Printer Friendly
The Free Library
14,695,195 articles and books
Member login
User name  
Password 
 
Join us Forgot password?

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

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:Corrections Caselaw Quarterly
Geographic Code:1U3OH
Date:Nov 1, 2002
Words:487
Previous Article:Conditions of confinement.
Next Article:Discipline.
Topics:



Related Articles
Beardslee v. Woodford.(CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT)(Brief Article)
Sanders v. Kingston.(CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT)(violation of United States Constitution. 8th Amendment)(Brief Article)
Booth v. King.(ACCESS TO COURT)(violation of United States Constitution. 8th Amendment)(Brief Article)
Booth v. King.(CIVIL RIGHTS)(Brief Article)
Booth v. King.(CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT)(Brief Article)
Booth v. King.(FAILURE TO PROTECT)(Brief Article)
Christopher v. Buss.(FAILURE TO PROTECT)(Brief Article)
Smith v. Carrasco.(PROPERTY-PRISONER PERSONAL)(Brief Article)
Chandler v. Crosby.(violation of United States Constitution. 8th Amendment)(Brief Article)
Rodriguez v. Briley.(RULES & REGULATIONS-PRISONER)(violation of prisoners' rights)(Brief Article)

Terms of use | Copyright © 2009 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters | Submit articles