determined that certain mail did not qualify as “legal mail”
under applicable corrections department regulations, and rejected certain letters and other items that the
prisoner sought to mail because of his noncompliance with the regulations. The court noted that, at most, the
prisoner was inconvenienced and had some delays in his outgoing mail. The court held that the employees
did not violate the prisoner's right to the free flow of mail as protected under the First Amendment when they
correctly determined that certain mail did not qualify as “legal mail” and rejected certain letters and other
items. According to the court, all the employees did was to require the prisoner's compliance with regulations
concerning outgoing mail. The court found that even if the employees had incorrectly determined that some
of the prisoner's outgoing mail was not legal mail, and thus did not qualify for free postage, employees were
entitled to qualified immunity from the prisoner's § 1983 action because the employees did not violate any of
the prisoner's clearly established rights of which a reasonable person in the employees' position would have
known. (Southport Correctional Facility, New York)

U.S. District Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Zimmerman v. Schaeffer, 654 F.Supp.2d 226 (M.D.Pa. 2009). Current and former inmates at a county jail
brought a § 1983 action against the county, corrections officers, and prison officials, alleging that they were
abused by officials during their incarceration in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The defendants moved
for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion in part and denied in part. The court held that
summary judgment was precluded by genuine issues of material fact. The court held that a former inmate of
a county correctional facility was not required to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation
Reform Act (PLRA) prior to filing Eighth Amendment claims against prison officials and corrections officers
under § 1983, where the inmate was not incarcerated at the time complaint was filed. (Mifflin County
Correctional Facility, Lewistown, Pennsylvania)
2010

U.S. District Court
ASSISTANCE
LEGAL MATERIALS

XXIV

Antonetti v. Skolnik, 748 F.Supp.2d 1201 (D.Nev. 2010). A prisoner, proceeding pro se, brought a § 1983
action against various prison officials, alleging various constitutional claims, including violations of the First,
Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court dismissed in part. The court held that the
prisoner's allegations were factually sufficient to state a colorable § 1983 claim that prison officials violated
the Eighth Amendment by depriving him of needed medical care. The prisoner alleged that he was housed in
segregation/isolation, leading to a mental health breakdown, and: (1) that he was seen by mental health
professionals eight times over a five year period instead of every 90 days as required by administrative
regulations; (2) that mental health professionals recommended he pursue art and music for his mental health
but that prison officials denied him the materials; (3) and that the officials' actions resulted in the need to take
anti-psychotic and anti-depression medications due to suffering from bouts of aggression, extreme
depression, voices, paranoia, hallucinations, emotional breakdowns and distress, unreasonable fear, and
systematic dehumanization. The court found that the prisoner's allegations were factually sufficient to state a

1.172

colorable § 1983 claim for a violation of his First Amendment right of access to courts, where the prisoner
alleged that he was housed in segregation for several years and was repeatedly denied materials such as
books, paper, pens and envelopes, as well as assistance from a law clerk. According to the court, the
prisoner's allegations that officials deprived him of incoming mail without notice and without a postdeprivation remedy were factually sufficient to state a § 1983 claim under the First and Fourteenth
Amendments. (High Desert State Prison, Nevada)
U.S. Appeals Court
EXHAUSTION
PLRA-Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260 (5th Cir. 2010). A pretrial detainee, who was transferred first to a temporary
jail and then to a state corrections facility after Hurricane Katrina damaged a parish correctional center,
brought a § 1983 action. The detainee alleged that he was beaten and mistreated while at the temporary jail,
resulting in hearing loss and other injuries. The district court dismissed the action for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies. The detainee appealed. The appeals court vacated and remanded for further
discovery. The court held that the record was not sufficiently developed to determine whether administrative
remedies were “available” for detainee to exhaust at the state facility, requiring remand. (Jefferson Parish,
Louisiana)

U.S. Appeals Court
FILING FEES
PLRA-Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Fletcher v. Menard Correctional Center, 623 F.3d 1171 (7th Cir. 2010). A state prisoner subject to the Prison
Litigation Reform Act's (PLRA) three strikes provision brought a civil rights action against a prison, warden,
and various prison employees, alleging the defendants violated his federal constitutional rights by using
excessive force to restrain him and by recklessly disregarding his need for medical attention. The district
court dismissed the complaint for failure to pre-pay the filing fee, and a motions panel authorized the
prisoner's appeal. The appeals court affirmed. The court held that that while the prisoner's allegation of
excessive force satisfied the three strikes provision's imminent danger requirement, the prisoner failed to
exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA. The court noted that the prisoner had an administrative
remedy under an Illinois regulation providing an emergency grievance procedure for state prisoners claiming
to be in urgent need of medical attention. (Menard Correctional Center, Illinois)

U.S. District Court
PLRA-Prison Litigation
Reform Act
APPOINTED ATTORNEY
RIGHT TO COUNSEL

Franco-Gonzales v. Holder, 767 F.Supp.2d 1034 (C.D.Cal. 2010). Aliens, who were diagnosed with severe
mental illnesses, filed a class action, alleging that their continued detention without counsel during pending
removal proceedings violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the Rehabilitation Act, and the
Due Process Clause. The aliens moved for a preliminary injunction. The district court granted the motion in
part. The court held that the aliens were not required to exhaust administrative remedies, since the very core
of the aliens' claim was that without the appointment of counsel, they would be unable to meaningfully
participate in the administrative process before the BIA, and the BIA did not recognize a right to appointed
counsel in removal proceedings under any circumstances; therefore, resort to the BIA would be futile. The
court held that the mentally ill aliens who were detained pending removal proceedings, without counsel and
for prolonged periods without custody hearings, were entitled to a mandatory preliminary injunction
requiring the immediate appointment of qualified counsel to represent them during their immigration
proceedings and custody hearings. (Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, Northwest Detention Center, Tacoma, Washington)

U.S. Appeals Court
EXPERT WITNESS
DUE PROCESS

Gayton v. McCoy, 593 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 2010). The administrator of a female detainee‘s estate brought a §
1983 action against correctional facility officials and nurses, alleging they violated her due process rights by
failing to provide adequate medical care. The district court entered summary judgment for the defendants,
and the administrator appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The
appeals court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding a physician unqualified to offer
expert testimony that the detainee's death from non-specific heart failure would have been prevented had she
been given her congestive heart failure medication, where the physician lacked specific knowledge in
cardiology and pharmacology, and he provided no basis for his testimony except that the detainee's
medication treated heart disease. But the appeals court held that the district court abused its discretion in
finding the physician unqualified to offer expert testimony that the detainee's vomiting combined with her
diuretic medication may have contributed to her tachycardia and subsequent death from non-specific heart
failure. (Peoria County Jail, Illinois)

U.S. Appeals Court
INITIAL APPEARANCE
DUE PROCESS

Gonzalez-Fuentes v. Molina, 607 F.3d 864 (1st Cir. 2010). A class of prisoners convicted of murder, who had
been released pursuant to an electronic supervision program (ESP), filed a complaint under § 1983, seeking a
preliminary injunction against their re-incarceration pursuant to a regulation which became effective after
their releases. The district court granted a preliminary injunction and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
appealed. Another class of prisoners who had been re-incarcerated filed a separate petition for a writ of
habeas corpus and the district court granted the petition. The district court consolidated the two cases, and
denied the Commonwealth's motion to dismiss. The commonwealth appealed. The appeals court reversed in
part, vacated in part, and remanded. The court held that the re-incarceration of the prisoners convicted of
murder under a new regulation eliminating the ESP program for prisoners convicted of murder, did not
violate the ex post facto clause, where the prisoners had committed their crimes of conviction at times
predating the creation of the ESP, so that Puerto Rico's decision to disqualify prisoners from participating in
the ESP had no effect on the punishment assigned by law. The court also held the re-incarceration of the
prisoners convicted of murder did not violate substantive due process. The court found that although the
impact of re-incarceration on the prisoners was substantial, Puerto Rico had a justifiable interest in faithfully
applying the new statute which barred prisoners convicted of murder from the ESP program. According to
the court, there was no showing that Puerto Rico acted with deliberate indifference or that re-imprisonment
was conscience-shocking. The court found that the re-incarceration of the prisoners deprived them of

XXIV

1.173

procedural due process, where the prisoners were not given any pre-hearing notice as to the reason their ESP
status was revoked, and the prisoners had to wait two weeks after their arrest before receiving any
opportunity to contest it. (Puerto Rico Department of Justice, Puerto Rico Administration of Corrections)
U.S. District Court
EXHAUSTION
LAW LIBRARY
RETALIATION

Green v. Tudor, 685 F.Supp.2d 678 (W.D.Mich. 2010). A state inmate brought a § 1983 action against four
employees at a prison for claims arising from his access to a prison law library and the adequacy of the
prison's food service. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion.
The court held that the inmate failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to bringing his claim against an
assistant librarian alleging denial of access to courts through a denied “call-out” request. The court found that
the assistant librarian did not engage in retaliatory conduct against the inmate and did not deny the inmate
equal protection. The court held that the assistant food service director did not coerce the inmate, an
Orthodox Muslim, into participating in Jewish religious practices, and did not take any actions establishing a
state religion, so as to violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The court held that the
alleged denial by the prison's assistant food service director of adequate advance notice of meal substitutions,
hot meals during non-daylight hours during a religious holiday, and adequate nutritional calories to the
Muslim inmate was rationally related to legitimate governmental and penological interests of prison security
and fiscal budgetary discipline, and thus the denials did not violate the inmate's First Amendment free
exercise rights. The court noted that the inmate retained alternative means for practicing his Muslim faith,
and granting requests for specialized diets would be expensive and would divert resources from other
penological goals. (Muskegon Correctional Facility, Michigan)

U.S. Appeals Court
FILING FEES
IN FORMA PAUPERIS
PLRA-Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Harris v. City of New York, 607 F.3d 18 (2nd Cir. 2010). A prisoner brought an action under § 1983, alleging
that he was assaulted by corrections officers. The district court dismissed the prisoner's complaint on the
grounds that he had accumulated four strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), was not
entitled to in forma pauperis status, and had not paid any filing fees. The prisoner appealed. The appeals
court held that PLRA's three strikes limitation on in forma pauperis proceedings was applicable to the
prisoner, even though he was released from prison subsequent to filing the complaint. The court found that
PLRA's three strikes rule was not an affirmative defense that needed to be raised in the pleadings, and that
the district court could rely on docket sheets to determine whether the three strikes rule applied. According to
the court, the proper practice upon dismissal of the prisoner's suit was to permit him to apply for in forma
pauperis status as a non-incarcerated plaintiff if he so qualified. (City of New York Department of
Corrections, Riker's Island)

U.S. District Court
PLRA-Prison Litigation
Reform Act
EXHAUSTION
TRANSFER

Hartry v. County of Suffolk, 755 F.Supp.2d 422 (E.D.N.Y.2010). An inmate brought a § 1983 action against
a sergeant and a county, alleging failure to protect him from harm and deliberate indifference to his health
and safety. The district court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court held that the
inmate's transfer from one county prison to another county prison deprived him of a meaningful opportunity
to pursue his administrative remedies following an attack by another inmate, and therefore, his failure to
exhaust administrative remedies prior to bringing his § 1983 action against the sergeant and the county was
excused. The court noted that the inmate handbook permitted an inmate five days to file a grievance, and the
inmate was transferred within two days of the attack. The court held that summary judgment was precluded
by a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the inmate faced a real and significant threat of harm from
other inmates, and whether the prison sergeant was aware of a substantial risk of harm to the inmate from
other inmates. The court also found a genuine issue of material fact as to whether moving an inmate only in
response to a direct threat, within or outside of the jail, was a reasonable protective measure. (Suffolk County
Correctional Facility, New York)

U.S. Appeals Court
LAW LIBRARY

Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (9th Cir. 2010). A state prisoner, proceeding pro se, brought a § 1983 action
against prison officials, alleging denial of his right to court access and violations of the Eighth Amendment.
The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and the prisoner appealed. The appeals court
reversed and remanded. The court held that the prisoner’s allegations that prison officials denied him access
to a prison law library while the facility was on lockdown, and that he was prevented from filing a brief in
support of his state court appeal of his conviction, were sufficient to plead an actual injury as required to
state a claim for violation of his First Amendment right to court access, and his Fourteenth Amendment right
to due process. The court held that allegations by the state prisoner that prison officials forced him to choose
between spending eight hours per week for eight months on either exercising outdoors or using the law
library to research his § 1983 complaint and state-law habeas petition were sufficient to plead claim of an
Eighth Amendment violation. (California State Prison-Sacramento C-Facility)

U.S. District Court
EXPERT WITNESS

Hunt ex rel. Chiovari v. Dart, 754 F.Supp.2d 962 (N.D.Ill. 2010). A pretrial detainee's estate brought a civil
rights action against a sheriff, whose actions allegedly led to the death of detainee while he was in custody at
a county jail. The district court granted the sheriff’s motion for summary judgment. According to the court,
the mere fact that the pretrial detainee died while he was in the custody of the sheriff at the county jail was
not sufficient to give rise to an excessive force claim under the due process clause, without identifying any
responsible officer, or providing any admissible evidence regarding what happened to the detainee or what
the detainee or any officers in the vicinity were doing at the time of the detainee's collapse. The court found
that the opinions of medical experts, that the detainee’s death resulted from trauma to the head from an
assault, “was hopelessly speculative” and therefore inadmissible. (Cook County Jail, Illinois)

XXIV

1.174

U.S. Appeals Court
ADA- Americans with
Disabilities Act
APPOINTED ATTORNEY

Johnston v. Maha, 606 F.3d 39 (2nd Cir. 2010). An inmate brought a § 1983 action against employees of a
county jail, alleging violations of his constitutional rights and of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
in connection with detention and medical care while in jail. The district court granted the defendants
summary judgment. The inmate petitioned for the appointment of counsel in his appeal. The appeals court
granted the petition. The court held that the appointment of counsel was appropriate in connection with the
inmate's appeal from dismissal of his claim that his placement in solitary confinement, and subsequent
excessive force he suffered, violated his constitutional rights, since there was likely merit in the inmate's
claims. The court found that it appeared from the inmate's complaint that he might have been a pretrial
detainee at the time he was placed in solitary confinement, and thus the claim that the inmate was subjected
to excessive force as a detainee would arise under the Fifth, not the Eighth Amendment, because as a
detainee he could not be punished at all. The court noted that there was no evidence that the inmate violated
any rule or was provided with a pre-deprivation hearing. According to the court, the legal issues were fairly
complex, especially with respect to whether the inmate's pretrial detention was substantial enough to give
rise to a constitutional violation of a procedural due process right. (Genesee County Jail, New York)

U.S. District Court
EXHAUSTION
PLRA-Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Jones v. Mathai, 758 F.Supp.2d 443 (E.D.Mich. 2010). A prisoner brought an action against several prison
officials, including a prison doctor, alleging retaliation and deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs. The district court denied the doctor’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. The court held that
the doctor was not entitled to dismissal of the prisoner's claims alleging retaliation for failure to exhaust,
where the doctor had filed two motions for summary judgment, a motion to dismiss, and a motion for
reconsideration that all determined the prisoner had exhausted his claim under the requirements of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act of 1995. (Deerfield Correctional Facility, Michigan)

U.S. District Court
PLRA-Prison Litigation
Reform Act
EXHAUSTION

Kasiem v. Switz, 756 F.Supp.2d 570 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). A state prisoner, proceeding pro se, brought a § 1983
action against the New York Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) and prison employees, alleging
violations of his rights involving the defendants' purported failure to adequately treat his claimed hearing
problems and related ear pain. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The court
held that the prisoner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, as required under the Prison Litigation
Reform Act (PLRA), prior to bringing a § 1983 action, where any grievances possibly covering his claims
were never fully exhausted or became exhausted only months after the suit was filed. (Sullivan Correction
Facility, New York)

U.S. District Court
LEGAL MAIL

Kendrick v. Faust, 682 F.Supp.2d 932 (E.D. Ark. 2010). A female state prison inmate brought a § 1983
action against employees of the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC), alleging various violations of
her constitutional rights. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion
in part and denied in part. The court held that the inmate failed to allege that she sustained an actual injury or
that an Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) official denied her the opportunity to review her mail
prior to its being confiscated, as required to support a claim that the official violated the inmate's
constitutional right of access to the courts and her First Amendment right to send and receive mail. (Arkansas
Department of Corrections)

U.S. Appeals Court
LEGAL MAIL
LAW LIBRARY

Olson v. Brown, 594 F.3d 577 (7th Cir. 2010). An inmate at a county jail which served as a temporary
detention center filed a class action in state court against a sheriff, alleging that procedures at the jail violated
Indiana law and the inmates' First Amendment rights. The inmate challenged jail staff's alleged practices of
opening inmates' legal mail, denying inmates access to the law library, and failing to respond to inmates'
grievances. The case was removed to federal court. The inmate moved for class certification but he was
transferred out of jail before the court's ruling. The district court granted the sheriff's motion for judgment on
the pleadings and dismissed action as moot. The inmate appealed. The appeals court reversed and remanded,
finding that the inherently transitory exception to the mootness doctrine prevented dismissal of the case. The
court noted that even though the inmate was transferred out of the jail prior to certification of his class action,
there would likely be a constant class of persons suffering the deprivation complained of in the inmate’s
complaint. (Tippecanoe County Jail, Indiana)

U.S. Appeals Court
PLRA-Prison Litigation
Reform Act
EXHAUSTION

Parzyck v. Prison Health Services, Inc., 627 F.3d 1215 (11th Cir. 2010). A prisoner who was denied an
orthopedic consultation for his continual and severe back pain brought a civil rights action to recover for
prison officials' alleged deliberate indifference to his medical needs. The district court dismissed the
complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and the prisoner appealed. The appeals court
reversed and remanded. The court held that the prisoner did not have to file new grievances addressing every
subsequent act by prison official that contributed to the continuation of a problem already raised in an earlier
grievance in order to exhaust his administrative remedies. The court noted that the prisoner had demonstrated
“meticulous respect” for the corrections department’s administrative grievance procedures.(Apalachee
Correctional Institution, Florida)

U.S. Appeals Court
ACCESS TO COURT
FILING FEES
INITIAL APPEARANCE

Qureshi v. U.S., 600 F.3d 523 (5th Cir. 2010). A detainee filed a complaint against the United States seeking
damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act based on his allegedly unlawful detention by the Department of
Homeland Security. The district court issued an order requiring him to obtain the court's permission before
filing suit in any federal court in the state of Texas, and the detainee appealed. The appeals court vacated and
remanded. The appeals court held that the pre-filing injunction was invalid where the district court entered
the injunction without affording the detainee prior notice or the opportunity to oppose the injunction or be
heard on its merits. (Texas)

XXIV

1.175

U.S. District Court
PLRA-Prison Litigation
Reform Act
EXHAUSTION

Russo v. Honen, 755 F.Supp.2d 313 (D.Mass. 2010). A federal prisoner brought a § 1983 action against a
sheriff and various medical officials, alleging withholding of necessary medical treatment in violation of the
Eighth Amendment. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment.
The district court denied the motion. The court held that genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether
the federal prisoner was denied access to the inmate grievance forms required to exhaust his administrative
remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). (Plymouth County Correctional Facility,
Massachusetts)

U.S. Appeals Court
APPOINTED ATTORNEY
IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Santiago v. Walls, 599 F.3d 749 (7th Cir. 2010). A state prisoner brought a § 1983 action against certain
officers and employees of the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC), alleging that they violated his
constitutional rights by failing to protect him from other inmates, failing to provide him with medical care,
and retaliating against him for speaking out against the IDOC. Following a jury trial, the district court
entered judgment in favor of the defendants. The prisoner appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part,
reversed and remanded in part. According to the appeals court, the district court abused its discretion in
denying the pro se state prisoner's request for counsel under the federal in forma pauperis statute during the
discovery phase of his § 1983 action. The appeals court found that the district court failed to consider the
relatively difficult allegations the prisoner had to prove, the difficulty posed by the prisoner's confinement in
another facility during trial preparation, the prisoner's inability to identify parties and witnesses, and a
decidedly uncooperative prison administration who had the assurances of the magistrate judge that it would
not have to worry about a lawyer being around during the discovery period. The appeals court ruled that the
prisoner was prejudiced by district court's denial of his request for counsel, requiring reversal. (Menard
Correctional Center, Illinois)

U.S. District Court
PLRA-Prison Litigation
Reform Act
ATTORNEY FEE

Shepherd v. Wenderlich, 746 F.Supp.2d 430 (N.D.N.Y. 2010). A state prisoner brought a § 1983 action
against prison officials and related defendants for alleged violations of his First Amendment right to free
exercise of religion, as well as his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.
The district court entered judgment upon a jury verdict for the prisoner against two of the defendants,
awarding $1 in actual damages. The prisoner moved for post-trial relief. The district court held that the
prisoner was the “prevailing party” in the action and that he had satisfied statutory requirements, under the
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), for the award of attorney fees as the “prevailing party.” The court
held that a cap on the award of attorney fees of 150% under PLRA was applicable to the prisoner's action.
The prisoner originally sought attorneys' fees totaling $99,485.25, which were later reduced to $46,575. The
district court awarded attorneys' fees against the two defendants in the amount of $1.40 and awarded costs
against the two defendants in the total amount of $2,124. (Elmira Correctional Facility, New York)

U.S. Appeals Court
EQUAL PROTECTION
LEGAL MAIL
RIGHT TO COUNSEL
DUE PROCESS

Stanley v. Vining, 602 F.3d 767 (6th Cir. 2010). A prisoner filed a § 1983 action against prison officials,
claiming deprivation of his constitutional rights by a prison guard who was allegedly reading the prisoner's
legal mail in the prisoner's presence in his cell in violation of a prison regulation, and by issuing a prison
misconduct charge against the prisoner after an exchange of angry words. The district court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The prisoner appealed. The appeals court affirmed.
The court held that although the prisoner had a liberty interest in receiving his mail, under the First
Amendment, the prisoner was not deprived of his procedural due process rights based on the prison guard
allegedly violating a prison regulation by reading the prisoner's mail in the prisoner's presence in his cell.
The court noted that the prisoner received a post-deprivation hearing, as part of the prison grievance
procedure, which determined that the guard had not read mail in violation of regulation.
The court found that the prisoner's allegation that the guard issued a misconduct charge against him over
their dispute that the guard allegedly read the prisoner's legal mail did not rise to the level of a valid § 1983
claim, where the prisoner failed to allege that the charge interfered in any way with his rights to counsel,
access to courts, equal protection, or procedural due process. The court noted that the complaint stated no
facts or theories from which the court could devise a plausible constitutional claim, and did not even divulge
what the disposition of the charge was. According to the court, no constitutional provision flatly prohibits, as
unlawful censorship, a prison from opening and reading a prisoner's mail, unless it can be shown that the
conduct interferes with the prisoner's right to counsel or access to the courts, or violates his rights of equal
protection or procedural due process. “We find no per se constitutional rule that such conduct automatically
violates a broad, general rule prohibiting censorship, as our dissenting colleague seems to imagine. (Alger
Maximum Correctional Facility, Michigan Department of Corrections)

U.S. District Court
LEGAL MAIL
TRANSFER

Tafari v. McCarthy, 714 F.Supp.2d 317 (N.D.N.Y. 2010). A state prisoner brought a § 1983 action against
employees of the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS), alleging, among other
things, that the employees violated his constitutional rights by subjecting him to excessive force, destroying
his personal property, denying him medical care, and subjecting him to inhumane conditions of confinement.
The employees moved for summary judgment, and the prisoner moved to file a second amended complaint
and to appoint counsel. According to the court, one incident in which state correctional officers allegedly
interfered with the prisoner's outgoing legal mail did not create a cognizable claim under § 1983 for violation
of the prisoner's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, absent a showing that the prisoner suffered any
actual injury, that his access to courts was chilled, or that his ability to legally represent himself was
impaired. (New York State Department of Correctional Services, Eastern New York Correctional Facility)

XXIV

1.176

U.S. Appeals Court
FILING FEES
IN FORMA PAUPERIS
PLRA-Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Taylor v. Watkins, 623 F.3d 483 (7th Cir. 2010). A state prisoner filed a § 1983 action against officers and
employees of the Illinois Department of Corrections, claiming violation of his civil rights by allegedly
contaminating his food, tampering with his mail, depriving him of sleep, and assaulting him. Following an
evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the prisoner's request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), upon
concluding that he was not in imminent danger as required for the three-strikes provision of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), and subsequently dismissed action after the prisoner failed to pay the filing
fee. The prisoner appealed and requested leave to proceed IFP. The appeals court denied the request. The
court held that a prior evidentiary hearing was required to consider contested imminent danger allegations,
ordering the prisoner to pay the filing fee if he wanted the case to go forward. (Illinois Dept. of Corrections)

U.S. Appeals Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act
FILING FEES

Torres v. O'Quinn, 612 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2010). An inmate brought an action against state prison officials,
complaining that the officials failed to repair a malfunctioning night-light in his prison cell, resulting in a
disturbing strobe effect. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted. The inmate appealed and the appeals court affirmed. The inmate then brought a
separate action against prison officials, alleging a constitutional violation due to the prison's prohibition of
his subscription to commercially available pictures of nude women. The district court dismissed the action
for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, the inmate appealed, and the appeals court
dismissed the appeal. The inmate then moved for a partial refund of filing fees that had been collected from
his prison trust account, challenging the prison's practice of withholding 40 percent of his account to satisfy
the filing fee requirement for his two appeals. The appeals court found that PLRA required that no more than
20 percent of an inmate's monthly income be deducted to pay filing fees, irrespective of the total number of
cases or appeals the inmate had pending at any one time. The court held that granting the inmate a partial
refund of fees was not warranted since the amounts withheld from the inmate's account were actually owed
and were properly, if excessively, collected. (Red Onion State Prison, Virginia)

