27. Liability.

U.S. District Court FCA--False Claims Act

Alexander v. Gilmore, 202 F.Supp.2d 478 (E.D.Va. 2002). Two prisoners, one a current prisoner and one a former prisoner, sued a prison and officials. The district court found that a prisoner's placement in segregated housing following an institutional conviction for being under the influence of drugs, even though a confirmatory urine test was not conducted, was not sufficiently severe to support an Eighth Amendment claim. The court also held that the prisoners did not state a claim under the False Claims Act (FCA) by alleging that the prison had obtained federal funding for drug testing by falsely certifying that the requirements for testing and disposal of samples were being followed. According to the court, the prison, and employees who were acting in their official capacities, were exempt from the FCA and there was no showing that the employees were acting in their individual capacities. (Virginia Department of Corrections)

U.S. District Court PLRA-Prison Litigation Reform Act DAMAGES

Caldwell v. District of Columbia, 201 F.Supp.2d 27 (D.D.C. 2001). An inmate filed a [section] 1983 action against the District of Columbia and several employees of its corrections department, alleging unconstitutional conditions of confinement and denial of medical care. A jury entered a verdict in favor of the inmate, on all claims, and awarded $174,178. The appeals court granted judgment for the defendants as a matter of law, in part, denied judgment for the defendants in part, and did not reduce the damage award. The Court found that statements by the inmate's attorney during his closing argument, suggesting specific dollar amounts to be considered by the jury, did not warrant a new trial. The appeals court held that the Prison Litigation Reform At (PLRA) does not require a prisoner to allege or prove serious, permanent physical injury in order to bring an action for violation of his constitutional rights. The appeals court held that the prisoner sufficiently alleged a "physical injury" for the purposes of PLRA, with allegations that excessive heat in his cell made him dizzy, dehydrated, and disoriented, gave him a severe rash, and that smoke from rolled toilet paper "wicks" and frequent use of mace gave him bronchial irritation and a runny nose. The inmate also alleged that the small bunk aggravated his arthritis. (Maximum Security Facility, Lorton Correctional Complex, District of Columbia)

U.S. Appeals Court...

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