27. Liability.

U.S. District Court FCA--False Claims Act

Alexander v. Gilmore, 202 F.Supp.2d 478 (E.D.Va. 2002). Two prisoners, one a current prisoner and one a former prisoner, sued a prison and officials. The district court found that a prisoner's placement in segregated housing following an institutional conviction for being under the influence of drugs, even though a confirmatory urine test was not conducted, was not sufficiently severe to support an Eighth Amendment claim. The court also held that the prisoners did not state a claim under the False Claims Act (FCA) by alleging that the prison had obtained federal funding for drug testing by falsely certifying that the requirements for testing and disposal of samples were being followed. According to the court, the prison, and employees who were acting in their official capacities, were exempt from the FCA and there was no showing that the employees were acting in their individual capacities. (Virginia Department of Corrections)

U.S. District Court PLRA-Prison Litigation Reform Act DAMAGES

Caldwell v. District of Columbia, 201 F.Supp.2d 27 (D.D.C. 2001). An inmate filed a [section] 1983 action against the District of Columbia and several employees of its corrections department, alleging unconstitutional conditions of confinement and denial of medical care. A jury entered a verdict in favor of the inmate, on all claims, and awarded $174,178. The appeals court granted judgment for the defendants as a matter of law, in part, denied judgment for the defendants in part, and did not reduce the damage award. The Court found that statements by the inmate's attorney during his closing argument, suggesting specific dollar amounts to be considered by the jury, did not warrant a new trial. The appeals court held that the Prison Litigation Reform At (PLRA) does not require a prisoner to allege or prove serious, permanent physical injury in order to bring an action for violation of his constitutional rights. The appeals court held that the prisoner sufficiently alleged a "physical injury" for the purposes of PLRA, with allegations that excessive heat in his cell made him dizzy, dehydrated, and disoriented, gave him a severe rash, and that smoke from rolled toilet paper "wicks" and frequent use of mace gave him bronchial irritation and a runny nose. The inmate also alleged that the small bunk aggravated his arthritis. (Maximum Security Facility, Lorton Correctional Complex, District of Columbia)

U.S. Appeals Court DAMAGES IMMUNITY FAILURE TO PROTECT COMPENSATORY DAMAGES 

Cantu v. Jones, 293 F.3d 839 (5th Cir. 2002). A prison inmate who had been slashed with a razor by another inmate, brought a civil rights action to recover on a deliberate indifference theory from prison officials, who allegedly orchestrated the assault. A jury ruled in favor of the inmate and awarded $22,500 in compensatory damages; the prison officials appealed. The appeals court affirmed the district court verdict. The appeals court held that the question of whether officials manifested deliberate indifference to the inmate's safety when they allegedly left a door to another inmate's cell open and allowed him to escape and assault the first inmate, was a matter for the jury. The plaintiff inmate had previously complained about prison guards. The appeals court affirmed that the officials were not entitled to qualified immunity. (Connally Unit, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division)

U.S. Appeals Court CONSENT DECREE-TERMINATION

Hallett v. Morgan, 287 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2002). In a class action, female prisoners at a state prison secured a consent decree that addressed health care concerns. The prisoners challenged the prison's attempt to end the decree, sought additional time for court involvement and moved to have prison officials held in contempt for past violations of the decree. The district court denied the prisoners' motions and granted the prison officials' motion to terminate the consent decree. The prisoners appealed and the appeals court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. The appeals court held that dental care and mental health care did not violate the Eighth Amendment, but ordered the district court to consider retrospective relief on remand. The court noted that the district court should have considered whether officials were in contempt for failing to comply with other medical care provisions of the consent decree. (Washington Corrections Center for Women)

U.S. District Court FTCA--Federal Tort Claims Act 

Helton v. U.S., 191 F.Supp.2d 179 (D.D.C. 2002). Female arrestees brought an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) alleging that United States Marshals conducted unlawful searches and invasions of their privacy. The district court held that the alleged strip search of arrestees satisfied the elements of a tort intrusion upon seclusion. The court noted that the Fourth Amendment precludes police or prison officials from conducting a strip search of an individual arrested for misdemeanors or other minor offenses, unless there is reasonable suspicion that the individual is concealing contraband or weapons. The five women plaintiffs had been arrested for unlawful entry in connection with an "anti-fur" demonstration at a department store. According to their complaint, they were compelled "to remove clothing and submit to a strip and squat search" while six men arrested with them were not subjected to such searches. (United States Marshals Service)

U.S. Appeals Court DAMAGES

Lawson v. Dallas County, 286 F.3d 257 (5th Cir. 2002). A paraplegic inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against a county, sheriff and a jail's chief medical officer, alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs. After a bench trial the district court entered judgment in favor of the inmate, awarding $250,000. The appeals court affirmed, finding that evidence supported the finding that jail officials violated the inmate's right to adequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment. The court held that the finding that individual members of the jail's medical staff, rather than the staff as a whole, acted with deliberate indifference was supported by evidence that all of the nurses who primarily treated the inmate had actual knowledge of the risk posed by the development and worsening of the inmate's ulcers. The court found that these nurses responded by disobeying doctor's orders, not providing the inmate with adequate mobility equipment, not personally assisting him in turning himself, bathing or moving, not providing necessary dressing changes, and not seeking an alternative placement for the inmate. (Lew Sterrett Justice Center, Dallas County, Texas)

U.S. Appeals Court DAMAGES PLRA-Prison Litigation Reform Act

Mitchell v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 294 F.3d 1309 (11t'h Cir. 2002). A federal prisoner brought an action against cigarette manufacturers, alleging deceptive advertising, misrepresentation and strict liability under a state tort law. The district court dismissed the case as frivolous and the prisoner appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part and vacated in part. The appeals court held that allegations satisfied the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction, and that the section of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PRLA) that prohibited action for mental or emotional suffering while in custody did not apply to the prisoner's action against the manufacturers. (Wisconsin)

U.S. Appeals Court 42. U.S.C.A. Sec. 1983

Townsend v. Moya, 291 F.3d 859 (5th Cir. 2002). An inmate brought a

1983 action against a prison officer seeking damages for the officer's action in cutting the inmate with a knife. The district court granted summary judgment for the officer and the appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that the officer's action with a knife was not taken "under color of state law" for the purposes of 1983. The court noted that if a state officer pursues personal objectives without using or misusing the power granted to him by the state, then he is not acting under the color of state law. The inmate had been working as a trusty caring for the officer's tracking dogs. The officer approached the inmate from behind with a pocketknife, saying "I told you I was going to get you, whore" and stabbed the inmate on his buttocks. The officer was eventually terminated for his actions, but criminal charges were dropped for insufficient evidence. (Hughes Unit, Texas Department of Criminal Justice- Institutional Division)

U.S. Appeals Court FTCA--Federal Tort Claims Act

Ueland v. U.S., 291 F.3d 993 (7th Cir. 2002). An inmate sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FCTA) alleging that he was injured in a collision between a prison van in which he had been riding and a "chase car." The district court entered judgment in favor of the defendants and the inmate appealed. The appeals court reversed and remanded, finding that the deposition of a fellow federal inmate was admissible, and the federal government was entitled to discuss the inmate's medical history and condition with a prison physician. The appeals court ordered the district court to hold a hearing to determine the qualifications of the inmate's chiropractor to testify. (Metropolitan Correctional Center, U.S. Bureau of Prisons, Chicago, Illinois)