AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for
Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Prisoner Death/Injury
Monthly Law Journal Article: Avoiding Liability for Antibiotic Resistant Infections in Prisoners, 2011 (3) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
A Minnesota prisoner sued the Department
of Corrections and various individual correctional employees after he injured
himself while using industrial equipment during a work assignment. The trial
court dismissed claims for violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments
and for negligence under state law. A federal appeals court upheld qualified
immunity for individual prison employees on the Eighth Amendment claim. Even if
the court were to assume that the prisoner’s assignment to operate the beam saw
with no safety guards and no formal training presented an objective risk of
serious harm, he had not alleged facts sufficient to show that the defendants
were deliberately indifferent to that
risk simply because of an absence of safety equipment or procedures and an
awareness of similar injuries. Their actions were, at
worst, negligence, insufficient for Eighth Amendment liability. Kulkay v.
Roy, #16-1801, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 1845 (8th Cir.).
A pretrial detainee in
a county jail died from acute renal failure after spending four and a half days
being detained in a glass-walled observation cell in the jail’s infirmary.
There was sufficient evidence to establish that a detainee's death was pursuant
to an unconstitutional de facto policy of confining incoherent detainees in an
observation cell for as long as it took for detoxification, contrary to the
jail's written guideline of confinement for four to eight hours, since the
detainee was provided with no medical treatment during his approximately four
and one half days of confinement. The inadequate medical care provided
constituted unconstitutional punishment since the jail staff expected the
detainee to heal himself despite knowing that the detainee hardly ate or drank
for almost four and one half days, the detainee's dehydration was obvious, and
the jail staff disregarded state standards to search the state
mental-health-treatment database which would have disclosed the detainee's
prior treatment. Federal civil rights liability was properly found and
the trial court improperly granted the defendant county's motion for judgment
as a matter of law on a state law wrongful death claim. The jury award of $1.5
million for pain and $917,000 for wrongful death was upheld, as well as a court
award of $410,116.01 for attorneys' fees and costs. Montano v. Orange County,
Texas, #15-41432, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 21378 (5th Cir.).
While shaking down some
cells, prison guards allegedly handcuffed a prisoner behind his back and then
ordered him to walk down a flight of stairs in a holding area while his cell
was searches. The stairs, he claimed, had been covered with food, milk, and
garbage for several days, and guards refused requests to help him walk. He
slipped and fell down 13 stairs, knocking himself unconscious and suffering
permanent injuries. A federal appeals court vacated the dismissal of the
lawsuit, ruling that the risk of serious harm involved in negotiating such
littered stairs while handcuffed and unaided was substantial and obvious, and
refusal to aid him in such circumstances, if true, could constitute deliberate
indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Anderson v. Morrison,
#14-3781, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 15761 (7th Cir.).
A prisoner in a prison job as an electrician's
assistant fell off a ladder and suffered an umbilical hernia. His lawsuit
claimed deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The trial court
granted a preliminary injunction and ordered the prisoner's evaluation for
surgery. He then received surgery on his hernia. He sought damages for the pain
he suffered because of prison officials' refusal to authorize the surgery prior
to the lawsuit. Rejecting this, a federal appeals court found the individual
defendants entitled to qualified immunity because they relied on legitimate
medical opinions, and it was at least debatable whether they had complied with
the Eighth Amendment. Hamby v. Hammond, #15-35283, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 7894
(9th Cir. 2016)
A prisoner cleaning a fry hood in a food service
area fell off a ladder, lost feeling in his legs for several minutes, and
experienced severe pain when he stood up. For several days, he claimed, he had
trouble walking and intense pain persisted even when lying down. He filed an
Eighth Amendment civil rights lawsuit over what he claimed was inadequate
treatment for his injuries, including a delay in x-rays and refusal to perform
an MRI to determine that he had a broken back. The trial court dismissed,
finding that the Inmate Accident Compensation Act, 18 U.S.C. 4126(c), a
workers' compensation scheme for federal prisoners injured during the course of
their prison employment, is the exclusive vehicle by which a federal inmate may
receive compensation for injuries suffered during the course of prison
employment. The federal appeals court overturned that decision, holding that
the statute did not bar otherwise available claims just because the
unconstitutional conduct allegedly occurred during prison employment. Koprowski
v. Baker, #14-5451, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 8633, 2016 Fed. App. 111P (6th Cir.).
A prisoner in the mental health ward of a county
jail died as a result of being beaten and stabbed by his cellmate. His estate sued,
claiming that the county and jail personnel acted with deliberate indifference
to the decedent's safety. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants knew or
should have known about the dangerous violent propensities of the cellmate, but
disregarded the risk by placing him in the decedent's cell and by failing to
adequately respond to the resulting attack. A federal appeals court, upholding
a denial of summary judgment to the individual defendants, found that a
reasonable jury could find that jail personnel were aware of the risk of the
attack and had actually heard the assault and decided not to respond. Richko v.
Wayne County, #15-1524, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 6835, 2016 Fed. App. 93P (6th
Cir.).
A pretrial detainee in a county jail developed
severe and persistent pain in his abdomen and back. A CT scan revealed a
paratracheal mass, and he had trouble breathing, as well as experiencing
partial paralysis as the mass rapidly grew. His lawsuit claims that medical
personnel at the jail were aware of these difficulties, but accused him of
malingering, merely giving him over the counter medications and ordering him to
seek psychiatric care. After about four months, his condition severely
deteriorated, and he was taken to a hospital, where lung cancer was diagnosed,
leading to his death two months later. Overturning the dismissal of his
mother's lawsuit, a federal appeals court found that a reasonable jury could
find that pervasive systemic deficiencies in the jail's medical care were the
"moving force" behind the decedent's injury and death. Dixon v. Cook County,
Illinois, #13-3634, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 6459 (7th Cir.).
A man intoxicated from PCP use was arrest for a
disturbance and then transported a short distance to a jail, where he died from
PCP toxicity. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the
defendants on claims under the Texas Wrongful Death statute, as the plaintiff,
the decedent's mother, was unable to produce evidence that the alleged denial
of medical care caused the decedent's death. Slade v. City of Marshall,
15-40517, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 2323 (5th Cir.).
A man arrested for DUI was placed in a holding
cell at a police station and died there. Summary judgment in favor of the
defendants on claims for excessive force and denial of medical care was
improper. From the evidence, a reasonable jury could have concluded that the
injuries suffered by the arrestee were the result of excessive force in
transporting him to the holding cell, or it could disbelieve that. A trial was
required. Miranda-Rivera v. Toledo-Davila, #14-1535, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 2480
(1st Cir.).
Prior to incarceration, a prisoner had surgery
for laryngeal cancer, leaving him with a tracheotomy tube. Other medical
problems followed, involving ongoing memory issues, hypothyroidism, depression,
smoking, and alcohol abuse. After his incarceration, medical personnel noted
spikes in his blood pressure, an occasional low pulse, low oxygen saturation
level, confusion, and anger. His condition worsened, with his symptoms
suggesting acute renal failure. He then died after a short hospital stay. His
mother filed a federal class action lawsuit, claiming that the failure to
implement a departmental health care service directive requiring a plan for the
management of chronic diseases constituted deliberate indifference to the
prisoner's serious medical needs. Upholding summary judgment for the private
medical provider that furnished medical services to prisoners at the state
prison, a federal appeals court found that the claim failed because no evidence
was shown that the failure to implement the directive led to a widespread
practice of deliberate indifference against not only the inmate, but other
inmates as well. As there was no evidence of either a series of incidents or a
widespread practice of ignoring the needs of prisoners with chronic diseases,
it could not be inferred that the failure to implement the directive was the
result of deliberate indifference. Glisson v. Corr. Med. Servs, Inc., #15-1419,
2016 U.S. App. Lexis 2666 (7th Cir.).
A woman sued a number of individuals over the
death of her son by heatstroke while he was incarcerated. The defendants filed
an interlocutory appeal from the trial court's order deferring a ruling on
their motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis of qualified immunity and
ordering limited factual discovery. A federal appeals court found that it had
no jurisdiction on the appeal, as the trial court's order indicated that the
complaint was sufficient and that further factual development was needed to
rule on the motion. The discovered ordered was narrowly limited to the facts
needed for a ruling on the defense. Hinojosa v. Livingston, #14-40459, 807 F.3d
657 (5th Cir. 2015).
An insurer had no duty under a Commercial Umbrella
Liability policy to defend or indemnify a private corporation operating a
prison against claims that an inmate's death was caused by the failure to
provide needed medications, as this fell under a professional liability
exclusion in the policy. It did, however, have a duty to defend and indemnify
the defendant on this claim under a Commercial General Liability policy, and
was not required to do so under a Commercial General Liability policy because
of an exclusion for providing medical services. LCS Corrections Services, Inc.
v. Lexington Ins., #14-40494, 800 F.3d 664 (5th Cir. 2015).
A Massachusetts prisoner was killed while being
restrained by multiple corrections officers. A claim by his estate was
eventually settled for $2 million by the state. In an earlier lawsuit, a man
received a punitive damage award in a federal civil rights lawsuit against six
state employees held responsible for restraining and beating him in a state
mental hospital. The estate of the plaintiff in the earlier lawsuit sued the
former state governor and attorney general, claiming that they violated his due
process and equal protection rights by settling and paying the claim by the
prisoner's estate while refusing, at the same time, to indemnify and pay the
punitive damages award owed to it. A federal appeals court found this claim
without merit. A payment to another decedent's estate by state officials was
not prohibited under state law when there was no finding that the state
employees in the prisoner's case had acted in a grossly negligent, willful or
malicious manner in that case, unlike the current one. Davis v. Coakley,
14-2306, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 16657 (1st Cir.).
An inmate was injured during a baseball game at a
correctional facility's recreation yard, and sued the state and the Department
of Corrections for damages. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the claims
against both the state and the Department were barred by sovereign immunity
under Wisconsin law. The Department was not independent from the state, and
therefore was entitled to the state's sovereign immunity. A statutory grant to
the Department of the power to sue and be sued was not an express waiver of
sovereign immunity, but rather only addressed the issue of capacity. Mayhugh v.
State, # , 2015 WI 77, 867 N.W.2d 754 (2015).
A
prisoner serving a 120-day sentence for marijuana was moved to a padded cell in
a manic state after he beat on the walls of his cell. That night, the staff
merely viewed him through a monitor camera, despite a supposed obligation to conduct
in-person checks for an affirmative response four times an hour. He fell and
hit his head first against a wall and then on a door jamb. Staff members
allegedly did not open the cell door despite him complaining that he had
injured his head and required medical attention. In the morning, attempts to
wake him were unavailing, and he died in a hospital three days later, as a
result of a subdural hematoma caused by his falls. A sergeant and a lieutenant
were denied qualified immunity on claims for deliberate indifference as a jury
could infer that they were aware of a substantial risk of serious harm but
failed to respond appropriately. A third defendant employee, a case manager,
was entitled to qualified immunity as her actions constituted, at most, negligence,
rather than deliberate indifference. Letterman v. Farnsworth, #14-1571, 789
F.3d 856 (8th Cir. 2015).
Corizon Health, a private medical firm which
services more than 345,000 inmates in 27 states, along with a California
county, reached a settlement in a lawsuit based on the death of a man detained
in the county jail for failing to appear in court on a warrant for drunken
driving after being arrested for jaywalking. The decedent's family claimed that
the firm's employees failed to properly diagnose the detainee, who was
suffering from alcohol withdrawal (delirium tremens with hallucinations) and
had allegedly been beaten by 10 deputies at the jail, as well as shocked with a
Taser in the dart mode, first for two cycles or ten seconds, and then for at
least 27 more seconds in five separate sessions. The lawsuit further claims
that the detainee should have been hospitalized for the alcohol withdrawal. The
defendants agreed to pay $8.3 million to the family. The private medical firm
also agreed to stop using licensed vocational nurses to perform work intended
for registered nurses, a practice that allegedly had saved the company 35% in
labor costs. An unsupervised licensed vocational nurse, instead of an RN, did
the medical screening of the decedent when he was placed in custody at the
jail. The county sheriff stated that the decedent had, before his death,
attacked jail officers, after acting erratically, making a mess of his cell,
breaking food trays, screaming, and blocking a toilet. The county previously
entered into a separate $1 million settlement with one of the deceased
detainee's minor children. Harrison v. Alameda County and Corizon Health Care,
Inc., #3:11-cv-02868, U.S. Dist. Ct., (N.D. Cal. February 27, 2015). Prior
decisions in the case are M.H. v. County of Alameda, #11-cv-02868, 2012 U.S.
Dist. Lexis 6412 (N.D. Cal.), and M.H. v. County of Alameda, #11-cv-02868, 2013
U.S. Dist. Lexis 55902 (N.D. Cal.).
A $3 million settlement has been reached in a
lawsuit filed by the family of a mentally ill inmate who died in a Colorado
prison while officers and nurses allegedly laughed and joked while watching him
on camera shaking from seizures that turned out to be fatal. He suffered from
bipolar schizoaffective disorder. The cause of death was severe hyponatremia
(low sodium-blood levels), which is treatable if medical assistance is quickly
provided. When the prisoner was found lying face down on the floor, officers
believed that he was intentionally refusing to respond, and they dragged him out,
took off his clothes, chained him to a chair, and placed a mask over his head.
They watched the seizures, apparently thinking that he was faking. He
ultimately died lying on the concrete floor in his underwear. Three prison
employees were fired and five others disciplined after the death. Lopez v.
Wasko, #1:14-cv-01705, U.S. Dist. Ct. (D. Colo. Dec. 11, 2014). Click here to
see the complaint. Click here to see an edited video of the death.
[Age-restricted, may be disturbing, requires free YouTube registration and
sign-in].
An Illinois prisoner slipped on some wet stairs
and injured his back. He had previously used those steps while showering and
had, one month before, alerted the warden to the fact that the stairway could
be "treacherous" as a result of the water tracked onto the stairs
from nearby showers. He sued the warden for alleged deliberate indifference to
the hazard and a private company and one of its doctors, under contract to
provide medical care at the facility, for alleged inadequate care for his back
injury, neglecting to investigate his ongoing, significant pain. A federal
appeals court found that the stairway hazard was insufficiently dangerous to
support an Eighth Amendment claim. The medial deliberate indifference claim was
also rejected, as a reasonable finder of fact could not, from the evidence
submitted, find anything more than a mere disagreement about the appropriate
course of treatment for the back injury. Pyles v. Fahim, #14-1752, 771 F.3d 403
(7th Cir. 2014).
The City of New York reached a $2.25 million
settlement with the family of a homeless veteran mentally ill man arrested on
charges of trespassing in a public housing building. He died in what was
described as a "searing hot cell" at the jail complex on Rikers
Island. The temperature in the cell in the jail's mental health unit allegedly
exceeded 100 degrees, and the heating equipment there on the date of his death
in February was broken, excessively heating the cell. The detainee was
allegedly unattended for around four hours in the cell. The death was alleged a
result of hypothermia caused by exposure to the heat and its adverse
interaction with antipsychotic medication the detainee was taking for
schizoaffective disorder. Murdough v. City of New York, settlement reached
before a planned lawsuit could be filed, reported in the New York Times, Oct.
31, 2014.
An inmate at a county detention facility was
found dead in his cell from a methadone overdose. A lawsuit by his estate
claimed that his serious medical needs had been deliberately disregarded in
violation of the Eighth Amendment. A federal appeals court affirmed a grant of
summary judgment to the defendants, finding that there was no evidence that the
defendants knew that the decedent was suffering serious side effects from
methadone but deliberately ignored the problem. There was also no evidence that
a supervisor had failed to train a detention deputy. Laganiere v. The County of
Olmsted, #14-1088, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 22136 (8th Cir.).
A pretrial detainee was in jail waiting for a probable
cause determination. He was rapidly tapered off of psychotropic medication by
the jail's medical staff, and complained of seizure-like symptoms, but was
placed in an isolated cell for seven hours, after which he was found dead. A
lawsuit was filed against the county and a jail nurse. During summary judgment
proceedings in the case, an appeal, and post-remand pretrial preparations, both
sides used a deliberate indifference legal standard, but six weeks before
trial, the plaintiff's counsel argued for the first time that the correct legal
standard for the jury instructions was objective reasonableness rather than
deliberate indifference. The trial court abused its discretion in granting the
nurse's motion to bar the plaintiff arguing this legal standard and in trying
the case under the deliberate indifference standard. While the plaintiff's
long, unexplained delay in asserting the correct standard was
"puzzling," there was not a sufficient explanation in the trial court's
ruling as to how the defendant nurse would suffer prejudice as a result of the
delay. The judgment in favor of the county was upheld, however, as the shift in
the legal standard would not have any impact on the ruling as to it liability.
King v. Kramer, #13-2379, 763 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2014).
A state law wrongful death claim against both
government officials and private medical contractors rising out of the death of
a pretrial detainee from diabetic ketoacidosis was properly dismissed for
failure to comply with affidavit and report requirements of a state statute.
But the failure to allow the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to attempt to
comply with those requirements was an abuse of discretion, particularly when
the trial court did not make any factual determinations to base that refusal
on. Claims against the sheriff were properly dismissed as the plaintiffs failed
to present any evidence that the sheriff had any knowledge about a problem with
diabetic detainees refusing to participation in their medical treatment,
causing serious adverse effects. Hahn v. Walsh, #13-1766, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis
15401 (7th Cir.).
A detainee in custody awaiting a probable cause
determination was rapidly tapered off his psychotropic medication at a jail. He
complained of seizure-like symptoms and was placed in an isolated cell for
seven hours, after which he was found dead. The plaintiff's lawyer argued,
correctly, that the correct standard for jury instructions in the lawsuit was
objective reasonableness not the deliberate indifference standard that had been
used by both parties in the case pleadings, summary judgment briefing,
subsequent appeal, and remand pretrial preparations. The trial court barred the
plaintiff's attorney from arguing this because of tardiness in raising the
issue. The federal appeals court reversed, stating that the delay in asserting
the correct standard was "puzzling," but that the trial court had
failed to show how the defendants would suffer any prejudice because of the
delay. King v. Kramer, #13-2379, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 13252 (7th Cir.).
The widow of a detainee at a county jail claimed
that officers used excessive force while extracting him from his cell, which
resulted in his asphyxiation and death, and that some defendants acted with
deliberate indifference to his medical needs during the incident. The appeals
court, overturning summary judgment for the defendants, found that there were
genuine issues of material fact from which a jury could conclude that excessive
force was used. Further proceedings were needed to consider whether individual
defendants should face trial on either direct liability for use of force or on
a bystander liability theory. The appeals court upheld summary judgment for the
individual defendants on the claim concerning deliberate indifference to
serious medical needs and for the municipality on an inadequate training claim.
Kitchen v. Dallas County Texas, #13-10545 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 13699 (5th
Cir.).
A man arrested on a warrant for failing to appear in
court on a drug charge died in custody during booking. A number of officers
restrained him when he allegedly acted in an insubordinate manner, pinning him
face-down to the ground while one put him in a carotid restraint and another
used a Taser on him in the stun mode on his leg for eight seconds after he was
handcuffed. The appeals court upheld the trial court's denial of the
defendants' motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity on
both excessive force and denial of medical care claims. There was evidence
that, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, showed that the
officers used various types of force on the arrestee while he was handcuffed,
not resisting, and on his stomach. Estate of Booker v. Gomez, #12-1496, 745
F.3d 405 (10th Cir. 2014).
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.).
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.).
After a woman's son died at a county jail from
multiple drug intoxication, she sued two correctional officers for failing to
prevent the death. One officer was entitled to qualified immunity as he did not
have any subjective knowledge of the fact that the prisoner needed medical
attention, and therefore could not have acted with deliberate indifference. A
second officer, however, under the alleged circumstances he confronted, should
have realized that a constitutional violation would occur if he deliberately
ignored the need for medical attention, so he was not entitled to qualified immunity.
Thompson v. King, #12-3450, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 19363 (8th Cir.).
An arrestee who appeared intoxicated actively
resisted officers both during the process of being arrested and when taken into
jail. He was handcuffed and pepper sprayed. Then, at the jail, when he
continued to resist, he was held down and a Taser was applied to him three
times in the stun mode. He was held face down, ceased breathing, and was taken
to a hospital where he died. A medical expert for the plaintiff expressed the
opinion that his cause of death was traumatic asphyxia due to compression of
his neck and back while being restrained. A federal appeals court ruled that
the defendant officers were entitled to qualified immunity when there was
insufficient evidence to support the strangulation theory, since only the
expert's conclusory opinion supported it. That opinion was contradicted by
other evidence, including the testimony of all the officers and two EMTs.
Burdine v. Sandusky County, Ohio, #12-3672, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 7691, 2013
Fed. App. 376N, 2013 WL 1606906 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
A 23-year-old prisoner, with no known
life-threatening conditions, was transferred to a new facility. Under the care
of employees of a private medical provider that had a contract to provide care
to prisoners, he was treated for moderate depression and prescribed
medications. A month later, he was found dead in his cell and an autopsy showed
that he died of an epileptic seizure disorder. He had been given both
Amitriptyline and Trazodone the previous three days. In a lawsuit by his estate
a forensic pathologist for the plaintiff reported that the death was likely
caused by a fatal drug interaction. A federal appeals court rejected a motion
for qualified immunity by the defendant psychiatrist, as a fact finder could
find that he had been deliberately indifferent to a serious risk of harm from
the drug interaction. Quigley v. Thai, #11-2014, 707 F.3d 675 (6th Cir. 2013).
A prison rejected the "incessant"
requests by a prisoner suffering from scoliosis for a back brace, orthopedic
shoes, a medical mattress and a lower bunk. A federal appeals court ound that
there was "overwhelming" evidence that the plaintiff had no medical
need for any of the requested items, with the exception maybe of a lower bunk.
Based on the prisoner's claim that he had suffered injuries while trying to
climb into a higher bunk after he was refused a request to sleep in a health
care unit, the court ordered further proceedings on that claim alone. Withers
v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., #10-3012, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 4002 (7th
Cir.).
A prisoner serving a sentence at a county jail in
Mississippi suffered injuries while on a work detail in a county work program
under the supervision of the sheriff's office. The county and the medical
corporation that provided him with services for his injuries sought to collect
reimbursement for medical expenses from a state public entity Workers'
Compensation Trust that provides workers' compensation for the county. A
federal appeals court found that the prisoner was not covered under workers'
compensation as the county did not have an enforceable contract to hire the
prisoner which was a precondition for coverage. Vuncannon v. United States,
#12-60435, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 5284 (5th Cir.).
A doctor had no liability for the death of a
pretrial detainee at the county jail from a massive gastrointestinal hemorrhage
when he had no knowledge of the detainee's medical problems before he died. A
nurse had moved the detainee to medical solitary after he vomited blood, but
believed that his condition could be handled by the use of the standing
medication orders without hospitalizing him. Since there was nothing in the
record to indicate past incidents in which detainees were harmed by improper
nursing assessments or treatment based on the jail's standing orders, there was
no proof of deliberate indifference by the county. Brown v. Bolin, #11-10511,
2012 U.S. App. Lexis 25433 (5th Cir.).
The highest court in New York overturned
the quashing of a subpoena duces tecum that the N.Y. State Commission of
Corrections issued to a hospital demanding that it produce its medical records
regarding the care and treatment of an inmate in the custody of New York City
who subsequently died. An exception to doctor-patient privilege was necessary
for the Commission to carry out its legislated responsibilities and powers to
investigate inmate deaths through its Medical Review Board. The disclosure of
the records was also not barred by the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act privacy rules. Matter of New York City Health and Hospitals
Corp., #64, 19 N.Y.3d 239, 969 N.E.2d 765 (2012).
The state of Nevada has reached a $450,000 settlement
with the mother of an inmate who died in state prison. The board that approved
the award was told by the state that he died from an adverse reaction to an
administered anti-psychotic drug, even though his death certificate labeled his
death a homicide. The plaintiff's attorney claimed that the prisoner "literally
was strangled to death by the correctional officers" who were holding him
down to administer the medication. Johnson v. Palmer, #2:11-cv-01604, U.S.
District Court (D. Nev. Aug. 2012).
A correctional officer applied a "sleeper
hold" to a pre-trial detainee, restrained in handcuffs and shackles, who
continued to resist. The officer allegedly rendered the detainee unconscious
using the hold and failed to tell a nurse at the jail that he was
"gurgling," and then lying silent and motionless, and needed medical
attention. The officer was convicted of depriving the detainee of his rights
and of obstructing a federal investigation into the detainee's subsequent death
by falsifying documents. The evidence was sufficient to prove that the officer
used force to put the detainee into a position requiring medical attention, and
then acted with deliberate indifference towards his serious medical needs.
United States v. Gray, #11-3143, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 18528, 2012 Fed App.
0297P (6th Cir.).
The widow of a pretrial detainee at a county jail
claimed that his death was due to the company with the contract for medical
services there weaning him off alprazolam which he took for anxiety, in favor
of other medication in its standard formulary. A federal appeals court held
that the county might be liable for restricting physician access to him after
he clearly was in distress, having drug withdrawal symptoms, having a seizure,
and having his face turn blue. A site director nurse at the jail might also be
liable for allegedly ignoring his medical needs, and moving him to an isolated
padded cell, where he died. King v. Kramer, #11-2204, 680 F.3d
1013 (7th Cir. 2012).
Three nurses who allegedly received but ignored
medical requests concerning a prisoner from corrections officers and other
inmates could be liable for his death from TB. They allegedly stated that the
request for treatment had to be from the prisoner himself, but did nothing else
until he had to be treated by a doctor on an emergency basis when he was
"near death." Two other nurses, one whose only contact with the
prisoner was at intake, and the other who misread his TB test, could not be
held liable, nor could facility administrators or the county. McCaster v.
Clausen, #11-2612, 684 F.3d 740 (8th Cir. 2012).
An inmate was thrown from his seat and injured
while being transported to a medical facility in shackles on a bus that was not
equipped with seat belts. The failure to provide such seat belts, standing
alone, does not violate the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments. Providing such
seat belts in vehicles transporting prisoners could involve security and safety
concerns, even if it is reasonable to provide them in vehicles transporting the
general public. A correctional facility could withhold providing seatbelts for
legitimate penological reasons without an intent to punish. The plaintiff also
failed to show that the defendants knew of, yet disregarded, an excessive risk
to prisoner safety. Jabbar v. Fischer, #11–3765, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 12747 (2nd
Cir.).
A schizophrenic man arrested for an attempted
bank robbery often refused to take his medication, bathe or eat while in a
county jail. He was transported back and forth between a number of mental
health facilities and the jail on a number of occasions. While at the jail
pending a transfer to a state psychiatric institution, he died from excessively
drinking water ("psychogenic polydipsia."). While his estate could
pursue claims concerning the sanitary condition of his cell (despite the fact
that he may have helped cause the conditions, based on his mental incompetence,
there was no basis that any of the defendants were liable for his death, absent
any evidence that they were on notice that he might compulsively engage in
water drinking to the extent that it would put his life in danger. Estate of
Rice v. Correctional Medical Services, #09–2804, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 5728
(7th Cir.),
A mentally disturbed man arrested for assaulting
an officer was forcibly dressed in pink underwear at the county jail, and
yelled out that he was being "raped" (which was not the case).
