Appellate Section - Institutionalized Persons

Briefs and Opinions

• Riddick v. Barber (4th Cir.) - Amicus

  • The district court erred in requiring Riddick to expressly identify professional standards that govern restraints and seclusion in a civil-commitment context
  • A Youngberg claim challenging prolonged use of restraints and seclusion should not be automatically dismissed based on the issuance of an exemption to state rules restricting such practices

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 2024 WL 3543762	07/26/24
  Brief as Amicus	12/04/23

• Griffith v. El Paso County (10th Cir.) - Amicus

  • Intermediate scrutiny applies to the jail’s policies because they differentiate based on sex
  • Compensatory damages claims under Title II and Section 504 are not limited to violations of “settled law”

   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus	08/28/23

• Braggs v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections (11th Cir.) – Amicus

  • The PLRA did not require plaintiffs to re-prove a current and ongoing constitutional violation at the remedial phase before the district court could enter a permanent injunction to remedy the constitutional violations it previously had found
  • The district court correctly imposed a systemwide remedy to protect the plaintiff class from the systemwide violations it had found

   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus	12/19/22

• United States v. Hinds County (5th Cir.) – Appellee/Cross-Appellant

  • The district court properly found current and ongoing constitutional violations that necessitate the continuation of tailored prospective relief
  • The district court properly exercised its discretion in appointing a receiver to operate RDC as sanction for contempt of court orders designed to resolve unconstitutional conditions of confinement
  • The district court properly exercised its discretion in crafting a receivership that is tailored in scope and duration to curing unconstitutional conditions of confinement at RDC
  • This court should not stay the new injunction or receiver orders
  • This court should remand the case for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to grant the United States’ Rule 60(a) motion
  • This court should remand the case to allow the district court to rule on the Rule 60(b) motion due to a changed circumstance

   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Appellee	08/23/23
  Court of Appeals Order	12/28/22
  Reply in Support of Rule 12.1 Notice of Indicative Ruling	12/27/22
  Reply in Support of Rule 12.1 Notice of Indicative Ruling	12/21/22
  Opposition to Motion for Stay Pending Appeal	12/19/22

• Holt v. Payne (8th Cir.) – Amicus

  • The district court committed clear error in holding that plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden to show the sincerity of their religious beliefs
  • The district court’s substantial-burden analysis did not focus on the specific forms of religious exercise that plaintiffs actually seek to pursue
  • The district court improperly applied the least-restrictive-means test

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 85 F.4th 873	11/02/23
  Brief as Amicus	07/18/22

• Karsjens v. Harpstead (8th Cir.) – Amicus

  • The district court did not tailor its analysis to the civil commitment context or meaningfully consider the totality of plaintiffs’ conditions of confinement

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 74 F.4th 561	07/13/23
  Brief as Amicus	07/01/22

• Burrell v. Staff (3d Cir.) – Amicus

  • The district court erred in holding that civil contemnors’ ability to obtain release from detention by paying a sum of money doomed their forced labor claim

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision (corrected), reported at 60 F.4th 25	2/08/23
  Brief as Amicus	01/13/22

• Anderson v. City of New Orleans (Anderson v. Hutson) (5th Cir.) – Appellee

  • This Court lacks jurisdiction to review the substance of the 2019 Orders because the Sheriff never appealed those orders
  • A PLRA motion to terminate is not a proper vehicle for challenging the 2019 Orders
  • The Sheriff is judicially estopped from arguing that the 2019 Orders violate the PLRA
  • The 2019 Orders did not violate the PLRA by impermissibly enforcing a private settlement agreement
  • This court should deny the Sheriff’s motion for an emergency stay because the Sheriff has failed to satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8
  • Even if the Sheriff’s stay motion were proper under Rule 8, this court should deny it on the merits
  • This court should deny the City’s motion for a stay because granting the stay will not provide the City with the relief it seeks
  • Even if the relief the City seeks were procedurally available, the City’s motion for a stay should be denied

   

  Document	Date
  Opposition to Petition for Rehearing En Banc	10/04/24
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 2024 WL 3934821	08/26/24
  Brief as Appellee	01/26/24
  Court of Appeals Order	12/13/23
  Opposition to Renewed Motion to Stay	12/07/23
  Court of Appeals Order	09/20/23
  Opposition to Opposed Emergency Motion to Stay Jail Construction Orders Pending Appeal	09/15/23
  Court of Appeals Opinion, reported at 38 F.4th 472	06/30/22
  Court of Appeals Order	11/16/21
  Opposition to Opposed Motion for Stay	10/13/21
  Brief as Appellee	07/27/21

