50. WORK- prisoner.

U.S. District Court

INJURY SAFETY

Littlejohn v. Moody, 381 F.Supp.2d 507 (E.D.Va. 2005). A federal prisoner brought a pro se action against prison officials, seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages. The inmate alleged violation of his constitutional rights when he was shocked by an electrical surge because a buffing machine that he was using did not have a ground-prong in its plug. The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court held that one official did not know of a substantial risk of harm at the time the prisoner was shocked because he had sent the buffer to be repaired when it had shocked prisoners in the past, and he reasonably assumed that the machine was safe when it returned. Although the court found that allegations supported a deliberate indifference claim against a prison safety manager and electrical shop foreman, the court granted them qualified immunity because the right to be protected from a significant risk of injury was not clearly established at the time of the incident. (Federal Bureau of Prisons, Virginia)

U.S. District Court

RIGHT TO WORK

Munir v. Kearney, 377 F.Supp.2d 468 (D.Del. 2005). A state prison inmate brought a [section] 1983 in forma pauperis action against prison officials, alleging among other things that the imposition of discipline for his refusal to complete an essay as part of a substance abuse rehabilitation program violated his free exercise First Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that the inmate's First Amendment free exercise of religion rights were not violated. The inmate...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT