Emerging trends in correctional civil liability cases: a content analysis of federal court decisions of title 42 united states code section 1983: 1970–1994Publications received

Ross, Darrell L.

doi:10.1016/s0047-2352(97)00035-4

Cited by 11 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Clearly, our reliance on prisoner lawsuits in state courts represents one of the most conservative sampling frames from which to assess professional competence or misconduct among correctional physicians. Because research has shown that prisoners are more likely to sue under federal law (Ross, 1997), future researchers should examine lawsuits filed in federal court under Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incompetent Jail and Prison Doctors

Dabney

Vaughn

2000

The Prison Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has questioned the clinical qualifications and professional competence of physicians who work in correctional facilities. This article further explores these issues by analyzing social control mechanisms that are employed against prison and jail physicians who (a) have been sued in state court by prisoners for medical malfeasance and malpractice, and (b) have had disciplinary action taken against their license to practice medicine. Physicians who were subject to suit are categorized by type of suit, medical complaint, plaintiff's injury, and disposition of the litigation. Drawing on previous research, the authors also classified physicians' rationalizations to prisoner litigation within Sykes and Matza's techniques of neutralization framework. Reporting that prison and jail doctors have higher rates of disciplinary action taken on their license than physicians at large, the article uses the principle of less eligibility to question the ethics of restricting problem doctors to work exclusively in correctional facilities.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incompetent Jail and Prison Doctors

Dabney

Vaughn

2000

The Prison Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Claims of excessive staff force have long been a major part of prisoner litigation (Ross, 1997). Ross' ( 2004) study of excessive force claims found that physical force was at issue in 44% of such cases, followed by litigation involving restraints (35%); aerosols (11%); batons, tasers and stun guns (9%); and lethal force (1%).…”

Section: Excessive Forcementioning

confidence: 99%

Correctional Case Law: 2010

Robertson

2011

Criminal Justice Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Kaheny observed in 2010 that ' '[w]ithout doubt, a crucial development in judicial scholarship has been an increasing interest in analyzing the lower federal appellate courts'' (p. 29). There is good reason for this interest. In matters of correctional law, the 13 U.S. Courts of Appeals perform two important functions: the error correction function remedies departure from procedural and substantive rules; and the law-making function draws the parameters of statutory and constitutional rights (Cooper & Berman, 2000).The newfound interest in the U.S. Courts of Appeals stems in part from the U.S. Supreme Court's selective use of certiorari: it issued opinions in 92 cases during the 2009-2010 term, only one of which directly spoke to prisoners' rights, Wilkins v. Gaddy (2010). By contrast, the Court heard some 150 cases annually during the 1980s (Schauer, 2009)-a decade that included landmark prisoners' rights cases such as Rhodes v. Chapman (1981), Whitley v. Albers (1986), and Turner v. Safley (1987). Consequently, in 2010 the U.S. Courts of Appeals functioned as the de facto courts of last resort in prison litigation. An understanding of correctional law requires scrutiny of their decisions.In-keeping with previous installments, this annual survey examines select prisoners' rights cases decided by the U.S. Courts of Appeals during 2010 and recommended for full-text publication in the Federal Reporter, third series. The author chose these cases because they addressed persistent, important, or emerging constitutional issues about confinement in jails and prisons. Because a summary judgment or dismissal in these cases typically led to their appeal, the cases discussed herein reflect the practice of the U.S. Courts of Appeals to review cases de novo and, in so doing, to view all facts and draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. As in past, this installment examines only constitutional issues raised before the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Medical Care AlcoholismThe National Commission on Correctional Health Care (2002) found that the ''vast majority'' of the jail population abuse alcohol or other substances (p. 590). Consequently, many county jails function as de facto detoxification facilities (Freudenberg, 2001), where afflicted inmates do not receive even basic care (Wilper et al., 2009). The failure of jailers to recognize and respond to alcohol withdrawal syndrome can result in death and liability. This scenario occurred in Harper

show abstract

“…Since the demise of the hands-off doctrine, excessive force allegations have been a "mainstay of prisoner litigation" (Robertson, 2006b), composing 20% of the prisoner rights filings in U.S. district courts from 1970 to 1974 (Ross, 1997).…”

Section: Excessive Force Custodial Assault and Sexual Abusementioning

confidence: 99%

“…These accounts buttress Marquart's (1986) observation that use of excessive force is "deeply entrenched in the guard subculture" (p. 347). Since the demise of the hands-off doctrine, excessive force allegations have been a "mainstay of prisoner litigation" (Robertson, 2006b), composing 20% of the prisoner rights filings in U.S. district courts from 1970 to 1974 (Ross, 1997).…”

Section: Excessive Force Custodial Assault and Sexual Abusementioning

confidence: 99%

Recent Legal Developments

Robertson

2007

Criminal Justice Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Perhaps more than other institutions, correctional facilities require vigorous scrutiny: They are uniquely powerful institutions, depriving millions of people each year of liberty and taking responsibility for their security, yet are walled off from the public. They mainly confine the most powerless groups in America-poor people who are disproportionately African-American and Latino. (p. 77) Oversight of prisons is, according to the Commission on Safety, "underdeveloped and uneven" (p. 78). Until this is corrected, prisons will continue to thrive on values repugnant to a humane society.Since the demise of the judiciary's aptly named hands-off doctrine some 40 years ago (Krantz & Branham, 1997), lower federal courts have provided the most oversight of state and federal correctional institutions (Feeley & Hanson, 1990;Feeley & Rubin, 1998;Robertson, 2000). The U.S. courts of appeals, at first blush, are particularly well suited for judicial oversight because they exercise mandatory jurisdiction over appeals from the federal trial courts and the U.S. district courts (Hellman, 1999). Moreover, few cases (1%) progress further because of the U.S. Supreme Court's highly selective use of certiorari (George & Solimine, 2001).Scrutiny of jails and prisons by the 13 courts of appeals has been circumscribed by three developments. Intended to remove frivolous lawsuits from the channels of litigation, the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (Pub. L. No. 104-134) has dramatically reduced the number of prisoner civil rights filings. During 2005, the year of the most recent tally, there were 2,653 private prisoner civil rights appeals

show abstract

Emerging trends in correctional civil liability cases: a content analysis of federal court decisions of title 42 united states code section 1983: 1970–1994Publications received

Cited by 11 publications

References 6 publications

Incompetent Jail and Prison Doctors

Incompetent Jail and Prison Doctors

Correctional Case Law: 2010

Recent Legal Developments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About