U.S. District Court
SPEEDY TRIAL

Varricchio v. County of Nassau, 702 F.Supp.2d 40 (E.D.N.Y. 2010). A detainee brought a § 1983 action
against a county and officials, alleging civil rights violations. The defendants moved for dismissal. The
district court granted the motion in part and denied in part. The court held that the detainee adequately
alleged that he was denied his right to a speedy trial and that he was presumptively prejudiced by the delay,
as required to state a § 1983 claim for a Sixth Amendment violation. The detainee alleged he was held for
two years in prison prior to receiving trial for the charge of violating a protective order, and that he was
subsequently found not guilty. The court held that the detainee adequately alleged that his conditions of
confinement constituted cruel and unusual punishment, as required to state an Eighth Amendment claim. The
detainee alleged that he received tainted food that contained bodily waste, soap, metal pins, and staples, and
that, when he went on a hunger strike to protest his legal situation, deputy sheriffs were taking bets on when
he would start eating again. (Nassau County Sheriff's Department, New York)

U.S. District Court
INITIAL APPEARANCE
DUE PROCESS

Waker v. Brown, 754 F.Supp.2d 62 (D.D.C. 2010). An arrestee, proceeding pro se, brought a § 1983 action
against various defendants, including the District of Columbia mayor and police chief. The defendants filed
motions to dismiss and the arrestee filed a motion to compel the identities of police and Department of
Corrections (DOC) officers. The district court granted the defendants’ motions in part and denied in part, and
denied the plaintiff's motion. The court held that police officers did not violate the arrestee's due process
rights in arresting him and detaining him for several days, where the arrest was based upon a fugitive warrant
from another county that was not invalidated or based upon mistaken identity, and the arrestee appeared
before a court and was released on his own recognizance. The arrestee had been held for six days in jail prior
to his release. (District of Columbia Jail)

U.S. District Court
EXHAUSTION
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Ward v. Rabideau, 732 F.Supp.2d 162 (W.D.N.Y. 2010). Jewish prison inmates at a state correctional
facility brought a § 1983 action against prison officials, alleging their First Amendment rights were violated
by the defendants' failure to properly accommodate their religious needs. The defendants moved for
summary judgment. The district court denied the motion. The court found that summary judgment was
precluded by genuine issues of material fact as to whether “special circumstances” existed so as to excuse the
two inmates' failure to exhaust administrative remedies, pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(PLRA), prior to bringing a § 1983 action against prison officials. The court held that summary judgment
was precluded by genuine issues of material fact as to whether a correctional officer treated Jewish prison
inmates differently on account of their religion. The court also found a genuine issue of material fact as to
whether cold alternative meals available in a state correctional institution violated the Jewish inmates'
constitutional right to a kosher diet, pursuant to the inmates' rights to religious liberty under First
Amendment. According to the court, summary judgment was precluded by a genuine issue of material fact as
to whether prison officials prevented Jewish inmates from having materials necessary to their worship, on the
inmates' claim that the officials failed to make reasonable accommodation to their religious beliefs in
violation of the First Amendment, by not providing a rabbi or religious materials in the correctional facility.
(Groveland Correctional Facility, New York)

U.S. Appeals Court
LAW LIBRARY
JAIL HOUSE LAWYERS

Watkins v. Kasper, 599 F.3d 791 (7th Cir. 2010). A state inmate who was a prison law clerk brought a § 1983
action against a prison law librarian, alleging retaliation for the inmate's exercise of his free speech rights.
Following a jury verdict for the inmate, the district court denied the librarian's motions for judgment as a
matter of law or for a new trial. The librarian appealed. The appeals court reversed and remanded with
instructions. The court held that the inmate law clerk's speech that criticized prison library policies requiring
that clerks not help other inmates prepare their legal documents and not store the clerks' personal legal
materials in the library was not protected by the First Amendment. The court found that the speech had a

XXIV

1.177

negative impact on the prison librarian's legitimate interests in discipline and providing efficient library
services, particularly since it amounted to advocacy on behalf of other inmates, and the inmate had an
alternative means to express his complaints. The court also found that the inmate law clerk's oral complaint
to the prison librarian about the placement of his personal materials in the library was not protected by his
First Amendment right to free speech, where the complaint was made in a confrontational, disorderly
manner. (Miami Correctional Facility, Indiana)
2011
U.S. Appeals Court
PRIVILEGED CORRESPONDENCE/MAIL

Al-Amin v. Smith, 637 F.3d 1192 (11th Cir. 2011). A state prison inmate brought a § 1983 action against state
corrections officials, alleging that the officials had repeatedly opened his privileged attorney mail outside of
his presence, in violation of his rights of access to the courts and free speech. The district court denied the
officials' motion for summary judgment. The appeals court affirmed in part and reversed in part, and denied
rehearing en banc. The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. On remand, the district court granted
the officials' motion, precluding the inmate from offering evidence of either compensatory or punitive
damages. The inmate appealed. The appeals court affirmed, finding that the prisoner could not seek punitive
damages relief absent a physical injury, under the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. (Georgia
State Prison)

U.S. District Court
DUE PROCESS
INITIAL APPEARANCE

Alexander v. City of Muscle Shoals, Ala., 766 F.Supp.2d 1214 (N.D.Ala. 2011). A pretrial detainee sued a
city, city police officers, jailers, a mayor, and city council members, asserting § 1983 claims alleging
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and his health and safety. The court found that qualified
immunity applied to bar the § 1983 liability of jailers for deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs
of the pretrial detainee, because the detainee failed to argue against the qualified immunity defense.
According to the court, once a defendant raises a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the
burden of establishing both that the defendant committed the constitutional violation and that the law
governing the circumstances was already clearly established at the time of the violation, and the detainee
failed to adequately respond to the qualified immunity defense. The court noted that the jailers did not
contact medical professionals at the detainee's request for four days at most, and that the detainee, who
complained that he was in pain, at that point had been without prescription pain medication to which he was
addicted for at least three days. The court also noted that the detainee had already faked a suicide attempt to
garner jailers' attention and had also been both combative and difficult. (City of Muscle Shoals Municipal
Jail, Alabama)

U.S. Appeals Court
RECORDS
EVIDENCE

Alspaugh v. McConnell, 643 F.3d 162 (6th Cir. 2011). A state prisoner filed a civil rights action alleging
excessive force and deliberate indifference against numerous state and private defendants. The district court
granted summary judgment against the prisoner. The prisoner appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part
and reversed in part. The appeals court held that the prisoner's request for a videotape of a fight was of the
nature that it would have changed legal and factual deficiencies of his civil rights action alleging excessive
force, and thus the prisoner was entitled to production of it, since the videotape would have shown how
much force had been used in subduing the prisoner. But the court held that the prisoner who was alleging
excessive force and deliberate indifference was not entitled to the production of his medical records before
considering the state's motion for summary judgment, where the state and private defendants produced
enough evidence to demonstrate that medical personnel were not deliberately indifferent to his medical
needs. (Ionia Maximum Security Correctional Facility, Michigan)

U.S. District Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act
EXHAUSTION

Annoreno v. Sheriff of Kankakee County, 823 F.Supp.2d 860 (C.D.Ill. 2011). A federal pretrial detainee
brought a § 1983 action against a county sheriff, correctional officers, and others, alleging that the officers
assaulted him while in their custody. The defendants moved for summary judgment and the district court
granted the motion. The court held that the detainee failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) prior to filing suit. According to the court, the detainee's submission of
a “sick call slip,” rather than an “inmate grievance form,” regarding an alleged assault committed upon him
by corrections officers, was inadequate to exhaust administrative remedies under PLRA, and thus the district
court lacked jurisdiction over the detainee's § 1983 action. The court noted that sick call slips were submitted
directly to medical department and not forwarded to administrative staff who received inmate grievance
forms, the inmate handbook required that complaints be submitted in writing on an inmate grievance form,
and the detainee knew that grievance forms were used in the facility and had filed multiple grievance forms
prior to the incident in question. (Jerome Combs Detention Center, Kankakee County, Illinois)

U.S. District Court
LAW LIBRARY
TELEPHONE

Bradley v. Mason, 833 F.Supp.2d 763 (N.D.Ohio 2011). State inmates filed a § 1983 action asserting
multiple causes of action pertaining to their convictions and conditions of confinement. The district court
dismissed the case, finding that class certification was not warranted, where the inmates made no attempt to
define the class, many claims were specific to named plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs were proceeding pro se.
The court held that a pretrial detainee had no reasonable expectation of privacy in telephone calls made from
within jail to individuals other than his attorney, and thus jail officials did not violate the detainee's Fourth
Amendment rights by monitoring his calls to his former spouse.
The court held that the county inmates lacked standing to raise a claim that the county jail's lack of a law
library violated their due process rights, where the inmates did not claim that they attempted to exercise the
right of self-representation and did not otherwise have access to legal materials. According to the court, the
county jail's removal of its law library was rationally related to its interest in reducing expenses, and thus did
not violate the inmates' equal protection rights. The court noted “…because Plaintiff's claim for law library is

XXIV

1.178

not explicitly or implicitly guaranteed by the Constitution, it is not a fundamental right. Therefore, the
prison's policy need only bear a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest.” (Cuyahoga County Jail,
Ohio)
U.S. District Court
PLRA-Prison Litigation
Reform Act
EXHAUSTION

Davis v. Correctional Medical Services, 760 F.Supp.2d 469 (D.Del. 2011). A state inmate filed a § 1983
action alleging that prison medical officials failed to provide mental health treatment, failed to follow
policies and procedures to prevent officers and other inmates from harassing him, and failed to provide
adequate medical treatment for his broken nose. The district court granted the officials’ motions to dismiss
and for summary judgment. The court held that the failure of the prison's mental health administrator to
speak to the inmate or to investigate his complaint regarding his treatment and his living conditions did not
violate any recognizable constitutional right, as required to sustain the inmate's § 1983 claim against the
administrator. The court held that the inmate adequately exhausted his administrative remedies under the
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) regarding medical treatment for his fractured nose, as required to file
suit under § 1983 in federal court regarding his treatment, even though he did not appeal the grievance
resolution decisions, where the grievances were resolved in the inmate’s favor. (James T. Vaughn
Correctional Center, Delaware)

U.S. District Court
SELF INCRIMINATION

Doe v. Heil, 781 F.Supp.2d 1134 (D.Colo. 2011). A state prisoner convicted of a sex offense filed a § 1983
action, alleging that Department of Corrections (DOC) regulations requiring him to provide a full sexual
history and to pass a polygraph examination in order to participate in a sex offender treatment program
violated his constitutional rights. The defendants moved to dismiss. The district court granted the motion.
The court held that the regulations did not violate the prisoner's Fifth Amendment privilege against selfincrimination. According to the court, the DOC had a legitimate penological interest in having convicted sex
offenders complete a treatment program before being released on parole. The court found that the prisoner
lacked a due process liberty interest in participating in a sex offender treatment program. (Colorado
Department of Corrections Sex Offender Treatment and Monitoring Program)

U.S. District Court
ACCESS TO ATTORNEY
DUE PROCESS

Franco-Gonzales v. Holder, 828 F.Supp.2d 1133 (C.D.Cal. 2011). Immigrant detainees brought a putative
class action on behalf of mentally disabled detainees being held in custody without counsel during removal
proceedings, asserting claims under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), Rehabilitation Act, and Due
Process Clause. A detainee who was a native and citizen of Belarus, and who had been deemed mentally
incompetent to represent himself in removal proceedings, moved for a preliminary injunction. The district
court granted the motion in part. The court held that: (1) the detainee was entitled to a custody hearing at
which the government had to justify his continued detention on the basis that he was a flight risk or would be
a danger to the community; (2) a qualified representative for a mentally incompetent immigrant detainee may
be an attorney, law student or law graduate directly supervised by a retained attorney, or an accredited
representative; (3) the detainee’s father could not serve as a qualified representative for detainee at a custody
hearing; (4) appointment of a qualified representative to represent the detainee at a custody hearing was a
reasonable accommodation under the Rehabilitation Act; (5) the likelihood of irreparable harm and the
balance of hardships favored the detainee; and (6) a mandatory injunction was warranted. (Sacramento
County Jail, California)

U.S. District Court
LAW LIBRARY
WRITING MATERIAL

Guarneri v. West, 782 F.Supp.2d 51 (W.D.N.Y. 2011). A former prisoner brought a pro se action against
numerous correctional facilities' employees for constitutional claims arising during his incarceration. The
defendants moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion. The court held that the fact
that the prisoner was not permitted to go to a law library as frequently as he wanted, or was not issued a
sufficient supply of writing paper, did not constitute denial of access to courts. The court noted that there was
no evidence of harm in his ability to contest his underlying criminal conviction or to fully litigate other
grievances and proceedings. According to the court, the prisoner failed to explain how his more than 50
documented visits to prison law libraries were insufficient to permit him to fully litigate his convictions and
grievances, identify any papers he was unable to file due to the lack of paper, or specify an actual injury that
resulted from the correctional facility's failure to provide him with unlimited access to the libraries. (Elmira
Correctional Facility, New York)

