A grand slam for inmate who claims a variety of constitutional violations in jail

The jails have to provide inmates good medical treatment. I know there are many taxpayers who do not want to pay for this, but the law holds that when the government has you in custody, it has to tend to your medical needs. This is why some inmates sue over the denial of medical treatment. These cases often do not fare well in federal court, but the inmates sometimes win their appeals. Like this one.

The case is McFadden v. Noeth, a summary order issued on September 11. A law student was able to successfully argue this appeal, by the way, pursuant to the Second Circuit's pro bono program. Plaintiff is incarcerated at Attica, where an uprising in 1971 led to some prison reforms that remain with us. But the right to proper medical treatment pre-dates Attica, though the Supreme Court clarified the rules in Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994), which requires the inmates to prove the jail was deliberately indifferent to their serious medical needs. This means the inmates have to show the defendants had a bad mental state in denying them medical treatment.

Plaintiff asserts a plausible case in claiming that the jail did not properly treat his Hepatitis C, detailing how his liver would deteriorate even further without proper treatment. The Second Circuit (Raggi, Parker and Cabranes) notes that plaintiff's case was bolstered by the fact that the jail began treatment after plaintiff filed his complaint. This "suggests that the condition was objectively serious enough to merit treatment in the first instance."

Plaintiff also pleads that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to these serious medical needs. He asserts that defendants knew about this health risk as early as 2002, received approval for the treatment in 2004, but did not provide it. For now, this pleads a deliberate indifference claim. Whether plaintiff can actually prove his case through discovery is another matter, the Court says, but for now, he can survive the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

The Court also reinstates plaintiff's claim alleging the jail denied him a proper hearing aid under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Eighth Amendment. Prisons are public entities under the ADA, and he pleads that plausible accommodations, like working hearing aids and a "shake-awake" alarm, would have mitigated his impairment. As for the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim, Plaintiff alleges that, without the accommodations, he might miss the morning counts, which could result in punishment. Defendants disregarded his requests for these accommodations, and did not undertake any independent assessment of his health condition in this regard because they rejected his request.

Finally, giving plaintiff a trifecta, the Court of Appeals reinstates plaintiff's "conditions of confinement" claim under the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff alleges that he was denied food, showers, eye glasses, hearing aids and medication, and that he was housed with other inmates who kicked, yelled, threw feces and urine, and left waste in showers and blood on the walls. These inmates were the world's worst roommates. Plaintiff was also also denied hot water and subjected to cold weather. Since plaintiff alleges that jail officials knew about all of these disgusting and unsanitary conditions but did nothing, he's got a "conditions of confinement" claim.

And we've got a fourth successful claim on appeal, which gives plaintiff the grand slam. He alleges the jail interfered with his legal mail on at least 20 occasions. If true, that violates the Constitution under settled case law. Since plaintiff also claims that the mail interference resulted in the dismissal of two of his lawsuits, this claim will proceed to discovery along with the other claims that the Court of Appeals reinstates.