Issues Arising in Institutional Litigation, part 5 of 8: Training

Training

Over the past decade, courts have ruled on the liability of institutional administrators and supervisors for a wide range of conduct relating to the hiring, training, supervising, assigning, directing, and retaining of staff. Liability may be imposed if supervisors hire unqualified people, fail to train staff adequately, fail to supervise staff on the job, fail to provide staff with formal policy and procedural guidelines, or fail to fire unfit staff. These issues typically arise in cases where injuries or death have occurred and staff have not been trained to handle suicidal children or medical emergencies.


Failure to properly hire or train personnel may constitute indifference to the rights or safety of others and may support liability for punitive damages under Smith v. Wade. This case is particularly relevant where there is a governmental pattern of deliberate indifference resulting in injury to the plaintiff (see Partridge v. Two Unknown Police Officers of the City of Houston, Texas, and McKenna v. City of Memphis). The right to properly trained staff is well established. Thus, in Garrett v. Rader, where the plaintiff’s developmentally disabled daughter died in restraints administered by untrained staff, the defendants were not permitted to claim qualified immunity. Under City of Canton, Ohio, v. Harris, a failure to train employees may also form the basis for municipal liability in federal civil rights litigation. The issue is whether the training program is adequate and, if it is not, whether the inadequate training can justifiably be said to represent city policy. Thus, in Simmons v. City of Philadelphia, the city’s policy or custom of not training its officers to deal with suicidal inmates amounted to deliberate indifference to inmates’ serious medical needs. Similarly, Gobel v. Maricopa County holds that a government entity may be liable for the failure to train properly its employees if there is a connection between the violation of civil rights and the inadequate training (see Davis v. Mason County and Young v. Augusta, Georgia).

Issues Arising in Institutional Litigation, part 4 of 8: Programming

Programming

The U.S. Supreme Court has never expressly ruled on the right to treatment for juveniles, and lower court cases have ruled ambiguously on this issue. The Court has recognized a right to treatment for mentally retarded adults who, like children, are confined for treatment without their consent (see Youngberg v. Romeo). In addition, a number of courts have found a right to treatment in juvenile institutional cases. In Alexander S. v. Boyd, the court found a constitutional right to a minimally adequate level of programming designed to teach juveniles the principles essential to correct their behavior.

Exercise and Recreation 

Inmates are constitutionally entitled to fresh air and regular exercise (see Spain v. Procunier). In adult prisons, restriction to two 1-hour exercise periods per week has been held to violate the eighth amendment (see Sweet v. South Carolina and Spain v. Procunier). Where there is substantial access to indoor recreation areas, up to 18 hours per day, according to Clay v. Miller, there may be a finding of no violation, but such substantial alternatives often do not exist. Where the adult inmate is in disciplinary segregation, the institution must still explore ways to provide regular exercise and may restrict it only in exceptional circumstances (see Mitchell v. Rice).

Education/Special Education

The courts have made it clear that children in correctional facilities are entitled to the benefit of special education laws under Green v. Johnson and Donnell C. v. Illinois State Board of Education. Children eligible for special education are entitled to a broad range of assessment,

evaluation, educational, and related services under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. Federal time lines for assessment and implementation apply, even when the child is in temporary detention (see U.S. Office of Civil Rights, Solano County Juvenile Hall, California, Case No. 09–89–1227 and Nick O. v. Terhune). Institutions confining children must also refrain from discriminating against educationally handicapped children under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Religion

Facilities housing children or adult inmates must accommodate religious observances. The traditional view was that religious practices must be allowed provided they did not jeopardize the security of the institution (see Cruz v. Beto). In recent years, the Court has taken a narrower view, holding that limitations on the exercise of religion are permissible if

they are related to a legitimate penological objective (see O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz). However, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 appears to restore a higher standard of legal scrutiny. The government must show a “compelling interest” before impinging on religious practices and use the least restrictive means of regulation.

Work

Children may be required to clean their cells or living areas but cannot be forced to do chores for the personal benefit of staff or be exploited for their labor. Limited case law specifically relates to children on this issue, but the legal theory is clear. People who have not been convicted of a crime may not be punished under the due process principles articulated in Bell v. Wolfish. By analogy to the forced labor cases involving mentally ill patients, Johnson v. Cicone and Tyler v. Harris found that inappropriate work requirements may violate the 13th amendment or provisions of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (see Weidenfeller v. Kidulis, Souder v. Brennan, Wyatt v. Stickney, and Wyatt v. Aderholt).

Issues Arising in Institutional Litigation, part 3 of 8: Access

Access

This issue refers to a minor’s right of access to family members and important people in his or her life. It also refers to access to the legal system. Minors have a right to reasonable access, and the cases that have addressed this issue discuss the standard of reasonableness in particular situations. The rules on mail access are more specific. The experience of being incarcerated is traumatic for youth, particularly when placed in an adult facility. Youth need the emotional support of their family, and access to the community may be critical to the success of court intervention. Thus, in D.B. v. Tewksbury the court found that children confined in a jail were deprived of their constitutional rights when they were denied regular visits, use of the telephone, and mail services. The court found that these restrictions needlessly intensified children’s fears and hostilities and were counterproductive to the goals of the juvenile justice system.

Visits

Institutions housing children must provide for reasonable visitation. Visits should be permitted during the day, with provisions for alternative visiting times for parents who are unable to visit during the normal hours. Approved visitors should include adult relatives, family friends, and siblings with approval from the minor’s probation officer or counselor.

Unfortunately, punitive attitudes, understaffing, and limited visiting areas have restricted visiting opportunities for children. The right to reasonable visitation has been litigated in a number of juvenile cases, including Ahrens v. Thomas, Thomas v. Mears, Gary W. v. State of Louisiana, and D.B. v. Tewksbury. Visitation should not be curtailed because of overcrowding or staff shortages, according to Patchette v. Nix.

Telephone Access

Case law does not set an absolute requirement for telephone use but insists a facility must provide reasonable access to telephones. Calls may be made to parents, relatives, and attorneys. Monitoring may occur only if justified. Limited staffing and few public telephones often result in undue restrictions on children’s ability to make telephone calls from jails and lockups. Juvenile cases addressing telephone use include Gary W. v. State of Louisiana and Ahrens v. Thomas.

Mail Access

There are two categories of mail: privileged and non-privileged. Privileged mail is between the child and his or her attorney, a judge, a legislator, or some other public official and is usually designated as such (e.g., “legal mail”) on the envelope. Privileged mail may not be opened by staff, except to inspect it for contraband according to Wolff v. McDonnell. Non-privileged mail is all other mail and may be opened under certain circumstances to inspect for contraband or criminal activity. Even then, staff must have facts to support their suspicions.

If mail is to be read, the individual must be given an opportunity to appeal to someone other than the person who suspects the correspondence (see Procunier v. Martinez). The U.S. Supreme Court has permitted only limited restrictions on inmate mail. Turner v. Safley addresses correspondence between adult inmates at different correctional institutions; Thornburgh v. Abbott deals with rejection of publications found detrimental to institutional

security; and Ramos v. Lamm addresses a ruling that struck down prohibition of correspondence in another language in an institution where one-third of the institutional population was Hispanic.

Access to the Courts

Correctional facilities must ensure that inmates have meaningful access to both counsel and the courts (see Younger v. Gilmore). In Bounds v. Smith, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the provision of adequate libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law

would meet the constitutional requirement and that facilities should explore various avenues such as volunteer or legal services attorneys, law students, inmate paralegals, or public defenders to meet this requirement. More recently, in Lewis v. Casey the Court explained that inmates require the tools to argue their sentences or to challenge the conditions of their

confinement. The rights of illiterate or non-English-speaking inmates might necessitate the provision of special assistance.

Earlier cases found constitutional violations where prison library systems imposed hurdles to access (see Toussaint v. McCarthy). Also, courts have held that prisons that offer paralegal assistance as an alternative to providing direct library access must provide trained legal assistants, and inmates must be supplied with a reasonable amount of office materials for court filing of documents (see Gluth v. Kangas, Knop v. Johnson, and Ward v. Kort). However, the Court emphasized, in Lewis v. Casey, that constitutional violations must be measured in relation to actual, not theoretical, injuries caused by the inadequacies of libraries or other legal assistance.

Unmonitored visits with attorneys must be allowed upon reasonable request. Keker v. Procunier and Adams v. Carlson address the duty of institutions to keep lines of communication open among inmates, attorneys, and the courts. The sixth amendment also includes the right of reasonable access to attorneys to challenge unlawful conditions and seek redress of constitutional rights under Procunier v. Martinez. Inmates must also be allowed to meet with attorneys on civil matters according to U.S. v. Janis and Corpus v. Estelle.