U.S. District Court
PLRA-Prison Litigation
Reform Act
EXHAUSTION

Hale v. Rao, 768 F.Supp.2d 367 (N.D.N.Y. 2011). An inmate brought an action against prison officials
alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, and alleging that the conditions of his
confinement violated the Eighth Amendment. Prison officials moved for summary judgment. The district
court granted the motion in part and denied in part. The court excused the state inmate's failure to exhaust
administrative remedies prior to bringing the claim in federal court because prison staff had thrown out a
grievance filled out by another inmate on the inmate's behalf, refused to provide the inmate with the
materials needed to file another grievance, and threatened to physically assault him if he attempted to utilize
the grievance procedure. The court noted that the inmate was illiterate and had a poor understanding of the
grievance procedure. (Downstate Correctional Facility, New York)

U.S. Appeals Court
FRIVOLOUS SUITS
IN FORMA PAUPERIS
LAW LIBRARY
LEGAL MAIL
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Haury v. Lemmon, 656 F.3d 521 (7th Cir. 2011). A prisoner, proceeding pro se, brought a § 1983 action
against prison personnel, alleging they interfered with delivery of his legal mail and failed to provide a
sufficient law library. The district court denied the prisoner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the
prisoner appealed. The appeals court reversed and remanded. The appeals court held that dismissal of the
prisoner's prior lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction did not warrant imposing a strike for filing frivolous actions in
determining whether the prisoner could proceed in forma pauperis under the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(PLRA) in his current § 1983 action. (Indiana)

XXIV

1.179

U.S. District Court
INVESTIGATION
TELEPHONE

Hill v. Donoghue, 815 F.Supp.2d 583 (E.D.N.Y. 2011). An inmate, proceeding pro se, brought an action
against an Assistant United States Attorneys (AUSA) and the United States, asserting various claims under
Bivens and the Wiretap Act in relation to his jailhouse phone calls. The defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which the district court granted. The court held that the AUSAs were entitled to absolute immunity from claims relating to their use of the tapes. The but court found that an AUSA was not
entitled to absolute immunity for ordering the recordings, where the alleged order to make warrantless recordings of the inmate's jailhouse phone calls was investigative, rather than prosecutorial, and therefore, the
AUSA was not entitled to absolute immunity from the inmate's Wiretap Act or Bivens Fourth Amendment
claims. The court found that the inmate did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his jailhouse
phone calls, and therefore, the warrantless recording of his calls did not violate his Fourth Amendment
rights. The court noted that the jail telephones played a recorded warning that calls might be recorded and
monitored, and the inmate's use of a jailhouse phone after hearing the warning constituted implied consent to
the recording of his calls. (Eastern District of New York, Nassau County Correctional Center, New York)

U.S. Appeals Court
IN FORMA PAUPERIS
PRO SE LITIGATION

Hoskins v. Dart, 633 F.3d 541 (7th Cir. 2011). A state prisoner filed a civil rights action against a county
sheriff and corrections officers. The district court dismissed the action and the prisoner appealed. The appeals court affirmed. The court held that the prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP), who
had been actively litigating three other cases, was not entitled to omit his litigation history in subsequent case
on the basis that another prisoner had told him that he could ignore that portion of the complaint form. According to the court, the prisoner was subject to sanctions for fraudulent litigation conduct because the omission could be considered both material and intentional, since the prisoner had signed the form, his signature
certified the truth of the entire complaint, and the complaint had contained highlighted instructions ordering
him to list those lawsuits. The court held that dismissal with prejudice of all of the prisoner's cases was an
appropriate sanction. (Cook County Sheriff, Illinois)

U.S. District Court
SEARCHES

Johnson v. Government of Dist. of Columbia, 780 F.Supp.2d 62 (D.D.C. 2011). Female arrestees, who were
arrested for non-drug and non-violent offenses, brought an action against the District of Columbia and a
former United States Marshal for the Superior Court, among others, alleging that the defendants' blanket
policy of subjecting them to “drop, squat, and cough” strip searches before presentment to a judicial official
violated their rights to be free from unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment, and their rights to
equal protection under the Fifth Amendment. The marshal moved for summary judgment. The court granted
the motion in part and denied in part. The court held that the Marshal was entitled to qualified immunity
from the Fourth Amendment claim and that there was no evidence that the Marshal implemented a policy
that directed the blanket practice of strip searching female arrestees, as would support a Fifth Amendment
claim, nor that the Marshal knew of a blanket practice of strip searching female arrestees. The court noted
that the law at the time of the searches did not clearly establish that strip searching female arrestees prior to
presentment to a judicial official violated the Fourth Amendment. (United States Marshal for the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia)

U .S. Appeals Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Khatib v. County of Orange, 639 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2011). A former detainee sued a county for allegedly
violating the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) by requiring her to remove her
headscarf, in public, against her Muslim religious beliefs and practice, while she was held on two occasions
in a county courthouse holding facility pending disposition of her probation violation. The district court
granted the county's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and the detainee appealed. The appeals
court reversed and remanded, finding that the holding facility was an “institution” under RLUIPA. According to the court, the county courthouse holding facility was a “pretrial detention facility,” and thus was an
“institution” under RLUIPA, where the facility's main purpose was to temporarily hold individuals who were
awaiting court proceedings, including individuals awaiting trial. The court noted that although the facility
housed inmates for relatively short periods, it held up to 600 inmates a day, and was described by the county
as a secure detention facility for the confinement of persons making a court appearance. According to the
court, the short-term detainee was not required to satisfy PLRA's exhaustion requirements before suing for
the county's alleged violation of RLUIPA in failing to accommodate her religious beliefs. (Orange County
Santa Ana Courthouse, California)

U.S. Appeals Court
FRIVOLOUS SUITS
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Knox v. Bland, 632 F.3d 1290 (10th Cir. 2011). A state inmate who had unsuccessfully sought in state court
to have his name changed for religious reasons brought a pro se action under § 1983 against eight state-court
judges, seeking mandamus and injunctive relief, and contending that the defendants violated his Fourteenth
Amendment rights to equal protection and due process, his First Amendment rights to freedom of religion
and to petition the government for redress of injustice, the Seventh, Ninth, and Thirteenth Amendments, and
the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The district court dismissed the complaint as frivolous and malicious under a prisoner complaint screening statute. The inmate appealed. The
appeals court affirmed, finding that federal courts lacked the authority to issue a writ of mandamus ordering
state-court judges to take action in their capacities as such, that the inmate could not obtain injunctive relief
against the state-court judges under § 1983, and that the inmate's claims were “frivolous” within meaning of
prisoner complaint screening statute. (Oklahoma State Penitentiary)

U.S. Appeals Court
EXHAUSTION
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act
RETALIATION FOR
LEGAL ACTION

McCollum v. California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 647 F.3d 870 (9th Cir. 2011). Inmates and a
volunteer prison chaplain brought an action against the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) and others, challenging CDCR's paid chaplaincy program, and alleging retaliation for
bringing such a suit. The defendants moved to dismiss and for summary judgment. The district court granted
the motion to dismiss the inmates' claims in part, dismissed the chaplain's Establishment Clause claim for
lack of standing, and granted summary judgment on the chaplain's remaining claims. The plaintiffs appealed.

XXIV

1.180

The appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that the inmates' grievances failed to alert CDCR that
inmates sought redress for wrongs allegedly perpetuated by CDCR's chaplaincy-hiring program, as required
to exhaust under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). According to the court, while the inmates'
grievances gave notice that the inmates alleged the prison policies failed to provide for certain general
Wiccan religious needs and free exercise, they did not provide notice that the source of the perceived
problem was the absence of a paid Wiccan chaplaincy. (Calif. Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation)
U.S. Appeals Court
LEGAL RESEARCH

McCree v. Grissom, 657 F.3d 623 (7th Cir. 2011). A federal inmate brought a Bivens action against prison
officers, alleging denial of access to the courts. The district court dismissed the complaint and the inmate
appealed. The appeals court affirmed. The court held that the inmate was not denied access to the courts in
his previous § 1983 action by being placed in special housing, which had a new research system he did not
know how to use and he was not instructed in its use. The court noted that the inmate filed a notice of appeal,
a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, a motion to reconsider the denial of that motion, and a motion to
suspend appeal. (Federal Correctional Institution Greenville, Illinois)

U.S. District Court
LEGAL MAIL

Neff v. Bryant, 772 F.Supp.2d 1318 (D.Nev. 2011). A prisoner brought a § 1983 action against a warden,
caseworker and correctional officers, alleging violations of the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
After dismissal of the prisoner's claims, the prisoner filed an amended complaint. The court found that the
prisoner's allegations that legal materials mailed to him were intercepted and withheld, and that as a result he
lost a motion related to a civil claim, were insufficient to state a § 1983 claim for denial of access to the
courts in violation of the First Amendment, absent allegations as to the nature of the motion, or that the result
of the failed motion was the loss of a non-frivolous direct criminal appeal, habeas corpus petition, or § 1983
claim. (Ely State Prison, Nevada)

U.S. Appeals Court
TYPEWRITER

Nevada Dept. of Corrections v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2011). The Nevada Department of
Corrections brought an action against an inmate, seeking declaratory judgment that its ban on personal
possession of typewriters by inmates was constitutional. Following intervention by additional inmates, the
district court granted the Department’s motion for summary judgment. Several inmates appealed, and the
appeals were consolidated. The appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that: (1) the typewriter ban
did not constitute First Amendment retaliation; (2) the ban did not infringe upon the inmates' First
Amendment right of access to the Nevada Supreme Court; (3) the ban did not infringe upon the inmates’
Fourteenth Amendment due process rights; and (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in not
affording the inmate the opportunity to conduct discovery prior to its ruling on the Department’s motion for
summary judgment. The court noted that the Department’s ban on personal possession of typewriters by
inmates reasonably advanced a legitimate correctional goal of institutional safety, and that the ban was
enacted after the murder of an inmate with a weapon fashioned from the roller pin of a typewriter. (Nevada
Department of Corrections)

U.S. District Court
EVIDENCE
EXHAUSTION
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act
TRANSFER

Pauls v. Green, 816 F.Supp.2d 961 (D.Idaho 2011). A female pretrial detainee brought an action against a
county, county officials, and a jail guard, alleging that she was coerced into having inappropriate sexual
contact with the guard. The defendants moved to dismiss and for summary judgment, and the plaintiff moved
to compel discovery and for sanctions. The district court granted the motions, in part. The court held that the
detainee was not required to file grievances after being transferred to a state prison before filing her § 1983
action, in order to satisfy the administrative exhaustion requirement under the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(PLRA). The court noted that the county jail grievance procedures were not available to detainees after they
transferred, and the county did not offer any assistance to the detainee after learning of the alleged assaults.
(Adams County Jail, Idaho)

U.S. District Court
LAW LIBRARY

Thorpe v. Little, 804 F.Supp.2d 174 (D.Del. 2011). A pretrial detainee, proceeding in forma pauperis,
brought a § 1983 action against a prison, prison officials, and prison medical personnel, alleging violations of
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Civil Rights Act, Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act
(CRIPA), and supplemental state law claims. The detainee moved to show cause and for transfer to a
different institution. The district court denied the motions and dismissed the claims in part. The court held
that the prison did not violate the pretrial detainee's First Amendment right of access to courts by only
allowing the detainee to receive legal services from the prison law library through written requests, where the
detainee was provided access to courts if he merely submitted a written request, and the detainee was
represented by a public defender. (James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, Smyrna, Delaware)

U.S. District Court
EVIDENCE
INTERROGATION

XXIV

Tillman v. Burge, 813 F.Supp.2d 946 (N.D.Ill. 2011). A former prisoner, who served nearly 24 years
in prison for rape and murder before his conviction was vacated and charges were dismissed,
brought a § 1983 action against a city, county, police officers, police supervisors, and prosecutors, as
well as a former mayor, alleging deprivation of a fair trial, wrongful conviction, a Monell claim,
conspiracy under § 1985 and § 1986, and various state law claims. The defendants filed separate
motions to dismiss. The district court granted the motions in part and denied in part. The court held
that the former prisoner’s allegations that police officers engaged in suppressing, destroying, and
preventing discovery of exculpatory evidence, including instruments of torture used to coerce the
prisoner's confession, stated a § 1983 claim against the police officers for a Brady violation, despite
the officers' contention that the prisoner was aware of everything that he claimed was withheld at the
time of the trial. The court found that the former prisoner’s complaint, alleging that municipal
officials acted in collusion with a former mayor and a state's attorney and high-ranking police
officials to deflect public scrutiny of the actions of police officers that suppressed and prevented

1.181

discovery of exculpatory evidence, which prolonged prisoner's incarceration, stated a § 1983 claim
against municipal officials for deprivation of fair trial and wrongful conviction.
According to the court, a prosecutor was not entitled to absolute immunity from the § 1983
complaint by the former prisoner, alleging that the prosecutor personally participated in the
prisoner's interrogation and that of a codefendant, and then suppressed the truth concerning those
events. The court found that the allegation put the prosecutor's conduct outside the scope of his
prosecutorial function. The court held that the complaint by the former prisoner, alleging that the
former prosecutor encouraged, condoned, and permitted the use of torture against the prisoner in
order to secure a confession, stated a § 1983 claim against the prosecutor for coercive interrogation,
in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The court noted that the allegations supported
the inference that the prosecutor participated in an investigatory rather than a prosecutorial role.
According to the court, the “Plaintiff's 46–page complaint sets forth an account of the murder of
Betty Howard and Plaintiff's arrest and prosecution for that murder, including the torture he alleges
he endured at the hands of Area 2 police officers. The complaint also details the history of torture at
Area 2 and the alleged involvement of the various Defendants in that torture and in subsequent
efforts to cover it up.” (Cook County, Illinois)
U.S. District Court
EXHAUSTION
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Troy D. v. Mickens, 806 F.Supp.2d 758 (D.N.J. 2011). Two juvenile delinquents brought a § 1983 action
against mental health providers and the New Jersey Juvenile Justice Commission (JJC), alleging that the
actions of the defendants while the delinquents were in custody violated the Fourteenth Amendment and
New Jersey law. One of the plaintiffs was 15 years old when he was adjudicated as delinquent and remained
in custody for a total of 225 days. For approximately 178 of those days, the delinquent was held in isolation
under a special observation status requiring close or constant watch, purportedly for his own safety.
Although the delinquents were placed in isolation for different reasons, the conditions they experienced were
similar. Each was confined to a seven-foot-by-seven-foot room and allowed out only for hygiene purposes.
The rooms contained only a concrete bed slab, a toilet, a sink, and a mattress pad. One delinquent was
allegedly held in extreme cold, and the other was allegedly isolated for four days in extreme heat. Both were
denied any educational materials or programming, and were prevented from interacting with their peers. One
delinquent’s mattress pad was often removed, a light remained on for 24 hours a day, and he was often
required to wear a bulky, sleeveless smock. Both delinquents were allegedly denied mental health treatment
during their periods in isolation. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The district court
denied the motion. The court held that there was no evidence that a juvenile delinquent housed in New
Jersey Juvenile Justice Commission (JJC) facilities was educated about filing a form with a social worker as
the procedure for filing an administrative grievance, as required for the procedure to be available to the
delinquent to exhaust his § 1983 claims against JJC and mental health providers. The court also found that
there was no evidence the New Jersey Juvenile Justice Commission (JJC) provided written notice to the
juvenile delinquent housed at JJC facilities of the opportunity to appeal their disciplinary sanctions, which
would have triggered the requirement that he appeal each sanction within 48 hours of notice, as required to
exhaust administrative remedies. (New Jersey Juvenile Justice Commission, Juvenile Medium Security
Facility, New Jersey Training School, Juvenile Reception and Assessment Center)

U.S. Appeals Court
SPEEDY TRIAL

U.S. v. Ferreira, 665 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 2011). After denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment based on
violation of his Sixth Amendment speedy trial right, a defendant pled guilty in district court to conspiracy to
distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. The defendant appealed. The appeals court reversed and
remanded. The court held that a thirty-five month delay between an indictment charging conspiracy to
distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine and the defendant's guilty plea was sufficient to trigger an
analysis of the defendant's claim that his Sixth Amendment speedy trial rights were violated. The court found
that the thirty-five month delay was caused solely by the government's gross negligence, for the purposes of
determining whether such a delay violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to speedy trial. The
defendant was serving a term of imprisonment of 110 months following his guilty plea. (U.S. Marshals
Service, Bartow County, Cobb County, Georgia)
2012

U.S. Appeals Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act
EXHAUSTION

Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2012). A state prisoner brought a § 1983 action against correctional
officers, alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in connection with the officers' alleged
failure to comply with the prisoner’s medical orders, which required the prisoner to be housed in a ground
floor cell. The district court dismissed the action and denied the prisoner's motion to alter or amend the
judgment. The prisoner appealed. The appeals court affirmed and remanded. The court held that the district
court abused its discretion by failing to consider arguments that directed the court to crucial facts showing he
might have exhausted his administrative remedies, and in addition to being pro se, the prisoner was illiterate,
disabled, and had limited English skills. The court found that the prisoner satisfied the administrative
exhaustion requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) prior to filing his § 1983 action against
the correctional officers, where the prisoner filed grievances addressing the officers' alleged failure to
comply with medical orders several months before filing the complaint. (Mule Creek State Prison,
California)

U.S. Appeals Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act
EXHAUSTION

Albino v. Baca, 697 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2012). A detainee in a county jail brought a § 1983 action against a
sheriff, alleging failure to protect him against other inmates, deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs, failure to adequately train and supervise deputies, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and
gross negligence. The district court granted summary judgment for the sheriff. The detainee appealed. The

XXIV

1.182

appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that: (1) the sheriff, in asserting the detainee's failure to
exhaust administrative remedies, met his burden of showing that a grievance procedure existed and was not
followed; (2) jail officials did not affirmatively interfere with the detainee's ability to exhaust administrative
remedies, as would provide a basis for excusing failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the
provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA); and (3) the detainee failed to show that jail's
grievance procedure was effectively unavailable to him, due to his lack of awareness of the grievance
procedure. (Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department's, Main Jail, California)
U.S. District Court
LEGAL MAIL

Blalock v. Eaker, 845 F.Supp.2d 678 (W.D.N.C. 2012). A pretrial detainee brought a § 1983 action against
prison officials, alleging they lost his legal mail. The district court granted the defendants’ motion for
summary judgment. The court held that when prison staff ignored the detainee's subpoenas it did not violate
his right of access to the courts. The court noted that the detainee was represented by counsel, the subpoenas
were invalid as the detainee was a criminal defendant who had no right under North Carolina common law to
pretrial discovery, North Carolina statutes did not authorize the use of subpoenas “duces tecum” as a
criminal discovery tool, and North Carolina law did not allow criminal defendants to depose witnesses.
(Lincoln County Detention Center, North Carolina)

U.S. Appeals Court
LAW LIBRARY

Burd v. Sessler, 702 F.3d 429 (7th Cir. 2012). A state prisoner brought a § 1983 action against prison
officials, alleging that they deprived him of access to the courts by preventing him from using library
resources to prepare a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The district court dismissed the action and the
prisoner appealed. The appeals court affirmed, finding that the claim was barred by Heck v. Humphrey. The
court noted that such a claim for damages would require the prisoner to show that the deprivation of access
hindered his efforts to successfully withdraw his guilty plea, which would necessarily implicate the validity
of the prisoner's conviction that he incurred on account of that guilty plea. The court noted that even if the
prisoner was no longer in custody at the time of his § 1983 suit, he could have pursued federal habeas relief
while in custody, but failed to do so. Under Illinois practice, the prisoner had thirty days to file a motion to
withdraw his guilty plea, but for the first twenty-nine days of this period, he was held at prison facilities that
lacked library resources of any kind. (Sheridan Correctional Center, Illinois)

U.S. District Court
DUE PROCESS
LEGAL MATERIAL

Catanzaro v. Harry, 848 F.Supp.2d 780 (W.D.Mich. 2012). A state prisoner, proceeding pro se, brought a §
1983 action against a state department of corrections, department officials, a warden, parole board members,
and numerous prison and department employees, alleging violation of his due process rights, violation of the
Fourth Amendment, denial of adequate medical care, his right to free exercise of religion, equal protection,
access to courts, and retaliation. The district court held that: (1) the prisoner had no protected interest in early
release on parole; (2) the requirement that the prisoner complete a sex-offender treatment program as condition for parole did not violate the Due Process Clause as the condition for parole did not exceed the sentence
imposed on the prisoner; (3) the prisoner's conditions at sex-offender treatment facility did not implicate the
prisoner's right to procedural due process, notwithstanding the fact that the prisoner did not have access to
recreational facilities or a law library, the prisoner could not work, the prisoner had to arrange for his own
health care, and the prisoner did not have the opportunity to attend religious services; (4) the transfer of the
prisoner to facility for sex-offender treatment program did not violate his right to substantive due process;
and (5) the prisoner stated a claim for violation of Free Exercise Clause. According to the court, the prisoner's complaint, alleging that a parole agent prevented him from bringing his own legal papers with him during his transfer from a sex-offender treatment facility to a prison, and that as a result, the prisoner was unable
to notify the court of his address change and a lost opportunity to object to dismissal of two retaliation
claims, failed to state a claim for violation of prisoner's right of access to the courts. (Cooper Street Correctional Facility, Residential Sex Offender Program (RSOP) at the Kalamazoo, and Probation Enhancement
Program in Muskegon, Michigan)

U.S. District Court
LEGAL MAIL

Galeas v. Inpold, 845 F.Supp.2d 685 (W.D.N.C. 2012). An inmate, proceeding pro se, brought a § 1983
action against a mailroom officer, alleging mishandling of his legal mail. The district court granted the officer’s motion to dismiss. The court held that the inmate's allegations that his mother sent him two packages
by certified mail containing his legal papers, that the mailroom officer signed the receipt, and that the inmate
never received the packages were insufficient to plead intentional interference by the officer, as required to
state a § 1983 claim for denial of access to the courts in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court
also held that the allegations were insufficient to plead an actual injury, as required to state a § 1983 claim
against the mailroom officer for denial of access to the courts, absent allegations as to the contents of those
papers or of the legal to issue to which they were vital. (Lanesboro Correctional Institution, North Carolina)

U.S. District Court
POSTAGE
INDIGENT INMATES

Gaskins v. Dickhaut, 881 F.Supp.2d 223 (D.Mass. 2012). A state prisoner brought a § 1983 action against a
prison's superintendent and treasurer, alleging the defendants violated his constitutional right of access to
courts under the Fourteenth Amendment. The prisoner challenged a Massachusetts Department of
Corrections' (DOC) regulation that determined that an inmate was not indigent, and thus ineligible for free
postage, if he had more than $10 in his prison account during 60-day period. The defendants moved to
dismiss and the district court allowed the motion. The court held that the inmate failed to allege that the
policy prevented him from pursuing a legal claim or caused him to suffer an actual injury, as required to state
a § 1983 claim against prison officials for denial of access to courts under Fourteenth Amendment, where his
complaint lacked such allegations. (Massachusetts Department of Corrections, Souza Baranowski
Correctional Center)

XXIV

1.183

U.S. Appeals Court
COURT COSTS
RETALIATION

Gay v. Chandra, 682 F.3d 590 (7th Cir. 2012). A prisoner sued three mental health professionals at the prison
alleging constitutionally inadequate treatment and retaliation for a prior lawsuit. The district court required
the cost bond without evaluating the merit or lack of merit of the prisoner's claims, and then dismissed the
case with prejudice when prisoner did not post the bond he could not afford, and the prisoner appealed. The
appeals court reversed and remanded. The court held that the district court abused its discretion in failing to
consider the prisoner's current ability to afford a bond before requiring one as a condition of prosecuting a
civil rights lawsuit. The court noted that a court's authority to award costs to a prevailing party implies a
power to require the posting of a bond reasonably calculated to cover those costs, even though no statute or
rule expressly authorizes such an order. The court may require a bond where there is reason to believe that
the prevailing party will find it difficult to collect its costs when the litigation ends. The appeals court
described the plaintiff as a “deeply disturbed Illinois inmate with a long history of self-mutilation.” (Tamms
Correctional Center, Illinois)

U.S. Appeals Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act
FRIVOLOUS CASES

Gibson v. City Municipality of New York, 692 F.3d 198 (2nd Cir. 2012). A detainee in the custody of a state's
mental health commissioner filed a civil rights action against city officials. The district court dismissed the
complaint, and the detainee appealed. The appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that the detainee
was a “prisoner” within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). According to the court, a
detainee in the custody of the state's mental health commissioner pursuant to a temporary order of
observation was a “prisoner” within the meaning of PLRA, and thus could not proceed in forma pauperis in a
civil rights action against city officials because of his previous frivolous filings, where the criminal
proceedings against the detainee were merely suspended during his confinement and observation, and would
only terminate if he was still being held at the time a temporary order expired or the criminal charges at issue
were otherwise dropped. (Kirby Forensic Psychiatric Facility, New York)

U.S. Appeals Court
EXHAUSTION
FILING FEES
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Gonzalez v. Seal, 702 F.3d 785 (5th Cir. 2012). A state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
brought a § 1983 action against employees of a department of corrections (DOC), alleging harassment,
excessive force, denial of medical care, denial of due process, and assault and battery. After denying the
employees' motion for summary judgment, the district court denied the employees' motion for
reconsideration. The employees appealed. The appeals court reversed and remanded, finding that the district
court did not have the discretion to waive the pre-filing requirement of exhausting administrative remedies
under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The court noted that the prisoner exhausted administrative
remedies after his lawsuit was underway, but PLRA required exhaustion to occur prior to filing. (Louisiana
Department of Corrections)

U.S. Appeals Court
APPOINTED ATTORNEY

Gruenberg v. Gempeler, 697 F.3d 573 (7th Cir. 2012). A state prisoner, proceeding pro se, filed a § 1983
action against various prison officials, guards, and medical staff, alleging violations of the Eighth
Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The prisoner appealed. The
appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that: (1) the prisoner did not have a clearly established right to
not be continually restrained without clothing or cover in a cell for five days following his ingestion of a
handcuff key, the master key for belt restraints, and the key used for opening cell doors, where restraint had
been imposed to keep the prisoner from re-ingesting those keys; (2) the continuous restraint of the prisoner
without clothing or cover in a cell for five days did not violate his Fourteenth Amendment due process
rights; (3) the prisoner's Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claims
were barred; and (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion by ruling that the prisoner was competent to
advance his case and was not entitled to appointed counsel. (Waupun Correction Institution, Wisconsin)

U.S. District Court
APPOINTED ATTORNEY
IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Hartmann v. Carroll, 882 F.Supp.2d 742 (D.Del. 2012). A state prisoner brought a § 1983 action,
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, against a warden, deputy warden, and an employee of the medical
healthcare contractor for the Delaware Department of Correction (DOC). The prisoner alleged deliberate
indifference to his medical needs. The prisoner requested counsel, and the employee moved to dismiss. The
district court denied the request for counsel and denied the motion to dismiss. The court held that evidence
did not support the conclusion that the prisoner was incompetent, where the prisoner had actively
participated in the litigation, and he had been able to represent himself in court. (Sussex Correctional
Institution, Delaware)

U.S. District Court
LEGAL MAIL

Hill v. Terrell, 846 F.Supp.2d 488 (W.D.N.C. 2012). A state prisoner, proceeding pro se, brought an action
against a department of correction (DOC) and prison officials, alleging denial of access to the courts. The
district court granted the defendants motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court held that the prison's
censorship of the prisoner's outgoing mail did not violate his First Amendment rights, where two individuals
contacted the prison with notice that they did not wish to be contacted by the prisoner, the prison policy
permitted withdrawal of the prisoner's privilege to write to a particular person upon request by that person,
and the prisoner was informed that letters would be censored to those people. According to the court, the
prisoner's allegations that prison staff censored his legal mail, preventing him from communicating adequately or confidentially with his attorneys, were insufficient to state a § 1983 claim for denial of access to
the courts in violation of the First Amendment, absent allegations of any specific instances where his legal
mail was censored or of an actual injury from the censorship. (Marion Correctional Inst., North Carolina)

U.S. Appeals Court
DUE PROCESS
SPEEDY TRIAL

Holloway v. Delaware County Sheriff, 700 F.3d 1063 (7th Cir. 2012). An arrestee brought a § 1983 action,
alleging that a sheriff, who was sued in his official capacity, violated his rights by detaining him without
charges for nine days, The district court granted summary judgment for the sheriff and the arrestee appealed.
The appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that the sheriff did not violate the substantive due process

XXIV

1.184

rights of the arrestee, where the sheriff brought the arrestee before court for an initial hearing within 72 hours
of his arrest, followed the court's order in holding the arrestee without bond, and released the arrestee
promptly, within 72 hours of the initial hearing, excluding intervening weekend days, when the prosecutor
did not file charges within the time permitted by the court. (Delaware County Jail, Wisconsin)
U.S. District Court
ACCESS TO COUNSEL
ACCESS TO COURTS

In re Guantanamo Bay Detainee Continued Access to Counsel, 892 F.Supp.2d 8 (D.D.C. 2012). In habeas
proceedings challenging aliens' detentions at the U.S. Naval Facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, four
detainees moved individually to dismiss their habeas petitions without prejudice, conditioned on their
continued access to counsel under the protective order previously created to assure such rights. Counsel for
two other detainees, who were denied access to their counsel following the denial of their habeas petitions,
moved for an order affirming that the protective order continued to apply to them. The district court
consolidated the motions and held that the protective order continued to govern access to counsel issues for
all detainees who had a right to petition for habeas relief. (U.S. Naval Facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba)

U.S. District Court
EXPERT WITNESS

Jones v. Pramstaller, 874 F.Supp.2d 713 (W.D.Mich. 2012). The estate of a prisoner who died of viral
meningoencephalitis brought an action under § 1983 against a doctor who provided the prisoner with
medical care under contract with the contractor that provided health care to state prisoners. The doctor
moved for disqualification of the estate's expert witness. The district court granted the motion. The court held
that the estate failed to show that the expert witness' testimony was based on common sense rather than
expertise and experience, and the estate failed to show that the expert witness's opinion was based on reliable
principles and methods. The proposed expert witness, a physician, believed that the doctor's unreasonable
delay in having the prisoner hospitalized was probably a cause of the prisoner's death. (Ernest Brooks
Facility, Michigan Department of Corrections)

U.S. District Court
LEGAL MATERIAL

Joseph v. Fischer, 900 F.Supp.2d 320 (W.D.N.Y. 2012). A state prisoner who observed the Nation of Gods
and Earths (NGE) faith brought an action against correctional officials, alleging that the officials violated his
right to practice his religion, denied his right of access to courts, and retaliated against him. The prisoner
sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as money damages. The officials moved for judgment on the
pleadings. The district court granted the motion in part and denied in part. The court held that the issue of
whether correctional officials' restrictions on NGE activities were adequately justified by legitimate security
concerns, as required under the First Amendment and RLUIPA, could not be resolved on a motion for
judgment on the pleadings, since it was not possible, based solely on the pleadings, to determine whether the
actions of the officials had unjustifiably burdened the prisoner's religious exercise. The court found that the
prisoner's allegations, that he was denied access to courts due to a correctional official's confiscation or
destruction of documents, failed to state a claim for denial of access to courts, where the allegations were
conclusory, and the prisoner failed to show what prejudice he suffered as a result of the official's alleged
actions. (Attica Correctional Facility, New York)

U.S. Appeals Court
EVIDENCE

Livers v. Schenck, 700 F.3d 340 (8th Cir. 2012). Two pretrial detainees, who were arrested for murder, but
who were subsequently released after their charges were dropped, brought a § 1983 action against a county
sheriff and investigating officers, alleging violations of their Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment
rights. The district court entered an order denying the defendants' motions for summary judgment, and they
appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part, denied in part, and remanded. The court held that summary
judgment was precluded by fact issues as to whether a detainee's confession was coerced, and whether
officers fabricated evidence. The court held that the sheriff could not be liable under § 1983 for his alleged
failure to train investigating officers not to fabricate evidence, since any reasonable officer would know that
fabricating evidence was unacceptable. (Cass County Sheriff's Office, Nebraska)

U.S. District Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act
RETALIATION
EXHAUSTION
DUE PROCESS

Patel v. Moron, 897 F.Supp.2d 389 (E.D.N.C. 2012). A federal prisoner brought a Bivens action against
prison officials, alleging, among other things, deliberate indifference to his medical needs in violation of the
Eighth Amendment, violation of due process, retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and denial of
access to courts. The defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for a protective order and
stay, and the prisoner moved for a temporary restraining order, for a continuance to permit discovery, and to
strike portions of the defendants' motion to dismiss. The district court held that: (1) the prisoner was not
responsible for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(PLRA); and (2) the prisoner’s allegations were sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference claim. (Federal Correctional Center in Butner, North Carolina, and Rivers Corr’l Institution,
operated by the GEO Group, Inc)

U.S. Appeals Court
APPOINTED ATTORNEY

Powell v. Symons, 680 F.3d 301 (3rd Cir. 2012). A state prisoner filed a § 1983 action asserting Eighth
Amendment claim that a physician was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. The district court
granted summary judgment for the defendant and the prisoner appealed. Another prisoner filed a similar
claim and the district court granted summary judgment for defendants and that prisoner appealed. The
appeals were consolidated. The appeals court reversed and remanded, finding that the district court abused
its discretion as to one prisoner in not entering an order appointing an appropriate representative under the
guardian ad litem rule, and that a letter from a physician as to the other prisoner sufficed to put the district
court on notice that the prisoner possibly was incompetent. The court noted that the letter from the physician
stated that the prisoner “is under my care for Major Depression and Attention Deficit Disorder. I do not feel
he is competent at this time to represent himself in court. I would recommend that he be given a public
defender, if at all possible.” (SCI–Rockview, Pennsylvania)

XXIV

1.185

U.S. District Court
EXHAUSTION
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Rahim v. Holden, 882 F.Supp.2d 638 (D.Del. 2012). A state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, brought an action against prison officials, alleging violations of his due process rights related to his
parole. The officials moved for dismissal. The district court denied the motion. The court held that a grievance procedure was unavailable to the state prisoner with regard to claims against prison officials as to alleged Fourteenth Amendment due process violations related to his parole, and therefore, the prisoner was
excused from the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requirement to exhaust administrative remedies. The
prisoner was denied parole, which he believed was for arbitrary and constitutionally impermissible reasons,
but instructions for filing a grievance specifically stated that parole decisions were non-grievable. The court
noted that another form indicated he could appeal a parole decision to the Board of Parole by writing a letter
to the Board, and he wrote letters to Board. (James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, Delaware)

U.S. Appeals Court
STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS
42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1983

Richards v. Mitcheff, 696 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2012). A state prisoner brought a § 1983 action against a prison
doctor, alleging that a delay in treatment violated the Eighth Amendment. The district court granted the
doctor's motion to dismiss and the prisoner appealed. The appeals court reversed and remanded, finding that
the allegations were sufficient to plead incapacitation. According to the court, the prisoner's allegations that
he had several surgeries that disabled him, that he was in constant pain and unable to walk when out of a
hospital, and that he filed suit as soon as he could muster concentration and energy to do so, were sufficient
to plead incapacitation, as required to toll the limitations period under Indiana law for the prisoner's § 1983
claim against the prison doctor for violations of the Eighth Amendment. (Pendleton Corr’l. Facility, Indiana)

U.S. District Court
POSTAGE
RETALIATION FOR
LEGAL ACTION
WRITING MATERIAL

Ripp v. Nickel, 838 F.Supp.2d 861 (W.D.Wis. 2012). A prisoner brought an action against a prison warden
and other prison administrators claiming he was disciplined for threatening to file a lawsuit. The prisoner
moved to compel the warden to provide writing materials and postage. The district court granted the motion,
finding that the prisoner's right to have meaningful access to courts was violated when the warden refused to
provide postage to the prisoner, who had no money in his inmate trust fund account to purchase his own
postage, so that he could mail his summary judgment material to the court to pursue his claim that he was
disciplined for threatening to file a lawsuit. According to the court, the prisoner would suffer an actual injury
without the warden's assistance since he would be unable to file his summary judgment materials or otherwise continue litigating his case, and the prisoner's claim was not frivolous. (Columbia Correctional Institution, Wisconsin)

U.S. Appeals Court
SELF INCRIMINATION

Roman v. DiGuglielmo, 675 F.3d 204 (3rd Cir. 2012). A state prisoner petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus,
after a state court denied habeas relief, alleging that state's decision to deny him parole, unless he admitted
his guilt and participated in sex offender treatment program, violated his Fifth Amendment right against self
incrimination. The district court denied the petition and the prisoner appealed. The court held that the parole
condition did not violate the prisoner's right against self incrimination. The court noted that the state had a
legitimate interest in rehabilitating prisoners, the prisoner did not have any right or entitlement to parole
under state law, his sentence was not lengthened, and the actual conditions of his imprisonment had not been
altered. (Pennsylvania)

U.S. District Court
APPOINTED ATTORNEY
TRANSFER

Shah v. Danberg, 855 F.Supp.2d 215 (D.Del. 2012). A state inmate who pled guilty but mentally ill to a
charge of first degree murder filed a § 1983 action against a state judge and prison officials alleging that his
placement in a correctional center, rather than in a psychiatric center, violated his constitutional rights. The
court held that the state judge was entitled to absolute judicial immunity from liability in inmate's § 1983
action despite the inmate's contention that the judge's incorrect application of a state statute resulted in violation of his constitutional rights, where there were no allegations that the judge acted outside the scope of her
judicial capacity, or in the absence of jurisdiction. The could ruled that the state inmate failed to establish the
likelihood of success on the merits of his claim and thus was not entitled to a preliminary injunction ordering
his transfer, despite the inmate's contention that he was mentally unstable and had repeatedly caused himself
physical injury during his suicide attempts, where medical records the inmate submitted were ten years old,
and a state supreme court recognized that prison officials had discretion to house inmates at facilities they
chose. The court ordered the appointment of counsel, noting that the inmate was unable to afford legal representation, he had a history of mental health problems, and the matter presented complex legal issues. (James
T. Vaughn Correctional Center, Smyrna, Delaware)

