AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for
Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
AIDS Related
Monthly
Law Journal Article: Prisoners with HIV/AIDS. Part
1, 2014 (2) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Prisoners with HIV/AIDS. Part
2, 2014 (3) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
AIDS and HIV
In a case where a man died in jail after having previously being bitten by a police dog, his family was entitled to sue the jail staff for the death, according to a federal trial court’s ruling. The decedent had been hiding in a lake after committing an armed robbery at a convenience store. Police sent in a dog, and during the struggle, the man was bitten on his hands and legs. He was first admitted to a public hospital, and later taken to the county jail’s infirmary. During his time in jail, his health deteriorated, and he died four days after his arrest. According to an autopsy, the bite on one of his legs led to an E.coli infection, which led to a fatal blood infection. Officially, he died of “septic shock with HIV as a likely contributing factor.” His parents filed a lawsuit against the jail’s medical director, four nurses, and the county alleging that their son’s worsening medical condition was ignored as a result of the “culture of neglect” at the facility. The plaintiffs later removed three of the nurses and the county from the lawsuit. The trial judge stated that the medical director examined the detainee, “an HIV-positive patient with a severe dog-bite wound and deliberately declined to play an active role in his subsequent treatment.” This, if true, was the "very essence of deliberate indifference," which is why he allowed the case to proceed. An appeal is pending. Bryant v. Orange County, Fla., #6:17-cv-142, 2019 U.S. Dist. Lexis 69121, 2019 WL 1787490 (M.D. Fla.).
A D.C. prisoner was incarcerated for
over two decades in both federal and state prisons on a conviction for raping
and robbing a woman in 1981 when he was 18. After his parole, he was required
to register as a sex offender, limiting his employment, housing, and other
opportunities. During his incarceration, he suffered multiple instances of
several sexual and physical assaults, and contracted HIV. In 2012, at the age
of 50, he was exonerated and determined to be actually innocent of the robbery
and rape, based on DNA evidence. He reached a settlement of claims against the
federal government under the Unjust Convictions Act, 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1495 and
2513, and the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2671 et seq. of
$1,128,082.19, based on $50,000 times the 22.56 years he was incarcerated.
Continuing to pursue his claims against the District of Columbia under the D.C.
Unjust Imprisonment Act, D.C. Code Sec. 2-421 et. seq., he was awarded
$9,154,500 in damages for wrongful conviction, unjust imprisonment, sexual and
physical assaults, contracting HIV, lost income, and physical and psychological
injuries. A D.C. court found that his wrongful conviction and unjust
imprisonment had been a proximate cause of all these damages. It also rejected
an argument that D.C. was entitled to an offset from the award for the amount
of the plaintiff's settlement with the federal government. Odom v. District of
Columbia, #2013-CA-3239, 2015 D.C. Super. Lexis 2.
Massachusetts state prisoner
suffering from HIV challenged a change in medication practices. While
previously, they had been provided with a monthly or bimonthly supply of their
prescribed HIV medications, the state Department of Corrections decided to only
dispense such medication in single doses. The prisoners claimed that this
violated their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as constituting
disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Upholding summary judgment for the Department, the federal appeals court ruled
that the change did not violate these constitutional or statutory rights. Nunes
v. Mass. Depart. of Corrections, #13-2346, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 17647 (1st
Cir.).
A settlement of a lawsuit ending the segregation
of HIV-positive prisoners in Alabama correctional facilities has been approved
by a federal trial court. Female prisoners who are HIV-positive are now
integrated into the general prison population and the same will be true of male
positive prisoners in 2014. $1.3 million in legal fees and costs was also
awarded to be paid by the state. The prior segregation policy was found to
violate federal disability discrimination statutes. The ruling leaves South
Carolina as the only state still segregating HIV positive prisoners. Henderson
v. Thomas, #2:11cv224, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 140098 (M.D. Ala.).
An HIV-positive prisoner who allegedly did not receive
his medication during a 167-day period of incarceration at a county jail stated
a viable claim for liability against a jail employee who allegedly stated that
"we don't give away" HIV medications "here at this jail."
There was also a genuine issue of fact as to whether a physician's assistant
acted with deliberate indifference to the prisoner's medical needs. Leavitt v.
Correctional Medical Services, Inc., #10-1432, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 13269 (1st
Cir.).
An HIV-positive Hepatitis-B infected inmate's
claim that the disclosure of his medical records to another prisoner violated
his Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy was improperly dismissed as
frivolous. The facts alleged were sufficient, if true, to prove that the
defendants committed an intentional violation of his constitutional rights or
fostered "an atmosphere of disclosure with deliberate indifference."
Alfred v. Corr. Corp. of Am., #09-30614,2011 U.S. App. Lexis 11658 (Unpub. 5th
Cir.).
An HIV-positive inmate claimed that prison
personnel violated his Eighth Amendment rights by denying him medical treatment
for a blood condition called pancytopenia. The court found that any delay was
in obtaining a diagnostic test, and that the prisoner failed to show that he
was actually denied treatment, or even that there was an existing treatment
available for pancytopenia. The prisoner did not claim that his HIV went
untreated. Summary judgment was properly granted to a prison physician and to
the manager of the prison's health service unit. Simpson v. Suliene, #09-1047,
2009 U.S. App. Lexis 16636 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
A prisoner failed to
show that he had been subjected to disability discrimination and violations of
his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights because he has AIDS. While
he claimed that his family was denied a contact visit because of his medical
condition, that "disparaging" remarks were made about his condition,
and that he was otherwise subjected to prejudice, discrimination, and
retaliation, he failed to allege sufficient specifics, as opposed to "theories
and conclusions" to enable a court to find actionable discrimination.
Lopez v. Beard, #08-3699, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 13403 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
After a prisoner died of cryptococcal meningitis,
an autopsy showed that he suffered from an undiagnosed case of HIV/AIDS that
rendered him susceptible to the disease that killed him. Summary judgment was
upheld for defendant state correctional officials who were not shown to have
had any reason to know or believe that the prison medical staff was not
adequately treating the prisoner. Discovery in the case was properly limited to
non-privileged documents concerning the allocation of resources, medical costs,
and documents mentioning the deceased prisoner. The plaintiff's request for
26,000 documents that the Delaware Department of Corrections had furnished to
the U.S. Department of Justice during a federal investigation of state prison
conditions was overbroad. Estate of Chance v. First Correctional Medical, Inc.,
#08-4220, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 13417 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
Prisoner with AIDS adequately alleged that
the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by
delaying him from seeing a doctor for months, not permitting him to take his
AIDS medications because of his housing assignment, and failing to provide him
with medical attention on an occasion that he passed blood, as well as denying
him adequate food, which affected his health. The prisoner failed, however, to
establish a viable claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, since the
mere fact that he had AIDS was inadequate standing alone, to show that he had a
disability. Carter v. Taylor, Civ. No. 06-561, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 25158 (D.
Del.).
Court rejects HIV-positive detainee's claims that
his conditions of confinement violated his rights and that the denial of his
requests to be transferred from an old to a new building in the facility
constituted deliberate indifference to those conditions. While the detainee
claimed that his cell in an older building was hot, had a foul odor, and had
bugs and paint chips, a number of reasons were set forth for the denial of the
transfer request, including his failure to participate in sex-offender
treatment, his HIV-positive status, and his past sexual interactions with other
prisoners. The court ruled that the transfer requests were properly denied, and
also that the conditions of the detainee's confinement could not reasonably be
found to be serious enough to establish an Eighth Amendment violation. Sain v.
Wood, No. 06-3919, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 330 (7th Cir.).
Because the plaintiff prisoner had already
disclosed his consensual sexual relationship with another inmate, from whom he
allegedly contracted an HIV infection, he could not show that prisoner
personnel violated his right to privacy by disclosing that relationship to
others. Further, mental health professionals in a sexual offender program did
not violate his rights or any promise of confidentiality when they disclosed
his relationship to others who had a need to know. He claimed that the other
prisoner did not disclose that he was HIV positive. The prisoner also had no
claim against correctional officials for having contracted HIV since he
consented to the conduct that resulted in it, and concealed it from prison
officials. Boling v. Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction, No. 2005-09901,
2007 Ohio Misc. Lexis 81 and 82 (Ohio Ct. of Claims).
Mother of Louisiana inmate who died from
complications of HIV failed to show that prison medical personnel acted with
deliberate indifference to a known excessive risk that he would die from such
complications. Defendants were therefore entitled to summary judgment in
federal civil rights lawsuit. Lee v. Stalder, No. 06-30444, 2007 U.S. App.
Lexis 5732 (5th Cir.).
Federal appeals court upholds rejection of
prisoner's claim that prison violated his rights by denying his demands that he
obtain more extensive HIV testing, including testing of his urine and semen.
Blood testing for HIV was the recognized standard, and the failure to test his
urine and semen, if it occurred, did not constitute deliberate indifference to
the prisoner's serious medical needs. Picquin-George v. Warden, FCI-Schuylkill,
No.. 06-2850, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 25557 (3rd Cir.). [N/R]
HIV positive prisoner could not pursue claim for
damages for alleged violation of Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552a, based on
alleged disclosure of his medical records by dental hygienist to another
inmate, in the absence of a showing that his alleged mistreatment by other
prisoners and prison staff members was caused by the disclosure. In this case,
there was evidence that other prisoners knew about his HIV status already and
that his HIV-positive status could have been discovered by anyone observing the
medications he took, which he did not attempt to conceal. Clark v. Bureau of
Prisons, No. Civ.A. 03-0859, 407 F. Supp. 2d 127 (D.D.C. 2005). [N/R]
New York prisoner could proceed with his claim
that he suffered mental, physical, and emotional harm because a hospital
employee informed a correctional officer of his HIV positive status. Hospital
employee had an obligation under state law to inform officer that unauthorized
further disclosure was prohibited, andthere was a factual issue as to whether
it was foreseeable that the officer would subsequently disclose the prisoner's
HIV status to other non-medical personnel at the correctional facility.
Melendez v. Strong Memorial Hospital, 804 N.Y.S.2d 626 (Sup. 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner who failed to allege any actual injury
or pervasive risk of injury was not entitled to an injunction against a prison
policy allowing inmates infected with HIV, Hepatitis B or Hepatitis C to work
in the prison food services. The inmate had sought to change the policy or to
require mental screening of infected inmates to prevent acts of
"intentional food contamination," as well as seeking damages for the
cost of purchasing food from the prison canteen since he stopped eating food
from the kitchen when the policy was announced. Jacob v. Clarke, No. 04-2559,
129 Fed. Appx. 326 (8th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
A county's policy of segregating inmates with
contagious diseases did not violate a pre-trial detainee's right to freely
exercise his religion by preventing him, because of his HIV status, from
attending religious services. The policy served a legitimate purpose and a
minister would have visited his cell upon his request. Carter v. Lowndes
County, 89 Fed. Appx. 439 (5th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner failed to show that correctional
employees were deliberately indifferent to his serious need for treatment for
his HIV/AIDS condition and Hodgkin's disease as he did not demonstrate that any
alleged lapses in his treatment resulted in any injuries. Jackson v. Fauver,
No. CIV.98-2890 WGB, 334 F. Supp. 2d 697 (D.N.J. 2004). [N/R]
Prison warden and other officials were not
entitled to qualified immunity in lawsuit by three prisoners claiming that they
exhibited deliberate indifference to attacks on them and other actions by
HIV-positive prisoner who threatened to "infect them," urinated on
the floor and placed fecal matter there when assigned to "clean" the
restrooms. Plaintiffs also claimed that they faced unlawful retaliation by some
of the defendants after filing their lawsuit. Nei v. Dooley, #03-3261, 372 F.3d
1003 (8th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Oct]
Mother of prisoner suffering from hepatitis C and
AIDS who died within a day of being transferred from jail medical facility to
hospital failed to show that doctors at hospital acted with deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs. Default judgments entered against
two correctional employees based on claim that prisoner received no follow-up
or special treatment for months after being diagnosed with hepatitis C and as
being HIV positive. Rivera v. Alvarado, 240 F. Supp. 2d 136 (D. Puerto Rico,
2003). [2003 JB Nov]
Deputy's statement to prisoner, in front of other
inmates, revealing his HIV status did not violate his constitutional rights.
Federal trial court holds that there is no general fundamental constitutional
right to privacy for personal medical information and that any judgment about
whether such information should be protected must be left to legislative
action. Sherman v. Jones, 258 Fed. Supp. 2d 440 (E.D. Va. 2003). [2003
JB Sep]
Federal appeals court upholds verdict for prison
officials in lawsuit by HIV-positive prisoner who missed his medication for two
periods of time. For Eighth Amendment purposes, the jury was free to consider
the absence of concrete serious injuries resulting from the lack of medication
as a relevant factor in whether a constitutional violation occurred. Smith v.
Carpenter, #01-0294, 316 F.3d 178 (2nd Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Apr]
Mother of prisoner who died of AIDS could not
pursue claim for injunctive relief since the decedent was no longer
incarcerated, and failed to adequately allege that the defendant medical
personnel knowingly acted with deliberate indifference to the medical needs of
the decedent and other prisoners with AIDS. Pubill-Rivera v. Curet, 218 F.
Supp. 2d 89 (D. Puerto Rico). [2003 JB Jan]
Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) could not be sued
under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 for alleged inadequate treatment of HIV-positive
inmate housed in correctional facility under contract with the District of
Columbia since the BOP did not act under "color of state law," and
prisoner's general assertion that D.C. employees provided him inadequate
medical care "pursuant to the policy, custom, and practice of the District
of Columbia Department of Corrections" was insufficient to show a D.C.
policy without any factual support. Private corporation that contracted with
the District to operate correctional facility could only be liable for a
violation of the Eighth Amendment on the basis of a showing of an official
policy or custom of either the corporation or the District. Gabriel v.
Corrections Corporation of America, 211 F. Supp. 2d 132 (D.D.C. 2002). [N/R]
Alleged failure of county correctional center nurse to
dispense prisoner's medication for his HIV condition in a timely manner was not
sufficiently serious to constitute deliberate indifference to serious medical
needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment even if it did cause aches, pains
and joint problems. Resulting symptoms were not a condition of "urgency"
or one which might produce "death, degeneration or extreme pain."
Evans v. Bonner, 196 F. Supp. 2d 252 (E.D.N.Y. 2002). [2002 JB Aug]
299:163 Federal appeals court rules that
HIV- positive prisoner had a federal constitutional right to privacy for his
medical records and condition, but that prison officials were entitled to
qualified immunity for conduct that allegedly disclosed his conditions to
others in 1995, since this right was not then clearly established. Doe v.
Delie, #99-3019, 257 F.3d 309 (3d Cir. 2001).
292:51 Federal appeals court orders substitution
of ACLU National Prison Project attorneys for appointed lawyer for class of
HIV-positive inmates in Mississippi jails; order that previously provided that
ACLU attorneys could not contact class members violated constitutional
restrictions on free speech, association, and right to counsel. Gates v. Cook,
#99-60609, 234 F.3d 221 (5th Cir. 2000).
291:35 Prisoner with AIDS could not recover
damages for allegedly inadequate medical treatment when he refused to take an
HIV test to show that he needed requested drugs. Walker v. Peters, #97-1058,
233 F.3d 494 (7th Cir. 2000).
289:3 Claim that prison doctor changed the
medication of a prisoner suffering from AIDS solely on the basis of cost, causing
serious side effects and shortened life expectancy, was sufficient to state a
claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Taylor v. Barnett,
105 F. Supp. 2d 483 (E.D.Va. 2000).
286:147 Alleged delay in providing
Spanish-speaking prisoner with AIDS medication was not a violation of the
Eighth Amendment when there was no claim that the failure to adequately advise
him of prison medical policies was deliberate; prisoner had no clearly
established right to Spanish-speaking medical personnel, so prison officials
were not liable for an "invasion of privacy" allegedly resulting from
inmate's need to use other prisoners as interpreters. Leon v. Johnson, 96 F.
Supp. 2d 244 (W.D.N.Y. 2000).
286:147 County sheriff was not entitled to qualified
immunity from lawsuit by 52-year-old prisoner with AIDS challenging an alleged
policy of shackling all hospitalized inmates hand and foot 24 hours a day
despite also having an armed guard stationed at their hospital room; lawsuit
stated claims for denial of access to the courts, denial
of equal protection, and excessive bodily
restraint of a pretrial detainee. May v. Sheahan, #99-3140, 226 F.3d 876 (7th
Cir. 2000).
279:36 Federal appeals court upholds the
segregation of HIV-positive prisoners; U.S. Supreme Court denies review.
Onishea v. Hopper, #96-6213, 171 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, sub
nom. Davis v. Hopper, #98-9663, 120 S. ct. 931 (2000).
278:20 Barring a prisoner from prison's cooking
classes because he would not submit to HIV testing did not constitute
disability discrimination. Murdock v. Washington, #98-2419, 193 F.3d 510 (7th
Cir. 1999).
279:37 UPDATE: HIV-positive prisoner who was
denied his prescribed medication for three days was entitled to summary judgment;
evidence was sufficient to show that he suffered physical harm from the
medication denial. McNally v. Prison Health Services, 52 F. Supp. 2d 147 (D.
Me. 1999).
280:53 Prisoner who was assaulted three times by
other inmates after assignment to a medium security housing unit when he stated
that he was a bisexual failed to show that county jail had a policy or custom
of assigning homosexual, bisexual or HIV-positive prisoners to medium-security
unit regardless of their violent propensities. Wayne v. Jarvis, No. 97-9152,
197 F.3d 1098 (11th Cir. 1999).
272:116 Federal appeals court reinstates HIV-
positive prisoner's lawsuit complaining of nine months of denial of outdoor
exercise and prison's requirement that he wear a face mask whenever leaving his
cell; such restrictions might constitute due process or Eighth Amendment
violations; failure to provide him with particular medication he wanted,
however, did not show deliberate indifference when he was receiving other
treatment. Perkins v. Kansas Dept. of Corrections, #98-3005, 165 F.3d 803 (10th
Cir. 1999).
267:40 Parole officers entitled to qualified
immunity for failing to disclose to parolee's girlfriend that parolee was
HIV-positive; no liability for girlfriend's death after she allegedly contracted
AIDS from the parolee, who was released into her home; Iowa's indemnification
of officers was no basis for denial of qualified immunity. Greer v. Shoop,
#97-1565, 141 F.3d 824 (8th Cir. 1998).
268:51 Medical personnel did not engage in
deliberate indifference to medical needs of HIV positive prisoner when they
refused to provide him with a specific name-brand dietary supplement he
preferred to the daily dietary supplement snack he was given. Polanco v.
Dworzack, 25 F.Supp.2d 148 (W.D.N.Y. 1998).
270:83 Officers were entitled to qualified
immunity for placing a sign reading "HIV POSITIVE INMATE" on cell
door of pre-trial detainee; federal court rules, however, that lawsuit stated
claim against city for failure to train, supervise or enforce lawful policies
concerning the disclosure of the HIV status of prisoners. Roe v. City of
Milwaukee, 26 F.Supp.2d 1119 (E.D. Wis. 1998).
» Editor's Note: A prior Wisconsin
decision, Hillman v. Columbia Co., 164 Wis. 2d 376, 474 N.W.2d 913 (Wis. App.
1991) held that liability may arise under a state privacy statute for a jail
employee's verbal disclosure of an inmate's HIV status to other inmates and
jail personnel. In Anderson v. Romero, 72 F.3d 518 (7th Cir. 1995), the court
ruled that, under the law as it existed in 1995, it was not "clearly
established" that prison officials were constitutionally prohibited from
revealing the HIV- positive condition of inmates to other prisoners and to
guards in order to enable those other inmates and those guards to protect
themselves from infection.
271:103 Prisoner who claimed that he suffered
only emotional injury (and no physical injury) when correctional officer
allegedly told others that he was "dying of HIV" could not pursue
federal civil rights claim; section of Prison Litigation Reform Act barring
such suits did not violate equal protection or his right of access to the
courts. Davis v. District of Columbia, No. 97-7043, 158 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir.
1998).
272:115 Alleged failure to give HIV-positive detainee
his prescribed medication stated a claim for deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need. McNally v. Prison Health Services, Inc., 28 F.Supp.2d 671
(D. Me. 1998).
263:164 Asymptomatic HIV infection qualifies as a
disability for purposes of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). Bragdon
v. Abbott, #97-156, 118 S.Ct. 2196 (1998).
255:35 Trial court erred in making blanket
decision that HIV positive inmates were "otherwise not qualified" to
participate in all of Alabama corrections educational, vocational,
rehabilitative, religious and recreational programs from which they were
excluded; prisoners need not show that there is no risk of transmission of HIV
from their participation in programs, but merely that "significant risk"
may be avoided; burden on correctional department to show that adding
additional officers to supervise programs with HIV positive inmates integrated
in was an unreasonable accommodation. Onishea v. Hopper, 126 F.3d 1323 (11th
Cir. 1997).
248:115 Correctional officer was entitled to
qualified immunity for warning other inmates nearby that prisoner was HIV-
positive when prisoner had accident resulting in significant blood spillage in
1992; right to privacy of HIV status was not then "clearly established."
Quinones v. Howard, 948 F.Supp. 251 (W.D.N.Y. 1996).
230:26 Lawsuit against prison officials and
guards by prisoner allegedly raped by HIV positive cellmate should not have
been dismissed as frivolous, despite his failure to specify required mental
state of individuals or name of guard who allegedly stood by and failed to
intervene during rape. Billman v. Indiana Dept. of Corrections, 56 F.3d 785
(7th Cir. 1995).
236:116 Update: Federal appeals court finds no
clearly established law barring prison officials from revealing an inmate's
positive HIV- status to prison employees and other inmates; qualified immunity,
however, did not extend to allegations that prison officials
"punished" HIV- positive prisoner by preventing him from getting a
haircut or exercising in the prison yard. Anderson v. Romero, 72 F.3d 518 (7th
Cir. 1995). [Cross-references: Defenses: Qualified (Good-Faith) Immunity,
Exercise].
