5-2-17 Nebraska:
LINCOLN — The family of an inmate who died during the Mother’s Day 2015 riot at the Tecumseh State Prison has filed a lawsuit accusing the state of failing to protect him and adequately staff the facility.
Shon Collins, 46, was one of two inmates found dead after inmates took control of two housing units at the prison for several hours, setting fires and ransacking cells, resulting in more than $2 million in damage.
The lawsuit, filed by Lincoln attorney Joy Shiffermiller, says that the state failed to keep Collins apart from other inmates.
A spokeswoman for the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services declined to comment, saying that the agency’s policy is to not comment about pending legal action.
The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Lancaster County District Court, did not specify an amount of damages requested. But Collins’ family asked for $1.2 million in a claim with the State of Nebraska that was denied last year.
Collins, a sex offender, was in protective custody, separated from other inmates, at the time of the riot because he previously had been threatened and assaulted by other inmates, the lawsuit says.
Yet, on the day of the riot, the suit says, inmates from three housing units, including those in general population and those in protective custody, were all released from their cells to a prison yard to obtain medications.
When the riot broke out, corrections officers quickly were overwhelmed and fled to a prison guard tower, leaving Collins unprotected, the suit says. “The inmates were left to fend for themselves while the staff left their posts and ran for safety.”
Collins was serving 66 to 80 years for first-degree sexual assault of a child and visual depiction of sexually explicit content in Box Butte County. His sentence began in 2010.
Collins, his family was told, died from blunt force trauma but also had been stabbed several times.
The other inmate found dead, Donald Peacock, was also a sex offender. He was sentenced in Dodge County to serve 40 to 50 years for first-degree sexual assault of a child and visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct. He began his sentence in 2014.
Collins’ lawsuit is the first filed in connection with five deaths at the Tecumseh prison over the past two years. The deaths have raised questions about the staffing and safety at the state’s highest-security facility. ..Source.. by Paul Hammel BH News Service
May 4, 2017
Family of inmate killed in 2015 Tecumseh prison riot files lawsuit against Nebraska
July 15, 2015
Court: Former prisoner sexually abused by guard can sue
While it is true one cannot sue the DOC, this fellow must have forgotten to include suing Hansen in his individual capacity. Otherwise this ruling says the DOC is also immune to being sued for ILLEGAL acts (ultra vires acts) as well.7-15-15 Nebraska:
A former prison inmate who was sexually assaulted by a guard can sue the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services for what he says was retaliation after he reported the incident, a state appeals court ruled Tuesday.
The 33-year-old inmate sued Anthony Hansen, the Corrections Department and other prison officials for $150,000. The Associated Press generally does not identify victims of sexual assault.
A three-judge panel of the Nebraska Court of Appeals overturned part of an earlier ruling by Douglas County District Judge Michael Coffey, who had dismissed the entire case after state officials argued they were immune from lawsuits. The appeals court agreed that the inmate couldn't sue the Corrections Department for the sexual assault, but it ruled he can pursue a case alleging that Corrections Department employees retaliated against him.
Julie Jorgensen, the inmate's attorney, said Tuesday she had not yet read the ruling and wouldn't comment without first speaking to her client.
Corrections Department spokesman James Foster said the department wouldn't comment because the case was still in the courts.
Hansen pleaded guilty to sexual abuse of an inmate in May 2012 and was given two years of probation and required to register as a sex offender for 25 years.
According to the ruling, Hansen approached the inmate in December 2011 at the Omaha Correctional Center "with the proposition to meet in the chapel to engage in sexual activity." Hansen later proposed meeting in a commons area, because the chapel had security cameras.
The inmate, who was serving time for theft, tried to deflect Hansen's advances, according to the lawsuit. Hansen then spoke to the inmate about his parole date, which the inmate interpreted as a threat. Hansen had previously said that if the inmate didn't comply with his sexual requests, he or his friends could lose "good time" credit on their sentences or be placed in segregation, the ruling said.
According to the ruling, the inmate reluctantly agreed to meet with Hansen in the commons area, where Hansen shoved him into a wall, forcibly kissed him and pushed him to his knees before sexually assaulting him. The inmate preserved some of Hansen's bodily fluids and reported the assault to prison officials.
