Latest news with #8thAmendment
The Hill
30-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Supreme Court rejects inmate's plea for damages over excessive force claims
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a Virginia inmate cannot sue prison officials for damages over claims they used excessive force in breach of his 8th Amendment rights. It's the justices' latest rejection of so-called Bivens claims, which let people sue federal officials in their individual capacity for monetary damages over constitutional rights violations. 'For the past 45 years, this Court has consistently declined to extend Bivens to new contexts,' the justices wrote in an unsigned opinion. 'We do the same here.' The justices sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit for further proceedings, turning down a chance to confront the court's 1971 decision in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents. The case established an implied right to seek a remedy for constitutional violations against individual federal officers despite no law authorizing such a suit, and the high court has repeatedly signaled interest in overturning it. The appeal to the justices came from prison officials facing personal liability in a series of violent assaults alleged by a Virginia inmate. The inmate, Andrew Fields, claimed several officers repeatedly 'kicked and punched' him, including with steel-toed boots, and 'rammed' his head with a police shield and into a wall. He said he was then denied access to the prison's administrative remedy program. Fields sued the individual officers in 2022 but a district court dismissed his claims, finding no Bivens remedy for excessive force. However, a split U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed that decision, finding the 'rare' situation — the severe abuse and intentional denial of administrative relief — warranted Bivens relief. The officers asked the court to consider whether Bivens action extends to excessive force claims under the Eighth Amendment but also asked them to 'reconsider the premise' of Bivens altogether. The case could have acted as a vehicle to overturn the precedent. 'The importance of this ruling is indisputable,' the officers wrote in their petition to the court. The court's 1971 decision let a Brooklyn man seek damages against individual federal narcotics agents for violating his Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Over the next decade, the court extended Bivens actions to employment-discrimination claims under the Fifth Amendment and cruel and unusual punishment claims alleging inadequate medical care in prison under the Eighth Amendment. However, since 1983, the court has jettisoned Bivens claims, declining to extend the remedy to other alleged constitutional violations and instead suggesting Congress should make such decisions. Most recently, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a majority opinion that the claims aren't valid 'in all but the most unusual circumstances.' 'The Court's unwillingness to infer new Bivens claims accords with its broader repudiation of the whole project of judicially inferring causes of action that Congress did not create,' the officers' petition reads. The solicitor general's office asked the court to summarily reverse the lower court. In recent months, several prominent Bivens claims have been filed against federal officials. Five Proud Boys leaders convicted over the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack sued the Justice Department and individual FBI agents for $100 million over their prosecution earlier this month. Three of their claims are Bivens actions. Before that, Newark, N.J., Mayor Ras Baraka (D) sued interim U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey Alina Habba personally over his arrest last month outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility.
NBC News
30-06-2025
- NBC News
Supreme Court rules prison inmate cannot sue federal officers for alleged assault
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a federal prison inmate cannot sue corrections officers for an alleged assault in which he was punched, kicked and had his face slammed into a wall. The loss for inmate Andrew Fields marks the latest setback for plaintiffs seeking to hold federal officials accountable for constitutional violations. Although the Supreme Court allowed such claims in a 1971 ruling called Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, it has since changed course and made it almost impossible to do so in most situations. The unsigned ruling, which had no dissents, said that if Fields' claim was allowed to move forward, it "could have negative systemic consequences for prison officials." Fields has other ways of vindicating his rights, the court added. Fields, 53, had sought to bring a "Bivens claim" arising from the 2021 incident at a federal prison in Lee County, Virginia. He is now at a different prison in Florida. The facts are disputed, with officers saying he initially assaulted them, which he denies. Fields, serving a lengthy sentence for drugs and gun offenses, alleges that the incident began when he went to lunch without bringing a required movement pass. While being moved to a special housing unit, Fields says officers punched him in the face and stomped on him. Then, once he was secured in the unit and restrained, the officers shoved his face into the wall, slammed a security shield into his back, and again punched him and kneed him in the groin, he alleges. A federal judge threw out Fields' lawsuit, which he filed without the help of a lawyer. But in a 2024 ruling, the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived it, saying he could bring a claim under the Constitution's 8th Amendment, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment in the prison context. The Supreme Court has over several decades shown a reluctance to allow Bivens claims. In the most recent decision, the court in 2022 said Border Patrol agents could not be sued. In the 12 months after that ruling, lower courts cited it 228 times in a variety of cases against all kinds of federal officials, an NBC News investigation found. In 195 of those cases, constitutional claims were dismissed. Congress has never enacted legislation that would specifically allow federal officials to be sued individually for constitutional violations, even though it allows similar claims to be brought against state and local officials. In fact, the appeals court noted that there is "little doubt that Fields would have a viable ... claim against prison officials if he had been incarcerated at a state prison."
