AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for
Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Private Prisons & Entities
Monthly Law
Journal Article: Private Prisons and Their
Employees:Civil Liability and Defenses -- Part 1, 2010 (8) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
Monthly
Law Journal Article: Private Prisons and Their
Employees:Civil Liability and Defenses --Part 2, 2010 (9) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
A pretrial detainee sued a prison doctor and the private company he worked for, asserting both federal Eighth Amendment civil rights claims and state law negligence claims for inadequate medical care in treating her psoriasis, claiming that she did not receive previously prescribed injections that had been effective in treating that condition, but instead another medication that was on the facility’s preapproved formulary of drugs to be administered. Upholding summary judgment for the defendants, a federal appeals court ruled that the trial court did not err in concluding that no reasonable jury could find that the doctor acted with deliberate indifference to the detainee’s serious medical needs. Zingg v. Groblewski, #17-2115, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 30527 (1st Cir.).
A private company provided medical care to Illinois inmates at certain facilities. One inmate experienced chronic ankle pain and consulted with doctors at his prison, requesting surgery. The doctors instead ordered more conservative treatment. When his pain persisted, the doctors considered referring him for surgical evaluation, which required the private company’s approval. It rejected requests for surgical evaluation but authorized the inmate to see a podiatrist, and an orthopedist three years later. The inmate sued the company, claiming deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. A jury awarded him $10,000 in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages. The trial judge ruled that the punitive-damages award violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive or arbitrary punishment and reduced the award to $50,000. A federal appeals court vacated. While the U.S. Supreme Court has warned that “few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages ... will satisfy due process,” the trial court had nine single digits from which to choose and decided that the Seventh Amendment did not require it to offer the plaintiff the choice of a new trial before it entered judgment on the reduced award. The decision was arbitrary and a procedural misstep. The appeals court remanded to give the plaintiff a choice between a reduced punitive-damages award and a new trial limited to damages. Beard v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., #16-1763, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 23316 (7th Cir.).
A federal appeals court rejected claims of denial of a prisoner’s First Amendment right of access to the courts and Fifth Amendment procedural due process claims related to prison disciplinary proceedings asserted under the implied cause of action theory adopted by the Supreme Court in Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, #301, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The appeals court noted that neither the U.S. Supreme Court or it had ever expanded Bivens to such claims. Further, the circumstances of the plaintiff's case against private employees at the residential reentry facility plainly presented a "new context" under Ziglar v. Abbasi, #15-1358, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017) (declining to apply Bivens to claims by alien detainees confined after 9-11 concerning their conditions of confinement), weighing against any such extension of Bivens. The court also stated that the plaintiff had alternative means for relief against the alleged violations of his First and Fifth Amendment rights by the private defendants. Vega v. United States, #13-35311, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 2980 (9th Cir.).
A prisoner could not show a jury that correctional officials and private medical service providers at a prison acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs when his reports of abdominal pain and colon spasms were thoroughly investigated. Medical providers were able to substantiate only a diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome, and the prisoner failed to produce any evidence that his subsequent treatment for this condition deviated from accepted medical practices and standards. Physical exams and ordered X‐rays, an ultrasound, bloodwork, stool cultures, and other tests were performed, but the results were consistently normal. The decision whether further diagnostic testing, such as a colonoscopy, was necessary was “a classic example” of a matter for medical judgment. Proctor v. Sood, #16-1942, 863 F.3d 563 (7th Cir. 2017).
An Illiinois inmate suffered an asthma attack
in his segregation unit cell, which had no emergency call button. A number of
hours later, his cellmate alerted guards by banging on the door, and the inmate
was taken to a prison medical unit operated by a private company. Wheezing and
having difficulty breathing, he was given medications and started on oxygen by
a nurse, who then called a doctor, who was on-call for several prisons. He
slept through the call, but later returned the call, prescribing medications,
and then ordering the inmate sent to a hospital via ambulance when his
difficulties continued. At the emergency room, more medications were
administered for two hours before a breathing tube was inserted. Then the
inmate died. A federal appeals court upheld a jury verdict in favor of the
warden, the private healthcare company, and the guards. Evidence in the case
didn’t support a reasonable inference that the warden consciously disregarded a
substantial risk of harm to the inmate by failing to install emergency call
buttons or to fill the vacant position of permanent medical director in a
timely manner, or that a company policy caused the death. Chatham v. Davis, #14-3318, 839
F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 2016). .
A former pretrial detainee asserted that a
private orthopedic doctor, as well as a jail nurse and doctor, were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs after he fell, broke his
left humerus, dislocated the hardwear in his arm, and began to suffer extreme
pain. Summary judgment was upheld for the private orthopedic doctor, since he
had relayed his diagnosis of the plaintiff's arm to jail officials and had no
responsibility to oversee the continuing medical decisions of the jail, nor was
he informed about the subsequent alleged lack of treatment or severe pain. The
jail nurse and doctor, however, were not entitled to qualified immunity, as the
evidence could be interpreted as showing that they each knowingly and
deliberately inflicted pain on the plaintiff by failing to provide timely medical
treatment. Melton v. Abston, #15-11412, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 20681 (11th Cir.).
Eight female alien detainees sued under both 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983
and the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2671 et seq., claiming that a
male corrections officer at a privately run prison had sexually assaulted them.
Sec. 1983 claims were properly dismissed against the company running the
facility and its facility administrator, as well as summary judgment granted on
that claim against the officer, since the detention of the plaintiffs according
to ICE specifications was carried out under federal law, not under color of
state law as required for a Sec. 1983 claim. Claims against the county, which
had almost no involvement in the facility's operation, were also rejected. The
appeals court also upheld the rejection of FTCA against the U.S. government, as
there was no evidence that ICE officials acted with deliberate indifference.