The inmate alleged in his lawsuit that he was placed in disciplinary segregation for 30 days while prison officials conducted an investigation, giving him limited telephone privileges and no contact with other inmates. Prison guards were instructed not to talk to him, and the inmate was told not to speak to anyone about the sexual assault, according to the ruling.
The inmate said he requested a transfer to another medium-security facility, but was told there was no room anywhere else. He said he was frequently visited by a prison investigator, identified in the ruling as John Doe, who advised him that he would get more jail time for lying and that he was "ruining" Hansen's life. DNA testing eventually confirmed that the bodily fluids were Hansen's.
According to the lawsuit, the inmate repeatedly asked for counseling services and was eventually given two therapy sessions while incarcerated. He said in the suit he continues to suffer from intimacy problems, depression, anxiety and severe emotional distress, but can't afford to see a therapist more than twice a month. ..Source.. by GRANT SCHULTE
January 31, 2015
High court upholds dismissal of lawsuit over email calling home inspector 'total idiot'
The Nebraska Supreme Court has upheld the dismissal of a libel lawsuit filed over an email that referred to a Seward home inspector as a "total idiot."
Friday's decision stems from a 2012 lawsuit in which Matthew Steinhausen said he was anonymously forwarded an email written by real estate agent Shelly Nitz. In the email, Nitz provided feedback on Steinhausen's performance to two real estate companies, Woods Brothers Realty and HomeServices of Nebraska, saying, "He did an inspection in Seward for the agent that sold one of my listings. I will never let him near one of my listings ever again. Total idiot."
Steinhausen's lawsuit said the email, sent to about 600 people, was libelous and hurt his business with those two major real estate companies in the Lincoln area.
Attorneys for Nitz and the real estate businesses said the email was opinion protected by the First Amendment, and a Lancaster County District judge agreed. Steinhausen, who represented himself in the lawsuit and had been an inspector for more than 10 years in 2012, appealed.
The state's high court upheld the dismissal as it pertained to Steinhausen but vacated a dismissal related to Steinhausen's business, Steinhausen Home Inspections.
The high court found that even though Steinhausen is the sole member of Steinhausen Home Inspections, he could not represent the business entity because he is not licensed to practice law. The reversal leaves open the question of whether Steinhausen's business can again sue over the email.
Attorneys for Nitz and the real estate companies did not immediately return phone messages Friday seeking comment.
Steinhausen said Friday that he is considering his options, including whether he can hire an attorney and refile a complaint on behalf of his business.
He said the email "definitely hurt my business, no question." The real estate companies he sued typically do about 6,000 real estate transactions a year, he said. After the email was sent, he said he was hired for a property inspection on only one of those transactions the following year. ..Source.. by Omaha.com
October 30, 2014
Federal judge dismisses Nebraska inmate lawsuit, saying prisoners not entitled to minimum wage
10-30-2014 Nebraska:
OMAHA, Nebraska — A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by a Nebraska prisoner who argued that he should be making minimum wage for his work behind bars.
Stephen Cavanaugh, 23, sued several state prison officials earlier this year, saying that over the past year, he has been assigned to work as a food server, window washer and a prison yard maintenance worker, with his work time varying between six hours and eight hours a day for between five and seven days a week. Cavanaugh, who represented himself in the lawsuit, said he was paid between $1.21 and $2.25 a day for the work.
His lawsuit said he should have been paid minimum wage of $7.25 an hour and asked a federal judge to award him at least $3,400 in wages he should have earned, plus $350 for his legal costs.
"Cavanaugh continues to be employed on the yard crew and is still paid less than minimum wage," he wrote in his complaint. "Therefore, the amount of actual damages continues to rise."
But U.S. District Judge Laurie Smith Camp dismissed the lawsuit Wednesday, saying that while state law sets minimum wage at $7.25 an hour, another state law specifically allows the prison system director to make rules governing the hours prisoners work and how much they're paid.
The judge also noted that language in state law regarding prisoners contemplates the possibility that some inmates will not earn minimum wage. The language says that "inmates earning at least minimum wage" may have their wages withheld to be deposited in a state victim compensation fund.