Following his release on bail, and hearing that there was a warrant for his
arrest for spitting on an officer during the dress out, he ran away from his
home, fearing another arrest. Running four or five miles, he died the next day
from acute cardiac arrhythmia. A federal appeals court found that his estate
validly stated a federal civil rights claim, and that testimony was properly
offered to show that the decedent experienced a "sense of humiliation at
being forced to wear pink." With no explanation or defense offered for the
practice of dressing detainees in pink, the practice "appears to be
punishment without legal justification." The trial court acted properly, however,
in excluding testimony by the plaintiff's expert that the dress-out procedure
was "probably" the cause of his death. That testimony failed to take
into account "generally accepted facts" that cardiac arrhythmia
occurred at a generally higher rate among schizophrenics, and explain how that
and the fact that stress could render the condition fatal were enough to
pinpoint the specific incident that caused the death. Family members should not
have been barred from testifying about what the decedent told them about his experiences,
for the purpose of showing his state of mind in reaction to it. Wagner v.
County of Maricopa, #10-15501, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 4721 (9th Cir.).
A prisoner was assisting law enforcement in an
investigation into drug trafficking within a county prison. While in protective
custody for his own safety, he was found dead in his cell. While prison
authorities maintained that he committed suicide, the executors of his estate
filed a lawsuit claiming that he had been killed by prison guards because of
his cooperation with the investigation. A federal appeals court ruled that,
regardless of whether that was true, the plaintiffs could not establish
supervisory liability on the part of defendant prison officials, since they had
not alleged that they had any personal knowledge of threats to the prisoner and
acted with deliberate indifference to those threats. Dock v. Rush, #10-4458,
2011 U.S. App. Lexis 12877 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
New York City has reached a
$2 million settlement in a lawsuit alleging that an intoxicated postal worker,
detained after a dispute in which he was barred from his apartment, died in
custody from the untreated effect of severe alcohol withdrawal. The decedent
had reportedly told jail medical personnel that he had been drinking two or
three pints of rum a day, and he appeared agitated and disoriented. The
defendants subsequently allegedly failed to follow a written protocol on
treatment of severe alcohol withdrawal, which includes hospitalization.
Instead, he was kept in the jail's general population, and died approximately
28 hours after his arrival there. Livermore v. City of New York,
$1:08-CV-04442, (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2011).
A corrections officer was not entitled to qualified
immunity in a lawsuit over the death of a pretrial detainee from a drug
overdose. Evidence that showed that the detainee was intoxicated and that the
officer subsequently altered jail medical records concerning the detainee
indicated that the officer may have acted with deliberate indifference to the detainee's
risk of death. Border v. Trumbull County Bd. of Comm'rs, #10-3167, 2011 U.S.
App. Lexis 5649 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
A federal judge has denied a county's motion to
dismiss a federal civil rights lawsuit by a pretrial detainee at its jail
seeking damages for injuries he suffered when a rat allegedly came out of a
hole in his mattress and bit his penis, causing him sexual dysfunction and
emotional distress. The plaintiff argued that the county acted with
"deliberate indifference to his health and safety in failing to adequately
protect him from rodents." There were allegedly eleven prisoner complaints
about rodents in the two years prior to the incident, as well as 50 prisoners
signing a petition requesting action against the presence of rodents, and the
plaintiff claimed that adequate corrective measures were not taken. The trial
judge agreed that the allegations were sufficient to survive summary judgment.
Solomon v. Nassau County, #08-CV-703, U.S. Dist. Ct. (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2011).
A pretrial detainee in a county jail contracted
Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (“MRSA”), a staph infection
resistant to usual penicillin-type antibiotics. A jury awarded him damages.
Upholding this result and a finding of county liability, a federal appeals
court found that there was evidence that the county knew of the presence of a
staph infection in the jail, including an infection rate as high as 20%, yet
failed to adopt known measures that would have combated it, such as installing
hand washing and disinfecting stations and using alcohol-based hand sanitizers,
and continued to house detainees in conditions leading to infection. Duvall v.
Dallas Cty., #09-10660, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 660 (5th Cir.).
After being arrested on a DUI, a Pennsylvania man
agreed to voluntary participation in a community service disposition program
involving manual labor. He was assigned to do construction work, which he said
he preferred to picking up trash. He did not indicate that he suffered from any
medical condition or restriction, and, if he had, he would have been required
to submit medical documentation to make sure his job assignment was
appropriate. The 59-year-old man reported for work in hot weather. He was
taking cardiac medication to lower his blood pressure and control his
cholesterol. On the second day, he collapsed and died from a heart attack that
occurred as a consequence of arteriosclerotic coronary artery disease, with a
history of hypertension, in association with exertion. A federal civil rights
lawsuit against the county by his wife claimed that it violated his rights by
failing to properly medically screen him for his work assignment, among other
things. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the county,
rejecting liability on a state-created danger theory, particularly as the
county had no reason to know of the decedent's medical condition. There was no
conduct that shocked the conscience, and no policy or custom of the county that
caused the death. Marvel v. County of Delaware, #09-2838, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis
21234 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
A prisoner sued food service employees, the
warden, and the assistant warden, claiming that they failed to screen inmates'
food for foreign objects, resulting in him biting down on a metal nut found in
cornbread served to him, leading to "excruciating pain" and a broken
tooth. A federal appeals court ruled that the trial court acted erroneously in
dismissing the lawsuit for failure to state a non-frivolous claim without
allowing the prisoner the opportunity to develop further the facts of his
claim. "A single incident of food poisoning or finding a foreign object in
food does not constitute a violation of the constitutional rights of the
prisoner affected. Evidence of frequent or regular injurious incidents of
foreign objects in food, on the other hand, raises what otherwise might be
merely isolated negligent behavior to the level of a constitutional
violation." The prisoner alleged that similar incidents had happened
before, and that one defendant had been aware of it. Green v. Atkinson,
#09-11050, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 21373 (5th Cir.).
A pretrial detainee failed to show that his
supposedly adverse reaction to HDQ Neutral, a cleaning product used at the
county jail, involved a serious medical need for purposes of trying to
establish that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference in violation
of his constitutional rights. The prisoner, who was taking medication for
asthma, alleged that exposure to the cleaning product caused him to "cough
up blood." The record indicated that a reasonable jury could find that the
prisoner did not show that a physician or other medical personnel had diagnosed
him with a medical condition that required treatment while he was detained. An
examination of the prisoner revealed only some nasal drainage, and otherwise
found him in normal condition, with an instruction that he should move away
from where the cleaning products were being used. While one doctor later stated
an opinion that chemicals used at the jail caused medical problems for the
prisoner, a competing expert rejected the diagnosis of asthma, and found no
evidence of pulmonary fibrosis in a CT scan. The jury thus reasonably
determined that the prisoner failed to establish a serious medical need while
incarcerated. Christian v. Wagner, #09-2417, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 21609(8th
Cir.).
A 17-year-old detainee at a state-operated
juvenile detention center suffered a spinal cord injury while trying to make a
tackle during a "pick-up" football game there. His mother sued the
agency running the facility, as well as several staff members. Claims against
the center and its staff in their official capacities were barred by Eleventh
Amendment immunity, as the center was an arm of the state. A summary judgment
was also granted to individual defendants on Eighth Amendment claims, as the
plaintiff failed to show a substantial risk of serious harm that "violates
contemporary standards of decency." or deliberate indifference to the
youth's safety. Betts v. New Castle Youth Dev. Ctr., #09-3753, 2010 U.S. App.
Lexis 19052 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
A prisoner suffered a head injury when a
showerhead broke. He claimed that a maintenance worker, a nurse, and a number
of supervisory personnel, violated his Eighth Amendment rights. The prisoner
failed to show how the maintenance worker acted with deliberate indifference
towards the risk that he might be injured by the showerhead. The nurse cleaned
and dressed his wound, provided him with pain medication, and encouraged him to
rest, which did not amount to deliberate indifference to his medical needs,
Finally, the supervisory personnel were not shown to have been personally
involved in anything that could result in their liability for the prisoner's
injury. Sanaah v. Howell, #10-1000,2010 U.S. App. Lexis 13038 (Unpub. 10th
Cir.).
A prisoner suffered a head injury when a
showerhead broke. He claimed that a maintenance worker, a nurse, and a number
of supervisory personnel, violated his Eighth Amendment rights. The prisoner
failed to show how the maintenance worker acted with deliberate indifference
towards the risk that he might be injured by the showerhead. The nurse cleaned
and dressed his wound, provided him with pain medication, and encouraged him to
rest, which did not amount to deliberate indifference to his medical needs,
Finally, the supervisory personnel were not shown to have been personally
involved in anything that could result in their liability for the prisoner's
injury. Sanaah v. Howell, #10-1000,2010 U.S. App. Lexis 13038 (Unpub. 10th
Cir.).
An inmate who uses crutches because he is
an amputee was assigned to a third story cell and fell while coming down some
stairs. He sued prison officers for alleged deliberate indifference to his
medical needs. Officers who made the cell assignment were entitled to rely on
medical restrictions designated by medical personnel. There was some evidence
to support a jury verdict for the remaining defendants, and the verdict was
upheld on appeal. Bell v. Herod, #08-40682, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 4641 (Unpub.
5th Cir.).
A Michigan woman was booked into a county jail on
a parole detainer, and started to show signs of delirium tremens
("DT"s), a life threatening condition caused by acute alcohol
withdrawal. Jail officials recognized these symptoms and implemented
precautions for her safety, including placing her in an observation cell and
consulting a physician. Her condition worsened, however, and she started
beating on the door, screaming, and hitting the walls and was moved to a padded
cell. In the morning, a parole agent arrived at the jail to serve her with a
notice of parole violation charges. Observing her condition as being incoherent
and unaware of her identity, he decided that she was unable to be transported
to another facility, or served, and he left. A videotape indicated that her
last movements occurred at the time that the parole agent observed her, and
when jail officials later checked on her, she was unresponsive and taken to a
hospital, where she died shortly thereafter. The parole agent was entitled to
summary judgment in a lawsuit over her death, as nothing that he did
proximately caused her death. Smith v. County of Lenawee, #09-1703, 2010 U.S.
App. Lexis 7526 (6th Cir.).
An Ohio inmate injured during falls from an upper
bunk bed claimed that his injuries were due to the fact that his handcuffs were
not removed for six hours. The court found that, as to the first fall,
correctional employees knew or should have known of the prisoner's medical
restrictions, mandating that he sleep on a lower bunk bed, and their failure to
honor this restriction proximately caused his injuries. As to the second fall,
however, the prisoner himself failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent
further injuries. He had been allowed to sleep on the floor, but chose instead
to move to an upper bunk bed, and hid his hands and handcuffs from the view of
staff members on purpose. He was therefore responsible himself for his
additional injuries. Whitmore v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction,
#2008-10366, 2010 Ohio Misc. Lexis 24 (Ct. of Claims).
A jail received a pretrial detainee who was known
to be diabetic and a schizophrenic. After his arrival, he ate little, felt ill,
had high blood sugar, had rapid breathing, was unsteady on his feet, and had a
fever. He was transferred to a hospital after thirteen days, and doctors there
found that he had pneumonia and improperly functioning kidneys. Five days
later, he died. In a lawsuit by his estate against a hospital, jail officers,
licensed practical nurses, and a nurse practitioner, the defendants were not
entitled to qualified immunity, as there were genuine issues of material fact
as to whether they were deliberately indifferent towards the detainee's health.
A reasonable jury could find that the jail officers should have realized that
he needed immediate medical care, and that medical personnel gave him
"blatantly inappropriate" treatment. Estate of Gee v. Johnson,
#09-1895, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 3115 (Unpub. 7th Cir.),
A prisoner claimed that a facility maintenance
supervisor and three correction officers acted maliciously and willfully in
exposing him to ultraviolet radiation, which caused him physical injuries. The
defendant officers were not entitled to qualified immunity when they attempted
to rely on their own, conflicting version of events to demonstrate that they
had not acted for retaliatory or malicious reasons. The prisoner, however,
alleged nothing more than negligence on the part of the maintenance supervisor,
which was insufficient for a federal civil rights claim. Williams v. Jackson,
#09-1843, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 6172 (8th Cir.).
A trial court ruled that a reasonable jury might
be able to find that a sergeant had knowingly disregarded a light duty
restriction on an inmate in ordering him to unload a truck despite his possible
carpal tunnel syndrome. Despite this, the defendant sergeant was entitled to
summary judgment because of the lack of evidence that unloading the truck
actually caused the inmate harm or future aggravation of his condition. The
inmate, to prevail, needed medical evidence concerning what the impact of
lifting over twenty pounds was, and his own unqualified opinion, and the mere
statement that his hands were more painful after doing the lifting was
insufficient. Hoeft v. Harrop, #09-3488, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 4627 (Unpub. 7th
Cir.).
A prisoner sought damages against the State of
New York for injuries he allegedly suffered while working at a prison laundry.
He claimed that a machine was malfunctioning and that maintenance people showed
him and other inmates working there how to start the machine from the inside of
its top lid, pushing a toggle switch or maneuvering wires inside the top of the
machine. When he took laundry out of the machine, he was allegedly
electrocuted. The court ruled that there was evidence that the State had known
that the machine had not been working properly for months before the incident,
but had done nothing to remedy the problem. The State's negligence was a
proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries, but the prisoner did have some
responsibility for his injuries. He was placed in the "untenable
position" of having to obey direct orders to remove the laundry, and face
the possibility of being injured. The inmate was 15% liable, and the State was
85% liable. A trial will determine the amount of damages to be awarded. Giles
v. New York, #110952, 2009 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 3600 (Ct. of Claims).
