A Delaware Superior Court has denied a motion to dismiss a complaint
alleging First Correctional Medical (FCM) was deliberately indifferent to
the serious medical needs of prisoner Gregory D. Smith, causing his death.

The suit alleged FCM's policies, procedures, and customs displayed a
continuous deliberate indifference to prisoners' serious medical needs by;
(1) failure to hire a regional medical director to oversee incarcerated
prisoners; (2) failure to maintain adequate staffing levels of nurses and
physicians at the infirmary; (3) practice of refusing to authorize
necessary outside medical care when it was believed the prisoner would be
released soon; (4) practice of medical care by telephone; (5) practice of
routinely withholding medical treatment for profit; and (6) establishment
of an HMO type organization whereby all outside medical referrals must be
approved by FCM headquarters in Arizona which has resulted in substantial
delay and denial of necessary treatment by individuals who were without
adequate knowledge to make such determinations.

FCM conceded that Smith had serious medical needs of sickle cell disease,
wound treatment and rheumatoid arthritis. The complaint alleged
absolutely zero effort to treat Smith's medical conditions. As such, the
court held a cause of action was stated and denied FCM's motion ...

On February 8, 1996, Geraldine Seale, a Florida state prisoner, complained
to the state Human Relations Commission (Commission) about the medical care
she was receiving. The Commission didn't make a reasonable cause
determination within 180 days as required by Fla. Stat. ch. 760.11(8). On
March 13, 1998 Seale filed suit against the prison health care company,
EMSA Correctional Care, Inc., in state court. The trial court dismissed,
finding that Seale had exceeded the one-year statute of limitations in
filing her lawsuit. Relying on Joshua v. City of Gainesville, 734 So.2d
1065; 735 So.2d 1285 (Fla.2d DCA 1999), which was pending in the state
Supreme Court, the appellate court affirmed. Seale appealed.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Florida first noted that it had reversed
Hoshua in the interim. It then found that the four-year statute of
limitations for statutory causes of action, such as Seales', applied,
citing Fla. Stat. ch. 95.11(3)(f). The lower courts were reversed and the
case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. See: Seale v.
EMSA Correctional Care, Inc., 767 So.2d 1188 (Fla. 2000).

Correctional Medical Care, Inc. (CMC) entered into a contract with MHM
Services, Inc. (MHM) to jointly bid for a health care contract at a prison
in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. MHM later had secret meetings with the city
of Philadelphia and was awarded the contract, cutting CMC out of the deal
entirely. CMC sued MHM, the city, the Philadelphia Prison System (PPS) and
others. The PPS objected contending that, as a municipal agency, it was
immune from suit.

Citing Title 53 P.S. 16257, the court found that "all suits growing out of
City department transactions shall be in the name of the City of
Philadelphia." On that basis the court agreed that PPS was immune from
suit and dismissed the PPS. The suit against all other defendants was
allowed to continue. See: Correctional Medical Care, Inc. v. City of
Philadelphia, Common Pleas Court of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania,
Civil Trial Division No. 3980 (2004)

GA Prisoners Seeking to Appeal the Denial of a Motion to Intervene Must
Apply for Interlocutory Review

Prison Health Services, Inc. (PHS) was awarded a contract to provide health
care to prisoners in the Georgia prison system. Later, the state changed
its mind and gave the contract to another corporation. PHS sued the state
in state court for breach of contract, and Albert Thomas, a Georgia state
prisoner, filed a motion to intervene. The court denied Thomas' motion to
intervene, and without applying for interlocutory review, he appealed.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Georgia found that O.C.G.A. § 5-6-34 (B)
required parties seeking to appeal the denial of a motion to intervene to
first have granted an application for interlocutory review. Since Thomas
hadn't done so, his appeal was dismissed. See: Prison Health Services, Inc.
v. Georgia Dept. of Admin. Services, 265 Ga 810 (GA 1995).

PA Long-Arm Statute Reaches Out-of-State Civil Rights Violations in
TransCor Suit

On May 5, 2000, Jerry Irons, an AIDS patient was arrested in Maryland on an
Ohio warrant. On May 17, TransCor, a company that transports prisoners,
took custody of Irons. It transported him through several states, including
Pennsylvania, ignoring his pleas for AIDS treatment. Medical staff at a
Massachusetts prison suggested that Irons be released to a hospital, which
TransCor guards did on May 23, 2000. The next day Irons' mother drove him
to a Philadelphia hospital, where he received surgery and other treatment
for the damage caused by his lack of treatment while in transit. He sued
numerous defendants in the U.S. Dist. Court for the East. Dist. Of
Pennsylvania, claiming deliberate indifference to his medical needs.

The court considered the motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction filed
by all of the defendants. Several out-of-state counties, municipalities and
prison wardens were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. But the court also
found that the Pennsylvania long-arm statute provided jurisdiction over
several TransCor guards in their individual capacities for their tortuous
conduct while they were in Pennsylvania, even though they lived in Kentucky
and Tennessee. Thus, the case was ...

The Illinois Department of Corrections (DOC) farms out its
prisoner-medical-services to subcontractors such as Wexford Health Sources,
Inc. (Wexford). During an unfair labor practices case before the State
Labor Relations Board (Board), the American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees (Union) sought to represent Wexford employees. The
Board denied that Union's request to represent the Wexford employees, and
the Union appealed. The state appellate court reversed, and the Board
appealed.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Illinois found that 5 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann.
§ 315/1 et seq. would allow the Union to represent the Wexford employees
against the DOC only if the DOC was a joint public employer of those
employees. The Court then held that since Wexford made all of the hiring,
firing and management decisions where its employees were concerned, the DOC
didn't exercise sufficient control over them to be a joint public employer
of them under § 315/1 et seq. Thus, the Court reversed the appellate court
and reinstated the Board's decision. See: American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 216
Ill. 2d. 839 ( Ill. 2005).

TX Private Prison Guard Can't Sue Under § 1983 For Bogus Employment Termination

Harold Cornish was employed as a guard at a Texas private prison owned and
operated by Correctional Services Corp. (CSC). He blew the whistle on other
guards for misconduct, for which he was fired. He sued in federal district
court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming violations of his rights under the
1st and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The district court
dismissed, and Cornish appealed.

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit recognized that a
person must act under color of state law to be sued under § 1983. It then
found, with respect to CSC's hiring and firing practices, that the state
had absolutely no involvement. Thus, Cornish couldn't bring his claim
against CSC under § 1983. See: Cornish v. Correctional Services Corp., 402
F.3d 545 (5th Cir. 2005).

Nebraska Prisoner Not in Private Prison Denied Standing to Challenge State
Private Prison Contracting Act

Steven Jacob, a Nebraska state prisoner, filed a lawsuit in state court
challenging the validity of the State Private Prison Contracting Act (Act).
Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 47-801-57-807. His main concern was that the Act allowed
private prisons to provide a lower standard of medical care than state-run
prisons, and he could be transferred to such a prison. Although he could
show no injury to himself by the Act, Jacob claimed that he had standing to
sue under the public concern exception, or alternatively, under the
taxpayer exception. The trial court dismissed finding that Jacob lacked
standing to sue, and he appealed.

On appeal, the Nebraska Court of Appeals first found that the case wasn't
of sufficient public import for Jacob to have standing under the public
concern exception. The Court next found that the minimal sales tax Jacob
paid on items purchased in prison didn't qualify him under the tax payer
exception. Thus, the trial court was affirmed. See: Jacob v. Nebraska, 12
Neb. App. 696; 685 NW 2d 88 (Nebraska 2004).

Missouri Prisoner's Allegation that Prison Doctor Ignored His Constant
Complaints of Pain May State 8th Amendment Claim


In February of 2002, Robert Taylor, a Missouri state prisoner, injured his
knee. A Correctional Medical Services (CMS) doctor named Steven Crawford
diagnosed the injury as a hairline fracture and prescribed a knee brace and
whirlpool therapy. Taylor and his family complained several times to
Crawford and CMS that Taylor was in pain, to no avail. On March 5th
another doctor determined that Taylor's knee was broken and required major
surgery, and that the delay in getting treatment would result in permanent
pain. Taylor sued Crawford and other prison personnel in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, claiming they were deliberately
indifferent to his medical needs in violation of the 8th Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution. The district court dismissed the case and Taylor appealed.

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit affirmed the
district court insofar as it dismissed the claims against the other prison
personnel. But the court held that Taylor's allegation that Crawford
ignored his ongoing complaints of severe pain might state an 8th Amendment
claim. Thus, the case was remanded to ...

A federal court in New Jersey became the first court to hold that corporations which operate privatized immigration detention facilities may be sued under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA).

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) contracted with Esmor Correctional Services, Inc. (Esmor) -- now Correctional Services Corporation -- to operate an immigration detention center in Elizabeth, New Jersey.

Between August 1994 and July 1995, foreign nationals and refugees seeking political asylum in America were confined in the Elizabeth facility, while awaiting approval of their asylum results.

Living conditions in the facility were deplorable. It was severely overcrowded and filthy. Heating and ventilation were inadequate. Clothing was inadequate and soiled. Detainees were deprived of toilet paper, sanitary napkins and other basic hygiene products like soap, razors, toothpaste and toothbrushes. Food was spoiled and the tap water was dirty. Bright lights remained on 24 hours a day and detainees were maliciously deprived of sleep.

Racial epithets, beatings, sexual abuse, ridicule and humiliation by Esmor guards were commonplace. Detainees were placed in solitary confinement, where conditions were worse, without cause. Strip searches were unjustified and abusive. Medical care, recreation, legal materials and counsel were routinely denied. Religious dietary laws were ignored and ...