"Clearly, if Nebraska's legislators intended that all prisoners earn minimum wage, this language would not have been necessary," Smith Camp wrote in her order.
Cavanaugh was sentenced last year to at least six years in prison after being found guilty of two counts of attempted first-degree assault and two counts of use of deadly weapon. Police say Cavanaugh threatened two Grand Island men with a hatchet in July 2012. One of the men had a protection order against Cavanaugh at the time.
Corrections department spokesman James Foster declined comment on the ruling and Cavanaugh could not immediately be reached by phone for comment. ..Source.. by MARGERY A. BECK
May 2, 2014
Officials push to amend Nevada’s controversial sex offender law
See earlier: Nevada Supreme Court blocks tough sex offender registration law, asks for further legal briefs and Nevada Supreme Court orders delay in enforcement of sex offender registration law5-2-2014 Nevada:
Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore on Thursday said she would use one of her bill drafts in the next legislative session to rework the state’s controversial sex offender law that was adopted to comply with a federal act.
In 2006, Congress approved the Adam Walsh Act as a guideline for state laws on sex crimes. The act was intended to toughen punishment for sex offenders and make their photos, names and addresses available to the general public.
Nevada lawmakers in 2007 adopted most provisions of the federal law. The state law, proposed in Assembly Bill 579, was set to go into effect Feb. 1, but the Nevada Supreme Court put a temporary stop to it following a lawsuit filed on behalf of 24 unnamed clients.
It was not the first legal challenge the law had faced since 2007.
“I just don’t think that AB579 is fitting nor (is) appropriate for the state of Nevada,” Fiore, R-Las Vegas, said during a meeting of the Advisory Committee to Study Laws Concerning Sex Offender Registration. “I really, truly believe that we have very intelligent legislators and judges, that could bring forth this next legislative session much more comprehensive guidelines than what’s implemented in this” legislation.
The state law applies to anyone convicted of a felony sex crime involving children and is retroactive to 1956. There are about 3,000 registered sex offenders in Nevada, and that number is expected to dramatically increase under the law.
Susan Roske, an attorney with Clark County’s juvenile public defender’s office, said if the committee doesn’t make a recommendation to the Legislature to repeal the law entirely, an alternative could be to amend parts of the law that address juveniles.
In response to various states concerned about the federal act’s impact on juvenile offenders, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking has said juvenile courts can have discretion in keeping juvenile offenders off the public website that would display their personal information, Roske said.
The committee could ask the state Legislature to acknowledge those changes and grant juvenile court judges that discretion, she said. The change wouldn’t apply to juveniles being charged as adults.
“I would strongly urge that this change be made,” she said Thursday.
Tod Story, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, said he would recommend the state suspend the implementation of the law and examine why lawmakers rushed to adopt it in 2007.
Thus far, only 17 states have passed laws which “substantially implement” the federal act, Story said. The remaining 33 states are either unable or unwilling to comply with the requirements.
“It’s a bad law and it wasn’t thought through,” Roske said. ..Source.. by Yesenia Amaro
February 5, 2014
Nevada Supreme Court blocks tough sex offender registration law, asks for further legal briefs
Another reporter with the correct explanation of what is happening. Hummm, notice my highlight below...2-3-2014 Nevada:
CARSON CITY, Nevada — The Nevada Supreme Court has temporarily blocked a tough sex offender registration and public notification law enacted by state lawmakers in 2007 that opponents say will subject even low-level offenders from decades ago to undue ridicule.
In an order issued Jan. 30, three justices granted a stay of the law that was to take effect Feb. 1.
Justices James Hardesty, Michael Douglas and Michael Cherry said the opponents' petition raises "issues of arguable merit," and said a temporary injunction was warranted. The court ordered further legal briefs on the issue.
Nevada legislators enacted AB579 to comply with the 2006 federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. It was named after 6-year-old boy who was kidnapped from a Florida shopping mall in 1981 and later found dead.