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Prison heat lawsuit gets go-ahead
A federal judge has rejected a request by Florida corrections officials to dismiss a potential class-action lawsuit alleging the state has violated inmates' rights because of hot conditions at a prison in Miami-Dade County. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams on Wednesday issued a 30-page ruling that said inmates at Dade Correctional Institution can pursue claims under the U.S. Constitution's 8th Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act and a disabilities-related law known as the Rehabilitation Act. The 8th Amendment bars cruel and unusual punishment. Williams' ruling described a prison with a large number of older inmates that does not have air conditioning or adequate ventilation in dormitories or in the dining area. It also detailed heat indexes that often top 100 degrees in South Florida and said inmates are 'regularly and consistently exposed to heat indexes within the NWS (National Weather Service) danger zone during the summer months.' 'Plaintiffs further allege that the issue of excessive heat at Dade CI is exacerbated by insufficient ventilation systems,' Williams wrote. 'Plaintiffs allege that the ventilation systems in the dormitories, which were installed decades ago, have not been adequately maintained and are missing critical components, such as fans and motors.' Attorneys for three inmates filed the lawsuit in October against the state Department of Corrections, Corrections Secretary Ricky Dixon and Dade Correctional Institution Warden Francisco Acosta. It seeks class-action status, though Williams has not ruled on that issue. The prison has a capacity of 1,521 inmates. The named plaintiffs are Dwayne Wilson, who was described in the lawsuit as a 66-year-old inmate with hypertension, an enlarged prostate and a burn scar over much of his body that impairs his ability to sweat; Tyrone Harris, a 54-year-old inmate who has conditions such as hypertension and asthma; and Gary Wheeler, a 65-year-old inmate who has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In a December motion to dismiss the case, the state's attorneys argued, in part, that the 8th Amendment argument 'fails because the facts do not give rise to a substantial risk of serious harm to plaintiffs, nor demonstrate that Secretary Dixon or Warden Acosta has been deliberately indifferent to the conditions and risks faced by these (named) plaintiffs in particular.' 'By itself, the lack of air conditioning does not pose a substantial risk of serious harm. The deprivation required to allege an Eighth Amendment claim must be objectively 'extreme' enough to deny an inmate 'the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities.' The allegations of the complaint (the lawsuit) have not 'cleared this high bar.'' the motion said, partially quoting legal precedents. But Williams wrote that the lawsuit 'alleges a wide range of heat related injuries: heat exhaustion, heat cramps, heat stroke, and death. Plaintiffs also extensively detail how excessive heat can exacerbate underlying medical conditions, in a facility where over 50 percent of all prisoners are over the age of 50. Finally, plaintiffs allege that, since 2021, extreme heat has contributed to the deaths of at least four individuals at Dade CI.' She also said that attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote to Acosta in September 2023 'detailing concerns about the extreme heat, lack of ventilation, and the serious threat of medical harm posted to the inmates based on those conditions. The court finds that the allegations plaintiffs raise about the ongoing excessive heat issues at Dade CI easily support the plausible inference that defendants were subjectively aware of the risks of heat-related harms.' The Miami-based judge also cited a report published in 2023 by the KPMG consulting firm, which had received a state contract to develop a master plan for the Department of Corrections. 'The report concluded that most FDC (Florida Department of Corrections) dormitories, including those at Dade CI, require retrofitting to comply with current ventilation standards, and that over one-third of FDC facilities were assessed to be in 'critical' or 'poor' condition,' Williams wrote. Click here to download our free news, weather and smart TV apps. And click here to stream Channel 9 Eyewitness News live.