238:155 Pretrial detainee who was HIV positive
had no constitutional privacy right against disclosure, particularly
inadvertent disclosure, of such medical information to other prisoners. Adams
v. Drew, 906 F.Supp. 1050 (E.D. Va. 1995).
217:3 Correctional employee bitten by inmate who
was HIV positive was entitled to employer-paid tests and treatment to detect
and prevent the development of tetanus, hepatitis, HIV, AIDS, and AIDS Related
Complex (ARC). Arkansas Dept. of Correction v. Holybee, 878 S.W.2d 420 (Ark.
App. 1994).
221:68 Federal appeals court overturns injunction
compelling prison officials to allow HIV positive inmates to receive food
service work assignments. Gates v. Rowland, 39 F.3d 1439 (9th Cir. 1994).
222:84 Appeals court upholds order that female
inmate who bit Illinois correctional officer should be involuntarily tested for
HIV and the test results disclosed to the officer. Doe v. Burgos, 638 N.E.2d
701 (Ill. App. 1994).
223:99 Prison policy denying "at
request" HIV testing to prisoners who did not meet specified "high
risk" criteria did not violate prisoner's rights; policy was justified by
legitimate interest in efficient use of scarce medical resources. Doe v.
Wigginton, 21 F.3d 733 (6th Cir. 1994).
223:100 Federal civil rights lawsuit brought by
prisoner who subsequently died of AIDS could be continued, under Illinois law,
after his death, even when no executor of his estate had been appointed;
federal appeals court appoints his attorneys as "special
administrators" to continue the suit on behalf of his estate. Anderson v.
Romero, 42 F.3d 1121 (7th Cir. 1994).
224:115 HIV positive prison visitor who bit two
correctional officers was properly convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon
when his statements indicated his awareness of his medical status and his
desire to infect the officers. U.S. v. Sturgis, 48 F.3d 784 (4th Cir. 1995).
Federal appeals court vacates injunction against
denying prison food service jobs to HIV-positive prisoners; trialcourt lacked
jurisdiction to enter injunction since none of the plaintiff prisoners had ever
applied for or been denied food service job. Casey v. Lewis, 4 F.3d 1516 (9th
Cir. 1993).
Prison officials were not liable for assigning
HIV- positive inmate to cell with another prisoner and allowing HIV- positive
inmate to use other prisoner's cup, cigarette roller, and razor blade.
Marcussen v. Brandstat, 836 F.Supp. 624 (N.D. Iowa 1993).
Prison officials were entitled to qualified
immunity on prisoner's suit claiming that his segregation with other HIV-
positive prisoners violated his constitutional right of freedom of association
with prisoners in the general prison population. Camarillo v. McCarthy, 998
F.2d 638 (9th Cir. 1993).
Housing prisoner with a cellmate dying of AIDS
did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth
Amendment. Johnson v. U.S., 816 F.Supp. 1519 (N.D. Ala. 1993).
New York appeals court upholds $5,371,192 award
against State of New York to nurse who contracted AIDS virus from contaminated
needle during scuffle with prisoner, based on prison guards failure to come to
her assistance; court also adds further award of $725,000 t compensate for
future economic loss and the value of her services as a homemaker, for a total
award of $6,096,192. Doe v. State, 595 N.Y.S.2d 592 (A.D. 1993).
HIV-positive inmates' lawsuit over their
conditions in prison was erroneously dismissed as "frivolous," but
the segregation of HIV prisoners, standing alone, did not violate their equal
protection, due process, or privacy rights. Moore v. Mabus, 976 F.2d 268 (5th Cir.
1992).
Federal court overturns $20,000 punitive damage
award against jail superintendent in case where HIV-positive inmate's
possessions were tagged with red stickers and she was segregated and denied
equal access to religious services. Nolley v. Co. of Erie, 798 F.Supp. 123
(W.D.N.Y. 1992).
Trial court properly entered an injunction
requiring that inmates working with AIDS infected wastes at prison hospital be
furnished with warnings and protective clothing, despite jury's verdict that
prison officials were not liable for damages for previously having failed to do
so. Burton v. Armontrout, 975 F.2d 543 (8th Cir. 1992).
Prison's refusal to adopt mandatory AIDS testing
and consideration of inmates' HIV status in making housing and work assignments
did not constitute deliberate indifference to inmate rights, despite evidence
showing that a pervasive risk of harm was present. Myers v. Maryland Division
of Correction, 782 F.Supp. 1095 (D. Md. 1992).