• United States v. Puerto Rico (1st Cir.) – Appellee

  • This court lacks jurisdiction over 21 of the 25 appealed orders either because the appeal does not satisfy Section 1292(a)(1) or because the appeal is also moot
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the challenged orders to enforce the consent decree
  • Mandamus relief is not appropriate

   

  Document	Date
  Redacted Brief as Appellee	03/16/21

• Smith v. Dozier (11th Cir.) – Amicus

  • The district court properly applied Holt v. Hobbs in concluding that Georgia’s inmate grooming policy is not the least restrictive means of pursuing a compelling state interest

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 13 F.4th 1319	09/22/21
  Brief as Amicus	03/16/20

• Stansell v. Grafton Correctional Institution (6th Cir.) – Amicus

  • Denying an inmate with a disability meaningful access to prison visitation because of his disability violates Title II and Section 504, absent applicable defenses
  • Visitation is a service, program, or activity of GCI
  • Plaintiff does not need to allege a complete exclusion from a public entity’s service, program, or activity to state a cognizable Title II or Section 504 claim
  • The district court misapplied Babcock in dismissing plaintiff’s claims

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Order, available at 2019 WL 3857021	04/18/19
  Brief as Amicus	12/12/18

• Furgess v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (3d Cir.) – Amicus

  • A State prison’s provision of showers to inmates incarcerated in its facilities is a service, program, or activity of the prison covered by Title II and Section 504

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, 933 F.3d 285	08/08/19
  Brief as Amicus	08/27/18

• Watkins v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections (11th Cir.) – Amicus

  • The State failed to demonstrate that denying plaintiff kosher meals furthers a compelling governmental interest
  • The State did not show that denying plaintiff kosher meals was the least restrictive means of conserving its resources

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision , available at 669 F. App'x 982	10/28/16
  Brief as Amicus	04/22/16

• Ali v. Quarterman (5th Cir.) – Amicus

  • Particularly after the intervening decision in Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015), the district court was not obligated to defer to prison officials' arguments that it found to be exaggerated or not credible
  • The court properly considered the less restrictive rules that Texas applies in its women's prisons and the less restrictive rules that most other state and federal prisons apply

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 822 F.3d 776	05/02/16
  Brief as Amicus	07/17/15

• Ball v. LeBlanc (5th Cir.) – Amicus

  • The court erred in analyzing whether plaintiffs are qualified individuals with a disability under the ADA Amendments Act of 2008
  • The district court properly held that life-threatening heat conditions on Angola's death row violate plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment rights

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 792 F.3d 584	07/08/15
  Brief as Amicus	09/30/14

• Holt v. Hobbs (S. Ct.) - Amicus

  • The lower courts improperly applied the burden of proof in deference to prison officials
  • The record does not support the prison's assertions that Holt's half-inch beard would create an insurmountable administrative burden, problems with identification should he escape, and a place to hide contraband
  • The prison was required, under their burden of proof, to show unique circumstances that would prevent them from accommodating a half-inch beard where most other state prisons and all federal prisons would do so

   

  Document	Date
  Supreme Court Decision, reported at 135 S. Ct. 853	01/20/15
  Brief as Amicus	05/29/14

• United States v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections (11th Cir.) - Appellee

  • The district court correctly granted summary judgment to the United States on its claims that defendants’ blanket denial of kosher meals and the RDP’s zero-tolerance and ten-percent rules violated RLUIPA
  • The district court acted within its discretion in permanently enjoining defendants from denying kosher meals to all prisoners with a sincere religious belief for keeping kosher and from enforcing the zero-tolerance and ten-percent rules
  • The preliminary injunction the district court issued in its December 6 Order automatically expired by statute 90 days thereafter, or on March 6, 2014
  • The injunction's expiration precludes this Court from granting specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character
  • The Court should deny appellants' motion for partial stay of the district court's order, requesting the Court delay the July 1, 2014, deadline the district court set for implementing the RDP statewide and allow a quarterly phase-in of the RDP
  • The district court's order granting the United States' motion for a preliminary injunction should be affirmed
  • The United States had moved for a preliminary injunction seeking an order requiring the appellants to provide kosher meals to all prisoners with a sincere religious belief for keeping kosher and enjoining the implementation of certain aspects of the new religious diet program that the United States asserted violated RLUIPA

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 828 F.3d 1341	07/14/16
  Brief as Appellee	02/24/16
  Court of Appeals Order, reported at 778 F.3d 1223	02/27/15
  Supplemental Letter Brief	10/01/14
  Court of Appeals Order	06/20/14
  Response in Opposition to a Motion for Partial Stay	06/17/14
  Brief as Appellee	05/21/14