The Nevada law applies sexual offender and public notification requirements retroactively to convictions dating back to 1956, even if the person has been assessed as a low risk for re-offending.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of Nevada's law in 2012 and lifted an injunction that had been in place for three years.
But a Las Vegas law firm in January filed a petition on behalf of 24 unnamed plaintiffs in state court seeking to stop the law from taking effect. A Clark County judge denied the request in late January, prompting the emergency appeal to the state Supreme Court.
"There are a whole bunch of policy reasons why this law is a terrible idea," Maggie McLetchie, one attorney handling the case, said Tuesday.
The petition argues the law will replace Nevada's risk-based assessment on who needs to register with a system totally tied to conviction.
Prior risk assessments will be "tossed out the window," and anyone who committed a crime with a sexual element since 1956 would be subject to the law, the petition said.
"For people who have already paid their debt to society, even people whose crimes are in the distant past, this means that they will not only have to register regularly, they will have to do so every time they change jobs or, for a homeless person, every time they stay at a different shelter," the petition said. "Almost all sex offenders — and by default, their families — face being subjected to community notification and danger."
The state monitors about 3,000 registered sex offenders, and it's not immediately known how many will be added to the list if the registration requirements are expanded.
Because of the court's order, the Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners withdrew a funding request to hire one new position to help implement the law. ..Source.. by SANDRA CHEREB
February 4, 2014
Nevada Supreme Court orders delay in enforcement of sex offender registration law
This reporter has the correct explanation of what is happening.2-3-2014 Nevada:
A new legal challenge has delayed the start of stricter registration requirements for sex offenders in Nevada.
The law, modeled after the federal Adam Walsh Act, would require many offenders who judges have said are not dangerous — including some who were as young as 14 at the time they committed a sex crime — to make their names, photos and addresses available to the public. Since Nevada lawmakers approved the law in 2007, pieces of it have gone before courts from the district to federal levels.
It was set to go into effect Feb. 1, but the Nevada Supreme Court put a temporary stop to it Thursday following a lawsuit filed by Las Vegas firm Langford McLetchie on behalf of 24 unnamed clients. The lawyers filed suit Jan. 16 in Clark County District Court to stop enforcement of the law, but on Jan. 28 Judge Douglas Smith rejected their request. So they went to the state’s high court.
Supreme Court justices said the lawyers raised more questions that deserve a second look. Among them: Is it constitutional for sex offenders who have already served their court-ordered time to have the rules changed at this point? And did Nevada legislators overlook public safety voting in this law?
The law applies to anyone convicted of a felony sex crime or crimes involving children since 1956. About 3,000 are on Nevada’s sex offender rolls now, and the Walsh Act is expected to dramatically increase that number. There’s no state estimate on how many more names could be added, or how much tracking them will cost.
Maggie McLetchie, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs, said Nevada’s version of the Walsh Act “is a mess.”
“Nobody really knows what to do with it,” she said. “We don’t have the resources to enforce it.”
Legislative records show state lawmakers signed off on the federal standards because they were worried Nevada might lose grant money for law enforcement. But they never discussed how much was at stake.
A 2008 report from the Justice Policy Institute, a Washington think tank, said it would cost more than $4 million to enforce the toughened registration requirements. The penalty for not doing that: the federal government could withhold about $180,000.
The latest suit to stop the Walsh Act in Nevada is against the agencies responsible for enforcing it, including the state attorney general and Division of Public Safety, the Clark County district attorney, the Metropolitan Police Department and the Henderson Police Department.
A spokeswoman for Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto’s office pointed to previous court rulings, including one from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco that upheld Nevada’s law requiring sex offenders to be retroactively classified according to their crimes, not by their risk of re-offending.
“The Nevada Supreme Court entered a stay of enforcement so they have an opportunity to review this law and determine whether it should be implemented,” spokeswoman Jennifer Lopez said.
Under Nevada’s existing system, judges help determine whether sex offenders present a risk to the public or have been rehabilitated – particularly juvenile offenders.
The Walsh Act’s requirements can’t be changed. Beyond having their names listed on searchable websites, offenders must check in with police or probation officers more often and must register for 15 years, 25 years or for life, depending on the crime. They also cannot knowingly be within 1,000 feet of a place designated primarily for children. That won’t apply retroactively to the new class of offenders who already live near sites such as schools, but it will come into play if they move.
