James Edward Nettles v. Alfred T. Rundle, Warden and Arthur T. Prasse, Commissioner of Prisons

Third Circuit

James Edward Nettles v. Alfred T. Rundle, Warden and Arthur T. Prasse, Commissioner of Prisons

453 F.2d 889

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedDecember 8, 1971

Docket18450

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 453 F.2d 889 (James Edward Nettles v. Alfred T. Rundle, Warden and Arthur T. Prasse, Commissioner of Prisons) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James Edward Nettles v. Alfred T. Rundle, Warden and Arthur T. Prasse, Commissioner of Prisons, 453 F.2d 889 (3d Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

This action for damages under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, has been brought by a state prisoner against prison authorities. It charges the defendants with negligence in connection with medical treatment requested and needed by the prisoner. The complaint also contains an allegation that medical attention was withheld because the plaintiff refused to sign a document waiving any claim for injury that might result from treatment. But this allegation is followed by a statement that, shortly after the plaintiff’s refusal to sign a release, the prison authorities did provide him with medical attention. Thus, accepting the petitioner’s allegations as true, we can find no more in the complaint than a charge of ordinary negligence in the course of the handling, diagnosis or treatment of the prisoner’s medical complaint.

While such negligence is a tort, cognizable under state law, it does not amount to such a denial of a constitutional or federally protected right as can be redressed under the Civil Rights Act.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

This action for damages under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, has been brought by a state prisoner against prison authorities. It charges the defendants with negligence in connection with medical treatment requested and needed by the prisoner. The complaint also contains an allegation that medical attention was withheld because the plaintiff refused to sign a document waiving any claim for injury that might result from treatment. But this allegation is followed by a statement that, shortly after the plaintiff’s refusal to sign a release, the prison authorities did provide him with medical attention. Thus, accepting the petitioner’s allegations as true, we can find no more in the complaint than a charge of ordinary negligence in the course of the handling, diagnosis or treatment of the prisoner’s medical complaint.

While such negligence is a tort, cognizable under state law, it does not amount to such a denial of a constitutional or federally protected right as can be redressed under the Civil Rights Act.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

453 F.2d 889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-edward-nettles-v-alfred-t-rundle-warden-and-arthur-t-prasse-ca3-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack