Medical care.

U.S. District Court

DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE

FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARE

Abdus-Samad v. Greiner. 158 F.Supp.2d 307 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). A prisoner brought a [section] 1983 action against a superintendent and other prison officials, alleging failure to provide adequate medical care. The district court granted summary judgment to three personnel who had no part in the prisoner's treatment. The court held that the prisoner sufficiently alleged that he had continuous pain and a degenerative condition in his ankle, and that prison personnel consciously disregarded the risk of serious harm. The court found that the prisoner sufficiently alleged deliberate indifference by two physicians and a nurse, for his condition that was ultimately diagnosed as a ruptured Achilles tendon, from which he experienced a build up of scar tissue because it was untreated. According to the court, the prisoner sufficiently alleged that a prison superintendent, supervisor, and nursing supervisor were deliberately indifferent to his ankle injuries, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The prisoner alleged that th e superintendent and supervisor promised the prisoner that he would be examined by physicians but the examinations never took place, and the nurse administrator indicated she would not act on the prisoner's written request for care until a grievance was resolved. The court denied qualified immunity from the prisoner's Eighth Amendment claim. (Sing-Sing Correctional Facility, New York)

U.S. District Court

FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARE

ADEQUACY OF CARE

Boyd v. Rhode Island Dept. of Corrections 160 F.Supp.2d 213 (D.R.I. 2001). An inmate sued two physicians, alleging they failed to treat him in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The district court dismissed the case against one physician but found that the inmate stated a claim against the second physician. The inmate alleged that the prison physician diagnosed a hernia that required surgery, but did not perform the surgery, that he prematurely took the inmate off treatment for hepatitus C, and that the inmate suffered pain and suffering as a result. (Adult Correctional Institution, Cranston, Rhode Island)

U.S. District Court

DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE

Dobbin v. Artuz, 143 F.Supp.2d 292 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). A state inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against prison officials and medical staff, arising from a fall down stairs at the prison. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding they were not deliberately indifferent to the medical needs of the inmate. The inmate had requested to be moved to a cell on the ground floor on several occasions but he had failed to demonstrate any medical need for such a move. The court noted that the inmate regularly received sick calls and medication upon request, including consultations with outside specialists in connection with his back condition. (Green Haven Correctional Facility, New York)

U.S. District Court

DELAY IN CARE

DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE

Ducally 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)

U.S. Appeals Court

FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARE

Foulk v. Charrier, 262 F.3d 687 (8th Cir. 2001). A prisoner brought a [section] 1983 action against a corrections officer alleging the use of excessive force in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. The district court entered judgment on a jury verdict, awarded nominal damages of $1 plus interest and costs, and awarded attorney fees. The appeals court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and reversed in part. The appeals court held that the award of nominal damages for an Eighth Amendment violation was permissible, and that the finding of use of excessive force was supported by evidence. The appeals court found that the award of attorney fees was subject to the cap established by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), and that the PLRA cap on attorney fees did not violate the equal protection clause. The court noted that under the provisions of PLRA, if non-monetary relief of some kind had been ordered, whether or not there was also a monetary award, the attorney fees cap would not apply. (Moberly Correct ional Center, Missouri)

U.S. District Court

FORCE FEEDING

In Re Soliman, 134 F.Supp.2d 1238 (N.D.Ala. 2001). An alien filed a petition for habeas corpus challenging his indefinite detention and force-feeding during his hunger strike. The district court denied the petition, finding that the U.S. Attorney General did not abuse her discretion when determining that the alien, who had admitted to associating with dangerous terrorists and extremists and had been convicted in Egypt of various crimes, was dangerous and a flight risk. The court found that force-feeding the alien was reasonable and did not offend the alien's First Amendment right of privacy, so long as a nasogastric tube or intravenous feeding procedures were employed. (U.S. Bureau of Prisons)

U.S. District Court

DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE

FAILURE TO PROVIDE

Jones-Bey v. Conley, 144 F.Supp.2d 1035 (N.D.Ind. 2000). A state prisoner brought a civil rights suit against prison guards and a nurse, alleging use of excessive force and deliberate indifference to his medical needs. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the deliberate indifference claim, finding that although the prisoner's injuries were serious, a nurse examined him within a few hours of the incident and made arrangements for further examination by another nurse that same afternoon. The district court denied summary judgment on the excessive force claims, finding genuine issues of fact regarding the degree of force used by guards in extracting the prisoner from his cell and restraining him after he was handcuffed and shackled. The court also found that a prison guard who had a realistic opportunity to step forward and prevent a fellow guard from violating a prisoner's rights through the excessive use of force, but fails to do so, can be held liable for an Eighth Amendment viola tion. (Maximum Control Complex, Westville, Indiana)

U.S. Appeals Court

DENTAL CARE

Marvin v. Goord 255 F.3d 40 (2nd Cir. 2001). A prisoner brought a civil rights suit alleging prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs because they refused to permit, even at his own expense, a dentist to perform a root canal to treat an oral infection. The district court dismissed the claims and the prisoner appealed. The appeals court vacated and remanded in part, and affirmed in part. The appeals court held that the prisoner was not required to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) since the challenged conduct was conduct which was either clearly mandated by a prison policy or undertaken pursuant to a systemic practice. (Collins Correctional Facility, New York)

