Cruel and unusual punishment.
10. Cruel and Unusual Punishment
U.S. District Court Bultema v. U.S., 195 F.Supp.2d 1001 (N.D.Ohio
2002). A federal prisoner brought an action
INJURY against the United States under the Federal Tort
Claims Act (FTCA), claiming negligence after he
fell from an upper bunk bed and severely injured
his knee. The district court granted summary
judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that
the alleged negligence of the prison warden fell
within the discretionary function exception of
FTCA. The court found that the prisoner's
contributory negligence, by failing to tell his
unit officer that he was entitled to a bottom
bunk, was the proximate cause of his injuries.
Prison personnel had medically determined that
the prisoner was required to sleep on a bottom
bunk, but the warden decided to have the inmate
tell unit officers that the had a bottom bunk
pass, rather than requiring medical personnel to
inform the officers. The court found that the
warden's decision to refrain from using ladders
or guardrails on upper bunk beds in the prison
was within the discretionary function exception
of FTCA, even though the inmate stated that
prisoners frequently fall from upper bunk beds
and hurt themselves. The court noted that there
were valid safety and security concerns relating
to the use of ladders or guardrails with the bunk
beds, since the rails and ladders can be broken
and used as weapons or escape devices. (Federal
Correctional Institution, Elkton, Ohio)
U.S. Appeals Court Carney v. Craven, 40 Fed.Appx. 48 (6th Cir.
2002). A state prisoner brought a civil rights
LIGHTING action under [section] 1983. The district court
dismissed the action and the appeals court
affirmed, as modified. The appeals court held
that the prisoner failed to show that prison
officials were deliberately indifferent to his
request to fix a faulty light which was producing
a strobe-like effect, and which allegedly caused
him headaches and eye pain. The court noted that
the prisoner's request to have the bulb repaired
was not recklessly disregarded, but rather, a new
light bulb was not immediately available, and the
prisoner was ultimately moved to a new cell
eleven days after reporting the problem.
(Tennessee)
U.S. District Court Moore v. Gardner, 199 F.Supp.2d 17 (W.D.N.Y.
2002). An inmate brought a pro se action against
TEMPERATURE prison officials under [section] 1983 and
[section] 1985, alleging mail tampering and
unconstitutional conditions of confinement. The
district granted summary judgment, in part, to
the defendants, finding that the alleged mail
tampering did not result in an actual injury to
the inmate. The court denied summary judgment for
the defendants on the issue of whether the inmate
was subjected to unconstitutionally cold
conditions. The inmate alleged he was forced to
live in a cold, drafty cell for three weeks
during the winter, without his bed sheets and
with only one blanket. (Southport Correctional
Facility, New York)
COPYRIGHT 2002 CRS, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2002, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.
|
Reader Opinion