Click here for further information about all AELE Seminars.

---

 Search the Case Law Digest

     Some of the case digests do not have a link to the full opinion.

• Most Federal District Court opinions can be accessed via PACER. Registration required. Opinions are usually free; other documents are 10¢ per page.
• Access to cases linked to www.findlaw.com may require registration, which is free.

Medical Care

      A detainee at a county jail died as a result of a perforated duodenal ulcer, succumbing to sepsis. He had allegedly complained about stomach pain prior to his death, displayed signs of agitation, and acted in a bizarre manner indicating mental health problems. His estate claimed that medical staff members were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs, and could have saved his life if they had given him prompt medical attention in the 36 hours before his death. Expert witnesses stated that he received substandard care. Summary judgment for the defendants was upheld as it could not be concluded that the medical staff deliberately failed to provide appropriate treatment after becoming aware of his serious medical needs. They had mistakenly interpreted his symptoms as indicating a different medical condition, for which they provided appropriate care. Claims against the private corporation providing medical care for inadequate training and supervision were properly rejected, and the trial court appropriately decided not to exercise jurisdiction over state law claims. Rouster v. Saginaw Cnty., #13-1673, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 6491, 2014 Fed App. 0069P (6th Cir.).

     A jail detainee claimed that he became partially blind because of a delay in treatment for his high blood pressure. A doctor and a nurse were entitled to qualified immunity on a claim that they failed to carry out a medical screening of the plaintiff when he was booked into the jail, as there was no clearly established right to a general medical screening upon admission to a detention center. The county was also entitled to summary judgment on the medical screening claim when he did not exhibit obvious signs of a serious medical condition. The expert witness testimony established, at most, negligent medical malpractice in failing to prescribe medication after several high blood pressure readings, but that was insufficient for a constitutional claim. Fourte v. Faulkner County, Arkansas, #13-2241, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 5451 (8th Cir.).

     An Illinois prisoner ruptured the pectoralis tendon in his left shoulder while lifting weights. He did receive some medical attention, but not the prompt surgery needed to provide the most effective recovery. He developed a serious and permanent impairment, since too much time passed for the surgery to do any good. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the defendants. His difficulties were not the result of any one person's deliberate indifference, but rather of a medical care system that "diffused" responsibility for his care so that no single person was responsible for seeing that he received prompt attention, and none could be held liable for deliberate indifference. State law medical malpractice claims against a number of private defendants were also rejected. Shields v. IL Dept of Corrs., #13-1143, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 4833 (7th Cir.).

Prison Litigation Reform Act: Injunctive Relief

     The federal government entered into a consent decree with the Virgin Islands in 1986 to attempt to improve conditions at the Golden Grove Correctional Facility, including unreasonable fire safety risks, physical violence by staff members and prisoners, inadequate sanitation, and medical care. The trial court later entered a number of additional orders when conditions at the facility failed to improve as planned. Three years ago, in 2011, the Virgin Islands asked the court to terminate prospective relief orders under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The trial court found that the prospective relief orders entered did not contain the specific findings required by the Act. A hearing was ordered to decide whether “prospective relief remains necessary to correct a current and ongoing violation of a federal right at Golden Grove … and, if so, to ensure that the prospective relief is narrowly tailored to that violation in the manner required by the PLRA." A federal appeals court upheld a ruling denying a prisoner at the facility a request to intervene in the case, finding that the federal government adequately represented the prisoner's interest in the case. United States v. Territory of VI, #12-4305, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 6683 (3rd Cir.).

Prisoner Assault: By Inmates

****Editor's Case Alert****

     A prisoner claimed that prison officials were deliberately indifferent in failing to adequately protect him against being assaulted and stabbed by his cellmate. The defendants were improperly granted summary judgment. The appeals court found that there were facts alleged from which a reasonable jury could infer that the defendants had actual knowledge that the cellmate posed a substantial risk of serious harm, including his violent past, his disruptive actions, his having started a previous dangerous fire that endangered the plaintiff, and the fact that he had not expressed regret for the fire, which he had started with the plaintiff's personal papers and photographs. There was also evidence that they knew that the plaintiff feared for his life from the cellmate. There was clearly established law that, under such circumstances, the failure to investigate the substantial risk of harm could constitute deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Qualified immunity was therefore not available to the defendants on summary judgment. Caldwell, et al. v. FCI Talladega Warden, #12-11818, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 6367 (11th Cir.).