U.S. District Court
EVIDENCE
EXPERT WITNESS

Stanfill v. Talton, 851 F.Supp.2d 1346 (M.D.Ga. 2012). The father of a pretrial detainee who died while in
custody at a county jail brought a § 1983 action individually, and as administrator of the detainee's estate,
against a county sheriff and others, alleging that the defendants violated the detainee's rights under the Eighth
and Fourteenth amendments. The county defendants moved for summary judgment, and the father crossmoved for partial summary judgment and for sanctions. The district court granted the defendants’ motion for
summary judgment. The court held that the father failed to establish that the county defendants had a duty to
preserve any video of the detainee in his cells, as would support sanctions against the defendants in the father's civil rights action. The court noted that the defendants did not anticipate litigation resulting from the
detainee's death, the father did not file suit until almost two years after the detainee's death, and there was no
indication that the father requested that the defendants impose a litigation hold or provided the defendants
any form of notice that litigation was imminent or even contemplated until the lawsuit was actually filed.
The court ruled that “All parties can agree that Stanfill's death was unfortunate, and that in hindsight, perhaps
more could have been done. Hindsight, however, is not an appropriate lens through which to view the
Defendants' actions. The Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proving that the Defendants violated
Stanfill's constitutional rights. The Defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.” (Houston
County Detention Center, Georgia)

XXIV

1.186

U.S. Appeals Court
EXHAUSTION
LEGAL MATERIAL
RETALIATION
TRANSFER

Surles v. Andison, 678 F.3d 452 (6th Cir. 2012). A state inmate filed a § 1983 action alleging that prison
officials had confiscated his legal papers and computer disks on multiple occasions, damaged or destroyed
legal and religious papers and property, taken actions to deprive him of access to courts, violated his First
Amendment rights, retaliated against him by filing false misconduct charges and transferring him to other
prisons, and conspired against him to violate his rights. The district court entered summary judgment in the
officials' favor, and the inmate appealed. The appeals court reversed and remanded. The court held that
summary judgment was precluded by genuine issues of material fact as to whether the state inmate exhausted
his administrative remedies, and whether prison officials prevented the inmate from filing grievances and
exhausting his administrative remedies. (Michigan Dept. of Corrections, Gus Harrison Correctional Facility)

U.S. District Court
DUE PROCESS
EQUAL PROTECTION
LEGAL ASSISTANCE

U.S. v. Maricopa County, Ariz., 915 F.Supp.2d 1073 (D.Ariz. 2012). The United States filed an action
against a county, the county sheriff's office, and the sheriff in his official capacity, relating to treatment of
Latinos, including jail detainees, and asserting claims for violations of the Fourth Amendment, retaliation in
violation of the First Amendment, violations of equal protection and due process, and discrimination on the
basis of race, color, or national origin in violation of Title VI and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. The defendants filed motions to dismiss. The district court denied the county's motion, and
granted the sheriff and sheriff's office motions in part and denied in part. The court held that the sheriff's
office was an entity that was not capable of being sued in its own name. The court found that allegations that
the county sheriff's office and the sheriff conducted jail operations in English and provided inadequate language assistance to the large jail population of Latino inmates who were limited English proficient (LEP)
individuals, thereby denying the Latino LEP inmates meaningful access to jail programs such as sanitary
needs, food, clothing, legal information, and religious services, stated a claim for disparate impact discrimination under Title VI by programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance. (Maricopa County
Sheriff's Office, Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio, Arizona)

U.S. District Court
EVIDENCE
TELEPHONE

U.S. v. Salyer, 853 F.Supp.2d 1014 (E.D.Cal. 2012). A defendant in a criminal prosecution moved to suppress recordings of telephone calls he made while in pretrial detention, and the government moved for an
order permitting it to listen to and use the recordings. The district court granted the motions in part and denied in part. The court held that most of the recorded conversations were not covered by attorney-client
privilege, and conversations in which legal advice was the predominate purpose were covered by the attorney-client privilege. The court noted that attorney-client communication was not the predominate purpose of
telephone conversations between defendant and attorney who was a friend and who did not represent him in
the criminal case. (Sacramento County Jail, California)

U.S. Appeals Court
EVALUATION
EVIDENCE

U.S. v. Thornberg, 676 F.3d 703 (8th Cir. 2012). Following his apprehension more than six years after escaping from federal prison camp, a defendant pled not guilty, by reason of insanity, to the charge of escape
from custody. The district court granted the defendant's first motion for a psychiatric evaluation, denied his
second motion for a psychiatric evaluation, and sentenced him to 30 months in prison upon his conviction by
a jury for escape. The defendant appealed. The appeals court affirmed. The appeals court found that although
a forensic psychologist from the federal Bureau of Prisons did not review the indigent defendant's full medical history, a psychiatric evaluation determining that the defendant did not suffer from a severe mental defect
was not deficient, precluding his claim of deprivation of due process by a single evaluation performed by a
psychologist rather than psychiatrist, and by denial of his request for a second evaluation to assess his competency to stand trial. The court noted that the psychologist reviewed defendant's medical records dating
from the time of his escape and concluded that his feelings of persecution from his family that allegedly coerced him to escape from prison were not evidence that he had delusions, as those feelings disappeared immediately after he escaped, and that his attempts to evade detection after escape could be seen as evidence of
his understanding of the wrongfulness of his conduct. (Federal Prison Camp, Duluth, Minnesota)

U.S. Appeals Court
LAW LIBRARY
RIGHT TO COUNSEL

U.S. v. Tyerman, 701 F.3d 552 (8th Cir. 2012). A defendant was convicted in district court of being a felon in
possession of a firearm and he appealed. The appeals court reversed and remanded. After a trial, the defendant was convicted in the district court of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, and possession of a stolen firearm. His motion for acquittal or new trial was denied and the defendant appealed. The
appeals court affirmed. The court held that the government's passive conduct in receiving information regarding the location of the defendant's gun, from the defendant's counsel, did not violate the defendant's
Sixth Amendment right-to-counsel. The court found that the defendant's conduct in creating handcuff keys
and practicing the use of them constituted a substantial step, as an element of attempt, with respect to escaping from pretrial incarceration, for purposes of using attempted escape as the basis for a sentence enhancement for obstruction of justice. At sentencing, a U.S. Marshal testified that prison guards discovered two
homemade handcuff keys in the defendant’s cell. According to the Marshal, during the investigation, other
inmates revealed the defendant’s plans to escape from jail and his use of the law library (which lacked surveillance) to practice removing handcuffs. (U. S. District Court, Iowa)

U.S. District Court
COMPUTERS
LEGAL MATERIAL
RETALIATION FOR
LEGAL ACTION

Vogelfang v. Capra, 889 F.Supp.2d 489 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). A female state inmate filed a pro se § 1983 action
against a prison's correction officers, officials, and medical staff, asserting 25 claims contesting the conditions of her confinement and the conduct of the staff. The defendants moved to dismiss. The district court
granted the motion in part and denied in part. The court held that the inmate’s complaint stated due process
claims based on insufficient notice of a disciplinary hearing and on the inmate's allegedly improper removal
from a disciplinary hearing. According to the court, the pro se state inmate's allegations that she was denied
access to a computer failed to state a claim against prison officials for due process violations absent allegations that such denial constituted an atypical and significant hardship to her. Although the inmate claimed

1.187

that it was impossible for her to perform legal work because courts no longer accepted hand-written documents, the court did not prohibit hand-written documents and had accepted them on prior motions in the
inmate's case. (Bedford Hills Correctional Facility, New York)
U.S. Appeals Court
ACCESS TO ATTORNEY
TELEPHONE
SPEEDY TRIAL

Waganfeald v. Gusman, 674 F.3d 475 (5th Cir. 2012). Pre-trial detainees who had been arrested for public
intoxication and were incarcerated in New Orleans when Hurricane Katrina struck the city brought a § 1983
action against a sheriff, chief deputy, and others, alleging claims for violations of their Fourth, Sixth, and
Eighth Amendment rights, as well as claims for false imprisonment under Louisiana law. A jury trial was
held. After denying the defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law, the district court entered judgment on the jury verdict for the plaintiffs on some of the claims, and denied the defendants' post-verdict
motions for judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively, for a new trial. The defendants appealed. The appeals court reversed, vacated, and remanded with instructions. The appeals court held that under Louisiana
law, the sheriff's actions fell within the emergency exception to the 48-hour rule, and so the plaintiffs' detention was not “unlawful,” as required to establish their claim of false imprisonment, despite the sheriff's failure to release them when they were not granted a probable cause determination within 48 hours after their
arrest. The court found that, even if the plaintiffs had a Sixth Amendment right to counsel during the period
in question, the chief deputy did not act in an objectively unreasonable manner in light of clearly established
law when, after the prison's land-line telephones became inoperable, he refused to let the plaintiffs use their
cell phones to call an attorney. (Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff, Louisiana)

U.S. Appeals Court
IN FORMA PAUPERIS
RETALIATION

Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2012). A state inmate brought a pro se § 1983 action against prison officials, alleging violations of his federal constitutional rights and Nevada laws. The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice pursuant to the in forma pauperis (IFP) statute, and the inmate appealed.
The appeals court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions. The court held that the
humiliation that the state inmate suffered during an alleged incident did not rise to the level of severe psychological pain as required to state an Eighth Amendment claim. The inmate alleged that a correctional officer
entered the inmate's cell while the inmate was on the toilet and, while the inmate was still on the toilet,
rubbed his thigh against inmate's thigh and smiled in sexual manner, then left the cell laughing, The court
found that the inmate sufficiently alleged a First Amendment retaliation claim against a correctional officer
and an associate warden by alleging that he engaged in protected conduct by filing grievances against the
officer and alleging: (1) that the officer and the associate warden took adverse actions against him, including
filing of a false disciplinary charge against him, placing him in administrative segregation, and telling lies
that resulted in denial of his parole, and (2) that such adverse actions were taken shortly after, and in retaliation for, the filing of grievances, and that the adverse actions, which involved more than minimal harms, had
no legitimate penological reason. The court held that the inmate sufficiently alleged a First Amendment retaliation claim against a correctional officer by asserting that he had filed grievances against the officer, who
allegedly refused to give him his breakfast, that the officer mentioned grievances during same interaction in
which the officer refused to give the inmate his breakfast, that the officer's conduct was retaliatory, and that
the inmate also asked during the same interaction to file an additional grievance about the denial of breakfast. (Nevada State Prison)

U.S. District Court
EXPERT WITNESS

Wilkins v. District of Columbia, 879 F.Supp.2d 35 (D.D.C. 2012). A pretrial detainee in a District of Columbia jail who was stabbed by another inmate brought an action against the District. The district court entered
judgment as a matter of law in favor of the District and the detainee moved for reconsideration. The district
court granted the motion and ordered a new trial. The court held that the issue of whether the failure of District of Columbia jail personnel to follow national standards of care for inmate access to storage closets and
monitoring of inmate movements was the proximate cause of the detainee's stabbing by a fellow inmate was
for the jury, in the detainee's negligence action, under District of Columbia law. Another inmate who was
being held at the D.C. Jail on charges of first-degree murder attacked the detainee. The inmate had received a
pass to go to the jail's law library, unaccompanied. Apparently he did not arrive at the library but no one
from the library called the inmate’s housing unit to report that he had not arrived. An expert retained by the
detainee asserted that failure to monitor inmate movements violated national standards for the operation of
jails. En route to the jail mental health unit, the detainee saw the inmate enter a mop closet. The inmate,
along with another inmate, approached the detainee and stabbed him nine times with a knife. During court
proceedings there was testimony that the inmates had hidden contraband in the mop closets. The closets are
supposed to be locked at all times, other than when the jail is being cleaned each afternoon. But there was
evidence from which the jury could infer that all inmates except those who did not have jobs cleaning in the
jail had access to them. According to the detainee’s expert witness, keeping mop closets locked at times
when the general inmate population is permitted to be in the vicinity of the closets is in accordance with
national standards of care for the operation of detention facilities. According to the district court, “In sum,
the circumstantial evidence of Mr. Foreman's [inmate who attacked the detainee] freedom of movement is
enough to have allowed a jury to conclude that the District's negligence was a proximate cause of Mr. Wilkins's injury…”. (District of Columbia Central Detention Facility)
2013

U.S. District Court
ACCESS TO COUNSEL
DUE PROCESS

Allen v. Clements, 930 F.Supp.2d 1252 (D.Colo. 2013). Inmates in the Colorado Department of Corrections
(CDOC) who had been sentenced to indeterminate terms of imprisonment under the Colorado Sex Offender
Lifetime Supervision Act (SOLSA) brought a class action against CDOC officials, alleging under § 1983 that
the officials were arbitrarily denying them sex offender treatment and interfering with their access to counsel
and courts. The officials moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The district court granted the motion.