Doe v. United States, #15-50331, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 13696 (6th Cir.).
Two prisoners at a federally-owned and
contractor-run prison sued the U.S. government under the Federal Tort Claims
Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346, after they contracted coccidioidomycosis (cocci).
They claimed that the government failed to protect them from contracting this
illness. An independent contractor exception to the FTCA did not bar liability.
The Bureau of Prisons' duty to warn prisoners before transferring them to this
facility arose outside of its contractual relationship with the company running
the prison. As the owner of the facility, the U.S. government had a duty under
California law to exercise reasonable care in the ownership and management of
the property, and state law recognizes a special relationship between jailer
and prisoner. Additionally, the BOP did not delegate all of its duties to the
contractor once the prisoners arrived at the prison, and explicitly excluded
the contractor from participating in the development of a cocci prevention
policy. Edison v. United States, #14-15472, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 9250 (9th
Cir.).
A prisoner filed an intended class action lawsuit
against a private prison company claiming that they inadequately staffed a
prison in deliberate indifference to the health and safety of prisoners. The
parties settled and the company agreed to staff the prison with a specified
number of security personnel. The trial court later held the company in
contempt for falsifying staffing reports. An appeals court upheld the trial
court's remedy of extending the settlement agreement for two years. This remedy
was narrowly drawn, necessary, and the least intrusive means to rectify the
company's continued Eighth Amendment violations. The appeals court upheld the
contempt order and an award of attorneys' fees against the defendant. Kelly v.
Wengler, #13-35972, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 9381 (9th Cir.).
A prisoner was diagnosed with a painful hernia
when his incarceration began in 1995, and a second hernia in 2000. Outside
doctors concluded that surgery was needed to repair them, but correctional
officials and the company which provided medical care for inmates allegedly
delayed until May 2007, when both hernias required emergency surgical repair.
The prisoner sued over the delay and settled his claim with the private medical
provider for $273,250, and signing a release of further claims against them and
the doctors. A second surgery did not occur, however, until 2013, and the
prisoner again sued. The trial court, based on the release, granted summary
judgment to the defendants. A federal appeals court reversed, as the release
did not mean that the medical provider was free to ignore the recurrent hernia,
which allegedly grew increasingly painful and to act with deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need by delaying the second surgery. The plaintiff
claimed that this was done under a policy that classified all hernia operations
as elective surgery. Heard v. Tilden, #15-1732, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 387 (7th
Cir.).
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).
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 private psychiatrist who examined a pretrial
detainee in a county jail under a contract with his employer to provide mental
health services there acted under color of state law. She performed a public
function in examining the detainee, who had been acting strangely, and
determining that he did not meet the criteria for involuntary hospitalization
in a psychiatric facility. Accordingly, the detainee could proceed with his
claim that her actions denied him the mental health services he needed while
detained. Carl v. Muskegon County, #13-2296, 763 F.3d 592 (6th 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 domestic violence probation violator with a
lengthy history of substance abuse and mental health problems killed himself
while awaiting transportation to another facility. A federal appeals court
ruled that prison administrators in the case were not entitled to qualified
immunity on a claim that inadequate provision of medical care by a private
third party contractor cause the prisoner's suicide. Barkes v. First Corr. Med.
Inc., 12-3074 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 17261 (3rd Cir.).
A private company served as an independent
contractor providing healthcare service to those detained in a county jail.
After a pretrial detainee there died from self-inflicted injuries, a federal
civil rights lawsuit claimed that three jail employees were deliberately indifferent
to his serious medical needs. A federal appeals court found that it lacked
jurisdiction to review a denial of qualified immunity to the defendants when
the basis for the denial was based on the presence of disputed issues of
material fact. Cady v. Cumberland County Jail, #13-2040, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis
10416 (1st Cir.).
The estate of a female immigration detainee who
committed suicide in a county jail has settled a federal civil rights lawsuit
over the death for at least $1 million. The defendants were a private medical
group and one of its employees alleged to have acted with deliberate
indifference to the detainee's serious medical needs at the detention center.
In an earlier decision in the case, a federal appeals court found that the woman
should have been placed on suicide watch for her depression. The court found
that there was evidence that could show that one employee of a private firm
providing medical services at the jail had been aware of the detainee's
depressed condition and suicidal thoughts, but failed to take any steps to
prevent her from killing herself. The summary judgment on claims against the
county, the sheriff, the jail's director, and two other employees of the
medical firm was upheld. Belbachir v. McHenry Cnty., #13-1002, 726 F.3d 975
(7th Cir. 2013)."The failure to take a simple, inexpensive, obvious and
indeed prescribed measure to avoid (suicide) is inexcusable." Belbachir v.
County of McHenry, #06-C-1392, U.S. Dist. Court (N.D. Ill.), reported in
Chicago Tribune (April 14, 2014).
Female immigration detainees, who were ordered
released after presenting a prima facie case for asylum, claimed that they were
each sexually assaulted by a male employee of a private prison company while he
was transporting them from an immigration detention center where they had been
interviewed to a bus station or airport, with no other officers present. He
pled guilty to federal and state charges stemming from the assaults. While two
defendant federal officials knew of a contractual requirement that such
transported immigration detainees be escorted by at least one officer of the
same gender, and that the aim of this was to deter such assaults, their alleged
failure to take action to enforce that condition did not violate a clearly established
constitutional right. Doe v. Robertson, #13-50459, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 8534
(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.).
A California intermediate appeals court upheld
the dismissal of a lawsuit by an inmate complaining about the medical treatment
he received from an optometrist under contract to provide services to
prisoners. The prisoner failed to properly exhaust available administrative
remedies and no acceptable excuse for that was provided. The court rejected the
argument that the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies did not apply
when the defendant was an independent contractor rather than a government employee. Parthemore v. Col,
#C072611, 2013 Cal. App. Lexis 984.
An immigration detainee housed in a county jail
under a contract with the federal government used her socks to strangle herself
to death in her cell after eight days of incarceration. A federal appeals court
found that there was evidence that could show that one employee of a private
firm providing medical services at the jail had been aware of the detainee's
depressed condition and suicidal thoughts, but failed to take any steps to prevent
her from killing herself. The summary judgment on claims against the county,
the sheriff, the jail's director, and two other employees of the medical firm
was upheld. Belbachir v. McHenry Cnty., #13-1002, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 16665
(7th Cir.).
An Alaska prisoner was sent to a private prison
in Arizona run by the defendant corporation. He sued the company, claiming that
it violated various terms of its contract with the state of Alaska as well as
various Alaska state correctional policies. He sought damages as a third party
beneficiary to the contract between the state of Alaska and the company, and
also argued that he should be able to collect damages against the company
because he was a member of a class of prisoners who had previously won a settlement
against the state of Alaska concerning various inmate grievances. He contended
that some of the conditions he faced at the defendant's out of state private
prison violated the terms of that settlement. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled
that the prior class action settlement agreement had not intended that
prisoners be able to receive money damages awards to enforce its provisions.
The defendant was entitled to summary judgment. Perotti v. Corrections
Corporation of America, #S-13936, 2012 Alas. Lexis 167.
A prisoner appealed from the dismissal of his
claims against a doctor on a federal civil rights claim. While the prisoner did
not received required notices spelling out what he had to do to oppose her
motion for summary judgment, this was harmless since it was clear that there
were no facts that would allow the inmate to prevail. The doctor, at the time
she treated the prisoner, was working as an independent contractor and not as
an employee of the prison or the hospital. She was not a state actor and could
not be liable for a federal civil rights claim. Emergency medical care is not a
traditionally and exclusively government function. Stratton v. Buck, #10-35656,
2012 U.S. App. Lexis 19660 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
A pre-trial detainee in a county facility had a
history of depression but had exhibited no signs of suicidal tendencies. A
social worker decided not to forward his request to see a prison psychiatrist
to ask for anti-depressant medication. After the detainee hung himself and
died, a lawsuit was filed for deliberate indifference against the psychiatrist,
who was an employee of a private nonprofit organization which furnishes medical
services to the facility. The psychiatrist could not seek qualified immunity
from federal civil rights liability as a private doctor working part-time for a
government entity, as there was no history of such immunity for such doctors at
the time the federal civil rights statute was enacted. McCullum v. Tepe,
#11-3424, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 18171, 2012 Fed. App. 0287P (6th Cir.).
A firefighter sued a city and a private attorney
hired by the city to conduct an internal investigation of his conduct for
violation of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The firefighter was
suspected of malingering while supposedly off work on account of illness. The
firefighter argued that the attorney's order to him to produce building
materials stored at his home violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment
rights. He had been seen buying the building supplies and the issue was whether
he had been installing the building materials rather than being ill. The U.S.
Supreme Court held that the private attorney was entitled to qualified immunity
along with other individual defendants despite not being a city employee. A
private individual temporarily retained by a city to carry out its work is able
to seek qualified immunity from civil rights liability. In this case, the city
needed the attorney's experience and expertise in employment law. Filarsky v.
Delia, #10–1018, 132 S. Ct. 1657; 2012 U.S. Lexis 3105.
An inmate at a privately run federal prison filed
a civil rights lawsuit against employees there for alleged deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs in connection with treatment of
injuries suffered in a fall. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, in these
circumstances, California state law provides adequate alternative damage
remedies for negligence or medical malpractice so that there is no need to
imply a federal constitutional civil rights cause of action against the private
employees. These state law remedies provide both adequate deterrence of similar
future conduct and compensation for any damages suffered. Minneci v.
Pollard, #10-1104, 2012 U.S. Lexis 573
A contractor that provided health care
services at a county jail was entitled to summary judgment in a detainee's
lawsuit for alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Nine
different medical practitioners conducted evaluations of the detainee a total
of 16 times over a nine day period before deciding to send him to have a scan
done that ultimately showed that he required neurological surgery. This only
constituted a single incident, however, and was insufficient to show a policy
or custom of deliberate indifference. Craig v. Floyd County, #10-13225, 643
F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2011).
Upholding a jury's rejection of a prisoner's
lawsuit banning his receipt of certain gift publications, a federal appeals
court ruled that there was evidence from which the jury could find that that
the private prison's policy was necessary to promote security and
administrative interests. The jury was properly instructed that prisoners have
a First Amendment right to receive mail and gift publications, but that a
policy barring receipt of some such publications could be legal if reasonably
related to legitimate penological or correctional goals. Blaisdell v. Corr.