U.S. Appeals Court

WORK ASSIGNMENT

DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE

FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARE

Mays v. Rhodes 255 F.3d 644 (8th Cir. 2001). The mother of an inmate who died due to heat exhaustion brought a [section] 1983 action against prison officials, alleging violation of the inmate's Eighth Amendment rights. The district court denied summary judgment for the defendants and they appealed. The appeals court reversed and remanded the case for dismissal. The appeals court held that the plaintiff failed to show that officials were deliberately indifferent to the inmate's limitations or knowingly compelled the inmate to perform physical labor that was beyond his strength or that was unduly painful. The court noted that there was no evidence showing that the inmate displayed any signs prior to his collapse that would have alerted officials to his medical needs. The court also found that the plaintiff failed to show that officials failed to treat the inmate after his collapse, where they responded by calling other officials who promptly transported the inmate to the prison infirmary. The inmate had started his first day of work on a "hoe squad." After a lunch break he returned to work and by mid-afternoon the temperature was only seventy-two degrees. The inmate collapsed while working and never regained consciousness after being transported from the prison infirmary to a local hospital. (East Arkansas Regional Unit, Arkansas Department of Corrections)

U.S. District Court

DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE

FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARE

DELAY IN CARE

PRIVATE PROVIDER

Palmermo v. Correctional Medical Services Inc. 133 F. Supp.2d 1348 (S.D.Fla. 2001). Prisoners sued a for-profit corporation that provided medical care to a prison, and individual physicians, under [section] 1983, claiming deliberate indifference to their medical conditions in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court denied summary judgment on the issue of whether physicians showed deliberate indifference by refusing leg surgery that was deemed "urgent" by specialists, and on the issue of whether the corporation was liable to the prisoner for the delayed surgery based on the possible existence of a policy to delay or deny surgical benefits. The court found that the inmate's claims could lead a reasonable juror to find that there was a custom of deliberate indifference at the corporation, and a report by a state agency that expressed concerned about follow-up procedures at the facility also presented an issue of fact for the jur y. (Everglades Correctional Institute, Florida)

U.S. District Court

DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE

FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARE

Phillips v. Monroe County. Mississippi 143 F.Supp.2d 663 (N.D.Miss. 2001). The mother of an inmate who died of cancer while incarcerated brought wrongful death and [section] 1983 actions against a county, state prison physician and state penitentiary. The district court ruled, as a matter of law, that the county, physician and medical director did not act with deliberate indifference, and that the county was immune under state law from claims for wrongful death and negligence. The court noted that the inmate had received transportation to four medical appointments, received all prescribed medication, and the county's chief deputy advised the receiving state prison of the inmate's condition and hand-delivered the inmate's records to the prison. The inmate had been transferred to the only state prison that was located near a medical canter that could provide chemotherapy, as instructed by the jail's medical director. (Monroe County Jail, and Central Mississippi Correctional Facility)

U.S. District Court

DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE

SMOKE-FREE ENVIRONMENT

Reilly v. Grayson 157 F.Supp.2d 762 (E.D.Mich. 2001). A prisoner brought a [ss] 1983 action against a warden, deputy warden, and Michigan Department of Corrections 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, hut 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 followed, t he 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 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)

U.S. District Court

MALPRACTICE

ADEQUACY OF CARE

DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE

Seals v. Shah, 145 F.Supp.2d 1378 (N.D.Ga. 2001). A state inmate brought a state-court action against a physician who treated him while he was incarcerated in a county jail, asserting claims for medical malpractice and alleged Eighth Amendment violations. The case was removed to federal court, where the district court denied partial summary judgment for the defendants. The court held that material factual issues as to whether the physician was deliberately indifferent, precluded summary judgment on the [ss] 1983 claim. The inmate, who had previously received an arterial graft, alleged he was injured as a result of neglect of a serious medical condition. (Douglas County Jail, Georgia)

U.S. Appeals Court

DELAY IN CARE

TRANSFER

DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE

Thompson v. Upshur County, TX. 245 F.3d 447 (5th Cir. 2001). Parents whose son had died of medical conditions associated with his delirium tremens while he was a pretrial detainee in a county jail, sued under [ss] 1983. The district court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds and the defendants appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The appeals court held that the sheriff of the jail to which the detainee was first admitted was entitled to qualified immunity in connection with the death of the detainee, which occurred following his transfer to another county jail that had the detoxification facilities that his jail lacked. The sheriff of the jail in the receiving county did not violate any clearly established right in failing to instruct his staff on the potentially life-threatening nature of medical conditions associated with delirium tremens and was entitled to qualified immunity, according to the appeals court. But the appeals court fou nd that a sergeant at the jail in which the detainee died was not entitled to qualified immunity because of fact questions as to whether she had instructed her subordinates not to disturb her at home unless a detainee was on the verge of death, or whether she had otherwise interfered with the detainee's receipt of medical care. (Upshur County Jail and Marion County Jail, Texas)

U.S. Appeals Court

EMERGENCY CARE

DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE

DELAY IN CARE

Tlamka v. Serrell. 244 F.3d 628 (8th Cir. 2001). The son of an inmate who died after he suffered a heart attack in state prison brought a [ss] 1983 action against corrections officers. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants and the son appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in part. The appeals court held that summary judgment was precluded for the officers. The court remanded to case to settle fact issues as to whether the officers' ten-minute delay in providing emergency treatment to the inmate, who was having a heart attack, was an intentional delay. The court found that the warden and corrections director were not liable under [ss] 1983 for failing to adequately train officers, noting that all new corrections officers were trained in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and their training was updated as necessary. (Nebraska State Penitentiary)

U.S. District Court

INVOLUNTARY MEDICATION

PSYCHOTROPIC DRUGS

U.S. v. Weston. 134 F.Supp.2d 115 (D.D.C. 2001). An appeals court affirmed the decision of the federal Bureau of Prisons to administer antipsychotic medication to a detainee who allegedly killed Capitol police officers. On remand to the district court, the court held that the government would be permitted to treat the defendant involuntarily with such medication because it was appropriate and essential in order to render the defendant non-dangerous based on medical/safety concerns, and to restore the defendant's competency to stand trial. (Federal Correctional Insititute, Butner, North Carolina.