AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
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.
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).
Back to list of subjects Back
to Legal Publications Menu