Prison Abuse

Published on: December 9, 2024

Court allowed § 1983 claims in a prisoner abuse case involving failure to provide adequate medical care. Luckey v. City of N.Y., 991 N.Y.S.2d 34 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

by Stephen Bilkis

Prison abuse can occur when inmates are denied necessary medical treatment, leading to severe consequences for their health. Inmates have a right to adequate medical care, and failure to provide it can result in worsening of existing conditions or the development of new, serious health issues. This neglect may be deemed a violation of constitutional rights, particularly under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

When prison staff fail to provide necessary treatment and act with deliberate indifference, inmates can file a § 1983 claim alleging that their Eighth Amendment rights were violated. This type of claim requires proving that the deprivation of medical care was intentional or recklessly disregarded the inmate’s health needs. Successful § 1983 claims can lead to damages and other remedies, holding correctional facilities and staff accountable for the abuse and ensuring that inmates’ rights are upheld.

In Luckey v. City of N.Y., 991 N.Y.S.2d 34 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014), the court had to determine whether the city, correction officers, and other defendants were liable for alleged medical negligence and constitutional violations that contributed to an inmate’s death.

Published on: October 30, 2024

Supreme Court affirmed the denial of summary judgment dismissal in a jail suicide case. Rappaport v. Corr. Med. Care, 159 N.Y.S.3d 205 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

by Stephen Bilkis

The case of Adam Rappaport highlights the legal responsibilities of law enforcement and medical providers in ensuring the safety of individuals in custody. Rappaport was found hanging in his cell, which led to a lawsuit against several parties, including Correctional Medical Care, Inc. (CMC) and the Town of Guilderland. The plaintiff, individually and as the administrator of Rappaport’s estate, brought forth claims of negligence, wrongful death, and violations of federal law.

Background Facts

Adam Rappaport had a history of heroin use and was in the process of withdrawing when he was arrested on October 15, 2014. The following day, he was transferred from the custody of the Town of Guilderland to Albany County for detention at the Albany County Correctional Facility (ACCF). Upon his transfer to ACCF, Rappaport underwent a screening process conducted by a nurse employed by Correctional Medical Care, Inc. (CMC). During this screening, the nurse noted Rappaport’s history of heroin abuse, anxiety, depression, and bipolar disorder. Rappaport reported that he had injected two bundles of heroin the day before his arrest and informed the nurse that he had never considered or attempted suicide. Despite his medical history and the fact that he was withdrawing from heroin, Rappaport was placed in the general population rather than being referred to the mental health unit.

Published on: October 28, 2024

Aughtry v. State, # 2019-029-033 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. May 22, 2019)

by Stephen Bilkis

It’s no secret that most prisons in New York are dangerous and there is violence, particularly in the maximum security correctional facilities such as Sing Sing. Prisoners attack each other, leaving serious injuries. While corrections officers are charged with ensuring the safety of inmates, the facility is not always liable when an inmate is seriously injured by another inmate. On the other hand, there are instances in which an the facility can be held liable and required to pay compensation to the injured inmate or their family.

In the case of Aughtry v. State, # 2019-029-033 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. May 22, 2019), the legal proceedings focused on the state’s failure to provide adequate security at Sing Sing Correctional Facility, which led to an inmate’s severe injuries.

Background Facts

Published on: September 18, 2024

Court refused to hear inmates claims related to violation of freedom of religion. Word v. Croce, 00 Civ. 6496 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 6, 2001)

by Stephen Bilkis

Inmates in New York have rights to practice their religion, protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. These rights include the freedom to believe in and worship any religion of their choice. The New York Department of Corrections is required to accommodate inmates’ religious practices to the extent that it doesn’t interfere with prison security or discipline. This means providing reasonable opportunities for religious services, access to religious materials, and dietary accommodations for religious beliefs.

However, these rights are not absolute. Prison officials can impose restrictions on religious practices if they have a legitimate penological interest, such as maintaining order or security within the facility. Inmates may also face limitations if their religious practices pose a threat to themselves or others, or if accommodating their practices would place an undue burden on the prison system.

Inmates who believe their religious rights have been violated can seek recourse through the legal system. They may file grievances within the prison system or pursue legal action in state or federal court. Courts will consider the inmate’s claims and weigh them against the prison’s interests in maintaining security and order.

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