Articles Posted in Prison Abuse

Upon arrival at New York prisons, new inmates undergo a comprehensive screening process to detect communicable diseases like tuberculosis (TB). This testing is essential due to the highly contagious nature of TB and the close living quarters within correctional facilities, which create an environment conducive to disease transmission.

The screening typically involves a series of steps, starting with a thorough medical history review and physical examination. Inmates are often required to undergo a tuberculin skin test (TST) or a blood test to check for TB infection. Those who test positive may undergo further evaluation, including chest X-rays, to confirm the presence of active TB disease.

However, some inmates object to some screening tests based on religious belief. The Constitution guarantees inmates freedom of speech and freedom to practice their religion of choice. Failure to do so may be a type of inmate abuse. In Selah v. Goord, 00-CV-644 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2003), plaintff Selam Selah, an inmate at Auburn Correctional Facility, objected to tuberculosis screening based on religious beliefs. An inmate who refuses the PPD test is placed in tuberculin hold.

The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment for inmates in New York prisons. This means that prison officials cannot intentionally harm or mistreat inmates. Inmates have the right to be free from excessive force, deliberate indifference to their medical needs, and unsafe conditions that pose a serious risk to their health or safety. The Eighth Amendment also requires that inmates receive adequate medical care and protection from violence while in custody. Any actions by prison officials that violate these rights may be considered unconstitutional and subject to legal action.

In the case of Hudson v. McMillian, a Louisiana state prisoner, Keith J. Hudson, brought forth a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against three corrections officers alleging excessive force. This case journeyed through the judicial system, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court for a final decision.

Background Facts

Inmates have a constitutional right to adequate medical treatment, protected under the Eighth Amendment. This includes protection from deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. While the scope of this right is subject to limitations and considerations of prison administration, such as cost and security, authorities are obligated to provide essential medical care to inmates. Upholding this right ensures that individuals in custody receive necessary treatment for existing health conditions and are not subjected to unnecessary suffering or harm due to neglect or indifference by prison officials.

In Wooley v. Corr. Servs, 15 N.Y.3d 275 (N.Y. 2010), the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) faced scrutiny over its denial of medical treatment to an inmate, Robert Wooley, who was diagnosed with hepatitis C. This denial of treatment led to a legal battle, with Wooley alleging violations of his constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment. The case raised questions about the standards of medical care owed to inmates and the discretion of prison authorities in determining appropriate medical treatment.

Background Facts

In Rivera v. Westchester County, 188 Misc. 2d 746 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2001), defendants County of Westchester, Joseph Stancari, Officer Savino, and Sergeant Rushin were faced with allegations regarding their treatment of a pretrial detainee, Ivan Figeroa, Jr., who tragically died by suicide while in custody at the Westchester County Jail in Valhalla, New York. The case involved claims brought under 42 USC § 1983, asserting violations of Figeroa’s Fourteenth Amendment constitutional rights. The court’s decision, which followed a motion for summary judgment and a cross motion by the plaintiff, addressed various legal arguments related to the defendants’ alleged deliberate indifference to Figeroa’s well-being and the timeliness of the plaintiff’s notice of claim.

Background Facts

Ivan Figeroa, Jr., was a 17-year-old high school student residing in Westchester County, New York, before his tragic death. His life took a drastic turn when he was arrested by local law enforcement officers following a domestic disturbance incident at his family’s residence. The nature of the disturbance involved a heated argument between Figeroa and his parents, resulting in Figeroa’s parents contacting the authorities out of concern for their son’s well-being.

A writ of habeas corpus is a legal petition filed by a person who is detained or imprisoned, challenging the legality of their detention. The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to bring the detained individual before a court or judge to determine whether their imprisonment or detention is lawful.

People v. Keyser, 184 A.D.3d 189 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020) involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court which granted petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Jalil Muntaqim, a 68-year-old black inmate serving concurrent prison sentences at Sullivan Correctional Facility. The petitioner argued that Muntaqim’s continued detention at the facility during the COVID-19 pandemic amounted to unconstitutional punishment due to his age, race, and underlying medical conditions, putting him at significant risk of serious illness or death if infected with the virus.

Background Facts

Despite widespread misconceptions, prisoners do have rights protected under the Constitution, particularly under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. This includes the right to be free from conditions that pose a substantial risk of harm, access to necessary medical care, and protection from violence by other inmates or prison staff. Additionally, the Fourteenth Amendment ensures due process of law for prisoners, guaranteeing fair treatment in disciplinary proceedings and access to legal remedies.

However, some individuals may overlook or dismiss prisoners’ rights due to societal stigmas or misconceptions about the criminal justice system. They may view incarceration as a form of punishment that justifies depriving inmates of their rights. Yet, recognizing prisoners’ rights is crucial not only for upholding constitutional principles but also for promoting rehabilitation, maintaining order within prisons, and ensuring accountability for prison authorities.

Background facts

Inmates are protected from the use of excessive force by various laws and regulations at both the federal and state levels. One significant federal statute is the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, including the use of excessive force by correctional officers. This amendment serves as a fundamental safeguard for inmates’ rights and establishes a baseline standard for the treatment of prisoners.

Additionally, many states have enacted laws and regulations specifically addressing the use of force in correctional facilities. For example, in New York, the Correction Law and the New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations (NYCRR) provide guidelines for the use of force by correctional officers. These laws outline the circumstances under which force may be justified, such as self-defense or maintaining order, and emphasize the importance of using only the minimum amount of force necessary to achieve a legitimate objective.

Furthermore, court decisions, such as those interpreting the Eighth Amendment, help to clarify the legal standards surrounding the use of force in prisons and ensure that inmates are afforded adequate protection against abuse.  Bookman v. State is one of those cases.

In the case of Albert Rodriguez v. The City of New York et al., the plaintiff alleged that he slipped and fell on a wet floor at the Anna M. Kross Center correctional facility on Rikers Island, where he was incarcerated. He claimed that the dangerous condition was caused by the defendants’ failure to repair leaks in the facility and that they were deliberately indifferent to the conditions that posed a risk to his safety. The complaint also asserted that defendants failed to provide immediate medical attention after the accident, violating Rodriguez’s civil rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Background Facts

Albert Rodriguez was incarcerated on Rikers Island when he slipped and fell on a wet floor. The conditions leading to his fall were allegedly caused by leaks in the facility’s roof, ceiling, and pipes, which had not been repaired by the defendants. Despite being aware of these leaks, Rodriguez claimed that Valerie Oliver, the Warden of the Center, failed to address them adequately. Rodriguez asserted that the defendants’ indifference to these hazardous conditions resulted in his accident.