Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

John Graham, a Canadian citizen, was convicted of felony murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. Graham appealed, raising a number of arguments, including the contention that because he was extradited from Canada on a federal premeditated murder charge, under the specialty doctrine of federal extradition law, the State lacked personal jurisdiction to prosecute him on the State felony murder charge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Canada consented to waive specialty with respect to the state charge at issue, the State had jurisdiction to prosecute Graham for felony murder; (2) the circuit court erred in admitting certain hearsay, but the error was harmless; (3) there was sufficient evidence to sustain a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; and (4) Graham's life sentence without parole was authorized by statute and was constitutional under the Eighth Amendment. View "State v. Graham" on Justia Law

Defendant Victor Jordan was convicted of reckless endangerment in the first degree. The appellate court affirmed, concluding (1) Defendant's request to represent himself was not clear and unequivocal, and (2) Defendant's right to cross-examine a witness was not improperly restricted. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant in this case clearly and unequivocally asserted his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation, and the trial court's denial of Defendant's request without canvassing him was a violation of that right; and (2) the trial court did not improperly restrict Defendant's cross-examination of the witness. Remanded for a new trial on the charge of reckless endangerment in the first degree. View "State v. Jordan" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from a class action that began more than a quarter century ago where Idaho state prisoners at the Idaho State Correctional Institution (ISCI) prevailed on their claims that, inter alia, because of deliberate indifference, without any connection to a legitimate penological purpose, the inmates were subjected to needless pain and suffering on account of inadequate medical and psychiatric care. The district court issued an injunction to remedy the constitutional violations and the injunctions remained in effect in 2008 and 2009 when the facts giving rise to this case occurred. The Portland law firm of Stoel Rives, LLP was appointed to represent the prisoner class. At issue on appeal was whether Stoel Rives was entitled to an attorneys' fee award in the class action under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. 1997e. The court held that, in this case, the judge had discretion to consider whether Stoel Rives's work on a motion to compel conformity to the injunction was "directly and reasonably incurred in enforcing the relief." The district court acted within the bounds of its discretion in awarding fees in a reasonable amount for bringing about that conformity with the injunction. Here, Stoel Rives's work was what one would expect of a lawyer working for a client that could afford its efforts but that was not indifferent to the cost. The firm showed no evidence of milking the case, and the fees were "directly and reasonably incurred." Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Balla v. State of Idaho, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant William Coleman was serving a fifteen-year sentence following his convictions on charges pertaining to his relationship with his ex-wife when he went on a hunger strike. Following a trial, the trial court granted the former commissioner of correction's application for a permanent injunction authorizing the department of correction to restrain and force-feed Defendant to prevent life-threatening dehydration and malnutrition. Defendant was subsequently force-fed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly determined (1) the state's interests outweighed Defendant's common-law right to bodily integrity; (2) the forcible administration of artificial nutrition and hydration to Defendant did not violate his constitutional right to free speech and privacy; and (3) international law did not prohibit medically necessary force-feeding under such circumstances. View "Comm'r of Corr. v. Coleman" on Justia Law

Leslie Roberts pleaded no contest to one count of rape and was found guilty by the district court. Roberts' crimes subjected him to a life sentence with a mandatory minimum of twenty-five years in prison under Jessica's Law. The district court denied Roberts' motion for a departure and sentenced him to a life sentence with a mandatory minimum of twenty-five years in prison along with lifetime postrelease supervision. For the first time on appeal, Roberts argued that both aspects of his sentence violated his constitutional rights against cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the cruel and unusual punishment claim was not preserved for appellate review; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the departure motion. View "State v. Roberts" on Justia Law

Appellant was charged with complicity to commit assault in the first degree, attempted burglary in the first degree, and tampering with physical evidence in a juvenile proceeding. Appellant was sixteen years old at the time. The district court found there was no probable cause to believe Appellant had used a firearm in the commission of the offenses under Ky. Rev. Stat. 635.020(4) and therefore declined to order transfer of Appellant to circuit court as a youthful offender. The Commonwealth filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, asking the circuit court to order the district court to transfer Appellant as a youth offender. The circuit court granted the writ, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the writ of mandamus issued by the circuit court was not an abuse of discretion where (1) a crime committed by complicity can fall under the mandatory transfer provision of section 635.020(4), and complicity to commit an offense involving use of a firearm requires transfer when an offense involving direct use of a firearm would; and (2) the district court erred in finding that a firearm was not used in Appellant's offense. View "K.R. v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Pro se prisoner Plaintiff-Appellant Calvin Barnett filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983 charging certain corporate owners and employees of the Davis Correctional Facility (DCF), a private prison in Holdenville, Oklahoma, of violating his constitutional rights. Plaintiff alleged that the prison knew of danger to two inmates, Defendant and his cell mate, "apparently as a result of conflict and likely violence between them." Plaintiff contended he told Defendants that he feared for his life, but they did nothing to protect the two from one another. This failure lead to the cell mate's death; Plaintiff was transferred from DCF and charged with first degree murder. In response to Defendants' motion to dismiss, the district court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint as time barred under the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiff appealed. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the district court was correct in dismissing the case: "[w]hen a complaint shows on its face that the applicable statute of limitations has expired, dismissal for failure to state a claim is appropriate." The Court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Barnett v. Correction Corp. of America, et al" on Justia Law

Thirteen present and former female inmates of various New York state prisons appealed from the dismissal of their class action complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief compelling the Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) to alter its practices and procedures so as to enhance the protection of the class from sexual assault, abuse, and harassment. The complaint also asserted individual claims for damages. The dismissal was based on the grounds that some of the claims of named plaintiffs were moot and that the remaining named plaintiffs had failed to exhaust available remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. 1997e. The court held that it lacked pendant appellate jurisdiction over the damages claims. The court also held that the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief by plaintiffs who were now free but were in DOCs custody when they brought suit were not moot. The court applied a relation-back theory and determined that plaintiffs' class claims were capable of repetition, yet evading review. The court further held that three plaintiffs have exhausted applicable internal prison grievance proceedings while the remaining ten have not. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment in part and remanded for further proceedings.

The State appealed a three-judge district court order directing California to remedy two ongoing violations of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, a guarantee binding on the States by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, by reducing the prison system population where the violations were the subject of two class actions involving a class of prisoners with serious mental disorders and a class of prisoners with serious medical conditions. At issue was whether the remedial order issued by the three-judge court was consistent with requirements and procedures set forth in a congressional statute, the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLRA"), 18 U.S.C. 3626. The Court held that the court-mandated population limit was necessary to remedy the violation of prisoners' constitutional rights and was authorized by the PLRA.