Yahoo
17-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Tennessee's new death penalty drug sparks concerns ahead of first scheduled execution in years
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) — Tennessee hasn't executed an inmate on death row since early 2020, but now the new drug meant to restart the death penalty is raising new red flags among critics. Gov. Bill Lee paused all executions in April 2022 after discovering issues with the state's death penalty protocol and the drugs it used in executions. He ordered the Tennessee Department of Correction to create a new death penalty protocol, which was completed in December 2024. However, critics like Stacy Rector, executive director of Tennesseans for Alternatives to the Death Penalty have argued the new protocol is even worse than before. RELATED | Death row inmates sue state over new lethal injection protocol 'Tennessee struggled with the drugs that were previously being used and has now switched to one that is also problematic,' Rector said. Tennessee chose pentobarbital, a single drug commonly used to treat insomnia in humans, as its new lethal injection drug. In higher doses, it can be fatal. Several states, and formerly the federal government, have used it to execute inmates since around 2010. However, the drug is controversial. This past January, the U.S. Department of Justice ditched the drug after a years-long investigation rose concerns pentobarbital could cause 'unnecessary pain and suffering.' According to Tennesseans for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, some people put to death with pentobarbital experienced pulmonary edema, which causes the sensation of drowning and pain. SEE ALSO | Tennessee's new death penalty protocol: What's different 'The pentobarbital did not adequately anesthetize these individuals, so they were experiencing this sensation of being water boarded, and that, according to the DOJ, is a violation of the 8th Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment,' Rector said. Several Tennessee death row inmates are now suing the state over its new death penalty protocol. In the lawsuit, they argued pentobarbital has been shown to 'pose a high risk of a torturous death.' 'It's riskier now, and this risk is not simply theoretical, folks,' Kelley J. Henry, a supervisory assistant federal public defender, said. 'They make it seem as if a lethal injection is a medical procedure. It's not. It's poison.' In addition, some expressed concerns if something were to go wrong during an execution under the new protocol, the public likely wouldn't find out because the new protocol is more secretive than the last. 'I think all citizens, regardless of your opinions of the death penalty, should have deep concern about the government shielding itself from accountability from the public this way,' Rector said. Death row inmate Oscar Smith will be the first prisoner executed under the state's new protocol on Thursday, May 22. Smith brutally murdered his estranged wife, Judy Robird Smith, and her sons Chad Burnett and Jason Burnett in Nashville on Oct. 1, 1989. Inmates whose crimes were committed before Jan. 1, 1999, can choose between the lethal injection and the electric chair under Tennessee law. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court denies stay in Florida execution set for this week
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a request to halt the execution of convicted killer Glen Rogers, setting the stage for him to be put to death by lethal injection at 6 p.m. Eastern time Thursday at Florida State Prison. The Supreme Court, as is common, did not explain the reasons for turning down a last-ditch petition and a motion for stay of execution filed Friday by Rogers' attorneys. The Florida Supreme Court also refused to halt the execution last week. Rogers, 62, is scheduled to be the fifth inmate executed this year in Florida. He was sent to Death Row for the November 1995 stabbing death of Tina Marie Cribbs in a Tampa motel room after they met at a bar. Rogers stole Cribbs' car and was later arrested in Kentucky after leading police on a high-speed chase, according to a court document. He also was convicted of murdering a woman in California and was a suspect in murders in Louisiana and Mississippi. In asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block the execution, Rogers' attorneys focused on him having a medical condition known as porphyria and the potential interaction with etomidate, the first drug administered in the three-drug execution process. Rogers' attorneys contended that he should receive an evidentiary hearing about whether using the drug would lead to pain in violation of the U.S. Constitution's 8th Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Information on the Mayo Clinic website described porphyria as a 'group of rare disorders that result from a buildup of natural chemicals called porphyrins in the body.' It said high levels of porphyrins can cause problems in the nervous system and skin. Rogers' attorneys said it has affected his liver. But in a response filed Monday at the U.S. Supreme Court, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier's office said Rogers has long been aware of his porphyria diagnosis and that, under state law, courts can't consider an 'untimely' request for an evidentiary hearing. 'Rogers admitted that he has been aware of his porphyria diagnosis since at least 1997 and yet, he failed to raise the claim until after his death warrant was issued,' the response said. 'Rogers' lethal injection challenge is little more than an attack on settled (legal) precedent and does not warrant … review, particularly when he was dilatory in bringing this claim.' Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a death warrant for Rogers on April 15. DeSantis last week also signed a death warrant for Anthony Wainwright, who was convicted of kidnapping a woman in 1994 from a Winn-Dixie supermarket parking lot in Lake City and raping and murdering her in rural Hamilton County. Wainwright is scheduled to be executed June 10. _____
