Leo Paschal v. United States

302 F.3d 768, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 18637, 2002 WL 31018828
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
DecidedSeptember 11, 2002
Docket02-2005
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 302 F.3d 768 (Leo Paschal v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Leo Paschal v. United States, 302 F.3d 768, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 18637, 2002 WL 31018828 (7th Cir. 2002).

Opinion

POSNER, Circuit Judge.

Leo Paschal, an inmate in a federal prison, has asked us to appoint counsel for him in this appeal. For reasons explained in an unpublished order issued today, we deny the motion and summarily affirm the judgment of the district court. This published opinion is limited to a single issue, one on which there is, surprisingly, no case law.

While a pretrial detainee at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Chicago, a federal jail, Paschal slipped and fell on a wet floor in the prison’s kitchen, where he was working. He sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. On motion by the government, the district *769 court dismissed the suit because the Inmate Compensation Program, 18 U.S.C. § 4126(c), the judge ruled, provided Paschal’s exclusive remedy. That Act provides the exclusive remedy for federal inmates injured while working, United States v. Demko, 385 U.S. 149, 152, 87 S.Ct. 382, 17 L.Ed.2d 258 (1966); Bagola v. Kindt, 39 F.3d 779, 780 (7th Cir.1995), but this is the first reported case in which the inmate was a pretrial detainee rather than a convicted prisoner. A federal inmate is a person in federal custody; the reason for his being an inmate is irrelevant to his status as an inmate. Policies administered by the Bureau of Prisons are generally applicable to pretrial detainees and convicted prisoners alike, see 28 C.F.R. § 500.1(c), and it is relevant to note that in 1994 the Bureau amended its regulation defining “release” (inmates injured during service in a prison industry or workplace may not file claims under the ICP until no more than 45 days remain before their scheduled release from federal custody, 28 C.F.R. § 301.303(a)) to include in the term “final discharge from incarceration of a pretrial inmate.” 28 C.F.R. § 301.102(b)(1). (A “pretrial inmate” is expressly defined to. include “a person awaiting trial, being tried, or awaiting a verdict.” 28 C.F.R. § 551.101(a).) Previously the regulation had defined “release” to exclude “pretrial inmate.” We cannot think of any reason why Congress would have wanted the two classes of prison workers distinguished, and we therefore agree with the district court that the statute applies to pretrial detainees.

AFFIRMED.

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

Related

Cesal v. Federal Prison Industries, Inc.
560 F. App'x 585 (Seventh Circuit, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
302 F.3d 768, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 18637, 2002 WL 31018828, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leo-paschal-v-united-states-ca7-2002.