A federal prisoner sought damages for injuries
allegedly stemming from exposure to asbestos while working as an electrician
for the prison's custodial maintenance services during his incarceration at
Leavenworth. He claimed that proper protective measures were not taken. Claims
against individual defendants under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§
2671 et seq., (FTCA), were properly dismissed, as only the U.S. government can
be a defendant under that statute. The defendant government argued, however,
that the plaintiff's exclusive remedy for work related injuries were under the
Inmate Accident Compensation Act. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4126. Under that statute,
federal prisoners who suffer a work-related injury and who still suffer a
residual physical impairment as a result, can submit a claim for compensation
within 45 days of his release date. If he has fully recovered at that time,
however, he can make no such claim. The statute also allows for claims for
wages actually lost by the prisoner while prevented from doing his work
assignment due to his injury. Because of this statute, the appeals court
concluded, FTCA claims against the federal government were also properly
dismissed. The fact that the inmate had a lengthy sentence, and might die
before he is within 45 days of his release date did not alter the result. The
Inmate Accident Compensation Act, however, does not preclude the prisoner from
bringing individual capacity federal civil rights claims against federal prison
employees for alleged deliberate indifference to a serious risk of harm from
exposure to asbestos or other work-relat6ed injuries, so those claims were
reinstated. Smith v. U.S., #07-3242, 561 F.3d 1090 (10th Cir. 2009).
After a bench trial, a judge entered a judgment
in favor of the U.S. government on claims by a federal prisoner that a
corrections officer acted negligently while escorting him to a cell, causing
him to fall and suffer injuries. The trial court did not act erroneously in
allowing cross-examination on deposition testimony indicating that a letter
from the plaintiff prisoner was part of a scheme to obtain money, which had a
bearing on his believability. The verdict was upheld on appeal. Bacon v. U.S.,
#08-0194, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 26962 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.).
Correctional officers were not liable for
allegedly forcing a prisoner to work despite a prior shoulder injury when there
was an absence of evidence that they had knowledge of the prisoner's prior
injury before he reinjured his shoulder. The evidence also showed that the
officers then adequately responded to the prisoner's injury and enforced needed
safety measures at the work site. Knight v. Wiseman, #09-1435, 2009 U.S. App.
Lexis 28195 (7th Cir.).
A woman died after being placed in four-point restraints and
put into a vehicle face down for transport to jail. Upholding summary judgment
for the defendant deputies and county in a federal civil rights lawsuit, the
court, assuming the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, assumed
that the decedent died from positional asphyxia. The plaintiffs, however,
failed to show that the use of the restraints was unnecessary, or excessively
disproportionate to the resistance the deputies faced from the prisoner, so
that no reasonable jury could have found that the deputies used excessive force
to subdue her. The plaintiff also failed to sufficiently prove a claim for
alleged inadequate monitoring of the prisoner during transport. Loggins v.
Carroll County, Mississippi, #08-60516, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 23730 (5th Cir.).
A federal prisoner asserted Eighth Amendment
constitutional claims based on his slip and fall in the prison warehouse where
he worked and the alleged failure to provide him with adequate medical care for
resulting injuries. The trial court ruled that the exclusive remedy for the
prisoner's on the job injuries were provided by the Inmate Accident
Compensation Act (IACA), 18 U.S.C.S. § 4126(c)(4), so that his constitutional
claim should be dismissed. The appeals court found that this basis for
dismissing the injury claim could not be upheld, as a constitutional claim is
different than a negligence injury claim, but thought that the claim should
still be dismissed as the facts alleged by the plaintiff were inadequate to
constitute an Eighth Amendment violation. The appeals court, however, remanded
to the trial court instead for further initial consideration of the prisoner's
constitutional claims. Harper v. Urbano, #08-1342, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 18464
(Unpub. 10th Cir.).
A prisoner claimed to have suffered injuries from
falling on a broken grate cover while working in a prison kitchen. He claimed
that prison officials wrongfully refused to fix the grate cover, refused to
bring his meals to his cells to accommodate him after he was injured, and
interfered with his right of access to the courts when they refused to prepare
a written report concerning the incident. He also claimed that his medication
was improperly delayed. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the
defendants, finding that the claim about the grate was a claim for negligence
that could not support a federal civil rights claim, that the refusal to bring
the prisoner's meals to his cell was consistent with his doctor's
recommendations, that he failed to show how the absence of a written incident
report prevented him from litigating over what happened, and that any claim
concerning his medical treated merely showed disagreement over the proper
course of treatment to be followed, rather than showing deliberate
indifference. Gause v. Diguglielmo, #09-1454, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 15743
(Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
An inmate transported by a private company
from Illinois to Florida pursuant to extradition alleged that he suffered
injuries during the transport because he was placed in a cage smaller than a
dog crate, he was handcuffed, chained at the waist, and shackled on his legs,
and the van had inadequate ventilation and no seat belts. He also stated that
the officer driving the vehicle drove recklessly, that there was a smoky smell
inside, and that he was prevented from using an asthma inhaler. The court found
that the prisoner failed, in his federal civil rights lawsuit, to meet the
physical injury requirement of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(e), as his complaints of
back pain, headache, and temporary chest pain were minimal. The court ruled
that the statute applied because the prisoner was in custody even though the
injuries took place outside the prison. The statute would not bar a claim for
injunctive relief, but the plaintiff prisoner could not show that he would
again be a passenger in a vehicle operated by the defendant company. Quinlan v.
Personal Transport Services Co., #08-14121, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 12224 (Unpub.
11th Cir.).
A prisoner employed in a facility's kitchen claimed
that he scalded his hand while performing cleaning duties. Even if, as he
alleged, his injury occurred because the kitchen manager raised the water
temperature unexpectedly to prepare for a state inspection, his claim, at most,
amounted to one of negligence, which was insufficient to support an award of
damages for violation of his federal civil rights. Caldwell v. Beard, #08-3286,
2009 U.S. App. Lexis 9029 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
A prisoner who was taken to a medical center for
an appointment was injured as she stepped on a stepstool to exit from a
transport van after having been restrained during the transport process with
leg shackles and belly chains. She was thrown forward while exiting and landed
on her face on the ground. Damages of $62,125 were awarded for a shoulder
surgery, physical therapy, future lost wages, a permanent scar, and pain and
suffering. Stewart v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction, #2005-05591,
2009 Ohio Misc. Lexis 21 (Ohio Ct. of Claims).
Prisoner injured when two bolts holding an
exercise machine in place broke, flinging him backwards, failed to show that
his injuries were a violation of his Eighth Amendment protections against cruel
and unusual punishment. The prisoner himself was not prevented from examining
the equipment to discover what he now claimed was an apparent defect. Gradual
deterioration of such equipment in a voluntary prison exercise facility was
insufficient to amount to cruel and unusual punishment. Fitzgerald v.
Corrections Corporation of America, #08-cv-01189, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 20259
(D. Colo.).
Wheelchair-bound paraplegic prisoner failed
to show that he was excluded from participation in the correctional
department's "medical services" program because of his disability.
The prisoner claimed that he received a "defective assistive device,"
a pressurized mattress that was five inches wider than his bed frame, causing
him to fall and be injured while transferring to his wheelchair. This did not
show discriminatory intent, as required for liability under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, but, at most, negligence, which was insufficient for an ADA
claim. Additionally, the ADA claim could only be brought against the agency,
and not against individual officers. Ellis v. Hager, #C07-00665, 2009 U.S.
Dist. Lexis 14835 (N.D. Ca.).
The possibility of claims for medical negligence
under 42 U.S.C. Sec 233(a) of the Federal Tort Claims Act does not bar the
pursuing of federal civil rights claims for deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs of prisoners, so that such a claim against employees and officers
of the Public Health Service arising out of the death of a prisoner from
allegedly repeatedly untreated penile cancer should not be dismissed. Castaneda
v. Henneford, No. 08-55684, 546 F.3d 682 (9th. Cir. 2008).
Even though the treatment provided to a female
inmate concluded with her death, there was no indication of deliberate
indifference to her serious medical needs. She was seen in the infirmary
numerous times, provided with various prescription medications, and examined by
medical professionals, as well as being given a special diet, being excused
from working, and told to stay in bed. While it may have constituted poor
medical judgment not to have conducted additional medical tests on her, there
was no evidence that there was a known excessive risk to her health that was ignored.
Bennett v. State of Louisiana, No. 07-31189, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 853 (Unpub.
5th Cir.).
There was no evidence that deliberate
indifference by three jail officers was the cause of a pretrial detainee's
death from a beating by his cellmate. While the claim was governed by the
Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Eighth Amendment because the decedent was
a pretrial detainee, the legal standard for liability was still deliberate
indifference to a substantial risk of serious injury. There was no indication
that the officers believed that such a risk existed. Further, they were all
off-duty when the beating actually took place, after the cellmate returned from
a court appearance. Their placement of the cellmate in the cell did not cause
the detainee's death. Jenkins v. DeKalb County, Georgia, No. 07-15820, 2009
U.S. App. Lexis 657 (11th Cir.).
A Colorado prisoner sought damages for injuries
he allegedly suffered when a showerhead, newly replaced by other inmates,
allegedly broke off, hitting him in the head in a manner that rendered him
unconscious. He also complained that prison staff members failed to check the
showerhead after its installation, and that he received inadequate medical care
for his injuries. The court ordered that the lawsuit be dismissed if the
prisoner failed to specify more particularly what he claimed each defendant did
or failed to do. Sanaah v. Arrellano, Civil Action No. 08-cv-02117, 2008 U.S.
Dist. Lexis 91327 (D. Co.).
Estate of deceased prisoner and his heirs could
not pursue, in federal civil rights lawsuit, claims arising from the death of
the prisoner, allegedly shot in the head with a plastic bullet by a prison
employee, and pepper sprayed by other prison employees who allegedly then
placed a plastic bag over his head to increase the harm suffered from the
burning effect of the pepper spray. The plaintiffs, in alleging only negligence
by the defendants in causing the death failed to show that the defendant
supervisory personnel did anything that they should have known would cause
prison employees to take actions that would violate constitutional rights.
State law claims were time barred, based on the plaintiffs' prior filing of a
state court lawsuit that they voluntarily dismissed before attempting to raise
such claims in the federal court proceeding. Provencio v. Vazquez,
1:07-CV-0069, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 73255 (E.D. Cal.).
In a case where a detainee allegedly died at a
jail following a beating, his parents failed to show that officers who sent him
to the jail rather than to a hospital were aware that his mental disorder, if
not immediately treated, would create a serious risk of harm. Evidence
indicated that the detainee behaved in a manner that was calm and that seemed
to indicate that he was "aware" of his surroundings, giving no
indication of urgently requiring medical treatment. The officers were also
entitled to qualified immunity, since they had both a duty to respond to the
detainee's medical needs and to honor a right to decline medical treatment. King
v. County of Gloucester, No. 07-3954, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 24833 (Unpub. 3rd
Cir.).
When prisoners were injured in a vehicle accident
while on the bus being transported to a work assignment, claims for their
injuries were work-related, had to be filed against the Federal Bureau of
Prisons under the Inmate Accident Compensation Act, 18 U.S.C.S. § 4126, so that
claims the prisoners filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act were properly
dismissed. Baynes v. U.S.A., No. 07-6352, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 21775 (Unpub.
6th Cir.).
The merits of a former inmate's claim that he had
suffered an injury from stepping in a pothole or the uneven playing surface of
a prison's basketball court was "questionable" when he had first
stated that his injury resulted from a collision with another player. An
intermediate appellate court upheld a decision by the New York Court of Claims
denying the prisoner's motion to bring a late notice of claim. Magee v. New
York, No. 504087, 2008 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 6754 (A.D. 3rd Dept.).
Federal civil rights lawsuit for death of
prisoner was rejected because it only alleged negligence by prison employees in
causing the death. The prisoner was struck in the head by a plastic bullet
fired by a prison employee, and other prison employees subjected him to pepper
spray and placed a plastic bag over his head to increase the burning effect.
Supervisory employees, the court found, were not alleged to have set into
motion actions that they reasonably should have known would cause other employees
to violate the prisoner's constitutional rights. State law claims were barred
by the statute of limitations. Provencio v. Vazquez, No. 1:07-CV-0069, 2008
U.S. Dist. Lexis 73255 (E.D. Cal.).
Prisoner classified by Social Security as
suffering from mental disorders failed to show that alleged delays in medical
care for a leg injury was disability discrimination by correctional
authorities. The Texas correctional authority was not responsible for his
medical care, as independent contractors provided it. The prisoner also failed
to show that the Texas Department of Criminal Justice failed to adequately
maintain a basketball court where he may have suffered his leg injury, for the
purpose of discriminating against disabled inmates, or that he was retaliated
against by forcing him to use traffic paths that were difficult to use with
crutches. Norman v. Tex. Dept. of Criminal Justice, No. 07-41090, 2008 U.S.
App. Lexis 19914 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
Evidence in a lawsuit claiming that jail
personnel used excessive force against a prisoner and denied medical care to
him, resulting in him dying in his cell supported a jury's verdict rejecting
claims for violations of the decedent's rights. The detainee had been involved
in two separate auto accidents just prior to his arrest, one of them serious,
and an autopsy concluded that he died of natural causes, specifically a heart
attack. Moore v. Tuleja, No. 07-3137, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 20997 (7th Cir.).
While a prisoner claimed that prison officials
had known about a loose shower seat for some time before it fell and cut his
foot, he failed to show that it posed a risk of serious harm in violation of
the Eighth Amendment, even though it did pose "some" danger. The
resulting injury, a gash lasting two weeks, only required a bandage and a
tetanus booster, and did not create a substantial risk of serious harm to the
prisoner's future health, as required for a deliberate indifference claim. Gray
v. McCormick, No. 07-3429, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 12620 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
A Pennsylvania inmate claimed that his
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection was developed
while he was working in a prison's laundry, and he sued for allegedly
unconstitutional working conditions. An expert witness offered by the prisoner
who was an environmental scientist and not a medical doctor could not testify
on the cause and nature of the prisoner's skin rashes, or that he suffered from
a MRSA infection, and further proceedings would determine whether he could
testify on the conditions present in the prison's laundry. While the prisoner's
medical records could be used to establish that he had a MRSA infection,
expert witness medical testimony was needed to establish that this condition
was caused by prison laundry working conditions. Wolfgang v. Smithers, Civil
No. 4:CV-03-167, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 28597 (M.D. Pa.).
A psychiatrist's deliberate indifference caused a
mentally ill prisoner's death from severe dehydration he experienced after he
was kept in a 90 to 100 degree observation room for several days. A jury
awarded $2 million in compensatory damages and $3 million in punitive damages.
The compensatory damage award was reduced to $1.5 million. A federal appeals
court rejected arguments that the remaining damage awards were excessive, and
found that there was sufficient evidence for the deliberate indifference
finding, as well as a medical malpractice claim. Further proceedings were
ordered on the trial court's reasons for allocating the compensatory damage
award between the federal deliberate indifference claim and a state law medical
malpractice claim, which was subject to a cap on non-economic damages. Gibson
v. Moskowitz, No. 07-1074, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 9233 (6th Cir.).
Claim that the lack of a county correctional
policy concerning drug overdoses caused a detainee's death in custody from a
drug overdose was properly rejected. The evidence showed, in fact, that the
facility's staff violated a written policy in responding to the detainee's
medical complaints by failing to call for emergency medical care after he was
found to have a heart rate above 100 as well as chest pain. Additionally, the
detainee's estate failed to offer any evidence of how alleged inadequate
medical training rendered staff members unable to adequately respond to the
situation. Powers v. County of Lorain, Ohio, No. 06-4515, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis
1129 (6th Cir.).
Relatives of prisoner who died from a drug
overdose failed to provide any evidence to support their argument that the
drugs had been administered to him by other inmates forcing him to take them,
or that his death resulted from prison officials failure to provide adequate
personnel to supervise inmates to avoid such incidents. The plaintiffs could
proceed, however, on their claim that certain defendants acted with deliberate
indifference by eliminating in-house emergency medical facilities despite the
common occurrence of drug overdoses among the inmate population.
Rivera-Quinones v. Rivera-Gonzalez, Civil No. 03-2326, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis
81258 (D. Puerto Rico).
Prior to trying to get a court-ordered blood
sample from a detainee at a county jail, employees there placed him in a
three-point restraint, and a blanket was allegedly placed against his head. The
prisoner then allegedly stopped breathing and, while CPR was attempted, he
was subsequently pronounced dead at a hospital. Upholding summary judgment for
defendant correctional officers and county, as well as the county sheriff, a
federal appeals court noted that the detainee had resisted arrest, was
"aggressive" at the time of the incident, and that it took several
officers to restrain him. The officers were then faced with the need to make a
quick decision about how to control him, and the court found that they did not apply
excessive force in doing so. Burkett v. Alachua County, No. 06-14777, 2007 U.S.
App. Lexis 24172 (11th Cir.).
Federal appeals court upholds award of $200,000
in compensatory and $797,160 in punitive damages to parent whose son was
murdered in a residential program for juvenile delinquents. By the end of 1999,
four youths had been murdered while in the same juvenile facility, provided by
a private company for the District of Columbia. The plaintiff's son became the
fifth in 2000. The plaintiff had argued that the company that operated the
facility acted in a reckless manner in failing to protect the decedent against
a foreseeable risk of harm, and violated his constitutional rights, and the
jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff on both claims. Muldrow v. Re-Direct,
Inc., No. 05-7169, 2007 U.S. App. Lexus 15814 (D.C. Cir.).
Federal appeals court disagrees with trial
court's conclusion that a reasonable jury could not find, based on a layman's
opinion, including the prisoner's opinion, that experienced work supervisors at
his prison job responded unreasonably to a known excessive risk to his health
and safety. The evidence could support a conclusion, the appeals court found,
that the supervisors knew that the prisoner was suffering from serious
respiratory distress from his job in a poorly ventilated and enclosed room, and
that the prisoner could not avoid instances where a razor blade would catch and
then slip loose uncontrollably, using the tools made available to him. Blay v.
Reilly, No. 04-1347, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 17603 (10th Cir.).
Prisoner could not pursue federal civil rights
claim against sheriff and county for his injury in a prison shower exit based
on alleged negligence in failing to provide a shower mat, since negligence is insufficient
for such a claim. The prisoner also failed to show, for purposes of an Eighth
Amendment civil rights claim, that there was an official county policy or
custom which results in the absence of non-slip shower exits. Smith v. Leonard,
No. 06-41123, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 14003 (5th Cir.).
Federal court dismisses inmate's claim for
violation of his federal civil rights stemming from injuries he suffered when
the top bunk of a bunk bed in his cell collapsed on top of him, because the
evidence showed, at most, that the jail and its officials may have been
negligent in failing to repair the bunk bed, not that they acted with
deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's health and safety. McKnight v.
McDuffie, No. CV405-183, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 26131 (S.D. Ga.).
Prisoner's claim that he slipped, fell, and was
injured because of prison officials' failure to provide non-slip mats on the
floor near a prison shower was based on negligence, at most, and was
insufficient to be the basis for a violation of the Eighth Amendment
prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, which requires a showing of
deliberate indifference. Graham v. Poole, No. 06-CV-6271L, 2007 U.S. Dist.
Lexis 17916 (W.D.N.Y.).
Prisoner could not pursue claim for violation of
his federal civil rights based on his slip and fall at a county jail which
failed to allege anything more than mere negligence on the part of jail
officials. Heredia v. Doe, 05 Civ. 5777, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 9105 (S.D.N.Y.).
In prisoner's lawsuit for injuries he allegedly
suffered when the van he was traveling in was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by
a correctional officer, even if the officer had been speeding, that only
constituted, at most, negligence, which could not be the basis for a federal
civil rights lawsuit. Further, the alleged failure to have seat belts installed
in the van was not a violation of the prisoner's constitutional rights. Further
proceedings allowed, however, as to whether officers acted with deliberate
indifference after the accident, based on such factors as how long the inmate
was detained at a facility after the accident, and whether the prisoner
suffered injuries on the basis of an alleged delay in his treatment following
the accident. Oliver v. Brooks, No. 5:06-cv-320, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 90676
(M.D. Ga.). [N/R]
Unresolved factual issues concerning whether
there was still a "storm in progress" while the State of New York
allegedly attempted to remove snow from prison premises, and whether the
prisoner should have not been allowed, during the storm, to travel from the
dormitory to the schoolhouse, allegedly falling on the way and suffering
injuries, barred summary judgment for the state and required a trial on the
prisoner's personal injury claim. The state had argued that it could not be
held liable for the prisoner's injury under the "storm in progress"
doctrine, allowing landowners a reasonable period of time after a storm ends to
engage in snow removal efforts. DeGregorio v. State of New York, No. 109305,
2006 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 2820 (Ct. Claims). [N/R]
The fact that a prisoner was forced to remain
covered in raw sewage for some time after being required to clean up a sewage
water back up in a prison was sufficient, by itself, to show that he suffered
an injury as required for liability under Ohio state law. Additionally, there
was evidence that he needed numerous treatments for a skin rash. The parties in
his lawsuit stipulated that inmates in the clean-up detail were not provided
with adequate protective gear and were not allowed to shower until the next
day. O'Banion v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, No.
2005-0579, 2006 Ohio Misc. Lexis 159 (Ohio Ct. of Claims). [N/R]
Ordering a prisoner to continue working with a
defective printing press, which subsequently tore off his thumb could be a
violation of the Eighth Amendment, despite the fact that the prisoner
originally obtained the specific prison work assignment by voluntarily applying
for it. Morgan v. Morgensen, No. 04-35608, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 25028 (9th
Cir.). [2006 JB Nov]
In Alabama prisoner's lawsuit seeking back pay
and damages and challenging the power of correctional officials to force
prisoners to perform work on a private contract job with an outside vendor of
sports equipment, the state agencies and Department of Corrections, and prison
warden were all entitled to sovereign immunity under state law. Latham v.
Department of Corrections, No. 1031810, 927 So. 2d 815 (Ala. 2005). [N/R]
County jail was not liable for inmate's burn
injuries suffered during kitchen work assignment. While the prisoner claimed
that the jail failed to provide him with reasonably safe equipment and adequate
training for the job, the prisoner admitted that he failed to use a funnel,
gloves, and other equipment provided for him to perform the task of
transferring boiling water from one container to another. He also admitted that
the task was "pretty basic" and that he had successfully completed
the job previously, refuting the argument that further training was required.
Spiratos v. County of Chenago, 815 N.Y.S. 2d 288 (A.D. 3rd Dept. 2006). [N/R]
Sheriff and parish government were entitled,
under Louisiana statute, to immunity from liability for alleged negligence of
deputy in driving vehicle in which a prisoner was a passenger while being
transported to work assignment as part of litter abatement program. The fact
that the injured prisoner had been released from custody after the injury
occurred did not alter the immunity under the statute, which was based on his
status as a prisoner at the time of the accident. Ceasar v. Herbert, No.
05-1195, 926 So. 2d 139 (La. App. 2006). [N/R]
The waiver of sovereign immunity by Pennsylvania
under state law for dangerous conditions on governmental property did not apply
to a Pennsylvania prisoner's lawsuit against the state in federal court
asserting a state law negligence claim for injuries he allegedly suffered when
his Achilles tendon was torn by a pipe protruding from his cell floor. The
statute containing the waiver itself said that it did not waive the state's
Eleventh Amendment immunity, preventing it from being sued for damages in
federal court. Prisoner also failed to show that prison officials acted with
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs following his injuries, as
required for a federal civil rights claim. Brooks v. Beard, No. 05-3196, 167
Fed. Appx. 923 (3rd Cir. 2006). [N/R]
A Mississippi county's purchase of liability
insurance did not constitute a waiver of the governmental immunity the county
was entitled to under state law in a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the
estate of an inmate who died when he fell off of the back of a county garbage
truck after he volunteered to help with a garbage collection detail. Supreme Court
of Mississippi upholds summary judgment for county. Powell v. Clay County Bard
of Supervisors, No. 2005-CA-00018-SCT, 924 So. 2d 523 (Miss. 2006). [N/R]
North Carolina appeals court upholds rejection of
state agency's motion to dismiss claims for liability for the death of four
inmates and serious injuries to another in a fire at a county jail. State
agency had a specific responsibility, under state law, with respect to fire
safety inspections at local detention facilities, and the"public duty
doctrine," the basis of the agency's motion to dismiss, had no
applicability to claims that the agency's inspector was negligent and that the
agency was also negligent in training the inspector. Multiple Claimants v. N.C.
Dept. of Health and Human Services, No. COA04-808, 626 S.E.2d 666 (N.C. App.
2006). [N/R]
Inmate suffering from chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease from dust and smoke accompanying his work as a welder failed
to show that he had informed the supervisor of the prison unit overseeing
prison jobs of the risk to him allegedly posed by his working conditions. Since
the supervisor was not shown to have known of and disregarded the risk to him,
he could not be held liable for injuries allegedly suffered by the prisoner.
Additionally, the prisoner failed to file grievances concerning the work
conditions and also refused to wear a dust mask he was given. Flanyak v. Hopta,
No. 3:04-1634, 410 F. Supp. 2d 394 (M.D. Pa. 2006). [N/R]
Federal appeals court finds a triable issue of
fact on whether a county had inadequate policies regarding the training of jail
medical personnel as to how to respond to the fall of a medically unstable
prisoner, a prisoner's refusal of needed medical treatment, or the need to
conduct a prompt assessment on whether such a prisoner should be transferred to
another facility with more medical resources. Civil rights claim against county
reinstated in lawsuit over death of 71-year-old prisoner from cardiac arrest.
Long v. County of Los Angeles, No. 04-55463, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 7552 (9th
Cir.). [2006 JB May]
A federal prisoner's lawsuit under the Federal
Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1346(b), 2671-80, alleging that he was
injured as a result of a negligent failure to train him to use machinery safely
during his prison employment was barred by the provisions of the Federal Prison
Industries' Inmate Accident Compensation (IAC) system under 18 U.S.C. Sec.
4126. Cordoba v. Morrison, No. 04-3642, 155 Fed. Appx. 933 (8th Cir. 2005).
[N/R]
In lawsuit over prisoner's death from dehydration
in his cell, where water was frequently turned off during a "heat
alert," eleven prison employees were not entitled to qualified immunity,
since there was evidence from which it could be found that they knew of his
need for water and psychological treatment, but did little or nothing to assist
him. Appeals court also finds that four other defendants were entitled to
qualified immunity. Clark-Murphy v. Foreback, No. 05-1323, 05-1394, 2006 U.S.
App. Lexis 2817 (6th Cir.) [2006 JB Apr]
State of New York had no duty to provide an
inmate with instructions on the use of or warnings concerning the dangerous of
using an angle grinder in his work assignment, and therefore was not liable for
injuries he suffered when he set the grinder down on a workbench while it was
still operating. Coming into contact with the spinning disk of the grinder was
an "obvious danger" and the prisoner, who had worked in the
construction industry for twenty years, was familiar with power tools and angle
grinders in particular. Manganaro v. State of New York, 805 N.Y.S.2d 710 (A.D.
3rd Dept. 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner Discipline
Prison rules prohibiting inmates from calling
drug testing lab technicians as witnesses at disciplinary hearings were not a
violation of procedural due process. Federal appeals court upholds
constitutionality of Nebraska prison's urine sample collection and testing
procedures. Louis v. Dep't of Corr. Servs. of Nebraska, No. 05-1211, 2006 U.S.
App. Lexis 2648 (8th Cir.). [2006 JB Apr]
Mother of youth murdered while in the custody of
a contractors for the District of Columbia Youth Services Administration, was
awarded $997,161 in compensatory and punitive damages on civil rights and
negligence claims. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's failure to
monitor the youth's medication and whereabouts, to connect him with court
ordered mental health and substance abuse services, or to properly care for him
caused his death. Court rules that plaintiff was also entitled to an award of
$398,490.75 in attorneys' fees and $22,528.30 in costs. Court rejected argument
that it was unreasonable to spend 96 hours preparing opposition to the
defendant's motion for summary judgment, but did rule that a 25% reduction in
requested hourly rates was justified when the same evidence was presented on
both the civil rights and negligence claims and the requested attorneys' fee
award would otherwise have amounted to almost 54% of the damage award. Muldrow
v. Re-Direct, Inc., No. CIV. A. 01-2537, 397 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2005). [N/R]
Correctional officers were not entitled to
qualified immunity on claim that they continued to use force against detainee
after they had subdued him, resulting in his death from positional asphyxia.