Opponents of the Walsh Act say it endangers those who appear on state websites and also puts their families at risk. It can also make it more difficult for offenders to find jobs.
In October, the Nevada Supreme Court upheld the law as constitutional, but justices questioned whether lawmakers gave any thought to its effects on juveniles and public safety. ..Source.. by Adam Kealoha
July 25, 2011
Offenders Cry Foul Over Sex Registry Changes
7-25-2011 Nebraska:
Low-Risk Offenders Added To Internet Database
OMAHA, Neb. -- The state of Nebraska is being sued over its sex offender registry. The lawsuit comes after the Legislature changed the sex offender laws in the state last year.
As it stands now, anyone convicted of a crime with a sexual element is on the Internet-based registry for everyone to see.
Those who have filed suit say the changes in the law have made them targets of harassment, vandalism and worse.
The plaintiffs include three men of different ages and different walks of life. They agreed to be interviewed if their identities are concealed.
One of the men was convicted of ordering illegal pornography.
"I used to have a porn addiction in the early '90s," said Plaintiff No. 1.
Another was convicted of downloading an illegal video clip.
"I was charged with 76 files, because a person can be charged for each frame (of video)," said Plaintiff No. 2.
The third was found guilty of illegal touching.
"I plead guilty to touching a girl," said Plaintiff No. 3.
In fact, all three men pleaded guilty to their crimes. The state originally labeled each as a low-risk to commit another sex crime.
"Dec. 21, 2009, I was a level one (sex offender). I was not on the public registry," said Plaintiff No. 3. "On Jan. 1, 2010, according to the state of Nebraska, I was suddenly a predator."
His change of status came as the result of the Nebraska Legislature passing LB 285, which changed the rules for the sex offender registry. It used to be risk-based, meaning if an offender was deemed low-risk, his or her name wouldn't be made public. Those who were likely to reoffend were placed on the registry.
The change in the law made the registry crime-based, which means anyone convicted, regardless of his or her risk to reoffend, is now added to the registry.
For the three plaintiffs, the fallout has been substantial.
Plaintiff No. 1 said he's had people call his boss.
"They were trying to get me fired in hopes of making me homeless," he said.
He also said his wife has been harassed. People have asked her how she could be married to a sexual predator. He said his daughter has also been the target of verbal abuse.
Plaintiff No. 2 said he's lost his job.
"After LB 285, I was let go from the job that I had," he said. "I've not been able to find work because I'm on the registry."
Plaintiff No. 3 said his family is paying the price.
"My children are taunted at school," he said. "Strangers, not even from the neighborhood, are approaching my house. My wife was traumatized."
All three plaintiffs said the registry's rules are making them pay twice for their crimes and they said that's unconstitutional.
They are suing the state and argue that the new law should not be retroactive to those who weren't on the registry because they were considered low-risk.
State Sen. Pete Pirsch introduced and sponsored LB 285. He said the old system was flawed because it was based on subjective assessments. He said the law should be based on objective, scientific fact.
"All it says is on this date, this person was convicted of this type of crime and it's up to you if you want to accord any meaning to it," Pirsch said.
Pirsch said he can’t comment on the lawsuit filed against the state, including whether the law should be changed, but he pointed to other states where similar laws have been upheld by the courts.
"The lion's share of these moving parts that were in LB 285 have been in place in other states and have been tested and have been upheld in terms of constitutionality," he said.
Earlier this month, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that part of that state's registry law was unconstitutional. The ruling said the state unfairly increased punishment on people whose crimes happened before the law took effect.
The three men suing the state are hopeful the same ruling will be made by the Nebraska Supreme Court. Still, they call themselves pariahs of society. They said society is justified in being upset with sex crimes, but said it is unjust to punish everyone the same.
"That exacted revenge may not be able to happen to this specific offender, so it spreads out to everybody, whether they're at-risk or not," said Plaintiff No. 2.
Both sides in the Nebraska lawsuit are waiting for a District Court judge to set a trial date. ..Source.. by KETV7.com