Corp. of Am., #09-17795, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 7600 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
A prisoner confined in a privately operated facility
claimed that the company in charge or its authorized decision maker failed to
enforce a policy of protecting inmates from harm, resulting in him being
stabbed by a prisoner with known violent propensities. The prisoner failed to
show that the defendant knew or should have known that housing him with the
prisoner who attacked him created a dangerous risk of harm given his prior
conduct and mental illness. Additionally, the prisoner could not assert his
right to a jury trial simply because of his dissatisfaction with the findings
of the magistrate judge, having previously waived a jury trial. Winding v. The
Geo Group, Inc., #09-60693, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 26259 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
A private company that contracted with a county
to provide medical services at a jail was found liable for failing to prevent
the suicide of a detainee. The defendant was aware of the risk that he might
commit suicide when he answered "yes" to ten questions on a suicide
screening form at intake. The jury awarded $750,000 in damages, and the court
also awarded the plaintiffs $234,320 in attorneys' fees, and $11,302.20 in
costs. The court also reduced the damage award against the defendant company to
$257,000 to reflect the amount paid by other defendant parties who settled
before trial. The jury had found the private company 35% at fault for the
death, while assessing 65% of the blame against the county and its employees. A
federal appeals court upheld this result. Sinkov v. Americor, Inc., #10-0309,
2011 U.S. App. Lexis 7667 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.).
A pretrial detainee committed suicide on the
third day of his confinement, and his estate sued the county and various jail
and health care personnel and entities for failure to prevent the suicide. The
county, jail warden, and correctional officers moved for summary judgment, and
the trial court granted the motion as to all defendants, erroneously also
including the independent private contractor providing medical services at the
jail and its defendant employees, despite the fact that they had not joined in
the summary judgment motion. When informed of this, the trial judge
nevertheless upheld the summary judgment for these defendants, ruling that as
private parties they did not act under color of state law as required for
federal civil rights claims, and declining to exercise jurisdiction over state
law claims against them. A federal appeals court held that the trial judge
should have given the plaintiff notice and an opportunity to be heard before
ruling that the private defendants did not act under color of state law. The
plaintiff could have argued that the private defendants acted under color of
state law, and acted with deliberate indifference to a known risk of suicide.
Further proceedings were therefore required. It is well settled, the appeals
court noted, that private persons and entities sometimes act under color of
state law. Donnell v. Correctional Health Services, Inc., #10-1211, 2010 U.S.
App. Lexis 25815 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
A federal statute reduces the disability benefits
of veterans who are convicted of a felony and "incarcerated in a Federal,
State, or local penal institution." One such disabled veteran, convicted
of a felony and incarcerated in a privately operated prison, following transfer
from a state-operated prison, argued that the statute did not apply to those
serving their sentence in private prisons, and that his monthly benefits were
therefore improperly reduced from $808 to $85. A federal appeals court rejected
this argument. It noted that a private prison's authority to confine the
veteran derives from his state felony conviction and the authority to imprison
citizens ultimately rests with the government only. Interpreting the statute to
apply to private prisons under state contract would promote the statute's
stated legislative purpose of avoiding the duplication of governmental
expenditures for veterans who are already supported by the government and
suffer no lost earnings as a result of their disability. The court further
reasoned that creating a distinction between veterans in state-operated and
state-contracted privately operated prisons would create "an unreasonable
or irrational result because it would both thwart the intentions of Congress
and allow felons who chance to be incarcerated in private facilities at government
expense [to] continue to be entitled to the full amount of their VA benefits
while felons incarcerated in State-owned-and-operated facilities would
not." Wanless v. Shinseki, #2010-7007, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 18899 (Fed.
Cir.).
A prisoner sued a private care center, its
director, and its medical personnel for deliberate indifference and negligence.
The federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation that the
complaint be dismissed with prejudice, as prior Fourth Circuit precedent
declined to extend Bivens civil rights causes of action to private persons and
entities whose only relationship to the federal government was by contract,
particularly when adequate state law remedies exist for the alleged harm
suffered. Despite the prisoner's argument that his claim was more a matter of
violation of civil rights than of state law medical malpractice, a medical
malpractice claim was an adequate state law remedy. Eddington v. Wyatt;
#8:09-cv-02669, 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 1950 (D.S.C.).
A Washington state prisoner filed a federal civil
rights lawsuit against a Jewish religious congregation that contracted with the
prison to provide services to prisoners, and its president. He claimed that the
defendants improperly denied or substantially burdened his access to Jewish
religious materials and services. Reversing the dismissal of the lawsuit, a
federal appeals court, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff, concluded that these private parties acted under color of state law.
The defendants and the prison allegedly implemented policies intended to
prevent non-Jewish prisoners from participating in the Jewish religious
services and programs provided. Prisoners were presumed Jewish if they were
either born to a Jewish mother or had undergone a formal conversion. The
plaintiff indicated a Jewish religious preference and requested a kosher diet,
a Torah, a Jewish calendar, and consultation with a rabbi. He was denied these
requests after he failed to complete a questionnaire as to whether his mother
was Jewish or whether he had formally converted to Judaism. Florer v.
Congregation Pidyon Shevuyim, #07-35866, 603 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2010).
A federal prisoner was injured in an
accident, slipping on a cart left in a doorway. He was referred to an
orthopedic clinic outside the prison. Prior to being transported there, a
prison employee allegedly required him to put on a jumpsuit, despite his
protests that putting his arms through the sleeves would cause him severe pain.
Two employees also allegedly forced him to wear a "black box"
mechanical restraint device despite his complaints about the resulting pain. He
also claimed that a doctor's direction that his left elbow be put into a
posterior splint for two weeks was not followed at the prison because of
limitations in staffing and facilities. He was allegedly unable to feed or
bathe himself for several weeks, and prison employees failed to make
alternative arrangements for him. He filed a federal civil rights lawsuit
against the private company that ran the prison under a contract with the
federal Bureau of Prisons, as well as a number of their employees, claiming
violation of his constitutional rights. Overturning dismissal of the lawsuit, a
federal appeals court ruled that the company's employees acted under color of
federal law for purposes of a civil rights lawsuit. Pollard v. GEO Group, Inc.,
#07-16112, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 11496 (9th Cir.).
