Inmate Suicide in Prisons: An Analysis of Legal Liability under 42 USC Section 1983

• Published date: 01 December 2002
• Author: Robert D. Hanser
• DOI: 10.1177/0032885502238681
• Date: 01 December 2002
• Subject Matter: Articles

10.1177/0032885502238681THE PRISON JOURNAL / December 2002Hanser / INMATE SUICIDE IN PRISONS

INMATE SUICIDE IN PRISONS:

AN ANALYSIS OF LEGAL LIABILITY

UNDER 42 USC SECTION 1983

ROBERT D. HANSER

Sam Houston State University

Case law pertaining to prison suicide liability in Section 1983 civil lawsuits shows

several trends in future liability considerations.Supreme Court decisions regarding

deliberate indifferencestandards, as set forth in Estelle v.Gamble, are compared with

present deliberate indifferencestandards produced by the Farmer v. Brennan ruling.

Although some researchershave hailed the Farmer decision as a potential benefit to

plaintiffs in prison suicide cases, such claims do not appear to hold merit. The effects

of the Farmer decision on Section 1983 prison suicide litigation have createddifficul-

ties in proving suicide liability as a violation of constitutionally established civil

rights.

Suicide among the inmate prison population occurs at a rate much higher

than that of the civilian population. Studies show that suicide is a leading

cause of death among inmates throughout the United States (Robertson,

1993). Research has provided results that overwhelmingly support the idea

that inmate suicide should be a serious consideration for custodial staff.

Although inmate suicide rates stabilize as the length of time served increases,

these rates have still been found to be more than 50% higher than that of the

general population (Hayes, 1995; Lester, 1987).

Aside from ethical and altruistic concerns, the competence of custodial

staff to detect inmates who are at risk for suicide is important due to the threat

of civil lawsuits. Relatives of inmates who successfully commit suicide fre-

quently bring suit against custodial staff, administrators, doctors, or govern-

ment officials (Lester & Danto, 1992). Institutions must be able to demon-

strate that they followed adequate policies and procedures wisely to defend

themselves against liability (Lester & Danto, 1992).

A custodial agency may not act with deliberate indifference to an inmates’

serious risk of suicide (Estelle v. Gamble, 1976; Partridge v. Two Unknown

Police Officers, 1986). Indeed, “a prison official has a duty to protect an

THE PRISON JOURNAL, Vol. 82 No. 4, December 2002 459-477

DOI: 10.1177/0032885502238681

© 2002 Sage Publications

459

inmate from any harm the prisoner might inflict upon himself when such

harm is reasonably foreseeable” (Collins, 1995, p. 59). Civil rights claims

under 42 USC Section 1983 are often filed by plaintiffs against prison offi-

cials who allegedly shirk their duties in providing this reasonable standard of

care. This article addresses the specific legal relationship between prison sui-

cide and staff liability as set forth under 42 USC Section 1983. In understand-

ing this relationship, it is necessary to follow relevantcase law that has devel-

oped over the years. Trends in future liability considerations for inmates and

prison staff will be identified through an examination of legal developments

in recent prison suicide case law.

PRISON SUICIDE LIABILITY AND

THE ESTELLE V. GAMBLE RULING

Section 1983 civil rights claims allege that a person acting under the color

of law has violated or helped to cause the violation of an inmate’s constitu-

tional rights. In Monroe v.Pape (1961), the Supreme Court made it clear that

Section 1983 of the recodified act would provide plaintiffs with a federal

remedy in the misuse of state power.However, the plaintiffmust demonstrate

that the defendants violated a “clearly established” constitutional right

(Anderson v. Creighton, 1987, p. 640; Gildin, 1989; Harlow v. Fitzgerald,

1982; Siegert v. Gilley,1991; Spivey v. Elliott, 1994). In the landmark case of

Estelle v. Gamble (1976), the Supreme Court announced that deliberate

indifference by prison personnel to a prisoner’s serious illness or injury

would constitute cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth

Amendment. This became important because injuries that were once

grievable only under state tort law could now become a constitutional due

process issue if they indeed violated a clearly established constitutional right

(Robertson, 1993).

Because of the Estelle ruling, Eighth Amendment claims of inadequate

medical care became the most frequent type of allegations filed in civil suits

involving prison suicide. These medical care deficienciesmust involve treat-

ment for serious medical needs. Although the definition of serious medical

needs, as discussed in Estelle, was generally thought to be obvious in suicide

cases, only medical care that is so inadequate as to reach the level of “deliber-

ate indifference” would serve to constitute an Eighth Amendment violation

(Estate of Cills v. Kaftan, 2000; Medina v. City and County of Denver, 1992;

Redman v. County of San Diego, 1991; Robertson, 1993, 1996; Siegert v.

Gilley,1991). The Estelle Court, however, did not define “deliberate indiffer-

460 THE PRISON JOURNAL / December 2002