In this case involving an Ohio prisoner whose fingers required amputation
due to allegedly improperly applied restraints, the Ohio Court of Appeals,
Tenth Appellate District, affirmed a jury's verdict in favor of EMSA
Correctional Care, a for-profit health care provider.
Plaintiff Simone Pleasant was arrested on January 5, 1999, for domestic
violence and assault stemming from an altercation with her husband, and
imprisoned in the Franklin County Jail. After a court appearance the next
day Pleasant was transferred, in handcuffs, to the Jackson Pike women's
workhouse wearing only "one of the little shirts, the prison clothes, but
no jacket and flip flops and some real thin socks."
On January 8, 1999, Pleasant, who suffers from bipolar disorder, allegedly
began behaving erratically, standing on a sink in her cell and screaming.
When she failed to obey an order to get down she was maced, physically
subdued and placed in a Pro-Straint Chair. Pleasant spent approximately 4
hours in the chair with handcuffs on. The handcuffs were reportedly double-
locked to prevent inadvertent tightening. A nurse employed by the jail's
private health care contractor, EMSA, supposedly checked the circulation
in Pleasant's hands and legs every hour.
On January 11, 1999 Pleasant was ...
Affirming a Tennessee federal district court decision, the U.S. Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals held that a state prisoner incarcerated in a
private prison suffered no violation of his right to meaningful access to
courts.
Danny Ray Thomas is a Tennessee prisoner held in a private prison managed
by the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). Thomas sued prison warden
Linda Rochell and CCA under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Thomas claimed that in four
separate cases he suffered actual injury due to Rochell's and CCA's actions
that resulted in denial of Thomas' access to courts. The district court
granted summary judgment to the defendants, and Thomas appealed.
The Sixth Circuit held that two cases about which Thomas complained of
denial of access to courts involved state tort and medical malpractice
claims. Under Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996), the right to access to
courts is limited to litigation involving a prisoner's conviction, sentence
and conditions of confinement. Thus, Thomas suffered no cognizable injury.
A third case involving adequacy of the prison law library was deemed
frivolous. In the fourth case, a claim of deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need, the record established that Thomas had suffered no
actual injury. "Thus, ...
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed an Arizona federal
district court for refusing to allow a federal prisoner to file an amended
complaint.
Michael Satz, a prisoner in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), was
held in a Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) prison. He ...
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held that a
prisoner's claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and state law were sufficient to
withstand a motion to dismiss. Nartin Drake, a prisoner at the Cook County
Jail, brought actions under §1983 and state law against jail officials and
Aramark Food Services (AFS), which contracts with the jail to provide
prisoner meals, alleging meals were prepared and served under unsanitary
conditions.
Defendant AFS filed a motion to dismiss. The district court, noting that
dismissal is appropriate only when "it appears beyond doubt..." that the
plaintiff can set forth no set of facts which would entitle him to relief,
held: 1 ) The injury alleged in the prisoner's complaint was sufficient "to
show an actual case or controversy at pleading stage"; 2) The prisoner's
Fourteenth Amendment and deliberate indifference claims were supported by
the allegations; and 3) The prisoner's allegations sufficiently supported
his "claim for breach of state law duty to provide sanitary meals." See:
Drake v. Velasco, 207 F.Supp.2d 809 (N.D. IL 2002).
On December 12, 2001 three former female prisoners who claimed they were sexually assaulted while imprisoned in a privately operated boot camp in Mansfield, Texas were awarded a total of $2,800,000 against the camp's operator.
Plaintiffs, Keri Echols Chattha, 17, Karen Fowler, 19, and Annawaynette Creek, 33, claimed that between ...
A Florida federal district court has held that a private medical
contractor, EMSA Correctional Care, Inc. (EMSA), and Sheriff Ken Jenne
violated a blind prisoner's rights under the Eight Amendment and the
American with Disabilities Act (ADA) when they failed to provide necessary
accommodations and treat the prisoner's medical needs. Kim P. Kruger was
temporarily transferred from a Florida prison to the North Broward
Detention Center (NBDC). In January 1995, Kruger suffered total blindness
and lost all visual activity as a result of Bilateral Optic Atrophy.
When Kruger arrived at NBCD on January 6, 1998, his "talking book" and
electric razor was confiscated, and he was denied a personal aide and/or
walking cane. Kruger was unable to access the law library, participate in
indoor or outdoor recreation, access other parts of NBCD, or participate in
other forms of recreation. His cell was not ADA approved or equipped for
the needs of a blind person. Although he was not physically injured in his
cell, the failure to accommodate his visual needs rendered the facilities
unsafe for him.