A Florida prisoner in a prison operated by a private
prison management company under contract sued three employees of the company in
their official capacities, seeking injunctive relief and damages for disability
discrimination under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42
U.S.C. Sec. 12132, which prohibits a "public entity" from
discriminating against qualified persons because of their disabilities.
Upholding summary judgment for the defendants, a federal appeals court held
that the private corporation was not a public entity merely on the basis that
it entered into a contract with a public entity to provide services. An
"instrumentality of the state" is a government unit or a unit created
by a government unit. Edison v. Douberly, #08-15819, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 8961
(11th Cir.).
Evidence in a lawsuit did not show that a private
company that managed a county jail or its employees had knowledge making a
detainee's suicide foreseeable. No behavior was witnessed indicating mental
issues or suicidal tendencies on the part of the detainee. During the morning
of the suicide, employees violated the company's own policies of making rounds
by performing checks only hourly and omitting the decedent's location during
one such check, but this did not suffice to impose liability in the absence of
foreseeability of the suicide attempt. Timson v. Juvenile and Jail Facility
Management Services, Inc., #09-12351, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 26120 (Unpub. 11th
Cir.).
A Wisconsin prisoner who began spitting up blood
and experiencing abdominal pain claimed that he suffered severe pain from an
improperly inserted IV line and the failure of ambulance personnel and hospital
personnel to adequately respond to his complaints. A federal appeals court
noted that federal civil rights liability may be imposed on private parties
when they contract with government to provide medical services to inmates. The
court ordered that discovery be conducted to discover the names of the
personnel the inmate claimed acted with deliberate indifference towards his
serious medical needs. Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Service, #06-4260, 577
F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2009).
Oklahoma two-year statute of limitations applied
to and barred prisoner's claims that he was injured by guards in a privately
run prison during a disturbance that other inmates initiated. While the
contract between the corporation and that state indicated that Wisconsin law,
the site of the prison, governed the contract, the prisoner was not a party to
or a third-party beneficiary of the contract, and his lawsuit was not seeking
to enforce the contract, but instead claimed a violation of civil rights, so
the provisions of the contract were not relevant to whether or not the lawsuit
was timely. Malone v. Corrections Corporation of America, No. 07-3640, 2009
U.S. App. Lexis 1153 (7th Cir.).
Colorado prisoner's lawsuit claiming that his
transfer to a privately run prison in Oklahoma violating his federal
constitutional rights was properly dismissed, as no such right was implicated
by the transfer. Lyons v. Zavaras, No. 08-1133, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 925 (10th Cir.).
A prisoner in a private prison in Texas had a
First Amendment right to write to the Wyoming Department of Corrections
Director asking to be returned to Wyoming and complaining about the conditions
of his confinement, and stated a valid claim against seven prison employees
contending that they retaliated against him for doing so. He also asserted a
valid claim for unconstitutional deprivation of his funds by alleging that he
was fined $50 because he testified in another prisoner's disciplinary hearing.
Pfeh v. Freudenthal, No. 07-10312, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 12897 (Unpub. 5th
Cir.).
The Governor of California did not exceed his
authority in declaring a state of emergency in relation to prison overcrowding,
and then entering into contracts to house California inmates in out-of-state
private prisons. Under state law, he could proclaim such states of emergency
when there is "extreme peril" in an area exclusively under the
control of the state government. Until additional state prisons were constructed,
there was an urgent need for services to provide safety from the risks created
by overcrowding. The court therefore rejected a challenge to the Governor's
actions filed by a prison guards union and others. California Correctional
Peace Officers' Association v. Schwarzenegger, No. C055327, 2008 Cal. App.
Lexis 832 (3rd Dist.).
Prisoner's claims against the Indiana Department
of Corrections and its facilities for alleged inadequate medical care for
failing to treat a painful injury were barred by the state's Eleventh Amendment
immunity. The plaintiff failed to show that the Department's Commissioner had
any personal involvement in health care decisions concerning him, requiring the
dismissal of claims against the Commissioner. The court also dismissed claims
against a private medical services provider whose employees provided medical
care at the facility where the plaintiff was incarcerated, since he did not
claim that its officials made any decisions concerning his alleged inadequate
care or that the inadequate care resulted from its policies. The prisoner could
not pursue his claims against the provider's doctors until he had identified
them. The court also rejected the plaintiff's equal protection claim since he
did not allege that he suffered treatment different from that provided to any
other similarly situated individuals. Voss v. Ind. Depart. of Corrections, No.
3:07-CV-449, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 8771 (N.D. IN.).
Prisoner's claim that correctional employees
improperly delayed transferring him for surgery after his gallstones condition
was diagnosed was sufficient for him to pursue a lawsuit against the District
of Columbia and its employees. Claims against a private prison contractor and
its employees, however, were dismissed on the basis of the dismissal of a prior
lawsuit against them. Brown v. D.C., No. 05-5320, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 2254
(D.C. Cir.).
Private company that operated a prison under a
contract with the State of Kentucky was not liable for an escaped prisoner's
robbery, assault, and rape of a woman several hours after his escape. Under
Kentucky state law, applied by the federal court on the plaintiff's negligence
claim, there is no negligence liability when the harm to a third person, the
victim, is caused by another person's intentionally criminal acts.
Intentionally violent acts against unknown third persons, the court stated, are
generally not regarded as foreseeable under Kentucky state law. Norris v.
Corrections Corporation of America, No. 3:07CV-273, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 83965
(W.D. Ky.).
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.).