They were also not entitled to qualified immunity on the claim that they waited
fourteen minutes after he became unconscious and stopped breathing, to summon
medical assistance. Bozeman v. Orum, No. 04-11073, 422 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir.
2005). [2006 JB Feb]
Genuine issues existed as to whether warden was
deliberately indifferent to alleged widespread abuse of prisoners by officers,
making him liable for a prisoner's death after an alleged beating of officers.
Warden was not entitled to qualified immunity against supervisory liability
claim by prisoner's estate. Valdes v. Crosby, No. 301CV799, 390 F. Supp. 2d
1084 (M.D. Fla. 2005). [N/R]
Prison job counselor who did not know of a
substantial risk of harm to a prisoner who was shocked by a buffing machine
during work assignment because the machine did not have a ground-prong in its
plug could not be held liable for his injuries. While the prisoner's
allegations stated a claim against the prison safety manager and electrical
shop foreman for deliberate indifference, they were entitled to qualified
immunity because it was not clearly established at the time of the incident
that failure to repair or remove the machine because of a missing ground-prong
would violate the Eighth Amendment. Littlejohn v. Moody, No. 2:04CV330, 381 F.
Supp. 2d 507 (E.D. Va. 2005). [N/R]
Correctional officer was not shown to have acted
with deliberate indifference when he allegedly backed a van in which a prisoner
was being transported into another vehicle, injuring him. The officer had to
act quickly to react to unforeseen traffic circumstance and decide how best to
move the van away from oncoming traffic. Alexander v. Perrenoud, No. 04-3846,
134 Fed. Appx. 938 (7th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
New York Court of Claims upholds award of
$350,000 for conscious pain and suffering to estate of deceased inmate who died
of a prescription drug overdose in case where prison officials were found to
have been negligent in allowing him to have more than one pill at a time in his
cell. Prisoner's death after overdose took thirteen days to occur, and he
underwent numerous invasive medical procedures during that interval. Court also
upholds, however, the failure to award any economic damages, when the decedent
had a "limited work history," and had never earned enough money in
any year to require him to file a tax return. $25,000 also awarded to inmate's
mother for her suffering based on correctional officials' failure to notify
her, as the inmate's chosen relative, when her son was admitted to a hospital
outside of the prison during a weekend, as required by the correctional
department's policy. Arias v. State of New York, No. 97942, 795 N.Y.S.2d 855
(Ct. Cl. 2005). [N/R]
No federal law provides for a privilege of
confidentiality of a "peer review" of the medical facts concerning
the death of a prisoner, so that a trial court properly compelled the
production of the mortality review conducted by correctional health officials
in a lawsuit over the death. Agster v. Maricopa County, No. 04-15466, 406 F.3d
1091 (9th Cir. 2005) [2005 JB Aug]
Federal appeals court upholds $72,000 award
against District of Columbia in lawsuit over murder of juvenile delinquent in
juvenile detention "independent living" apartment by unknown assassin
with a silencer-equipped gun. Evidence showed that the District adopted no
standards whatsoever for selection of a private contractor to run the program,
and had no standards for monitoring the program's performance. Security at the
apartments was allegedly inadequate and no additional security measures were
allegedly taken after another youth living there was mugged and robbed by an
armed assailant in his apartment. Smith v. District of Columbia, No. 03-7143,
2005 U.S. App. Lexis 13288 (D.C. Cir.). [2005 JB Aug]
Connecticut prisoner could not pursue a civil
rights lawsuit against a correctional official in the absence of any evidence
that he had any personal or direct involvement in the purported violation of
the prisoner's rights which resulted in him suffering injuries in a fall from a
"make-shift" ladder following which his thigh was impaled on an
exposed water valve. Prisoner would be allowed, however, to amend his complaint
to attempt to state a claim against a supervisor who allegedly had knowledge of
the lack of proper equipment to perform the required task. Moriarty v. Brooks,
111 Fed. Appx. 30 (2nd Cir. 2004). [N/R]
A non-attorney administrator of the estate of a
inmate who died from cancer while incarcerated could not pursue a pro se
wrongful death and federal civil rights claim against correctional medical
personnel when his action constituted the unauthorized practice of law under
Arkansas statutes. The court noted that the administrator was not the only
beneficiary or creditor of the estate, and his pursuit of the claim therefore
constituted the practice of law in the course of representing the interest of
others. Jones v. Corr. Med. Serv., No. 04-1985, 401 F.3d 950 (8th Cir. 2005).
[N/R]
Amendments to Louisiana state statutes, creating
administrative remedies which prisoners must exhaust prior to pursuing lawsuits
against prison officials did not apply retroactively to lawsuits pending at the
time they were enacted. Prisoner could, therefore, continue to pursue his
negligence claim for damages against prison officials for injuries suffered
from falling off of a trailer-mounted water tank during a prison work
assignment. Dailey v. Travis, No. 2004-CC-0744, 892 So. 2d 17 (La. 2005). [N/R]
Federal appeals court orders additional
proceedings on whether family members of deceased inmate suffered severe
emotional distress, under Oklahoma law, following his death, in a case where
family members were awarded $1.1 million in damages under the Federal Tort
Claims Act based on alleged outrageous conduct in failing to disclose the battered
condition of his body before shipping it to them for burial. Trentadue v. Lee,
No. 01-6444, 397 F.3d 840 (10th Cir. 2005). [2005 JB Apr]
Correctional officer was unaware of a prisoner's
alleged medical condition creating a "substantial risk" of harm if he
were assigned to a top bunk, and therefore could not be held liable for the
prisoner's subsequent injury on the basis of "deliberate
indifference." Pennington v. Taylor, No. 2:02-CV-604, 343 F. Supp. 2d 508
(E.D. Va. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner's failure to claim personal involvement
of the sheriff in connection with his slip and fall on wet floor outside shower
area in county correctional facility barred a federal civil rights claim
against him. Sheriff was not involved in the incident itself and the prisoner
failed to allege any conduct in the sheriff's supervisory role which would have
imposed liability. Davis v. Reilly, No. 03-CV-3954, 324 F. Supp. 2d 361
(E.D.N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
Federal appeals court reverses $1.1 million in
emotional distress damages against U.S. government by family of prisoner who
died in federal detention center, based on trial court's failure to make
explicit findings concerning the severity of the family's emotional distress.
Trentadue v. U.S., No. 01-6444, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 22156(10th Cir. 2004).
[2004 JB Dec] Jail personnel were not
deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of injury or death for pretrial
detainee subsequently found dead in her cell either from self-hanging or from
strangulation by another person. There were no prior signs that the detainee,
arrested for allegedly operating a vehicle under the influence of drugs, was
suicidal and there was no information from which they would have known that she
was at risk of harm by someone else, and no evidence that the jailers
themselves murdered her. Stiltner v. Crouse, No. 1:03 CV 00078, 327 F. Supp. 2d
667 (W.D.Va. 2004). [N/R]
Failure to warn prisoner about alleged defect on
prison softball field which allegedly resulted in injury to his eye from
bouncing ball did not constitute the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of
pain" required to assert an Eighth Amendment claim. Christopher v. Buss,
No. 02-4044, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 20497 (7th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Nov]
Failure to provide prisoner with a seatbelt while
transporting him, while handcuffed, in bus, did not violate his constitutional
rights. Additionally, claims that he was injured through negligent or reckless
operation of the bus by the driver could not be pursued as federal civil rights
claims. Prisoner could proceed, however, on his claims that prison medical
personnel were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs caused by
his injuries in the accident. Carrasquillo v. City of New York, 324 F. Supp. 2d
428 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner who was injured while doing electrical
work as part of prison work assignment was entitled to reversal of summary
judgment for defendants in his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim
against supervisors. There was sufficient evidence to raise a factual issue as
to whether the defendants knew of the risks the prisoner would face from the
work he was being assigned to do. Hall v. Bennett, No. 02-2683, 2004 U.S. App.
Lexis 16609 (7th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Oct]
Evidence sufficiently established that prisoner's
injury in a slip and fall while exiting a prison shower was not caused by any
negligence on the part of prison officials. Wigfall v. Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, No. 01-02-01264-CV, 137 S.W.3d 268 (Tex. App. 1st Dist.
2004). [N/R]
Ohio prisoner failed to prove that failure to
grant his request for a bottom bunk assignment was the cause of the injuries he
suffered when he fell and struck his head while attempting to climb into his
top bunch, and therefore was not entitled to damages. Medical personnel at the
facility had no indication that the prisoner had a need for a bottom bunk
assignment because of a prior foot injury. Bell v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation
and Correct., No. 2002-06391-AD, 810 N.E.2d 467 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2004). [N/R]
State of Texas was entitled to sovereign immunity
against prisoner's claim for personal injury resulting from contact with a
razor-wire fence surrounding a prison recreation yard. The presence of the
razor wire there did not constitute either an "ordinary premises
defect," or a "special defect" enumerated as an exception to
sovereign immunity in the state's Tort Claims Act, V.T.C.A., Civil Practice
& Remedies Code, Sec. 101.022. Retzlaff v. Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, No. 01-02-00437-CV, 135 S.W.3d 731 (Tex. App. 1st Dist. 2003),
rehearing denied March 4, 2004. [N/R]
In a lawsuit by a New York prisoner seeking
damages for injuries he suffered while operating router equipment in a prison
work assignment, the court ruled that the "drastic remedy" of
striking the State's answer to the prisoner's complaint was not justified by
the State's failure to produce, in discovery, its accident report and the
maintenance records for the router, but found that this was sufficient to
support an inference that, if these records had been produced, they would have
been unfavorable to the State. Gentle v. State of New York, No. 96927, 778
N.Y.S.2d 660 (Ct. Cl. 2004). [N/R]
Alleged failure of city to alleviate overcrowding
in jail, resulting in unsanitary conditions, could possibly be a basis for
liability for prisoner's death from bacterial meningitis. Doctor's failure to
treat prisoner for this condition, however, did not show deliberate
indifference, when he testing the prisoner for meningitis and concluded that he
did not have that condition. Brown v. Mitchell, 308 F. Supp. 2d 682 (E.D. Va.
2004). [N/R]
Prisoner's claim that he was subjected to
"standing water" in a prison shower area resulting in a fall was
insufficient to establish a claim for cruel and unusual conditions of
confinement posing a substantial risk of serious harm to his health or safety.
Despite the fact that prisoner was on crutches, the danger of falling on a
slippery floor was no greater than the daily hazards faced by the general
public. Reynolds v. Powell, #03-4156, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 10838 (10th
Cir.).[2004 JB Jul]
Prisoner who claimed that he slipped and fell on
a wet floor in a Pennsylvania state prison, injuring himself, could not collect
damages. State correctional department was entitled to summary judgment because
a wet or waxed floor was not a "dangerous condition" sufficient to
come within an exception to sovereign immunity under state law for defects in
real property. Raker v. Pa. Dept. of Corrections, 844 A.2d 659 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2004). [N/R]
Federal prison officials were not liable for the
death of a prisoner beaten to death by two fellow inmates with a fire
extinguisher. Their decisions regarding where to house the prisoner and how to
protect his safety fell within the "discretionary function" exception
to the Federal Tort Claims Act, as those decisions were discretionary and
"grounded in policy," since there was no mandatory course of conduct
for officials to follow. Montez v. U.S., No. 02-6303, 359 F.3d 392 (6th Cir.
2004). [2004 JB Jun]
Federal appeals court reinstates prisoner's claim
under the Federal Tort Claims Act for negligently caused injuries resulting
from him falling from his top bunk after he was given a medical pass entitling
him to a bottom bunk. Bultema v. U.S., No. 02-3490, 359 F.3d 379 (6th Cir.
2004). [2004 JB May]
Prisoner stated a claim for deliberate
indifference to his safety, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, by alleging
that correctional officers transporting him refused to fasten his seatbelt
while he was unable to do so because of shackles. Prisoner could pursue claims
both for injuries in subsequent vehicle accident and for alleged inadequate
medical care following accident. Brown v. Missouri Department of Corrections,
#03-2193, 353 F.3d 1038 (8th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Apr]
Privately owned and run correctional facility and
its corrections officer acted "under color of state law" for purposes
of a federal civil rights claim. Federal appeals court reinstates lawsuit by
prisoner claiming that officer subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment by
slamming a door on his fingers, severing two fingertips. Rosborough v.
Management & Training Corporation, #03-40493, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis
22864 (5th Cir.). [2004 JB Jan]
County correctional officers were grossly
negligent in the manner of monitoring a detainee suffering from alcohol
withdrawal and were not informed of the serious nature of his condition by jail
physician, making county liable for $80,000 for detainee's death. Jinks v.
