Printer Friendly
The Free Library
14,715,918 articles and books
Member login
User name  
Password 
 
Join us Forgot password?

Female prisoners.


17. Female Prisoners

U.S. Appeals Court    Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732 (9th Cir. 2002).
                      A class of prisoner's at a women's state prison
  MEDICAL CARE        who brought a [section] 1983 action against
                      prison officials moved to extend jurisdiction
                      over a consent decree for an additional period of
                      time, to have prison officials held in contempt,
                      and to compel discovery. The district court
                      denied the motions and granted the prison
                      officials' motion to terminate the consent
                      decree. The appeals court affirmed in part,
                      reversed in part, and remanded. The appeals court
                      found that dental care and mental health
                      conditions at the prison did not violate the
                      Eighth Amendment. The appeals court found that
                      officials' substantial compliance with the
                      consent decree judgment was an acceptable defense
                      to the prisoners' motion to hold the officials in
                      civil contempt for past violations of the decree.
                      The court remanded the case for reconsideration
                      of allegations that the officials failed to
                      comply with consent decree requirements regarding
                      medical care. (Washington Corrections Center for
                      Women)

U.S. District Court   Turner v. Kight, 192 F.Supp.2d 391 (D.Md. 2002).
                      A female detainee who was arrested on an
  SEARCHES            outstanding warrant associated with a civil
                      matter and detained at a jail brought an action
  MEDICAL CARE        against county and state officials. The district
                      court granted summary judgment for the
                      defendants. The court held that arresting and
                      booking officers were deliberately indifferent to
                      the detainee's serious medical needs when they
                      allegedly removed a neck brace and seized
                      medication, ignoring her complaints of pain and
                      muscle spasm. The detainee sometimes limped and
                      walked with a cane, but the court found that the
                      detainee's alleged pain did not rise to the level
                      of a serious medical need. The court granted
                      qualified immunity to the officers, finding that
                      there was no indication that the officers
                      actually knew of, and ignored, a serious need for
                      medical care. The court also found that the
                      officers were not deliberately indifferent by
                      failing to dispense medication in response to the
                      detainee's complaints of pain, where the officers
                      were not permitted to dispense medication and
                      they notified the detention facility's medical
                      staff of a nonemergency situation, who did not
                      respond during the six hours the detainee was
                      confined. The court held that the detainee's
                      allegation that she was brutally handcuffed did
                      not present a constitutional violation,
                      particularly in the absence of any explanation of
                      how the handcuffing led to any injury. The court
                      held that if a strip search was conducted by an
                      officer of the same sex during the processing of
                      the detainee, it did not rise to the level of a
                      Fourth Amendment violation, where the search was
                      conducted in private and there was no physical
                      contact between the detention officer and the
                      detainee. (Montgomery County Detention Center,
                      Maryland)
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:1USA
Date:Nov 1, 2002
Words:468
Previous Article:False imprisonment/arrest.
Next Article:Food.
Topics:



Related Articles
U.S. Appeals Court: EQUAL PROTECTION DISCRIMINATION.(Brief Article)
U.S. Appeals Court: SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFICER ON PRISONER ASSAULT.
U.S. Appeals Court: SEXUAL HARASSMENT FAILURE TO PROTECT.
Oliver v. Scott.(CIVIL RIGHTS)(Brief Article)
Oliver v. Scott.(violation of constitutional rights)(Brief Article)
Oliver v. Scott.(violation of constitutional rights)(Brief Article)
Oliver v. Scott.(violation of civil rights)(Brief Article)
De'Lonta v. Angelone.(cases of medical care)(Brief Article)
Medical care.(Hallett v. Morgan)(Gibson v. County of Washoe)(Fenner v. Suthers)(Evans v. Bonner)
Atkins v. County of Orange.(FEMALE PRISONERS)

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