A prisoner suffering from a hernia stated a
viable federal civil rights claim against a private company providing medical
services at the prison by alleging that it was the company's policy to classify
any and all umbilical hernias as elective surgery, which it routinely denied to
prisoners, in deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Williams v.
Prison Health Services, Inc., No. 05-2400, 167 Fed. Appx. 555 (7th Cir. 2006).
[N/R]
Update: Full federal appeals court evenly divided
on whether a prisoner in a privately-run prison operated under a contract with
the U.S. Marshals Service could pursue a civil rights claim for money damages
against individual employees of the private corporation operating the facility.
Peoples v. CCA Detention Ctrs., No. 04-3071 & 04-3124, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis
12113 (10th Cir.). [2006 JB Jul]
Requirement, under Prison Litigation Reform Act,
42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a), that a prisoner exhaust available administrative
remedies prior to filing a federal civil rights lawsuit applies to prisoners
held in a privately-run state prison. Federal appeals court upholds dismissal,
without prejudice, of a prisoner's claim that he had been denied needed medical
treatment, based on his failure to complete all of a privately-run prison's four-step
grievance procedure. Bias v. Cornell Corrections, Inc., No. 04-6353, 159 Fed.
Appx. 868 (10th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Individual employees of privately run prison were
not subject to a federal civil rights Bivens lawsuit for allegedly providing
inadequate medical care to a diabetic federal prisoner. Holly v. Scott, No.
05-6287, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 685 (4th Cir.).[2006 JB Mar]
Hospital employee taken hostage by inmate was properly
awarded $500,000 in damages against private security company that took the
prisoner to the hospital for medical treatment under contract with the state of
Tennessee. Company employees were negligent in failing to both stay in hospital
room with inmate and in allowing prisoner access to a weapon which he used to
escape and kidnap employee and drive away with her in her car. Willis v.
Settle, 162 S.W.3d 169 (Tenn. App. 2004), review denied, Tennessee Supreme
Court (2005). [N/R]
Federal prisoner could not pursue federal civil
rights claims for damages against employees of a privately operated prison when
Kansas state law provided alternative remedies for each of his viable claims.
Peoples v. CCA Detention Ctr., No. 04-3071, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 19283 (10th
Cir.). [2005 JB Oct]
Employee's lawsuit against private corporation
(Correctional Services Corporation) operating correctional facility could not
be pursued as a federal civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, since the
company's employment decisions are not made under color of state law, which is
a necessary part of such a claim. Cornish v. Corr. Serv. Corp., No. 04-10550,
402 F.3d 545 (5th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Federal prisoner could not pursue a civil rights claim
for inadequate medical care under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) against a private hospital or a nurse
there because the defendants were not federal entities. Claims under Bivens
require that the defendant act under color of federal authority. Holz v. Terre
Haute Regional Hospital, No. 03-4279, 123 Fed. Appx. 712 (7th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
A prisoner failed to show any custom or practice
for which a private contract health care provider could be held liable under
federal civil rights law for alleged deliberate indifference to his serious
medical needs. It was insufficient to merely allege various individual actions
by the provider's employees, such as failing to provide him with a back brace,
when there was no showing that any policy or custom of the provider led to
these alleged deprivations. Dashley v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc., No.
2:04CV00014, 345 F. Supp. 2d 1018 (E.D. Mo. 2004). [N/R]
Detainee adequately alleged facts from which a
reasonable jury could decide that a doctor employed by a private company
providing medical services at a county jail was deliberately indifferent to his
need for medical treatment for his allegedly severed tendons on his right hand.
Johnson v. Karnes, No. 03-4200, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 3278 (6th Cir. 2005).
[2005 JB Apr]
Complexities of the legal issues in a lawsuit
brought by an immigration detainee claiming that he was attacked by
correctional officers while in a facility operated by a private corporation
required the vacating of a jury award for the defendants when the trial court
failed to appoint a lawyer to represent the detainee. Agyeman v. Corrections
Corporation of America, No. 03-16068, 390 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2004). [2005 JB
Mar]
Prisoners at a privately operated prison are not
entitled to minimum wages for their prison work assignments. Bennett v. Frank,
No. 04-1959, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 960 (7th Cir.). [2005 JB Mar]
Claim against a private corporation for alleged
inadequate medical care resulting in female prisoner's death from acute renal
failure did not have to satisfy a "heightened pleading standard"
providing detailed facts, since corporation was the "functional
equivalent" of a municipality and could not assert a qualified immunity
defense. Swann v. Southern Health Partners, Inc., No. 03-14387, 388 F.3d 834
(11th Cir. 2004). [2005 JB Jan]
A private corporation that ran a prison under a
contract with a state entity was not a federal agent simply because a pretrial
detainee was incarcerated there while awaiting trial on federal charges.
Accordingly, the prisoner could not pursue federal civil rights claims against
the corporation and its employees under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which created a remedy
for the violation of constitutional rights by federal agents. The prisoner
could, however, pursue federal civil rights claims against the corporation and
its employees under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, which creates a remedy for violations
of constitutional rights under color of state law, as the corporation and its employees
derived their authority over the prisoner from their contract with the state.
Federal trial court dismisses his claim that male prisoner's right to privacy
while he showered and performed bodily functions was violated by female
employees at the facility for procedural reasons. Lacedra v. Donald W. Wyatt
Detention Facility, C.A. No. 99-458L, 334 F. Supp. 2d 114 (D.R.I. 2004). [N/R]
Federal appeals court rules that Prison
Litigation Reform Act's requirement that prisoners exhaust available administrative
remedies before pursuing lawsuits applies to prisoners in private facilities.
Boyd v. Corrections Corp. of America, No. 03-5227, 380 F.3d 989 (6th Cir.
