Prison Abuse

Published on: September 11, 2024

Court granted partial summary judgment; failure to intervene in prison assault case remains.. Sabuncu v. State, # 2016-041-037 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Jun. 21, 2016)

by Stephen Bilkis

While it stands to reason that if a corrections officer uses excessive force against a prisoner, that officer and the faclity would be liable for serious injuries suffered by the prisoner. However, it is also the case that under certain circumstances, the facility may be liable where one prisoner assaults and injures another inmate.

Failure to intervene refers to the omission by a person in a position of authority, such as a corrections officer, to take action to prevent harm when they have the opportunity and duty to do so. In the context of prison settings, it involves not stopping an assault or other harmful actions occurring between inmates. This failure can result in serious consequences for those harmed and may lead to legal liability for the responsible parties if it is determined that their inaction contributed to the injuries or harm suffered by the victim.

In Sabuncu v. State, # 2016-041-037 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Jun. 21, 2016), the inmate plaintiff alleges that correction officers failed to intervene when he was being assaulted by another inmate. The plaintiff is seeking to hold the correctional facility liable and has demanded compensation.

Published on: August 7, 2024

Second Circuit determined that inmate’s First Amendment rights and Eighth Amendment rights lacked clarity in their establishment during the relevant time period. Redd v. Wright, 597 F.3d 532 (2d Cir. 2010)

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, inmates have rights to freedom of religion, protected under the First Amendment and RLUIPA. They cannot be subjected to medical procedures conflicting with their religious beliefs, as upheld by courts, ensuring religious accommodation within correctional facilities. In Redd v. Wright, 597 F.3d 532 (2d Cir. 2010) plaintiff Kevin Redd, who was an inmate at Auburn Correctional Facility, argued that their religious freedoms where violated because he refused to to take a test for TB.

Background Facts

The Department of Corrections (DOCS) conducts routine purified protein derivative (PPD) tests on inmates to detect latent tuberculosis (TB) infections. In 1996, DOCS established a policy where inmates who refused the PPD test were counseled and then placed in TB hold, resulting in keeplock status in their cells. These inmates were offered the PPD test daily for one week, weekly for one month, and monthly thereafter. Refusal led to one year in TB hold, during which three chest x-rays were taken. After a year and three negative x-rays, inmates could return to the general population.

Published on: July 31, 2024

Flynn v. City of New York, 94 A.D.3d 537 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, corrections officers have a duty to ensure the safety and well-being of inmates while they are in custody. Under the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, officers must avoid inflicting unnecessary and excessive harm on inmates. They are required to act with a standard of care that a reasonable person in their position would consider appropriate. This means taking reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm, such as monitoring inmate interactions and intervening in conflicts. Additionally, corrections officers must ensure that inmates receive adequate medical and mental health care, providing timely medical attention and addressing any mental health needs. Failure to meet these obligations can lead to claims of negligence and constitutional violations. Proper supervision is also a crucial aspect of the duty of care; officers are responsible for maintaining a secure environment by preventing and addressing situations that could lead to harm. This includes intervening in conflicts and implementing preventive measures to protect inmates from potential violence by other inmates or self-harm.

In Flynn v. City of New York, 94 A.D.3d 537 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012), the plaintiffs question whether Corrections Officer Stephen Barr violated his duty of care and as a result, the inmate suffered a serious injury.

Background Facts

Published on: July 1, 2024

Court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of inmate, allowing him to avoid going on the special hold designed for inmates who forgo the tuberculosis screening. Selah v. Goord, 00-CV-644 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2003)

by Stephen Bilkis

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.

Published on: June 24, 2024

Supreme Court Determined that serious injury is not necessary for prison abuse claim. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992)

by Stephen Bilkis

The case of Hudson v. McMillian addresses the boundaries of what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in the context of excessive force by prison officials. This landmark decision by the Supreme Court clarified whether significant injury is required to establish a violation of the Eighth Amendment when a prisoner alleges excessive physical force.

42 U.S.C. § 1983 is a federal statute that provides a means for individuals to sue for civil rights violations. Enacted as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 it aims to provide a remedy against abuses by state officials. The statute allows any person within the United States to bring a lawsuit against any state or local official who, under the color of law, deprives them of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and federal laws.

Under § 1983, plaintiffs can seek both monetary damages and injunctive relief for violations of constitutional rights, such as the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. It is an important tool for holding public officials, including police officers, prison guards, and other government employees, accountable for misconduct and abuse of power.

Published on: May 20, 2024

U.S. Supreme Court determined when the use of excessive for against an inmate is a violation of rights. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992)

by Stephen Bilkis

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

Published on: May 15, 2024

Tacheau v. Mastrantonio, 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 22391 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012)

by Stephen Bilkis

In the context of prisoner abuse, a violation of the Eighth Amendment occurs when an inmate endures cruel and unusual punishment, such as physical abuse by correctional officers. This includes any excessive force or harsh conditions that are deemed unconstitutional. The Fourteenth Amendment violation involves the denial of due process, particularly when a prisoner is unfairly subjected to disciplinary actions or false accusations without proper procedures or hearings. Both amendments are designed to protect prisoners from inhumane treatment and ensure their rights are upheld within the correctional system.

A violation of the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment that results in serious injury can serve as a basis for a lawsuit against the responsible parties. When inmates suffer significant harm due to cruel and unusual punishment or procedural injustices, they may seek redress through civil litigation. Such lawsuits can hold correctional officers, supervisors, or the institution accountable for failing to protect the inmate’s constitutional rights and for the resulting damages.

In Tacheau v. Mastrantonio, 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 22391 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012), a case involving allegations of prisoner abuse and wrongful death, the court addressed several claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows individuals to sue for constitutional violations by state actors.

Published on: April 3, 2024

Was DOCS’s denial of an inmates requested medical treatment was arbitrary and capricious? Wooley v. Corr. Servs, 15 N.Y.3d 275 (N.Y. 2010)

by Stephen Bilkis

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

Published on: February 21, 2024

Court determined that jail officials were not responsible for inmate’s death. Rivera v. Westchester County, 188 Misc. 2d 746 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2001)

by Stephen Bilkis

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.

Published on: January 10, 2024

Court denied habeas corpus based on risk of contracting COVID. People v. Keyser, 184 A.D.3d 189 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

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