Private Prison Corporation Not Entitled to 11th Amendment or Sovereign
Immunity

The U.S. Northern District Court of Texas determined that a private
operator of a state prison was not entitled to 11th Amendment and
sovereign immunity.

Cynthia Proctor, while employed by Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, was
demoted from Chief of Classifications to a case manager with a pay cut of
$12,000. Ms. Proctor filed suit under the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C.
§ 206(d); under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by
42 U.S.C. § 2000e to 2000e-17; for retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3
(a); for violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C.
§ 621-34 (ADEA); for negligent hiring, retention, training and supervision
of Proctor's supervisors and human relations department personnel; and for
intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Defendants filed for summary judgment based upon Ms. Proctor's state law
claims that the defendants were entitled to 11th Amendment and sovereign
immunity. The Court determined that neither claim was viable. The Court
held that under Richardson v. McKnight, 117 S.Ct. 2100 (1997), private
guards in a state prison are not entitled to qualified immunity. Further,
Texas law (Govt. Code § 495.005) ...

Carol Ancata, personal representative of Anthony Ancata, deceased, and
natural guardian of Tara Ancata, filed a lawsuit against Prison Health
Services, Inc. (PHS), the Broward County Jail and the Sheriff of Broward
County (defendants) for violating Anthony Ancata's Fourteenth and Eighth
Amendment rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, and to
receive adequate medical care.

Anthony Ancata was placed in the Broward County Jail in pre-trial
detention on August 20, 1982. Approximately one week later he began
suffering from several symptoms including swelling of the ankle, inability
to sleep, chills, back pain, numbness of the hands, hyperventilation and
double vision. Despite these serious symptoms, PHS did nothing to evaluate
his medical condition, instead giving him Ben Gay and Tylenol II. PHS
also suggested an orthopedic or psychiatric evaluation but never followed
through with that suggestion. Instead, PHS told Ancata and his family that
they would not let him see a specialist without a court order, and that
Ancata would have to agree to pay for the visit to the specialist even
though he had already been declared indigent.

Ancata's public defender obtained a court order forcing PHS to provide an
evaluation by an orthopedic specialist, who recommended a ...

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal has upheld a Florida district
court's grant of judgment as a matter of law on a claim of deliberate
indifference to medical needs and a state tort claim of negligent
supervision, training, and management in a Monroe County Detention Center
(MCDC) prisoner's suicide, but reversed the state tort claim of vicarious
liability for negligent failure to prevent the suicide.

Originally filed in state court, this action was moved to federal
court upon motion of the Monroe County Sheriff, Rick Roth. This lawsuit
was brought by the estate of deceased MCDC prisoner Daniel Tessier. The
matter proceeded to a jury trial, and after the estate closed its case,
the district court granted the Sheriff's motion for judgment as a matter
of law on all counts.

Tessier was booked into MCDC on May 18, 1999, on a charge of auto
theft. The next day he submitted a written request to see a doctor and
psychiatrist. Guard Kenneth Kerr logged in the request and placed it in
the box for medical to pick up, which was to occur twice daily. Tessier's
request, however, was not received until May 20.

Shortly after submitting his request, Tessier was observed ...

The court of appeals for the Eighth circuit held that prison officials can
be held liable for promulgating policies that deny treatment to prisoners
suffering from fatal illnesses, even when the prison has contracted out
its medical care to a third party. An Iowa state prisoner with leukemia
was denied a bone marrow transplant by the Iowa City Medical Center at the
University of Iowa, which had a contract to provide medical care to Iowa
prisoners. Prisoner sued claiming denial of treatment violated his 8th
amendment rights and was also affecting his vision. District court granted
summary judgment to defendants, appeals court reversed. Appeals court
quotes extensive discovery questions supporting the reversal. The appeals
court held that the defendant prison officials failed to exercise control
over their subordinates (the medical contractors), therefore making them,
not the contractors, liable for plaintiff's injuries. The court held that
absent expert testimony there was insufficient evidence to show is an
affirmative defense that must he raised by the party asserting it, failure
to do so waives the defense. In any case, the rights asserted in this case
were clearly established and the defense would have failed. Case remanded.
See: Moore v. Morgan, 922 F. ...

The plaintiff in this case alleged that Wackenhut Corrections
Corporation falsely imprisoned him due to mistaken identity, and failed to
immediately release him when it was informed of the mistake by a parole
officer.

Plaintiff was stopped for a traffic violation in the car of Adrese
Bassett, who had an ...

The plaintiff in this case was arrested and housed in Florida's
Broward County Jail. Upon his arrest, he had a history of epilepsy and
brought his medication with him to the jail. A doctor employed by
defendant Prison Health Services ordered the prisoner to have his
medication.

The prisoner was denied the medication for over 24 hours despite that
order. He then had an epileptic seizure while on his assigned upper
bunk. The prisoner fell from the bunk, causing a lumbar disc herniation.
The jail admitted guilt, but contested the injury occurred from the fall
because it was pre-existing. On October 17, 1996, a jury awarded a
$200,000 verdict, finding the jail 10% negligent, Prison Health Services
40% negligent, and the plaintiff 50% negligent. The plaintiff was
represented by James K. Parker, Jr., Pembroke Pines, Florida. See: Monks
v. Prison Health Services, Broward County Circuit Court, Case No. 95-06561.

On August 20, 2002, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Kentucky awarded $90,000 to a prison kitchen worker who was sexually
harassed by a prison captain. The judgment was against her former
employer, Kellwell Food Management (KFM).

While working for KFM as a prison kitchen supervisor at ...

In this civil rights action brought by two prisoners against Corrections
Corporation of America (CCA) and several CCA employees, the U.S. Tenth
Circuit Court of Appeals held the prisoners had not exhausted their
administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

Plaintiffs Matthew J. Beaudry and Keith Pischke, Wisconsin prisoners
incarcerated at the CCA-operated North Fork Correctional Facility in
Sayre, Oklahoma, brought this action against CCA and certain employees
under state law and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging they were injured when
guards locked them in their cells and sprayed them with pepper spray
during a riot.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma dismissed the
plaintiffs' § 1983 claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies,
and a jury found for the defendants on the state law claim. Plaintiffs
appealed.

Acknowledging that PLRA applicability to private prisons was an unresolved
issue, but assuming for this case that it did apply, the Tenth Circuit
held, "Even though matters involving federal and state law and regulation
[s] were 'non-grievable' under prison policy," the plaintiffs were
nevertheless required to exhaust administrative remedies since prison
authorities did have the power to render some of ...

Tennessee Prisoner in Private Prison Not "Inmate" by Statutory Definition

The Tennessee Court of Appeals held that because a state prisoner housed
at a privately operated prison was not an "inmate" within the statutory
definition, he was not required to comply with certain standards governing
prisoner-initiated lawsuits.

James P. Block, a Tennessee prisoner at the Corrections Corporation of
America (CCA)-operated Whiteville Correctional Facility (WCF), was injured
when he slipped and fell on a wet floor. Block subsequently sued CCA and
officials at WCF alleging negligence. Block also filed a Uniform Civil
Affidavit of Indigence and was granted pauper status.

The defendants moved for dismissal, contending that Block had not complied
with Tennessee Code Annotated (TCA) sections 41-21-805 and 41-21-806. TCA
41-21-805 requires a prisoner requesting indigent status to file an
affidavit detailing all previous litigation. TCA 41-21-806 requires a
prisoner to exhaust the grievance process before filing a claim. The trial
court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the claim. Block
appealed.

On April 30, 2001, the Tennessee Court of Appeals at Jackson reversed and
remanded, holding that Block was not an "inmate" as defined in the
relevant statutes. The Tennessee General Assembly, the appellate court
held, "has specifically defined ...

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, reversing a California federal
district court, held that a suspended Wackenhut Corrections Corporation
(WCC) employee stated a claim for retaliation and that WCC should not have
prevailed on summary judgment.

WCC employee John P. Elliott, Jr., was suspended by WCC after sending
several letters to government officials regarding prison mismanagement by
WCC. Elliott was suspended without pay from the private prison where he
was employed and was never allowed to return to work. Elliott sued WCC in
federal district court claiming that the company violated California
public policy under California Labor Code §1102.5. He subsequently moved
to amend to add claims under Ann. Cal. Labor Code §§1101, 1102 and 6310.
The magistrate denied the motion. Subsequently, the magistrate granted
summary judgment to WCC, and Elliott appealed.

On appeal Elliott failed to argue, and thus waived, the magistrate's
denial of his motion to amend. He did argue that the magistrate had abused
his discretion by holding that Elliott was judicially estopped from
pursuing a constructive discharge claim. He also argued that summary
judgment was inappropriate.

The appeals court held that Elliott's claims that he was suspended without
pay for writing letters to government officials, ...