     An inmate was assaulted with a knife by another prisoner in a back hallway, and nearly killed when his throat was cut. The appeals court upheld summary judgment for the defendant prison officials on a deliberate indifference claim, as well as the denial of the plaintiff prisoner's request to conduct additional discovery. The only evidence that the plaintiff produced was related to the prison's policies about buying craft materials and disposing of used hobby craft blades. The record did not show that a lapse in the oversight of cutting instruments created a substantial risk of excessive inmate on inmate violence, and even if it did, the defendants were not deliberately indifferent to the risk. Additionally, while the warden was aware that some assaults had occurred in the back hallway area, the policies for monitoring that area did not create a substantial risk of serious harm. Harrison v. Culliver, #11-14864, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 6093 (11th Cir.).

Prisoner Death or Injury

     A prisoner sued over conditions in a facility, claiming that a shower floor was unsafe and slippery, that he had fallen three times and suffered a fractured hip, and that he had received inadequate medical care for his injuries. Prisoner slip and fall claims, the appeals court held, almost never serve as the basis for constitutional violations as a matter of law. Claims against two defendants who allegedly ignored the plaintiff's complaints and pleas for help, however, should not have been dismissed. The allegation that a hearing officer ignored the prisoner's complaint about his back pain during a hearing on an entirely different matter did not state an Eighth Amendment claim. Coleman v. Sweetin, #12-40012, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 4644 (5th Cir.).

Prisoner Restraint

     A prisoner who was convicted at a trial after being forced to wear visible shackles during the proceeding was entitled to a new trial. The appeals court said that the "sight of a shackled litigant is apt to make jurors think they're dealing with a mad dog." There was nothing to show that other security measures or methods of concealing the restraints would not have been feasible, or that the prisoner was so violent as to require being manacled at all. There was no incident when his handcuffs were removed while he testified. The proposed "curative instruction" that the trial judge declined to give to the jury would not have been adequate to overcome the prejudice arising from the combination of the guards' uniforms, the prison uniform, and the visible manacles. Maus v. Baker, #13-2420, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 6307 (7th Cir.).

Prisoner Suicide

     During his intake at a facility, a pretrial detainee said that he had no prior suicide attempts, no thoughts of killing or injuring himself, and no major medical problems. A number of weeks later, after he reported suicidal thoughts, he was placed on a 15-minute suicide watch, but subsequently denied that such thoughts continued, while complaining about health issues and acting out in an attempt to be housed outside lockdown. On a night that he was seen crying in his cell, he attempted to hang himself in his cell. He suffered severe brain damage and disability from the unsuccessful suicide attempt. The federal appeals court reversed summary judgment as to two defendants, finding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether they had been deliberately indifferent to the detainee's risk of suicide when he allegedly asked to see a crisis intervention person. If true, there was an obligation to refer the detainee to the person charged, under prison procedures, with making the definitive assessment of his psychological condition. Additionally, the county might have vicarious liability for state law claims arising out of the actions of these defendants. There was no support, however, for the claim that a doctor and a nurse acted with deliberate indifference. Pittman v. Cnty. of Madison, #12-3233, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 4444 (7th Cir.).

Religion

****Editor's Case Alert****

     An atheist prisoner left a substance abuse program with required meetings and which invoked religious tenets by using a "serenity prayer" and religious meditations. He claimed that he was then denied early release on parole for failure to complete the program, and that this violated his First Amendment rights to religious freedom. A federal appeals court held that these allegations adequately stated a claim for an Establishment Clause violation, and the personal involvement of two defendants that could be a basis for their liability. He had not, however, so far alleged facts sufficient to establish the personal involvement of a third defendant. Jackson v. Nixon, #12-2531, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 5721 (8th Cir.).

     Editor's Note: For more on this topic, see Atheist, Agnostic or "Secular Humanist" Prisoners, and the "Establishment of Religion", 2009 (5) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.

•Return to the Contents menu.

     Prison Rape and Sexual Assault: Letter of Texas Governor Rick Perry to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, stating that Texas will not comply with the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) standards, based on rules adopted by the Department of Justice. (March 28, 2014).

   Prison Rape and Sexual Assault: Special Report: Sexual Victimization Reported by Adult Correctional Authorities, 2009-2011, U.S. Department of Justice (January 2014).

     Prison Rape and Sexual Assault: Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Sexual Abuse and Assault in Confinement Facilities, Final Rule, Department of Homeland Security. 79 FR 13099 (March 7, 2014).

Reference:

     • Abbreviations of Law Reports, laws and agencies used in our publications.

     • AELE's list of recently-noted jail and prisoner law resources.