1.188

The court held that: (1) the inmates failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim; (2) terminating one inmate's
treatment because of polygraphs did not violate due process; (3) denial of re-enrollment requests did not
implicate the inmates' liberty interests; (4) termination procedures comported with procedural due process;
and (5) the inmates failed to state a substantive due process claim. (Colorado Department of Corrections)
U.S. District Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act

Aref v. Holder, 953 F.Supp.2d 133 (D.D.C. 2013). Current and former prisoners brought an action against
the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), BOP officials, and the Attorney General, claiming that their First and Fifth
Amendment rights were violated when they were placed in Communications Management Units (CMUs), in
which their ability to communicate with the outside world was seriously restricted. Following dismissal of all
but the procedural due process and First Amendment retaliation claims, the defendants moved to dismiss the
First Amendment claims. The district court granted the motion in part and denied in part. The court held that:
(1) the prisoner's release from BOP custody rendered moot his official-capacity claims for equitable relief;
(2) a second prisoner sufficiently alleged a First Amendment retaliation claim; but (3) the Prison Litigation
Reform Act (PLRA) barred the prisoners' individual-capacity claims against a BOP official for mental or
emotional injury. (Federal Correctional Institutions in Terre Haute, Indiana, and Marion, Illinois)

U.S. District Court
EVIDENCE
EXPERT WITNESS

Barnes v. District of Columbia, 924 F.Supp.2d 74 (D.D.C. 2013). Inmates at local jails brought a class action, under § 1983, against the District of Columbia, alleging that their over-detentions violated their Fourth,
Fifth, and Eighth Amendment rights. Following certification of the classes, the parties filed pretrial motions
to exclude or limit certain evidence from being introduced at the liability trial. The district court granted the
motions in part and denied in part. The court held that: (1) records of inmate over-detentions constituted
admissible hearsay evidence; (2) evidence of a settlement in a related class action was admissible under the
“other purposes” exception of the rule governing admission of settlement evidence; (3) an expert's testimony
regarding the total number of over-detentions occurring during particular periods was admissible; and (4)
evidence regarding strip searches performed on inmates was not admissible. The District of Columbia attacked the methodology of the expert, but the court noted that the expert had years of experience reviewing
inmate jackets and other data to determine whether an inmate was over-detained, had personally reviewed
hundreds of inmate jackets, and had educated himself on the system of collecting inmate data. (District of
Columbia Department of Corrections)

U.S. Appeals Court
EVIDENCE

Burgess v. Fischer, 735 F.3d 462 (6th Cir. 2013). An arrestee brought an action under § 1983 against a county board of commissioners, sheriff, deputies, and jail nurse, alleging violations of his constitutional rights
during his arrest. The defendants moved for summary judgment and the district court granted the motion.
The arrestee appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part, vacated in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
The appeals court held that: (1) a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the force used against
the arrestee was reasonable; (2) a corrections officer and the jail nurse were not liable for failure to prevent
deputy sheriffs from using excessive force, absent a showing that the nurse and officer had both the opportunity and the means to prevent the harm from occurring; (3) the nurse was not liable for deliberate indifference to the arrestee's medical needs, where the arrestee's latent cranial injury was not so obvious that a lay
person would easily have recognized the necessity for a doctor's attention; (4) the county board of commissioners was not liable under § 1983 for any alleged conduct of deputy sheriffs in violating the arrestee's federal constitutional rights, absent a showing that any county policy or custom was the moving force behind
the alleged violations; (5) a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether a deputy sheriffs' use of force
against the arrestee was reckless under Ohio law; (6) a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether a
deputy sheriff assaulted the arrestee in response to an off-color jibe; and (7) genuine issues of material fact
existed as to whether the county board of commissioners, sheriff, and deputies knew that litigation was probable and whether their destruction of videotape evidence of deputies' use of force against the arrestee was
willful. (Greene County Jail, Ohio)

U.S. Appeals Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act
RETALIATION FOR
LEGAL ACTION

Childs v. Miller, 713 F.3d 1262 (10th Cir. 2013). A state prisoner brought a § 1983 action alleging prison
employees retaliated against him for exercising his federal constitutional right to file administrative grievances about his medical care. The district court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim. The prisoner
appealed. The appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that the defendant had three strikes under the
Prison Litigation Reform Act's (PLRA) in forma pauperis provision, and that dismissal of a complaint as
repetitive and an abuse of process constituted a strike under the PLRA's in forma pauperis provision. (Lawton Correctional Facility, Oklahoma)

U.S. District Court
EXPERT WITNESS

Clay v. Woodbury County, Iowa, 982 F.Supp.2d 904 (N.D.Iowa 2013). A female arrestee brought a § 1983
action against a city, an arresting officer, county, county sheriff, and jail officers, alleging, among other
things, that jail officers “strip searched” her without reasonable suspicion and in unconstitutional manner,
and did so in retaliation for her vociferous complaints about her detention and the search of her purse and
cell phone. The defendants moved for summary judgment, and the arrestee moved to exclude expert testimony. The district court held that the expert's reference to an incorrect standard for the excessive force claim did
not warrant excluding his opinions in their entirety, although portions of the expert's report were inadmissible. According to the court, the officers did not violate the arrestee’s privacy rights under the Fourth
Amendment where the officers' reason for removing the arrestee's bra-- institutional safety-- was substantially justified, and the scope of the intrusion was relatively small. The court also found that the officers were
entitled to qualified immunity from the female arrestee's § 1983 unlawful search claim, where the officers
neither knew, nor reasonably should have known, that their actions would violate the arrestee's privacy
rights. (Woodbury County Jail, Iowa)

1.189

U.S. District Court
APPOINTED
ATTORNEY
IN FORMA PAUPERIS
LEGAL MATERIAL
LAW LIBRARY

Cox v. LNU, 924 F.Supp.2d 1269 (D.Kan. 2013). A state inmate brought a pro se civil rights action in state
court. The defendants removed the action to federal court. The inmate moved to secure case law cited in the
defendants' court filings and for the appointment of counsel. The district court denied the motions. The court
held that: (1) the defendants were not required to furnish copies of unpublished cases that were available
through electronic providers; (2) the court would not exercise its discretion to require the defendants to provide copies of published decisions; (3) the inmate's declaration that he was “broke” and had “no money or
assets for anything” did not qualify as a motion to proceed in forma pauperis; and (4) even if the inmate
qualified for in forma pauperis status, discretionary authority to request appointment of counsel would not be
exercised. (Johnson County Jail, Kansas)

U.S. Appeals Court
EVIDENCE
LEGAL MATERIAL
RETALIATION FOR
LEGAL ACTION

Devbrow v. Gallegos, 735 F.3d 584 (7th Cir. 2013). A prisoner brought a § 1983 claim against two prison
officials, claiming that the officials denied him access to the courts by confiscating and then destroying his
legal papers in retaliation for a prior lawsuit he filed. The district court granted the prison officials' motion
for summary judgment, and denied the prisoner's motion for reconsideration. The prisoner appealed. The
appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that the prisoner failed to authenticate a purported e-mail from
a prison official to a law librarian supervisor, where there was no circumstantial evidence that supported the
authenticity of the e-mail, and no evidence that the prisoner or anyone else saw the official actually compose
or transmit the purported e-mail. The court held that the official's removal of the prisoner's excessive legal
materials from his cell, to eliminate a fire hazard and to make it easier for officials to conduct searches and
inventories of the prisoner's property during prison searches, was not retaliation for the prisoner's filing of a
prior lawsuit. According to the court, the prisoner's speculation regarding the officials' motive could not
overcome the officials' sworn statements on the motion for summary judgment. (Westville Correctional Facility, Indiana)

U.S. District Court
CIVIL SUIT
EVIDENCE

Donahoe v. Arpaio, 986 F.Supp.2d 1091 (D.Ariz. 2013). A former member of a county board of supervisors
brought an action against the sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, a former county attorney, and deputy
county attorneys, asserting claims under § 1983 and state law for wrongful institution of civil proceedings,
malicious prosecution, false imprisonment and arrest, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and unlawful search. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment. The district court denied the plaintiff's motion,
and granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions. The court held that summary judgment for the
defendants was precluded by fact issues: (1) with respect to the malicious prosecution claims; (2) as to
whether misrepresentations and omissions of evidence in a search warrant affidavit were material; (3) as to
unlawful search claims against the sheriff and deputy county attorneys; (4) with respect to the false arrest
claim; and (5) with respect to the claim for wrongful institution of civil proceedings. The court noted that a
reasonable magistrate would not have issued a search warrant based on the accurate and complete representation of known evidence. The court held that the retaliatory animus of the county sheriff and prosecutors
would chill a person of ordinary firmness from criticizing the sheriff and prosecutors and from vigorously
litigating against them. According to the court, fact issues as to whether the county sheriff and prosecutors
acted outrageously and either intended the arrestee harm, or were recklessly indifferent to whether their actions would infringe on his rights and cause him severe distress, precluded summary judgment for the defendants with regard to the claim for punitive damages in the action for unlawful search, false arrest, malicious prosecution, and First Amendment violations. (Maricopa County Sheriff and County Attorneys, Arizona)

U.S. District Court
DUE PROCESS
LEGAL MAIL
RETALIATION

Duran v. Merline, 923 F.Supp.2d 702 (D.N.J..2013). A former pretrial detainee at a county detention facility
brought a pro se § 1983 action against various facility officials and employees, the company which provided
food and sanitation services to the facility, and the medical services provider, alleging various constitutional
torts related to his pretrial detention. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the motions in part and denied in part. The district court held that fact issues precluded summary judgment on: (1) the conditions of confinement claim against a former warden in his official capacity; (2) an
interference with legal mail claim against a correctional officer that alleged that the facility deliberately
withheld the detainee's legal mail during a two-week period; and (3) a First Amendment retaliation claim
based on interference with legal mail. (Atlantic County Justice Facility, New Jersey)

U.S. Appeals Court
PLRA- Prison Litigation
Reform Act
EXHAUSTION

Fluker v. County of Kankakee, 741 F.3d 787 (7th Cir. 2013). An inmate and his wife filed a § 1983 action
against a county and the county sheriff's office to recover for injuries the inmate suffered when a correctional
officer who was driving a jail transport vehicle was required to brake suddenly, causing the inmate to hurtle
forward and hit his head on a metal divider. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants.
The plaintiffs appealed. The appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that the district court had the
ability, in the interests of judicial economy and finality, to address the merits of the suit once it determined
that the inmate had not exhausted his remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). (Kankakee
County, Jerome Combs Detention Center, Illinois)

U.S. District Court
EXPERT WITNESS

Ford-Sholebo v. U.S., 980 F.Supp.2d 917 (N.D.Ill. 2013). The wife of a deceased pretrial detainee who suffered from a seizure disorder, individually and as administrator of the detainee's estate, brought a wrongful
death action against the United States pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The district court
held that: (1) evidence supported a finding that the detainee had a seizure disorder; (2) correctional facility
employees breached the standard of care for treating the detainee's seizure disorder; (3) the employees' failures and breaches of the standard of care proximately caused the detainee's death; and (4) an award of damages to the wife in the amount of $40,000 for the loss of consortium was appropriate. The court noted that the
testimony of the administrator's expert physician and a pathologist who was subpoenaed to testify at trial,

1.190

that the detainee suffered from a seizure disorder, was overwhelmingly credible, while testimony of the government's two experts, that the detainee did not have seizure disorder, was incredible and unreliable. (Metropolitan Correctional Center, Chicago, and Kankakee County Detention Center, Illinois)
U.S. District Court
INITIAL APPEARANCE
DUE PROCESS

Gordon v. Johnson, 991 F.Supp.2d 258 (D.Mass. 2013). An alien, a lawful permanent resident who was
subjected to mandatory detention pending removal five years after his arrest for narcotics possession, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals,
seeking an individualized bond hearing to challenge his ongoing detention. The government moved to dismiss. The district court allowed the petition, finding that the phrase “when the alien is released” in the statute
authorizing mandatory detention of criminal aliens meant “at the time of release,” and that the petitioner was
entitled to a bond hearing for consideration of the possibility of his release on conditions. (Franklin County
Jail and House of Correction, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Sheriff of Bristol County,
Sheriff of Plymouth County, Sheriff of Suffolk County, Massachusetts)

U.S. District Court
EXPERT WITNESS

Grimes v. District of Columbia, 923 F.Supp.2d 196 (D.D.C. 2013). A juvenile detainee's mother filed a §
1983 action against the District of Columbia for violation of the Eighth Amendment and negligent hiring,
training, and supervision, after the detainee was attacked and killed by other detainees. After the district
court ruled in the District's favor, the appeals court vacated and remanded. On remand, the District moved
for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion. The court held that officials at the juvenile
detention facility were not deliberately indifferent to a known safety risk, and thus their failure to protect the
detainee from an attack by another detainee did not violate the Eighth Amendment. According to the court,
there was no evidence of a history of assaults on youth at the facility, such that any facility employee knew
or should have known that a fight between the detainee and another youth was going to take place, or that the
youth who fought with the detainee had a history of assaultive behavior while at the facility. The court also
found no evidence that a municipal custom, policy, or practice caused any such violation. The court also held
that the mother’s failure to designate an expert witness barred her claim. (Oak Hill Detention Facility, District of Columbia)

U.S. Appeals Court
STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS

Harrison v. Michigan, 722 F.3d 768 (6th Cir. 2013). A prisoner filed an action against a state and state officers seeking damages and injunctive relief stemming from his unlawful confinement in a prison system. The
district court dismissed the action. The prisoner appealed. The appeals court reversed and remanded. The
appeals court found that the statute of limitations applicable to the prisoner's § 1983 complaint had not been
triggered until the state court of appeals issued its holding that the prisoner had been improperly sentenced to
consecutive terms for his convictions and remanded the case for entry of a corrected judgment. The court
noted that although the prisoner apparently had learned that he was being held unlawfully while still in prison, he did not have knowledge of his injury until the state court of appeals established that he