On three occasions Kruger was injured when he slipped and fell outside his
cell. On each occasion, EMSA either denied a doctor's recommended
treatment ...
Plaintiff States Claim Against Private Medical Providers In § 1983 Action
The United States District Court for the District of Maine held that
although a prisoner did not utter "the magic words 'policy and custom' in
his" § 1983 state court action against jail medical contractors, he
sufficiently alleged facts to support his claim that would entitle him to
relief.
While in the custody of Cumberland County Jail, plaintiff Mitchell Wall
developed an infected tooth. Wall, who was infected with hepatitis C,
alleged that the jail dentist refused to treat him because of the hepatitis
C, stating that he did not have the proper protective equipment. Wall
alleged that the tooth, which became gangrenous, caused him pain for
several months. Moreover, upon his transfer to the state prison, Wall's
tooth had become so severely infected that a "prison dentist had to file
down several teeth because Wall's jaw had become misaligned due to the
untreated infection."
Wall subsequently filed a pro se § 1983 action in state court against the
Cumberland County Sheriff, the dentist, and medical service contractors
Correctional Medical Services (CMS) and Prime Care Medical (PCM) alleging
that the denial of proper medical treatment by defendants violated his ...
The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held in an unpublished opinion that
a prisoner's lawsuit against a private prison operator should not have been
dismissed on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds.
While confined in a prison operated by Cornell Corrections Corporation
(CCC), Charles Akomolafe Abayomi was attacked by a gang of Mexican
prisoners. Abayomi subsequently brought a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
against CCC, the prison director and the City of Big Springs (Texas),
alleging they were liable for failing to prevent the attack.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas dismissed
Abayomi's claim against CCC, noting that the company was an
"instrumentality of the state" and therefore entitled to Eleventh Amendment
immunity. Abayomi moved for reconsideration.
The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that it had not yet
decided whether Eleventh Amendment immunity applied to a private operator
of a state prison. Therefore, the district court's dismissal of Abayomi's
action "on this ground as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted" was erroneous and warranted further
consideration. This ruling is unpublished. See: Abayomi v. Cornell
Corrections Corporation., 67 Fed.Appx. 242 (5th Cir. 2003).
A federal district court in Delaware has held that a prisoner's claim of
proper dental treatment being delayed defeats the Defendant's Motion for
Dismissal. While incarcerated at Delaware's Multi-purpose Criminal Justice
Facility, prisoner David W. Williamson developed an abscessed tooth and
periodontal disease. Williamson went to the dental unit, run by Prison
Health Services (PHS), on several occasions and filed grievances with the
result of inadequate delayed treatment causing the loss of two teeth.
In late 1996, Williamson was treated for a cavity in his lower right rear
tooth #27, which he was told he needed rescheduling for extraction. As of
May 1998, Williamson still had not received treatment, and his condition
worsened. After seeing a dental assistant, Williams was told there was
nothing she could do," Williamson began filing grievances. As of July 14,
1999, Williamson still was awaiting permission from PHS to extract the
infected #8 and #29 teeth. He then filed suit.
PHS moved to dismiss the suit. The district court held where denial or
delay causes [a prisoner] to suffer a life-long handicap or permanent loss,
the medical need is serious." A serious medical need is one that has been
diagnosed by a physician as requiring ...
In a matter of first impression, the United States District Court for the
District of Rhode Island held that a federal pretrial detainee could pursue
a Bivens action against guards employed by a privately operated detention
facility.
Plaintiff George A. Sarro III was held in the privately operated Wyatt
Detention Center (WDC) while awaiting trial on federal criminal charges.
WDC, owned by Cornell Corrections, Inc., was under contract with the United
States Marshal Service to house federal pretrial detainees. While at WDC,
and after he had requested to be placed in protective custody, Sarro was
severely beaten by other detainees. Sarro alleged that after the beating he
was not given proper medical treatment.
Sarro brought action against Cornell and certain guards pursuant to Bivens
v. Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91
S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking monetary
damages for failure to protect him and for inadequate medical treatment in
violation of his Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights. Defendants moved for
dismissal and the motion was referred to a magistrate. The magistrate
recommended dismissal and Sarro filed objections.
The district court held: 1) Sarro could pursue Bivens ...
