Cruel and unusual punishment.U.S. Appeals Court PLUMBING SANITATION Carroll v. Detella. 255 F.3d 470 (7th Cir. 2001). An inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against state prison officials and state environmental protection officials, seeking damages and injunctive relief injunctive relief n. a court-ordered act or prohibition against an act or condition which has been requested, and sometimes granted, in a petition to the court for an injunction. on the grounds that the drinking water drinking water supply of water available to animals for drinking supplied via nipples, in troughs, dams, ponds and larger natural water sources; an insufficient supply leads to dehydration; it can be the source of infection, e.g. leptospirosis, salmonellosis, or of poisoning, e.g. at two state prisons was contaminated. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and the inmate appealed. The appeals court affirmed, finding that alleged lead contamination in one prison, and radium radium (rā`dēəm) [Lat. radius=ray], radioactive metallic chemical element; symbol Ra; at. no. 88; at. wt. 226.0254; m.p. 700°C;; b.p. 1,140°C;; sp. gr. about 6.0; valence +2. Radium is a lustrous white radioactive metal. contamination in another prison, did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment Such punishment as would amount to torture or barbarity, any cruel and degrading punishment not known to the Common Law, or any fine, penalty, confinement, or treatment that is so disproportionate to the offense as to shock the moral sense of the community. . According to the court, the lead contamination was caused by corrosion of the water pipes, but only when water was still in the pipes overnight, and the inmate had been told to let water run before drinking it in the morning. The environmental protection agency Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), independent agency of the U.S. government, with headquarters in Washington, D.C. It was established in 1970 to reduce and control air and water pollution, noise pollution, and radiation and to ensure the safe handling and had found the level of radium in the water at the other prison was less than half of the maximum allowed in a revised standard. The court noted that failing to provide a maximally safe environment, one com pletely free from pollution or safety hazards, is not a violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Stateville and Menard Correctional Facilities, Illinois) U.S. District Court USE OF FORCE MEDICAL CARE Ducally du·cal adj. Of or relating to a duke or duchy: a ducal estate. [Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin duc v. Rhode Island Dept. of Corrections 160 F.Supp.2d 220 (D.R.I. 2001). A prisoner brought a [section] 1983 action against a corrections department and corrections officers alleging cruel and unusual punishment. The district court dismissed the claims against the department, but found that the prisoner stated a claim against an officer with his allegations that the officer intentionally slammed a cell door on his hand and delayed the provision of medical care. The prisoner alleged that he suffered two cuts, swollen fingers, and loss of power and feeling in his fingers and hand. (Adult Correctional Institution, Cranston, Rhode Island Cranston, once known as Pawtuxet, is a city in Providence County, Rhode Island, United States. With a population of 79,269 as of the 2000 census, it is the third largest city in the state. The center of population of Rhode Island is located in Cranston [2]. ) U.S. District Court SMOKE Reilly v. Grayson 157 F.Supp.2d 762 (E.D.Mich. 2001). A prisoner brought a [section] 1983 action against a warden, deputy warden, and Michigan Department of Corrections The Michigan Department of Corrections oversees prisons and other correctional facilities in the state of Michigan, USA. It has some 43 prison facilities, 10 camps and a Special Alternative Incarceration program, together composing approximately 50,000 inmates. physicians, alleging violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. After a bench trial, the district court ruled that the warden and deputy wardens were deliberately indifferent to the prisoner's serious medical need to be placed in a smoke-free environment, supporting the prisoner's cruel and unusual punishment claims. The court found that the wardens were reckless in their disregard of the prisoner's rights, and awarded the prisoner $18,250 in punitive damages and $36,500 in compensatory damages for the five years of inaction by the wardens. The prisoner had two Individual Management Plans (IMP) which required that he be placed in a smoke-free environment, but the non-smoking regulations in the prisoner's cell block were consistently violated and the wardens were aware of the violations. After receiving notice that the IMPs were not being follow ed, the wardens continued to do nothing to remedy the situation. The court concluded that the three wardens "...each clearly ignored his supervisory obligations and, as a consequence, should suffer the opprobrium OPPROBRIUM, civil law. Ignominy; shame; infamy. (q.v.) of punitive damages, not so much to deter each of them in the future, but to deter other officials in like positions of ignoring their responsibility." (Trustee Division, State Prison of Southern Michigan) |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion