![handle is hein.journals/prnlr2 and id is 1 raw text is: A project co-sponsored by
the Young Lawyers Section
and the Commission on
Correctional Facilities
and Services of the
American Bar Association
Volume 2, Number 1
October-December 1972
Adequate Prison
Medical Care
Ordered
Federal Judge Holds that the Medical, Dental, and
Psychiatric Care in the Alabama Prison System Is Below
Minimum Constitutional Standards; Plaintiffs' Attorney
in Class Action Awarded $12,000 Fee Plus Expenses
Newman v. State of Alabama, 349 F.Supp. 278 (M. D.
Ala. Oct. 4, 1972). Plaintiffs' Counsel: Joseph D. Phelps,
Montgomery, Alabama.
[Here Reported: Full Text of Opinion and Decree by
Johnsbn, J.] Editor's Note: For an analysis of Newman
v. Alabama, see Commentary section of this issue, 2
Prison Law Reporter 3.
Opinion
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 (1968). See Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319. [1 Prison
Law Reporter 48] (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 unconstitution-
al conditions of treatment imposed by prison authorities under
color of state law. See Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660
(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, No. 72-2750 (5th Cir.
August 15, 1972); Campbell v. Beto [460 F.2d 765, 1 Prison
Law Reporter 2261 (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. Florida,
391 F.2d 593 (5th Cir. 1968). See also, Burroughs v. Wain-
wright, No. 29066 [ I Prison Law Reporter 3321 (5th Cir., July
28, 1972); Bowman v. Hale, No. 28868 [1 Prison Law Reporter
3311 (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 discre-
tion in providing medical treatment to inmates. Defendants, in
administering the Medical and Diagnostic Center (M&DC) and
other prison medical 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
(Continued on page 54)
(D 1973 American Bar Associotion. General permission to republish but not for profit, oil or port of this material is granted, provided that reference is made to this
publication, its date of issue, and that reprinting privileges were granted by permission of the Young Lawyers Section of the American Bar Association.
I
October-December 1972
2 Prison L. Rptr. I](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/prnlr2&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most