Nurse who contracted AIDS virus from contaminated
needle during scuffle with prisoner with AIDS awarded $5.4 million against
state of New York; suit alleged that prison guards did not come to her
assistance during incident. Doe v. New York Department of Correctional
Services, N.Y. Court of Claims, No. 82265, reported in the New York Times,
National Edition, p. 1 (July 15, 1992).
Disclosure to jail employees and inmates that a
prisoner was HIV positive could have violated his constitutional right to
privacy. Hillman v. Columbia Co., 474 N.W.2d 913 (Wis. App. 1991).
Jail policy of putting a red sticker on an
inmate's possessions, revealing her HIV positive status, violated her privacy
rights under U.S. Constitutional and N.Y. statute; automatic segregation of
HIV-positive prisoner was also unlawful. Nolley v. Co. of Erie, 776 F.Supp. 715
(W.D.N.Y. 1991).
Prison officials did nothing illegal in declining
to tell prisoners the identities of other inmates who tested positive for HIV
virus. Robbins v. Clarke, 946 F.2d 1331 (8th Cir. 1991).
Prison policy prohibiting assignment of
HIV-positive inmates to food service jobs violated Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Casey v. Lewis, 773 F.Supp. 1365 (D. Ariz. 1991).
Mandatory AIDS testing of all Alabama inmates,
and involuntary segregation of all inmates testing positive, did not violate
inmates' rights. Harris v. Thigpen, 941 F.2d 1495 (11th Cir. 1991).
Correctional officer's lawsuit against employer
based on inmate's placing of AIDS contaminated blood serum in the coffee he
drank was barred by workers' compensation statute and sovereign immunity.
Elliott v. Dugger, 579 So.2d 827 (Fla. App. 1991).
Alabama county health department could not be
compelled to release to the sheriff the results of a jail inmate's voluntary
AIDS test. State Dept. of Health v. Wells, 562 So.2d 1315 (Ala. Civ. App.
1989), cert. quashed, Alabama Supreme Court, 1990.
Inmate can sue the State of New York for damages
under state law for unauthorized access to his medical records and unauthorized
disclosure of his affliction with AIDS. V. v. State, 566 N.Y.S.2d 987 (Ct. Cl.
1991).
Failure to segregate prisoners who are HIV
carriers or to test all incoming prisoners for the virus did not violate other
prisoners' rights. Portee v. Tollison, 753 F.Supp. 184 (D.S.C. 1990).
Prison failed to produce evidence that use of
taser to take blood from inmate for AIDS test was reasonably related to a
legitimate penological interest; summary judgment for prison overturned by
federal appeals court. Walker v. Sumner, No. 88-15644, (9th Cir., Oct. 22,
1990) reported in 90 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11927 (Oct. 23, 1990).
Prison did not violate prisoner's equal
protection rights by preventing him from working in food service after he
tested HIV positive. Farmer v. Moritsugu, 742 F.Supp. 525 (W.D. Wis. 1990).
Two courts hold placing inmates in cell with
prisoner with AIDS did not violate constitutional rights. Deutsch v. Federal
Bureau of Prisons, 737 F.Supp. 261 (S.D.N.Y. 1990); Welch v. Sheriff, Lubbock
Co., Tex., 734 F.Supp. 765 (N.D. Tex. 1990).
Prisoner's act of throwing urine and other
unknown liquids at officers, together with statement that he had AIDS and hoped
all officers got it, constituted threat and assault in violation of prison
rules. Finn v. Leonardo, 553 N.Y.S.2d 558 (A.D. 1990).
Prison physician entitled to qualified immunity
for delay in providing AZT drug treatment to prisoner for early symptoms of
AIDS related complex. Wilson v. Franceschi, 730 F.Supp. 420 (M.D. Fla. 1990).
Mandatory AIDS testing of new inmates and
administrative segregation of those testing positive did not violate inmates'
rights allowing inmates with AIDS to be introduced into general population
might violate eighth amendment. Harris v. Thigpen, 727 F.Supp. 1564 (M.D. Ala. 1990).
Prisoner suffering from AIDS was entitled to
release on bond because facility did not provide required medical treatment.
Gomez v. United States, 725 F.Supp. 526 (S.D. Fla. 1989).
Family of inmate who died from AIDS presented
viable civil rights claim against prison medical personnel for alleged failure
to accurately diagnose and refusal to treat. Maynard v. New Jersey, 719 F.Supp.