Richland County, No. 25690, 585 S.E.2d 281 (S.C. 2003). [2003 JB Dec]
A reasonable jury could only conclude that the
plaintiff prisoner's throat or lung cancers were caused by his cigarette
smoking, when the offered opinion of his expert witness that they were caused
by exposure to thoriated tungsten welding rods during his prison work
assignment as a welder was not reliable or relevant. Expert's testimony was
excluded and summary judgment granted for defendant prison officials. Burleson
v. Glass, 268 F. Supp. 2d 699 (W.D. Tex. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner injured from a slip and fall on a wet
floor in county jail failed to show that correctional officers actually knew
that there was water on the floor, or that the water had remained there for any
substantial period of time, as required for him to recover damages for his
resulting injuries. Heliodore v. State of New York, 759 N.Y.S.2d 554 (A.D. 3d
Dept. 2003). [N/R]
Federal appeals court rules that correctional
officers' use of force in restraining detainee, which resulted in his death
from a compression injury to his neck, was not excessive. The detainee was an
"exceptionally large and strong" man and evidence showed that he
became violent in his cell and after he was let out of his cell. Further, there
was no evidence that the officers intentionally attempted to choke the
prisoner. Walters v. County of Charleston, No. 02-1297, 63 Fed. Appx. 116 (4th
Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner who claimed he was injured while opening
a freezer door failed to provide county with notice of his claim within 6
months of the accident as required by the Texas Tort Claims Act, V.T.C.A. Civil
Practice & Remedies Code Sec. 101.101(a, c). His claim against the county
was therefore properly dismissed. Crane County v. Saults, No. 08-02-00207-CV,
101 S.W.3d 764 (Tex. App. -- El Paso 2003). [N/R]
Kansas prisoner could pursue claim against state
for personal injuries he suffered while operating a road grader at a
correctional institution and was not required under state law to exhaust his
administrative remedies before filing suit, under applicable state regulation.
K.A.R. 44-16-104. Bates v. State of Kansas, No. 88,757, 67 P.2d 168 (Kan. App.
2003). [N/R]
Federal appeals court rules that prisoner
satisfied the "exhaustion of available administrative remedies"
requirement sufficiently by alleging that he was unable to timely file an
initial grievance because of his broken hand. Appeals court vacates dismissal
of prisoner's civil rights lawsuit for damages, based on his broken hand from
slip and fall in prison dining area. Days v. Johnson, #02-10064, 322 F.3d. 863
(5th Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Jun]
Prisoners' claims that they had been injured by
exposure to lead and asbestos while on a prison work detail involved a
"continuing" harm, and the prisoners adequately complied with a state
law notice of claim requirement when they provided notice within six months of
the date that they discovered their exposure to the hazard, even if it first
took place years earlier. City of Forsyth v. Bell, No. A02A2069, 574 S.E.2d 331
(Ga. App. 2002). [N/R]
Prisoner who claimed that a correction officer
kicked the bottom of his chair, causing him to fall and be injured did not
succeed in showing negligence required to establish liability, especially since
prisoner was leaning back in the chair with the front legs 16-18 inches off the
ground before he fell. Sturgill v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction,
#2001-08595, 782 N.E.2d 169 (Ohio Ct. Claims 2002). [N/R]
Utah inmate's slip and fall on a soapy shower
floor in county jail, resulting in injuries, did not demonstrate the kind of
excessive risk or substantial deprivation of the minimum civilized measure of
life's necessities so as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the
Eighth Amendment. Flandro v. Salt Lake County Jail, #01-4168, 53 Fed. Appx. 499
(10th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
County was not liable for prisoner's death on the
basis of alleged negligence in forcing the decedent to sleep near an inmate who
was infected with tuberculosis, which was alleged to have caused his fatal
pulmonary problems. County was entitled to immunity under Texas Torts Claim
Act, V.T.C.A. Civil Practice & Remedies Code Sec. 101.001 et seq. Dismissal
of claims against the county, however, did not bar deceased prisoner's wife
from proceeding with her claim against a jail employee individually. Sykes v.
Harris County, #01-00-01162-CV, 89 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. App. -- Houston [1st Dist]
2002). [N/R]
Washington state statutes which barred the
payment of permanent partial disability benefits for workplace injuries to
prisoners who had no family beneficiaries and were "unlikely" to be
released from prison found to violate their due process and equal protection
rights by state supreme court. Willougby v. Dept. of Labor and Industries of
the State of Washington, No. 71950-1, 57 P.3d 611 (Wash. 2002). [2003
JB Feb.]
A city jail was a "public building" for
purposes of a public building exception to governmental immunity under Michigan
state law, but an individual detained in the jail was an "inmate" of
the jail and therefore not entitled to recover under that exception to the
city's statutory immunity from liability. See M.C.L.A. Sec. 691.1406.
Additionally, the prisoner's claims that the city jail was "not
clean," did not have a place to sit (resulting in her back hurting), and
that a telephone was not readily available were not the kind of
"structural conditions" required to claim liability under the public
building exception. Bobbitt v. The Detroit Edison Company, 216 F. Supp. 2d 669
(E.D. Mich. 2002).[N/R]
New York State could not be held liable for a
prisoner's injuries while using an allegedly defective exercise machine at a
correctional facility in the absence of any proof that there was actual or
constructive knowledge of the defect which would have provided an opportunity
to repair it. Valentine v. State of New York, Claim No. 98679, 747 N.Y.S.2d 282
(N.Y. Ct. Cl. 2002). [2003 JB Jan]
Federal trial court did not have subject matter
jurisdiction over prisoner's state law negligence claim against Illinois state
prison officials seeking to recover for his injuries from being shocked by
allegedly exposed electrical wires in showers. Defendants were entitled to
sovereign immunity under Eleventh Amendment which state had asserted by barring
such claims except in the Illinois Court of Claims. Federal civil rights claim
also failed, as prisoner failed to show that defendants knew about the wires
but were deliberately indifferent to their exposed presence. Turner v. Miller,
#01-3413, 301 F.3d 599 (7th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Mississippi prisoner could not recover damages
from county under state law for her injuries from falling from top bunk bed in
county jail. County was immune, under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA),
A.M.C. Sec. 11-46-9(1)(c, m), from all claims by inmate. Exception in statute
for "reckless disregard" in relation to police protection of a person
not engaged in criminal activity at the time of the injury did not apply to
prisoner's claim that the jailer's conduct of not placing her in the
"drunk tank" was "reckless disregard" for her safety and
well being. Liggans v. Coahoma County Sheriff's Department, No. 2001-CA-00860-SCT,
823 So. 2d 1152 (Miss. 2002). [N/R]
Indiana federal court jury awards $56.5 million
to family of DUI arrestee who died in jail "drunk tank" following
alleged assault by deputy, including choking and use of pepper spray. Moreland
v. Dieter, No. 3:99CV0607, U.S. District Court (N.D. Ind. May 9, 2002),
reported in The National Law Journal p. B1, May 20, 2002. [2002 JB Jul]
While there was insufficient evidence to hold
county liable for alleged beating death of detainee at the hands of prison
guards, individual officers were not entitled to qualified immunity from
liability. A claim that "low-level" county officials falsified
reports after prisoner's death did not show a "well-settled" county
custom of excessive force, but there was a genuine issue of whether guards participating
in beating acted maliciously and sadistically. Gailor v. Armstrong, 187 F.
Supp. 2d 729 (W.D. Ken. 2001). [2002 JB Jun]
Prisoner who claimed he was injured while working
at penitentiary laundry was entitled to a new hearing on his workers'
compensation claim because the hearing examiner's findings in denying claim
were contradicted by the "vast weight" of the evidence presented.
Sweets v. Workers' Safety & Compensation Division, #01-75, 42 P.3d 461
(Wyo. 2002). [N/R]
Jail officials were not liable for pretrial
detainee's death from ingestion of cocaine when he denied that he had done so
and refused medical attention. Arresting officers and intake personnel at the
jail all offered to get him medical assistance if he required it and all asked
him whether he had swallowed drugs. Watkins v. City of Battle Creek, No.
00-1502, 273 F.3d 682 (6th Cir. 2001). [2002 JB Mar]
Officer's claimed negligence in closing a door on
an inmate at county jail could not be the basis of a federal civil rights
lawsuit. Breakiron v. Neal, No. 3:00-CV-2155-H, 166 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (N.D. Tex.
2001). [N/R]
Federal prisoner awarded $900 in damages for
injuries suffered in vehicle accident while being transported to a new
facility. Chong-Won Tai v. U.S., 155 F. Supp. 2d 856 (N.D. Ill. 2001). [2002 JB
Jan]
299:171 New York high court rules that state
statute did not preclude a county from seeking a jury instruction that damages
be apportioned between itself and the actual assailant in a lawsuit brought by
a prisoner against the county for alleged negligence in failing to prevent
another prisoner's attack on him. Rangolan v. County of Nassau, 96 N.Y.2d 42,
725 N.Y.S.2d 611, 749 N.E.2d 178 (2001).
299:170 Prisoner could recover damages for
negligent supervision by correctional officer during touch football game during
which he was allegedly assaulted by another prisoner. Schindler v. State of New
York, Claim No. 96692 (N.Y. Ct. of Claims, Rochester, N.Y.), reported in The
National Law Journal, p. B4 (Aug. 13, 2001).
299:169 Prisoner who was allegedly exposed to raw
sewage in the course of her work assignment failed to show that correctional
officials acted with deliberate indifference; even if she was correct that
protective clothing issued was inadequate, nothing showed that defendants knew
that before she complained. Shannon v. Graves, No. 00- 3029, 257 F.3d 1164
(10th Cir. 2001).
298:148 State of New York was not liable for
prisoner's injury in prison yard from stray bullet fired by teenagers in nearby
woods where hunting took place. Melendez v. State of New York, 725 N.Y.S.2d 113
(A.D. 2001).
297:134 Specific statute giving a prisoner in
Missouri only one year to sue the corrections department for any injuries
barred suit for injuries inmate suffered when van she was being transported in
overturned; more general five- year statute which would have applied if injured
party was not a prisoner had no bearing on the case. Kinder v. Missouri Dept.
of Corrections, #WD 58592, 43 S.W.3d 369 (Mo. App. 2001).
297:134 Correctional officers were not liable for
prisoner's death from heat exhaustion while working outdoors; his collapse in
72-degree weather, without prior complaints or symptoms, was simply not
foreseeable. Mays v. Rhodes, #00-1822, 255 F.3d 644 (8th Cir. 2001).
295:105 Kentucky county had sovereign immunity
against negligence claim by inmate injured while performing work assignment for
county road department; statute providing a mechanism for negligence claims
against the state did not apply to counties in the state. Board of Claims of
Kentucky v. Banks, No. 1999-CA-001001-MR, 31 S.W.3d 436 (Ky. App. 2000).
295:105 Correctional officers were entitled to
summary judgment on prisoner's claim that they "covered up" an
accident in which he was struck by a van driven by a correctional employee,
when prisoner failed to present any evidence to oppose evidence they submitted;
claims against them in an official capacity were claims against the state,
barred by absolute immunity under the Alabama state constitution. Evans v.
Cotton, #2981428, 770 So. 2d 620 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000).
279:41 Jury awards $2 million to prisoner blinded
while operating trash compactor during prison work assignment; suit claimed a
delay in medical treatment contributed to blindness. Williams v. Patel, No.
96-1369, U.S. Dist. Ct (C.D. Ill.), reported in The National Law Journal, p.
A12 (Feb. 21, 2000). Subsequent decision denying new trial at: 104 F. Supp. 2d
984 (C.D. Ill. 2000).
285:134 Owners and operators of gas pipeline near
Texas correctional facility could not be sued for alleged Eighth Amendment
violation based on leak which subjected 1,000 prisoners and correctional
employees to exposure to gas when they were unable to be evacuated; defendants
were not acting under color of law and did not act with deliberate indifference
to plaintiffs' constitutional rights. Abarca v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 75 F.
Supp. 2d 566 (E.D. Tex. 1999).
[N/R] Correctional officials were not liable for
inmate injury which occurred during prison work assignment even if they were
negligent in improperly storing a table top which fell on inmate's head;
officials were entitled to statutory immunity from suit under Tennessee state
law. Luther v. Compton, 5 S.W.2d 635 (Tenn. 1999).
280:55 Prisoner who suffered from varicose veins
awarded $12,500 for increased pain and suffering based on prison conditions
that allegedly caused the deterioration of his condition. Mihileas v. State of
New York, 697 N.Y.S.2d 891 (A.D. 1999).
281:74 Jail employees and officials were not
liable for mentally ill detainee's death from asphyxiation which was either
suicide or an accidental death caused by his illness; while jail personnel may
have been negligent in how they treated this detainee, their conduct did not
rise to the level of "deliberate indifference" required for federal
civil rights liability. Thornton v. City of Montgomery, 78 F. Supp. 2d 1218
(M.D. Ala. 1999).
282:85 Correctional officials with no personal
involvement in prisoner's alleged exposure to dangerous chemicals in prison
metal shop could not be held liable for future harm to him, when there was no
claim they failed to remedy it after learning of it, or created a policy that
allowed it to happen or continue; prisoner could pursue claim against other
correctional employees based on alleged failure to provide him with safety
equipment. Crawford v. Coughlin, 43 F. Supp. 2d 319 (W.D.N.Y. 1999).
284:118 Prisoner failed to show that his injuries
were the result of sodomy and assault by other inmates rather than a seizure as
the state contended. Zi Guang v. State of New York, 695 N.Y.S.2d 142 (A.D.
1999).
277:6 Sheriff and deputies were not liable for
arrestee's bizarre action of blinding himself by plucking out his eyes; while
prisoner's behavior was "increasingly erratic," there was nothing
which informed the defendants that he had an intent to harm himself; defendants
attempted to care for prisoner and did not act with deliberate indifference.
Sibley v. LeMaire, #98-30301, 184 F.3d 481 (5th Cir. 1999).
277:8 Prisoner who slipped and fell down stairs
while being escorted to a gymnasium in full restraints did not state claim for
cruel and unusual punishment. Pendergrass v. Hodge, 53 F. Supp. 2d 838 (E.D.
Va. 1999).
271:106 Jail superintendent was not liable for
pre- trial detainee's slip and fall in jail shower; claim that superintendent
ignored complaint of standing water in shower at most stated negligence, not
federal civil rights liability; evidence was sufficient, however, for jury to
be able to determine that other personnel may have been deliberately
indifferent. Davis v. Dorsey, #97-3636, 167 F.3d 411 (8th Cir. 1999).
269;78 Town and its employee acted as agents of
the state of Alabama while transporting inmate to his work release job and was
therefore entitled to sovereign immunity from liability for injuries prisoner
suffered when he fell off of back of truck; employee, however, was not entitled
to immunity individually for driving truck to avoid potholes. Loxley, Town of
v. Coleman, 720 So. 2d 907 (Ala. 1998).