• Sciarrillo v. Christie (3d Cir.) – Amicus

  • The district court correctly dismissed plaintiffs' Title II and Section 504 claims because the plaintiffs do not have a right to contest transfer and the closure of the two state institutions under Title II, Section 504, or Olmstead

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Order	11/19/14
  Brief as Amicus	05/12/14

• United States v. Erie County v. New York Civil Liberties Union (2d Cir.) - Plaintiff-Appellee

  • The district court erred in equating the semiannual compliance reports to settlement negotiation documents

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 763 F.3d 235	08/18/14
  Brief as Plaintiff-Appellee	02/03/14

• United States v. City of New Orleans (5th Cir.) - Appellee

  • The decree is valid, and that there are no changed circumstances which could justify granting the City's motion to vacate the decree
  • The City knew about the issues it now raises, including the cost of an unrelated settlement to remedy prison conditions and alleged wrongdoing by Sal Perricone, a former Assistant United States Attorney involved in negotiating the police department decree, well before the decree was entered
  • The decree does not violate the Fair Labor Standards Act and that the involvement of Perricone, who resigned before the decree was finalized, did not affect the negotiation of the decree

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 731 F.3d 434	09/27/13
  Brief as Appellee	07/11/13

• Native American Council of Tribes, et al. v. Weber, et al. (8th Cir.) - Amicus

  • Prison officials improperly relied on their own interpretation of plaintiffs' religious tenets in banning tobacco and that the district court appropriately called on them to show they considered less restrictive alternatives before they imposed the tobacco ban
  • The district court correctly relied on other prisons' policies permitting ritual tobacco when it concluded that a total tobacco ban was not the least restrictive means available for controlling contraband and ensuring prison security

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 750 F.3d 742	04/25/14
  Brief as Amicus	06/26/13

• United States v. Territory of the Virgin Islands (3d Cir.) - Appellee

  • The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the motion to intervene on timeliness grounds and because the United States adequately represented the inmates' interests

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 748 F.3d 514	04/11/14
  Brief as Appellee	05/28/13

• Knight v. Thompson (11th Cir.) - Amicus

  • Holt's application of RLUIPA in similar circumstances shows Alabama failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that its challenged practice is the least restrictive means of meeting its compelling interests

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 796 F.3d 1289	08/05/15
  Brief as Amicus	04/20/15
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 723 F.3d 1275 (Vacated, reported at 135 S. Ct. 1173 (S. Ct. Jan. 26, 2015), in light of Holt v. Hobbs, reported at 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015))	07/26/13
  Brief as Amicus	08/27/12

• United States v. California (9th Cir.) - Plaintiff-Appellee

  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for intervention on timeliness grounds

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, availabble at 538 F. App'x 759	08/16/13
  Brief as Appellee	06/22/12

• Benjamin v. Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (3d Cir.) – Amicus

  • Properly understood, Olmstead establishes community placement as the default for people for whom community placement is appropriate but who cannot express a preference either for or against community placement
  • The class certified in this case meets the requirements of Rule 23

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 701 F.3d 938	12/12/12
  Brief as Amicus	04/05/12

• Garner v. Kennedy (5th Cir.) - Amicus

  • TDCJ's ban on beards violates Section 3 of RLUIPA because it is not the least restrictive means of advancing the TDCJ's compelling interests in effective and economical prison security

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 713 F.3d 237	04/12/13
  Brief as Amicus	12/27/11

• United States v. McCoy and McQueen (6th Cir.) - Appellee

  • The district court correctly rejected defendants' request for joint representation due to conflicts of interest
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 480 F. App'x 366	05/08/12
  Brief as Appellee	03/17/11

• Thunderhorse v. Pierce (S. Ct.) – Amicus

  • The Fifth Circuit erred by failing to require that TDCJ explain why the less restrictive practices advocated by Thunderhorse were not feasible, or why the TDCJ’s inconsistent application of the grooming policy did not indicate that less restrictive means were possible
  • Because the courts of appeals, including the Fifth Circuit, have generally correctly applied RLUIPA’s standards, this case does not warrant plenary review, and the Court should therefore either deny the petition or, in the alternative, grant the petition and summarily reverse the Fifth Circuit

   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 131 S. Ct. 896	01/10/11
  Brief as Amicus in Response to Court’s Invitation	12/01/10

• Simmons v. Galvin (S. Ct.) – Amicus

  • Given the circumstances of incarceration, Section 2 of the VRA cannot be read to apply to claims brought by currently incarcerated felons
  • A different analysis applies to claims brought by persons who have been released from incarceration, and that Section 2 may apply to such claims
  • The Massachusetts statute does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause

   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 131 S. Ct. 412	10/18/10
  Brief as Amicus in Response to Court’s Invitation	09/15/10

• U.S. v. Puerto Rico (1st Cir.) -- Appellant

  • The court clearly erred in finding the Commonwealth’s efforts reasonably diligent; abused its discretion in failing to consider Puerto Rico’s degree compliance and ability to comply; and erred as a matter of law in concluding that reasonable diligence alone could excuse substantial noncompliance with the stipulated order
  • The automatic stay provision of the PLRA and defendants’ motion to modify the stipulated order did not moot the appeal or render it unripe, and that defendants failed to prove their alleged inability to comply with the court’s order

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 642 F.3d 103	05/26/11
  Reply Brief	12/16/10
  Brief as Appellant	08/23/10

• In re: Erie County (2d Cir.) -- Respondent

  • The County did not satisfy the requirements for mandamus or for an emergency stay
  • The balance of equities favored allowing the inspection of the institution and interviews of staff and inmates to proceed
  • There is no basis for mandamus relief

   

  Document	Date
  Order Dismissing Petition For A Writ Of Mandamus As Moot	05/05/10
  Opposition to Motion to Expedite Review of Petition for a Writ of Mandamus	04/08/10
  Opposition to Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and Emergency Motion for Stay	03/19/10

• Oster v. Wagner (9th Cir.) –Amicus

  • Institutionalization is not a prerequisite for asserting an integration claim

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Order, available at 504 F. App'x 555	01/07/13
  Brief as Amicus	03/02/10

• United States v. Puerto Rico (1st Cir.) -- Appellee

  • This court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal
  • The district court had authority to delay the automatic stay by 60 days

   

  Document	Date
  Dismissed	05/29/07
  Brief as Appellee	04/16/07

• United States v. Tennessee (6th Cir.) -- Appellant

  • Disregarding rulings that testimony taken solely as a proffer will be subject to cross-examination and rebuttal if later admitted to the record is clear and unequivocal legal error
  • While summary denial of cross-examination is prejudicial per se, prejudice is further demonstrated because the proffered testimony was central to the denial and could have been countered by cross-examination and rebuttal
  • District court did not abuse its discretion in denying the State’s motion because there has not been a change in the governing law sufficient to warrant early termination of the remedial orders in this case

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 615 F.3d 646	08/04/10
  Brief as Appellee	08/03/09
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 143 F. App'x 656	06/23/05
  Reply Brief	09/10/04
  Brief as Appellant	06/14/04

• Johnson & United States v. Regier (11th Cir.) -- Appellee

  • Prevailing defendants in CRIPA actions can be awarded fees only when the United States' case is frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation
  • The district court acted well within its discretion in denying attorney's fees to the State

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 348 F.3d 1334	10/29/03
  Brief as Appellee	12/10/02

• People First v. Tennessee (6th Cir.) -- Appellee

  • District court did not err in denying motion of trade group for private contract providers of community services to intervene because it had no cognizable interest in the litigation

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 260 F.3d 587	08/08/01
  Brief as Appellee	04/18/01

• People First v. Clover Bottom Developmental Center (6th Cir.) -- Appellee

  • District court did not err in denying motion of trade group for private contract providers of community services to intervene because it had no cognizable interest in the litigation

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 260 F.3d 587	08/08/01
  Brief as Appellee	06/30/00

• Battle v. Fields (10th Cir.) -- Appellee

  • Prisoner's request to proceed in forma pauperis is moot when prisoner was permitted to participate in suit without paying fees

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 221 F.3d 1353	07/28/00
  Brief as Appellee	02/28/00

• Evans v. Williams (D.C. Cir.) -- Appellee

  • Distinction between civil and criminal comtempt
  • District court did not abuse discretion in imposing civil contempt sanctions on District of Columbia when it failed to comply with remedial orders requiring timely payment of vendors responsible for providing day-to-day care and services to persons no longer served in institutions

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 206 F.3d 1292	03/31/00
  Brief as Appellee, available at 1999 WL 35638532	11/12/99

Browse Briefs by Category

Access to Justice
Affirmative Action
Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
Constitutionality of Federal Statutes
Criminal
Education
Employment Discrimination (Race, National Origin, Sex, and Religion)
Equal Credit Opportunity Act
Equal Protection Clause
Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act
Housing
Immigration
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Institutionalized Persons
Police Misconduct (Civil Cases)
Religion Cases
Servicemember Cases
Third Party Intervention in Civil Rights Cases
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Voting
Other