292 (D.N.J. 1989).
Failure to routinely test all new inmates for
AIDS or segregate those with AIDS did not violate eighth amendment. Feigley v.
Fulcomer, 720 F.Supp. 475 (M.D. Pa. 1989).
Inmates who tested positive for AIDS virus were
not constitutionally entitled to private doctors or experimental drugs. Hawley
v. Evans, 716 F.Supp. 601 (N.D. Ga. 1989).
Nonconsensual AIDS test did not violate
prisoner's fourth or first amendment rights. Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188 (10th
Cir. 1989).
No federal civil rights liability for negligent
failure to protect inmate from attack by another inmate with AIDS. Cameron v.
Metcuz, 705 F.Supp. 454 (N.D. Ind. 1989).
Prison officials' decision not to institute
wholesale AIDS test and segregation program in response to unsubstantiated
inmate fears of contagion upheld by court. Glick v. Henderson, 855 F.2d 536 (8th
Cir. 1988).
No municipal liability for placement of arrestee
in "AIDS cell" because it was not widespread custom. Moenius v.
Stevens, 688 F.Supp. 1054 (D. Maryland, 1988).
Tennessee sheriff can carry out involuntary AIDS
testing on arrestee who said he had AIDS, despite religious objection. Haywood
Co. v. Hudson, 740 S.W.2d 718 (Tenn. 1987).
No rational basis to deny application of inmate
with AIDS for participation in temporary release program. Lopez v. Coughlin,
529 N.Y.S.2d 247 (Supp. 1988).
Inmate who tested positive for AIDS virus
convicted of assault with deadly weapon after biting two officers; no showing
that bite could transmit AIDS was necessary. U.S. v. Moore, 846 F.2d 1163 (8th
Cir. 1988).
Prison regulations for identifying, treating and
isolating prisoners carrying AIDS virus did not violate due process. Muhammad
v. Carlson, 845 F.2d 175 (8th Cir. 1988).
Detainee who tested positive for AIDS virus can
sue warden on allegation that he was segregated without notice or hearing. Baez
v. Rapping, 680 F.Supp. 112 (S.D. N.Y. 1988).
Judge could not order inmate's AIDS test results
released to sheriff and alleged sexual assault victims. Shelvin v. Lykos, 741
S.W.2d 178 (Tex. App. 1987).
Prisoner with AIDS not entitled to early release;
no showing that incarceration would hasten his demise. State v. Wright, 534
A.2d 31 (N.J. Super. A.D. 1987).
Washington prisons' policy on AIDS rejects
mandatory testing of inmates demanded by correctional officers; no strike over
issue planned. Govt. Emp. Rel. Rep. (BNA) 236 (Feb. 15, 1988).
Prisoners' lawsuit alleging vast conspiracy of
state, federal and private individuals to spread AIDS to eliminate minorities
dismissed as frivolous. Traufler v. Thompson, 662 F.Supp. 945 (N.D. Ill. 1987).
Alleged misdiagnosis of prisoner as having AIDS
did not show deliberate indifference to serious medical needs; civil rights
suit dismissed. McDuffie v. Rikers Island Medical Department, 668 F.Supp. 328
(S.D. N.Y. 1987).
Inmates' lawsuit asking that all prisoners be
screened for AIDS and all homosexuals be segregated dismissed. Dinger v. City
of New Albany, 662 F.Supp. 929 (S.D. Ind. 1987).
New York high court upholds ban on conjugal
visits for inmate with AIDS, over strong dissent. Doe v. Coughlin, N.Y. Court
of Appeals, Nov. 24, 1987, reported in the New York Times, Nov. 25, 1987, page
11. Inmate was not deprived of a constitutional right when placed in prison
hospital isolation unit while being tested for AIDS. Judd v. Packard, 669
F.Supp. 741 (D. Md. 1987).
Testing one homosexual inmate for AIDS, but not
fellow homosexual inmates, not a denial of equal protection; inmates with the
disease can be prohibited from attending regular religious services. Powell v.
Department of Corrections, State of Okl., 647 F.Supp. 968 (N.D. Okl. 1986).
Federal court refuses to grant Nevada inmate who
is seropositive with AIDS virus (but not ill) the right to participate in work
program. Williams v. Summer, 648 F.Supp. 510 (D. Nev. 1986).
Prison officials can deny a conjugal visit
between inmate with AIDS and his wife; "safe-sex" methods no
guarantee of non- infection. Doe v. Coughlin, 509 N.Y.S.2d 209 (A.D. 1986).