ILNews

Judges reverse dismissal of prisoner's suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of a prisoner’s civil rights suit that stemmed from his lack of gloves while working in the cold to remove tree stumps.

Chief Judge Richard Young of the Southern District of Indiana dismissed Anthony Smith’s First and Eighth Amendment claims for failure to state a claim. Smith, an inmate in state prison, alleged that he and others assigned to the stump crew were forced to work in the “freezing cold” with axes, pickaxes, and shovels without receiving any safety instructions or protective gear. He developed blisters from handling the heavy tools without gloves in the cold.

He also filed grievances with prison officials regarding the hazards, and he was transferred to a recreational job. But he alleged that he was eventually retaliated against for complaining by being fired from his new job and having his access to the law library limited.

Chief Judge Young dismissed the Eighth Amendment claim on the ground that Smith’s blisters were nothing more than the “usual discomforts of winter” and ruled that his fear of the dangerous conditions was a claim for emotional or psychological injury, which isn’t actionable without a physical injury. The chief judge didn’t address the First Amendment claim.

“The ‘usual discomforts of winter’ to which the district judge referred do not include handling heavy tools with gloveless hands in subzero weather. Our prison system is not the gulag,” wrote Judge Richard Posner in Anthony L. Smith v. Gilbert Peters, et al. “Smith’s blisters could have been caused by his handling the stump removal tools without gloves, or could even have been precursors to or consequences of frostbite – the record does not say. But the allegations of the complaint are sufficient to preclude dismissal for failure to state a claim.”

Smith’s allegations regarding the hazardous work environment also present a distinct Eight Amendment claim. Previous caselaw has held that prison officials who recklessly expose a prisoner to a substantial risk of serious physical injury violate his or her Eighth Amendment rights, wrote Judge Posner. Therefore, they are subject to the remedies that are not barred by 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e(e), such as injunctive relief or nominal and punitive damages.

In addition, the District Court erred in not addressing the First Amendment complaint, because if the facts alleged are true, Smith was punished for complaining about being mistreated and that punishment is an infringement of the free speech rights of inmates, wrote the judge. The 7th Circuit remanded for further proceedings.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend in December, but U.S. District Judge Robert Miller later reduced that to about $540,000 to put the damages for suffering under the statutory cap of $300,000.

  2. I was trying to remember, how did marriage get gay in Kentucky, did the people vote for it? Ah no, of course not. It was imposed by judicial fiat. The voted-for official actually represents the will of the majority in the face of an unelected federal judiciary. But democracy only is just a slogan for the powerful, they trot it out when they want and call it bigotry etc when they don't.

  3. Ah yes... Echoes of 1963 as a ghostly George Wallace makes his stand at the Schoolhouse door. We now know about the stand of personal belief over service to all constituents at the Carter County Clerk door. The results are the same, bigotry unable to follow the directions of the courts and the courts win. Interesting to watch the personal belief take a back seat rather than resign from a perception of local power to make the statement.

  4. An oath of office, does it override the conscience? That is the defense of overall soldier who violates higher laws, isnt it? "I was just following orders" and "I swore an oath of loyalty to der Fuhrer" etc. So this is an interesting case of swearing a false oath and then knowing that it was wrong and doing the right thing. Maybe they should chop her head off too like the "king's good servant-- but God's first" like St Thomas More. ...... We wont hold our breath waiting for the aclu or other "civil liberterians" to come to her defense since they are all arrayed on the gay side, to a man or should I say to a man and womyn?

  5. Perhaps we should also convene a panel of independent anthropological experts to study the issues surrounding this little-known branch of human sacrifice?

ADVERTISEMENT