2004). [2004 JB Nov]
Nebraska prisoner who was not housed in a prison
governed by a contract signed under the state's Private Prison Contracting Act,
Neb. Rev. St. Sec. 47-801 to 47-807, did not have standing to challenge the
constitutionality of that statute or to represent the interests of the public.
As he owned no property and paid only a limited sales tax on purchases from the
prison commissary, he did not have standing as a "taxpayer" to
challenge the expenditure of public funds under the statute. Jacob v. State of
Nebraska, No. A-02-1096, 685 N.W.2d 88 (Neb. App. 2004). [N/R]
Federal appeals court rejects challenges to
consent decree requiring improvements to Puerto Rican prison conditions,
including claim that the court's order violated the requirements of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act. Court declines to order termination of consent decree
requiring privatization of inmate health care, pointing to continuing serious
problems. Feliciano v. Rullan, No. 04-1300, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 16258 (1st
Cir.). [2004 JB Sep]
Female former inmates of federal community
confinement center operated by a private company failed to show that company
was negligent in failing to uphold a one-year security experience requirement
when transferring an employee to a "resident advocate" position,
since they failed to demonstrate that there was any connection between the
employee's lack of security experience and his alleged sexual abuse of inmates.
Company could not be held vicariously liable for the alleged abuse simply on
the basis of the employer-employee relationship. There was, however, a triable
issue of whether the company was negligent in retaining the employee after it
received a report of his alleged sexual harassment of one female prisoner.
Adorno v. Correctional Services Corp., 312 F. Supp. 2d 505 (S.D.N.Y. 2004 ).
[N/R]
Far from showing that court ordered privatization
of inmate medical care in Puerto Rico should be ended, correctional official's
own evidence showed that consent decree relief was still necessary to remedy
ongoing problems. Feliciano v. Serra, 300 F.Supp.2d 321 (D. Puerto Rico 2004).
[2004 JB Jun]
Under New Jersey state law, state and
county correctional facility could be held vicariously liable for alleged
medical malpractice by private contractors that provided medical care to now
deceased inmate, since their duty to provide adequate health care to the
prisoner could not be delegated. Prisoner allegedly died because he was either
denied or given inadequate dosages of prednisone medication for
"Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria with hemolytic episode" (PNH), a
condition for which the only potential cure is a bone marrow transplant.
Scott-Neal v. N.J. State Dept. of Corrections, 841 A.2d 957 (N.J. Super. A.D.
2004). [N/R]
Private psychiatric hospital and not-for-profit
company which owned it were not immune under Tennessee law for potential
liability for county jail inmate's suicide on the basis of their employee's
alleged action in telling county jail that suicide protocol precautions were
not necessary for this prisoner. Employee also qualified as a "state employee"
because of his service in screening prisoners to determine if hospitalization
was appropriate, and as a state employee, he was entitled to statutory
immunity, but this did not alter the result as to the hospital or its owner.
Shelburne v. Frontier Health, 126 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner's claim that his constitutional rights to
adequate conditions and medical care were being violated in a private prison in
Ohio where he was incarcerated under a contract with the District of Columbia,
and that D.C. officials knew or should have known of this, but failed to take
corrective action was sufficient to state a federal civil rights claim against
the District. Warren v. District of Columbia, No. 02-7120, 353 F.3d 36 (D.C.
Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Mar]
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, 350 F.3d 459 (5th Cir.). [2004 JB Jan]
Guards and operator of private facility with
custody over only federal prisoners could not be sued under federal civil
rights statute, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, since they did not act under "color
of state law," but the guards at the facility were acting under color of
federal law and therefore could still be sued directly for alleged violations
of prisoner's constitutional rights in leaving him unprotected against assault
by another prisoner. Such a claim could not, however, be asserted against the
corporation which operated the prison. Sarro v. Cornell Corrections, Inc., 248
F. Supp. 2d 52 (D.R.I. 2003). [2003 JB Oct]
A state prisoner's incarceration in a private
prison does not raise any federal constitutional claim. Florez v. Johnson,
#02-2131, 63 Fed. Appx. 432 (10th Cir. 2003).[N/R]
Composition of disciplinary board which found
prisoner guilty of participating in a riot did not violate his right to due
process even if it violated a prison policy that it should be composed of
employees of the private company managing the prison rather than employees of
the state department of corrections. Constitutional due process merely requires
that the decision maker be impartial. Sampson v. Davis, #02-3037, 58 Fed. Appx.
217 (7th Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Jul]
Private corporation operating correctional
facility was not liable for violating a prisoner's liberty interest by placing
him in medium security status. Prisoner was not entitled to any particular
status and the company's officials had explained the basis for the
classification. Additionally, his placement in disciplinary segregation for
committing a battery while in prison did not violate his rights when there was
nothing "atypical" about the conditions in segregation. The city in
which the prison was located could not be held liable for any alleged violation
of the prisoner's rights when there was nothing to show that the city had any
role in operating the prison. Byrd v. Cornell Corrections, Inc., No. 02-6316,
60 Fed. Appx. 191 (10th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner could not pursue a federal civil rights
lawsuit over a state's practice of transferring inmates to out-of-state private
prisons, since he had no constitutional right to be placed in a particular
facility. Prisoner's claim that officials denied timely parole hearings as part
of a plan to create overcrowding in state prisons and therefore create a need
for transfers to private prisons so that they could increase the value of the
stock in private prison corporations allegedly held in their retirement
portfolios could not be pursued when prisoner could not show that he was being
held beyond his mandatory release date. Madyun v. Litscher, No. 02-1788, 57
Fed. Appx. 259 (7th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
County could be held liable under 42 U.S.C. Sec.
1983 for alleged customs and policies of private corporation hired to manage
and operate a county detention facility. Prisoner could pursue municipal
liability claim based on claim that corporation failed to properly train its
employees to prevent their use of brutality against prisoners. Prison Litigation
Reform Act (PLRA) exhaustion of remedies requirement, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e,
applies to cases in which a private company is operating a prison or jail.
Herrera v. County of Santa Fe, 213 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (D.N.M. 2002). [N/R]
Private company and individual employee
defendants who operated a correctional facility under a contract with the state
were "state actors" for purposes of a federal civil rights claim
under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Palm v. Marr, 174 F. Supp. 2d 484 (N.D. Tex. 2001).
[N/R]
U.S. Supreme Court, by 5-4 vote, rules that
federal civil rights claims may not be brought against private companies acting
under color of federal law, such as a private company operating a halfway house
under a contract with the federal Bureau of Prisons. Correctional Services
Corp. v. Malesko, #00-860, 2001 U.S. LEXIS 10812. [2002 JB Jan]
298:151 Private corporation providing medical
care to detainees in county correctional facility was not to be treated as a
"municipality" in detainee's federal civil rights lawsuit; plaintiff
could seek punitive damages and need not show a policy or custom of the
corporation caused the alleged deprivation to establish liability. Segler v.
Clark County, 142 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (D. Nev. 2001).
295:109 Transfer of Alaska prisoner to an out-of-
state private prison did not violate his rights or constitute improper enhanced
punishment; such transfers were authorized under state law and contract with
private prison required it to adopt state corrections policies and procedures
and comply with federal and state laws. Hertz v. State of Alaska, #A-7585, No.
1732, 22 P.3d 895 (Alas. App. 2001).
291:43 U.S. Supreme Court to review issue of
whether prisoners may pursue federal civil rights claims against private
companies that run prisons under contract with federal agencies; federal
appeals courts are currently split on the issue. Malesko v. Correctional
Services Corp., #99-7995, 229 F.3d 374 (2nd Cir. 2000), cert. granted,
Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, #00-860, 121 S. Ct. 1224 (2001).
290:25 Federal trial judge rules that employees
of a private company hired to run a detention facility operated by a private
company created by a city could not be sued for alleged violations of federal
pre-trial detainee's right to religious freedom in seeking diet free from meat
and meat products. Lawson v. Liburdi, 114 F. Supp. 2d 31 (D.R.I. 2000).
278:29 Wisconsin statute that authorized the
transfer of state prisoners to private prisons in other states did not violate
prisoners' rights under the Thirteenth Amendment; federal appeals court states
that prisoners' claims were "thoroughly frivolous." Pischke v.
Litscher, #98-4013, 178 F.3d 497 (7th Cir. 1999).
267:45 Correctional officer employed by private
corporation running state prison acted under "color of state law"
when he allegedly raped female prisoner in her cell, but was not a "state
employee" entitled to immunity from state law assault and battery claim;
no showing that prison officials had knowledge of "substantial risk"
of sexual assault on prisoner. Gibon v. Corrections Corp. of America, 14
F.Supp.2d 1245 (D.N.M. 1998); Gibon v. Corrections Corp. of America, 14
F.Supp.2d 1252 (D.N.M. 1998).
[N/R] Employee of a private nonprofit corporation
which operated a correctional work program for the Florida state department of
corrections was entitled to qualified immunity from prisoner's claim that he
was improperly denied an office position in the program on the basis of race.
Anthony v. Burkhart, 28 F.Supp.2d 1239 (M.D. Fla).
250:148 U.S. Supreme Court rules that qualified
immunity defense in federal civil rights lawsuits is not available to
correctional officers working for privately run state prisons. Richardson v.
McKnight, 117 S.Ct. 2100, 1997 U.S. Lexis 3866 (June 23, 1997).
255:43 Private corporation running county jail
under contract with county could not raise qualified immunity defense in
federal civil rights lawsuit. Blumel v. Mylander, 954 F.Supp. 1547 (M.D. Fla.
1997).
243:35 U.S. Supreme Court to review issue of
whether correctional officers working for privately run state prison may assert
qualified immunity defense in federal civil rights lawsuit; federal appeals
court held that this defense was not available to such defendants in prisoner's
lawsuit. McKnight v. Rees, 88 F.3d 417 (6th Cir.), cert. granted, sub nom.,
Richardson v. McKnight, 117 S.Ct. 504, 1996 U.S. Lexis 7155 (U.S. Nov. 27,
1996).
251:168 Merely housing prisoner with history of
violence in the same unit as prisoner he later assaulted was insufficient basis
to impose liability on warden when facility was not overcrowded and staffing
levels were adequate; private corporation engaged in running county
correctional facility not liable for assault on prisoner in absence of showing
that an official policy or custom was responsible for correctional officer's
alleged failure to act after assailant made threats to assault plaintiff
prisoner. Street v. Corrections Corporation of America, 102 F.3d 810 (6th Cir.
1996).
224:123 Private corporation operating treatment
center for female inmates under contract with U.S. government could raise
qualified immunity defense in federal civil rights lawsuit by inmates asserting
that employee made sexual advances towards them. Smith v. United States, 850
F.Supp. 984 (M.D. Fla. 1994).
224:124 Officials at privately run detention
facility did not act "under color of state law," and pre-trial
detainee's right of access to courts was not violated by refusal to allow him
to use law library when he was represented by counsel in his criminal trial.
Lloyd v. Corrections Corporation of America, 855 F.Supp. 221 (W.D. Tenn. 1994).