Administration.

• Position: Cases - Illustration

2. Administration U.S. District Court Bozeman v. Orum, 199 F.Supp.2d 1216 (M.D.Ala. 2002). The representative of the estate of a POLICIES/ pretrial detainee brought a [section] 1983 action PROCEDURES against a sheriff and officials at a county detention facility, alleging that the detainee's death was the result constitutional violations. The district court held that detention officers' use of force to restrain the detainee did not violate his Fourteenth Amendment right against the use of excessive force, even though the officers threatened to "kick" the detainee's "ass." The officers apparently punched or slapped the detainee, and the detainee died as the result of the officers' actions, but the court found that some level of force was necessary to restore order where the detainee was apparently undergoing a mental breakdown in his cell. The court held that nurses at the detention facility were not deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of the detainee when they failed to obtain treatment and medication upon learning that the detainee had been evaluated for mental health problems and prescribed medication in the past. The court noted that the nurses had no knowledge during intake beyond a "slight flag" of past evaluations for mental illness and that the detainee had medication to help him "rest." The court also found that the failure of the detention facility to implement a policy requiring staff to follow up on inmates who had acknowledged past mental health problems or evaluations for mental health problems, did not violate the detainee's Fourteenth Amendment right to adequate medical care. (Montgomery County Detention Facility, Alabama) U.S. District Court Citizens Advy. Comm. on Priv. Pris. v. U.S. D.O.J., 197 F.Supp.2d 226 (W.D.Pa. 2001). A CONTRACT SERVICES citizens' committee sued the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Prisons, alleging that the defendants failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when they awarded a contract to build and operate a new prison to a private company. The district court held that the committee had standing to bring the action and that the Bureau was required to prepare a final environmental assessment. According to the court, the Bureau "basically admitting that it had violated NEPA" ordered a halt to work on the facility and re-examined the environmental impact. The court held that the Bureau violated the provisions of NEPA when it initially...