272:126 Oklahoma prisons were entitled to
sovereign immunity under state law for injuries which inmate suffered while
operating saw in prison furniture factory. Gaines v. State Ex Rel., Dept. of
Corr., 973 P.2d 905 (Okla Civ. App. 1998).
258:89 Prisoner severely injured in fall down
concrete stairs awarded $2.36 million in damages, prejudgment interest, and
attorneys' fees against department of corrections in lawsuit claiming that
stair landing was in violation of state building code. Johnson v. State,
Alaska, 3d Jud. Dist. Super. Ct., No. 3AN-96-173, Civil, Oct. 24, 1997,
reported in 41 ATLA L. Rep. 95 (April 1998).
[N/R] Inmate stated claim for negligence based on
correctional officer's rear-ending of another motorist's vehicle while
transporting inmate to work site; prison superintendent was not vicariously
liable for officer's alleged negligence. Davis- Bey v. Missouri Dept. of
Correction, 944 S.W.2d 294 (Mo. App. 1997).
249:139 Mere alleged negligence resulting in
water on floor of bathroom was insufficient basis for prisoner's federal civil
rights lawsuit for his slip-and-fall; trial judge properly dismissed suit as
frivolous. Walker v. Reed, 104 F.3d 156 (8th Cir. 1997).
242:25 Louisiana detainee who gouged out his own
eyes while in jail awarded $1.05 million by jury on claim that law enforcement
officials failed to adequately protect him against the risk of self-mutilation
following his earlier "crazy and bizarre" behavior. Sibley v.
Lemaire, 90-2573 (U.S. Dist. Ct., W.D. La.) (Sept. 26, 1996), reported in The
National Law Journal, p. A11 (Oct. 28, 1996).
243:37 Prison officials could have reasonably
believed that it did not violate the Eighth Amendment to fail to repair a
defective oven door; defendant officials were entitled to qualified immunity in
suit brought by prisoner burned when door fell off. Osolinski v. Kane, 92 F.3d
934 (9th Cir. 1996).
243:42 Inmate's own recklessness, not any breach
of duty by State employees, caused his injuries from touching live electrical
wire while making assigned electrical repairs; his prior training and
experience as an electrician showed that he was aware of the danger involved.
Martinez v. State of N.Y., 639 N.Y.S.2d 145 (A.D. 1996).
244:56 Michigan correctional officials were not
liable for injuries to inmate who set a fire in his cell; failure to have
individual in-cell smoke detectors did not suffice to invoke an exception to
governmental immunity for dangerous building conditions. Carlton v. Dept. of
Corrections, 546 N.W.2d 671 (Mich. App. 1996). 244:62 Sheriff was not liable
for injuries prisoner suffered in hobby shop while operating table saw without
safety guard; prisoner's injuries were negligently self-inflicted and there was
no duty to provide him with training in a field he was voluntarily pursuing.
Mosley v. Law Enforcement Dist. of Avoyelles Parish, 670 So.2d 745 (La. App.
1996).
245:74 Pennsylvania prisoner could not recover
from prison officials for injuries caused by his slip and fall on ice on
sidewalk at prison; no recovery under state law for injuries caused by
"natural accumulation of ice," since it did not constitute a
defective "artificial condition" in the land. Hill v. Dragovich, 679
A.2d 1382 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996).
248:122 Alabama county had no duty to keep
bathroom floor in jail free of water or foreign substances, and therefore was
not liable for prisoner's slip and fall there; county's responsibility for jail
was limited to funding it and providing facilities to house it, and sheriff was
responsible for its operation and cleaning. Stark v. Madison Co., 678 So.2d 787
(Ala. Civ. App. 1996).
249:140 Federal prison employee's alleged action
of pulling chair out from under prisoner, causing him to fall and suffer minor
injuries, was not sufficient to state a claim for violation of the Eighth
Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Barber v. Grow, 929
F.Supp. 820 (E.D. Pa. 1996).
251:166 Correctional officials entitled to
qualified immunity in lawsuit brought by prison librarian based on inmate's
kidnapping and sexually assaulting her when no officer was present in the
library. Liebson v. New Mexico Corrections Dept., 73 F.3d 274 (10th Cir. 1996).
251:174 State of Oklahoma was immune from
liability for injuries prisoner suffered while fighting fire during
participation in work release program. Horton v. State of Oklahoma, 915 P.2d
352 (Okl. 1996).
221:73 City, incarceration center, and center
supervisor liable for a total of $1.02 million for drowning death of detainee
while swimming in city reservoir during detainee group trip there; suit claimed
failure to provide lifeguard or post "No Swimming" sign was
negligent. Salaman v. City of Waterbury, Conn., Waterbury Super. Ct., No. CV 92
113165S, Oct. 21, 1994, 38 ATLA L. Rep. 20 (Feb. 1995).
227:171 City liable for $1.2 million to prisoner
injured when ceiling of holding cell fell on him, and further injured when he
fell from wheelchair supplied to him. Smith v. New York, No. 13223/91 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., Kings Co., N.Y.), June 21, 1995, reported in The National Law
Journal, p.5, Aug. 21, 1995.
224:122 Inmate attacked by boar hog while working
at prison hog farm could not recover damages against warden or farm supervisor
for constitutional violations in absence of a showing of deliberate
indifference to alleged unsafe working conditions. Lee v. Sikes, 870 F.Supp.
1096 (S.D. Ga. 1994).
218:27 Co. was not liable for injuries prisoner
suffered when falling while trying to climb into top bunk in his cell; county
had no duty to provide prisoner, who had pre-existing back condition, with a
bottom bunk. Weatherholt v. Spencer Co., 639 N.E.2d 354 (Ind. App. 1994).
219:40 Prison was not liable for injuries prisoner suffered when he slipped and
fell on floor being mopped by other inmates; prisoner was aware floor was being
cleaned and knowingly went on wet surface to retrieve ping-pong ball. Perry v.
Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction, 65 Ohio Misc. 2d 27, 640 N.E.2d
912 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 1994).
221:72 Prisoner injured while playing basketball
in jail recreation yard because of hole in yard could not sue jail officials
for violation of civil rights based on mere negligence in jail yard
maintenance. Burrell v. Griffith, 158 F.R.D. 104 (E.D. Tex. 1994).
Ohio prison not liable for injuries to prisoner
caused by falling glass from skylight which shattered when another prisoner
working on the roof slipped and fell. Moore v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation &
Correction, 89 Ohio App. 3d 107, 623 N.E.2d 1214 (1993).
Alabama Supreme court rules that sheriff was
immune from suit over prisoner getting electric shock in jail while attempting
to rescue cellmate being electrocuted while standing on metal toilet while
changing a lightbulb; county, however, was not immune and had a statutory duty
to keep county jail in "a state of repair." King v. Colbert Co., 620
So.2d 623 (Ala. 1993).
Prisoner who lost a hand when machine he was
cleaning unexpectedly started awarded $2.66 million against state of New York
for negligence; prisoner's wife awarded $35,000 for loss of consortium. Brown
v. State of N.Y., Syracuse Co. Ct. Cl., No. 73718, Dec. 13, 1991, reported in
35 ATLA L. Rep. 262 (Sept. 1992).
Prisoner's slip and fall on grease on prison
floor could not be the basis, under Michigan law, for a suit against the
Department of Corrections; a temporary condition which caused an accident did
not fit into the "public building" exception to government immunity.
Wade v. Dept. of Corrections, 439 Mich. 158, 483 N.W.2d 26 (1992).
Jail officials not liable for prisoner's death
from choking on a bar of soap she tried to swallow. Hardin v. Hayes, 957 F.2d
845 (11th Cir. 1992).
Co. liable for $24,780 to woman prisoner whose
request for footwear was denied and who subsequently slipped and fell on wet
floor in cell bathroom while getting off of toilet. Moralli v. Lake Co., 839
P.2d 1287 (Mont. 1992).
New York court awards $1.3 million to inmates
injured or killed in Attica riot. Al-Jundi v. Estate of Rockefeller, 885 F.2d
1060 (2nd Cir. 1989).
Prisoner's covenant not to sue, signed after his
injury in jail fire he was accused of starting, was enforceable; $200,000 award
reversed. Berry v. Peterson, 887 F.2d 635 (5th Cir. 1989).
Award of $1,800 for pain and suffering, and
future impairment, to prisoner injured while trying out for baseball team, was
inadequate. Hill v. Com., Bureau of Corrections, 555 A 2d 1362 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1989).
Trial court's finding that state was not liable
for inmate's injury when he fell on debris in corridor was not supported by the
evidence. Emmi v. State, 533 N.Y.S.2d 406 (A.D. 1988). Inmate's mother could
sue federal government for inmate's death from application of elastic bandage
and duct tape over most of his face. Harris v. United States, 677 F.Supp. 403
(W.D.N.C. 1988).
State department of correction immune from
prisoner's lawsuit for severed finger. Gallagher v. Bureau of Correction, 545
A.2d 981 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988).
Prison negligent in failing to provide seat belt
on tractor from which prisoner fell, but prisoner also partly at fault. State
Dept. of Corrections v. Romero, 524 So.2d 1032 (Fla. App. 1988).
Sheriff liable for inmate's injury by tractor
driven by another inmate. Duhon v. Calcasieu Parish Police Jury, 517 So.2d 1016
(La. App. 1987).
Prison was negligent in failing to provide safety
device on saw that amputated inmate's fingers, but inmate could not recover
because of his own negligence. Perro v. State, 517 So.2d 258 (La. App. 1987).
Correctional department liable for inmate
employee's negligently injuring fellow inmate during job performance. Baker v.
North Carolina Dept. of Correction, 354 S.E.2d 733 (N.C. App. 1987).
No liability for unsafe cell when inmate was
negligent and injured himself by climbing; testimony calling for constant
supervision of intoxicated arrestees rejected. Hille v. Wright Co., 400 N.W.2d
744 (Minn. App. 1987).
U.S. Supreme Court rules injured inmates have no
constitutional right to sue. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, S.Ct. 662 and
Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 106 S.Ct. 668 (1986).
One year statute of limitation period applies to
cell injury. Kingston v. Braun, 504 N.Y.S.2d 916 (A.D. Dept. 1986).
Over $650,000 awarded for woman's cell death;
former police chief accused of running the jail "from a tavern."
Information was obtained from the San Francisco Chronicle. 10/4/86.
Medical benefits to be included under worker's
compensation to former inmate. Davis v. S.C. Dept. of Corrections, 345 S.E.2d
245 (S.C. 1986).
Family must allege officials intended to
interfere with familial association rights regarding son's jail death. Trujillo
v. Board of Co. Commissioners of the Co. of Santa Fe, No. 83-2320, 768 F.2d
1186 (10th Cir. 1985).
Bus fire incident not a constitutional violation;
state claims to proceed. Duckworth v. Franzen, 780 F.2d 645 (7th Cir. 1985).
Officials not responsible for inmate's death from
heat stroke. Willis v. Barksdale, 625 F.Supp. 411 (W.D. Tenn. 1985).
No liability for injuries during riot. Chambers
v. Koehler, 635 F.Supp. 884 (W.D. Mich. 1984).
Damages for work-related injuries limited due to
evidence discrepancies. Georgiadis v. State, 483 N.Y.S.2d 753 (A.D. 3 Dept.
1984).
Superintendent not liable for injury to inmate in
cell where commode broke. Inmate has no right to appointed counsel to file his
lawsuit. Emory v. Duckworth, 555 F.Supp. 985 (N.D. Ind. 1983).
No liability to county regarding youth's drowning
at correctional facility. May v. Co. of Monterey, 189 Cal.Rptr. 63 (App. 1983).
Prisoner's suit alleging injury from slipping on
butter must be sought in state court. Mitchell v. State of W. Va., 554 F.Supp.
1215 (N.D. W. Va. 1983).
State liable when workplace shearing machine
injures inmates. Bridgewater v. State, Through Dept. of Corr., 434 So.2d 383
(La. 1983).
No liability for facilities design which enabled
inmate to secure poison and drink it. Hinds v. Mich. Dept. of Corr., 337 N.W.2d
1 (Mich. App. 1983).
No liability to sheriff for inmate's "slip
and fall" after showering. Williams v. Foti, 433 So.2d 406 (La. App.
1983).
No Section 1983 liability for prisoner's injury
caused by prison machinery. Thaxton v. Rose, 563 F.Supp. 1361 (M.D. Tenn.
1983).
State not liable to inmate who was injured by
machete during work project on prison grounds. Gould v. State Through LA Dept.
of Corrs., 435 So.2d 540 (La. App. 1983).
Ninth Circuit holds that three-day delay in
treating injured inmate was not constitutionally violative. May v. Enomoto, 633
F.2d 164 (9th Cir. 1980).
Fifth Circuit holds that sole remedy for inmate's
work- related injury is prison compensation law, not the federal tort claims act.
Ashton v. United States, 625 F.2d 1210 (5th Cir. 1980).
Court dismisses action for negligence against
prison officials by a man who fell in shower. Beshaw v. Fields, 484 F.Supp.
1391 (W.D. Wis. 1980).
Wisconsin judge dismisses suit for negligence by
inmate in wheelchair who slipped and fell. Williams v. Wolke, 83 F.R.D. 435
(E.D. Wis. 1979).
Negligent disposal of bat which caused inmate to
be treated for rabies is not grounds for suit. Ronnei v. Butler, 597 F.2d 564
(8th Cir. 1979).
Virginia Court rules inmate injured in slip and
fall from leaky dishwasher not entitled to damages under Civil Rights Act.
Snyder v. Blankenship, 473 F.Supp. 1208 (W.D. Va. 1979).
Slip and fall claim cannot be brought under Civil
Rights Act. Tunstall v. Rowe, 478 F.Supp. 87 (N.D. Ill. 1979).