Newman v. State of Alabama

349 F. Supp. 278, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11706
CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Alabama
DecidedOctober 4, 1972
DocketCiv. A. 3501-N
StatusPublished
Cited by72 cases

This text of 349 F. Supp. 278 (Newman v. State of Alabama) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Newman v. State of Alabama, 349 F. Supp. 278, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11706 (M.D. Ala. 1972).

Opinion

OPINION

JOHNSON, Chief Judge.

This is a class action brought by prisoners within the Alabama Penal System who represent themselves and others similarly situated. Plaintiffs contend that as prisoners they are deprived of proper and adequate medical treatment in violation of their rights guaranteed under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief. Defendants are the Attorney General of the State of Alabama, the Commissioner, the chairman, and other members of the Alabama Board of Corrections, and the warden, the hospital administrator and the hospital staff of the Medical and Diagnostic Center, Mt. Meigs, Alabama, the general hospital for the Alabama prison system. The case is now submitted upon the pleadings, motions, depositions, testimony taken at trial, and briefs of the parties. Jurisdiction is founded upon 28 U.S.C. § 1343.

As this Court has stated before, it is well established that prisoners do not lose all their constitutional rights. Washington v. Lee, 263 F.Supp. 327, 331 (M.D.Ala.1966), aff’d per curiam, 390 U.S. 333, 88 S.Ct. 994, 19 L. Ed.2d 1212 (1968). See Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 92 S.Ct. 1079, 31 L.Ed.2d 263 (March 20, 1972). Among other safeguards, the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, incorporated into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, protects prisoners from unconstitutional conditions of treatment imposed by prison authorities under color of state law. See Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 82 S.Ct. 1417, 8 L.Ed.2d 758 (1962). The adequacy of medical treatment provided prison inmates is a condition subject to Eighth Amendment scrutiny. See, e. g., Hutchens v. State of Alabama, 466 F.2d 507 (5th Cir. August 15, 1972); Campbell v. Beto, 460 F.2d 765 (5th Cir., April 18, 1972). While federal courts will not hesitate to intervene when action is clearly necessary to protect a prisoner’s constitutional rights, the courts traditionally have been reluctant to interfere in the normal processes of state prison administration. Consistent with this policy, the Fifth Circuit has narrowly limited the scope of review under the Eighth Amendment. Courts should not inquire into the adequacy or sufficiency of medical care of state prison inmates unless there appears to be an abuse of the broad discretion which prison officials possess in this area. See, e. g., Haskew v. Wainwright, 429 F.2d 525 (5th Cir. 1970); Roy v. Wainwright, 418 F.2d 231 (5th Cir. 1969); Granville v. Hunt, 411 F.2d 9 (5th Cir. 1969); Thompson v. Blackwell, 374 F.2d 945 (5th Cir. 1967). The Fifth Circuit has repeatedly stated, however, that there may be cases in which the deprivation of medical care will warrant judicial inquiry and action. See, e. g., Woolsey v. Beto, 450 F.2d 321 (5th Cir. 1971); Sanders v. United States, 438 F.2d 918 (5th Cir. 1971); Schack v. *281 Florida, 391 F.2d 593 (5th Cir. 1968). See also, Burroughs v. Wainwright, 464 F.2d 1027 (5th Cir., July 28, 1972); Bowman v. Hale, 464 F.2d 1032 (5th Cir., July 28, 1972). When practices within a prison system result in the deprivation of basic elements of adequate medical treatment, then such practices violate constitutional guarantees and federal courts must act to provide relief. This is especially true when deprivation immediately threatens life and limb. Campbell v. Beto, supra.

Plaintiffs in this case have shown by substantial evidence that the Alabama prison authorities have clearly abused their discretion in providing medical treatment to inmates. Defendants, in administering the Medical and Diagnostic Center (M&DC) and other prison mu acal facilities, and in otherwise performing the duty of providing for the medical needs of inmates, have fallen far short of supplying the constitutionally required level of adequate medical treatment. The medical facilities of the Alabama prison system are grossly understaffed. In addition, with the exception of the M&DC, which is recently built and generally well equipped, the physical plant and equipment provided for the care of prisoners are totally inadequate. Compounding the lack of staff and facilities, and resulting in part therefrom, is the poor administration of the medical treatment program, including the procurement and distribution of drugs and other medical supplies. Further, the record is filled with examples of correctional staff members intentionally denying inmates the right to be examined and treated by trained medical personnel, and further refusing to provide medicine and other treatment prescribed by a physician. The result is a degree of neglect of basic medical needs of prisoners that could justly be called “barbarous” and “shocking to the conscience.” See, Novak v. Beto, 453 F.2d 661, 671 (5th Cir. 1971).

The almost 4000 prisoners within the Alabama Penal System are housed in five major prisons — Atm ore, Holman (maximum security unit), Draper, Tutwiler (women) and the M&DC — a minimum security facility for the young, an honor farm, a pre-release center, and 13 road camps. M&DC, where the prison general hospital is located, also serves as the receiving center for approximately 175 new inmates each month as well as the permanent assignment for some 175 inmates. The hospital, whose main ward is frequently filled nearly to capacity, contains approximately 80 beds, including a tuberculosis ward and a hepatitis ward. At any given time, some 100 additional inmates will be temporarily assigned to the center from other facilities, awaiting diagnosis or treatment by a physician, or receiving treatment on an outpatient basis.

The medical staff at M&DC, in addition to providing treatment for hospital patients, must attend to the medical needs of the inmates permanently and temporarily assigned to the center. This includes the routine physical examination of all new prisoners. To provide this care, there is no full-time physician presently employed at M&DC. Services are provided by three doctors in private practice who are employed on a salary basis to work at the center for a short time each week.

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

Related

Braggs v. Hamm
M.D. Alabama, 2020
Roy v. Johnson
97 F. Supp. 2d 1102 (S.D. Alabama, 2000)
Madrid v. Gomez
889 F. Supp. 1146 (N.D. California, 1995)
Dean v. Coughlin
107 F.R.D. 331 (S.D. New York, 1985)
Newman v. Graddick
740 F.2d 1513 (Eleventh Circuit, 1984)
Inmates of the Allegheny County Jail v. Wecht
565 F. Supp. 1278 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1983)
Brooks v. Ward
97 F.R.D. 529 (W.D. North Carolina, 1983)
Brown v. Wayne County Sheriff
330 N.W.2d 335 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1982)
Newman v. Alabama
683 F.2d 1312 (Eleventh Circuit, 1982)
McMurry v. Phelps
533 F. Supp. 742 (W.D. Louisiana, 1982)
Hendrix v. Faulkner
525 F. Supp. 435 (N.D. Indiana, 1981)
Stickney v. List
519 F. Supp. 617 (D. Nevada, 1981)
Ruiz v. Estelle
503 F. Supp. 1265 (S.D. Texas, 1980)
Nicholson v. Choctaw County, Ala.
498 F. Supp. 295 (S.D. Alabama, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
349 F. Supp. 278, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newman-v-state-of-alabama-almd-1972.