By Angela Chmielewski | LexisNexis Practice Area Specialist
In a recent article published in this space, we pointed to the findings of the 2020 Legal Analytics Study , conducted by ALM Intelligence in...
It is fair to say that all of us were happy to close the chapter on 2021 and turn to a new page this year. The COVID-19 pandemic has upended our way of life for the last two years and has take a devastating...
Jail and prison staff need a clear understanding of evolving law—including inmate health law and emerging COVID-19 policies. In a webinar hosted by the American Jail Association and sponsored by...
Jail and prison staff need a clear understanding of evolving law—including inmate civil rights, inmate health, and case law. In a 2021 webinar hosted by the American Jail Association and sponsored...
Reducing the risk of inmate litigation
Jail and prison staff need a clear understanding of evolving law—including inmate civil rights, inmate health, and case law. In a 2021 webinar hosted by the...
Jail and prison staff need a clear understanding of evolving law—including inmate civil rights, inmate health, and case law. In a 2021 webinar hosted by the American Jail Association and sponsored by LexisNexis®, Professor Margo Schlanger, JD, shared important legal updates and insights for corrections officers and administrators.
Click here to download the complete complementary resource from LexisNexis.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act makes it mandatory for any prisoner who wants to file a federal court civil rights action to exhaust available administrative remedies first—that means proper use of an available grievance system. Facilities need to avoid the risk of offering an “unavailable” grievance system, which under Ross v. Blake (2015) could come into play:
Jails and prisons also need to comply with requirements for inmate access to the courts.
Case law indicates jails can choose the media, but that they need to provide equal access to people with disabilities. For example, by providing the following measures:
“I know that jails and prisons really like to treat everybody even-handedly, but the law doesn’t actually do that,” said Schlanger. “Regarding requests for accommodations, the law asks, ‘Why do you want it?’ So my suggestion is that you think about approaching it that way.”
Margo Schlanger outlined the two provisions of the Constitution that apply to conditions of confinement cases.
In years past, courts assumed the law was the same for pretrial and post-conviction inmates. But in 2015, in Kingsley v. Hendrickson, the Supreme Court clarified that this is not necessarily the case. For pretrial inmates in excessive force cases who sue under the 14th Amendment, those suits can win when the degree of force is objectively unreasonable, whether or not the resulting harm was intentional. “This change makes it somewhat easier for pretrial prisoners to win cases,” said Schlanger.
What this means for conditions of confinement cases is not yet clear, but the circuits disagree. A pending case, Strain v. Regalado, is requesting Supreme Court review.
Click here to download the complete resource from LexisNexis.
About Margo Schlanger, JD
Margo Schlanger is the Wade H. and Dores M. McCree Collegiate Professor of Law at the University of Michigan, and is a leading authority on civil rights issues and civil and criminal detention. She teaches constitutional law, torts and classes related to civil rights, jails and prisons. She also founded and runs the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Schlanger earned her JD from Yale University. She is the author of dozens of law review and other scholarly articles, and is the lead author of the casebook Incarceration and the Law.