Class Action by Prisoners Continues, Even as Representative Prisoner is Relocated

A class action suit brought by prisoners can still stand, even if the representative prisoner is relocated because of the susceptibility of mootness for an individual claim in this case

Richarson v. Dir. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 2106 BL 227670, 3d Cir., No. 15-2876, 7/15/16.

   The Third Circuit held that a class action suit by prisoners is still certified, even if the representative prisoner is relocated from the prison during the action. The court stated, “When individual claims for relief are acutely susceptible to mootness, a would-be class representative may, in some circumstances, continue to see class certification after losing his personal stake in the case.”

   In making this decision, the court relied on precedent from Weiss v. Regal Collections, 385 P.3d 337  (3d Cir. 2004), which provides that a claim for relief which is “susceptible to mootness” by the defending party can still stand if the representative class member has their own claim mooted.  The court found that this precedent withstood the test established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, which held that “a “class representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted.” In the case, however, the relevant corollary was that when a class action representative is denied a fair opportunity “[he] should be permitted to continue seeking class certification for some period of time after [his] claim has become moot.”   



http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Richardson_v_Fed_Bureau_of_Prisons_No_152876_2016_BL_227670_3d_Ci.

Prisoner’s Grievances are Protected by First Amendment

A prisoner’s letter to the warden seeking redress was protected under the First Amendment, making summary judgment against the prisoner’s civil suit against a guard premature without proper discovery procedures 

 Ogurek v. Gabor, 2016 BL 205005, 7th Cir., No. 15-1151, 6/27/16.

   The Seventh Circuit ruled that a prisoner’s petition for redress prevents summary judgment in prisoners’ grievance cases when evidence central to the case is being withheld by a government official. The prisoner plaintiff was beaten up in a prison fight and later asked the defendant to investigate the fight from surveillance footage. The defendant responded by claiming to have watched the fight, but found that the plaintiff started it. The defendant later filed a disciplinary action, which the plaintiff appealed. During the appeal, the plaintiff requested the surveillance video, but before the discovery was made, the defendant motioned for summary judgment, which the judge granted.
 

   The court first addressed the First Amendment issue, finding that the letter to the warden was a petition for a redress of grievances, thereby making the disciplinary action by the investigator for the complaint a violation of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Additionally, the court found that the trial judge erred in not allowing the discovery of the video surveillance that would have either supported the plaintiff’s claim or the defendant’s disciplinary action.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D06-27/C:15-1151:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1780753:S:0

Dismissal Due To Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Not Barred by FTCA

The Federal Tort Claims Act’s (FTCA) does not prevent cases dismissed for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction to preclude later claims with similar subject matter that are not subject to the Act's judgment bar

 Simmons v. Himmelreich, U.S., 15-109, decided 6/6/16

   The FTCA allows private individuals to bring suits against the government for most tort claims committed by those working on behalf of the United States. Under certain exceptions in the statute, someclaims cannot be litigated against employees who rely on their statutory duty for individual decision making. A prisoner's claim was dismissed due to the lack of subject matter jurisdiction under this exception. He then quickly filed a separate Bivens claim, arguing his constitutional rights were violated, raising the issue of whether his Bivens claim is precluded by the earlier dismissal.

   In this holding, the court provided a bright-line rule for these claims: FTCA's judgment bar provision does not apply to claims dismissed for falling within the act's "exceptions" section. The court in its opinion states, "the plain text of the 'Exceptions' section dictates that the judgment bar doesn't apply to a case such as this one--based on performance of a discretionary duty." The straight forward opinion will allow prisoners in similarly situated situations to raise a second claim that may be barred under FTCA.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-109_p860.pdf

Supreme Court Remands PLRA Case

The Supreme Court, in remanding a Prison Litigation Reform Act case to the circuit court, hints that administrative remedies provided by the state were so confusing that they effectively became “unavailable.”

Ross v. Blake, U.S., No. 15-339, 6/6/16.

After a complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), an inmate’s case will be remanded back to the circuit court after the Supreme Court received new documents detailing the state’s confusing administrative remedies provided to prisoners, which the Supreme Court suggested that the remedies were so confusing that they negate any administrative relief.

Initially, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine if special circumstance could be created under the PLRA for an inmate who thought he exhausted every remedy before filing a civil suit, but did not. After receiving new documents detailing the administrative procedures provided by the state for inmates, the case was remanded back to the circuit court to review the same question in light of the new documents being provided by the parties.

Additionally, the Supreme Court asked the circuit court to determine whether “Maryland officials thwarted the effective invocation of the administration process through threats, game-playing, or misrepresentations, either on a system-wide basis or in the individual case[.]”

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-339_1b7d.pdf

Congress Expansion Over Federal Inmates in Local Jail is Constitutional

Congress may make it a crime for federal inmates to commit sexual assaults while being held in state or local facilities.

 

United States v. Mujahid, 2015 BL 276994, 9th Cir., No. 11-30276

    The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the 2006 expansion of federal jurisdiction to cover state or local facilities housing federal prisoners falls within Congress's power. The expansion does not usurp state authority, and is within Congress's power to enact laws that are "necessary and proper" to ensure that federal prisoners are incarcerated in an orderly and safe manner.

    The necessary and proper clause allows Congress to enact laws that are rationally related to the implementation of its enumerated powers, the court ruled. The court determined that the expansion of jurisdictional reach of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2244 to include sex offenses occurring "in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General," indicating that this is a modest addition to a long history of regulation in this area.

    The court continued, "[a]lthough the state courts already criminalize this type of conduct, Congress didn't overreach merely by implementing a system that is "concurrent and complementary."

    “Congress has long been involved in legislating the terms of federal imprisonment,” and this extension is reasonably adapted to Congress's power to act as a “responsible federal custodian,” the court said.
 
http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/United_States_v_Mujahid_No_1130276_2015_BL_276994_9th_Cir_Aug_27_