ILNews

Judgment for prison employees affirmed

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of prison employees in an inmate's Eighth Amendment violations suit, finding the inmate's lack of cooperation in providing details of threats against him prohibited the officials from protecting him from an attack by another inmate.

In Curtis L. Dale v. Pamela Poston, et al., No. 06-2847, Curtis Dale appealed summary judgment in favor of the defendants, several prison employees in Terre Haute, arguing they didn't reasonably respond when he requested a transfer out of the Terre Haute maximum security prison to a medium security prison in Illinois.

Dale was in prison on drug convictions and as a part of his plea agreement, he was to provide testimony against people involved in the drug trade. Several inmates began to suspect he was testifying and was a "snitch" because he would leave the prison for periods of time. When he would return from testifying he would be held in a Special Housing Unit (SHU) until prison employees could determine if there were any potential dangers against him because of his testimony.

Dale requested a transfer to the Illinois prison, but was denied because he didn't provide detailed information about who was threatening him or how he was being threatened. When questioned, he was vague and illusive, and refused housing in the SHU, but believed just reporting the threat was enough to have him transferred. Dale was later attacked by a fellow inmate who accused him of being a snitch.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals had to use the facts from the government in this case instead of facts from Dale because the District Court found Dale's "statement of facts" violated the court's local rule. Dale's own attorney admitted that even if the District Court erred in disregarding Dale's statement of facts, any error was harmless, wrote Judge Terence Evans.

Dale's Eighth Amendment violation claims against the prison employees fail the deliberate indifference test. Even though Dale's claim passes the first prong - knowing there is a risk - it failed the second prong - actual knowledge of impending harm. The prison employees questioned Dale about his statements alluding to threats from other inmates, but he refused to offer details and refused to be housed in the SHU, wrote Judge Evans. In fact, the prison employees did almost the exact opposite of deliberate indifference and they couldn't have segregated Dale against his will.

"We will not create this sort of constitutional Catch 22 - where prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment if they don't segregate a prisoner but violate the Due Process Clause if they do," he wrote.

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. Thank you, John Smith, for pointing out a needed correction. The article has been revised.

  2. The "National institute for Justice" is an agency for the Dept of Justice. That is not the law firm you are talking about in this article. The "institute for justice" is a public interest law firm. http://ij.org/ thanks for interesting article however

  3. I would like to try to find a lawyer as soon possible I've had my money stolen off of my bank card driver pressed charges and I try to get the information they need it and a Social Security board is just give me a hold up a run around for no reason and now it think it might be too late cuz its been over a year I believe and I can't get the right information they need because they keep giving me the runaroundwhat should I do about that

  4. It is wonderful that Indiana DOC is making some truly admirable and positive changes. People with serious mental illness, intellectual disability or developmental disability will benefit from these changes. It will be much better if people can get some help and resources that promote their health and growth than if they suffer alone. If people experience positive growth or healing of their health issues, they may be less likely to do the things that caused them to come to prison in the first place. This will be of benefit for everyone. I am also so happy that Indiana DOC added correctional personnel and mental health staffing. These are tough issues to work with. There should be adequate staffing in prisons so correctional officers and other staff are able to do the kind of work they really want to do-helping people grow and change-rather than just trying to manage chaos. Correctional officers and other staff deserve this. It would be great to see increased mental health services and services for people with intellectual or developmental disabilities in the community so that fewer people will have to receive help and support in prisons. Community services would like be less expensive, inherently less demeaning and just a whole lot better for everyone.

  5. Can I get this form on line,if not where can I obtain one. I am eligible.

ADVERTISEMENT