×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Guard Liable for Hitting Prisoner
Guard Liable For Hitting Prisoner
Ronald Neal is a Michigan state prisoner who was punched in the groin by a prison guard. Neal filed suit under 1983 claiming that his 8th amendment and due process rights had been violated, he also included a pendent tort claim for assault and battery under Michigan state law.
The district court found that Neal had not met his burden of proof on his 8th amendment claim which requires a serious physical injury and a requisite intent to cause harm by the state official. At pages 382-85 the court analyzes the standard of review in 8th amendment claims.
The court also held that because the act, hitting Neal in the groin, was so obviously unauthorized, there was no due process violation.
The Magistrate did however rule in Neal's favor on the pendent common law battery claim. The court found Neal had not consented to being hit and awarded him $750.00 plus statutory interest and costs. See: Neal v. Miller, 778 F. Supp 378 (WD MI 1991).
Ronald Neal is a Michigan state prisoner who was punched in the groin by a prison guard. Neal filed suit under 1983 claiming that his 8th amendment and due process rights had been violated, he also included a pendent tort claim for assault and battery under Michigan state law.
The district court found that Neal had not met his burden of proof on his 8th amendment claim which requires a serious physical injury and a requisite intent to cause harm by the state official. At pages 382-85 the court analyzes the standard of review in 8th amendment claims.
The court also held that because the act, hitting Neal in the groin, was so obviously unauthorized, there was no due process violation.
The Magistrate did however rule in Neal's favor on the pendent common law battery claim. The court found Neal had not consented to being hit and awarded him $750.00 plus statutory interest and costs. See: Neal v. Miller, 778 F. Supp 378 (WD MI 1991).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Neal v. Miller
| Year | 1991 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 778 F. Supp. 378 (WD MI 1991) |
| Level | District Court |
| Conclusion | Bench Verdict |
| Damages | 750 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
RONALD KENNETH NEAL, Plaintiff, v. CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MILLER, Defendant.
Case No. G87-467 CA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, SOUTHERN DIVISION
778 F. Supp. 378; 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19695
October 4, 1991, Decided
October 4, 1991, Filed
PRIOR HISTORY: Adopting Magistrate's Document of September 5, 1991, Reported at 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20070.
JUDGES: [**1] Hillman
OPINIONBY: DOUGLAS W. HILLMAN
OPINION:
[*379] ORDER APPROVING MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation filed by the United States Magistrate in this action. The Report and Recommendation was duly served on the parties, and no objection has been made thereto within the time required by law. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate is approved and adopted as the opinion of the court.
Plaintiff's claims under the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment are dismissed. Judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant on plaintiff's pendent common-law battery claim in the amount of Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($ 750.00), plus statutory interest and costs as allowed by law.
Douglas W. Hillman, Senior Judge
Dated: October 4, 1991.
FINAL JUDGMENT
In accordance with the order entered this date,
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that plaintiff's claims under the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment are dismissed. Judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant on plaintiff's pendent common-law battery claim in [**2] the amount of Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($ 750.00), plus statutory interest and costs as allowed by law.
Douglas W. Hillman, Senior Judge
Dated: October 4, 1991.
Case No. G87-467 CA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, SOUTHERN DIVISION
778 F. Supp. 378; 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19695
October 4, 1991, Decided
October 4, 1991, Filed
PRIOR HISTORY: Adopting Magistrate's Document of September 5, 1991, Reported at 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20070.
JUDGES: [**1] Hillman
OPINIONBY: DOUGLAS W. HILLMAN
OPINION:
[*379] ORDER APPROVING MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation filed by the United States Magistrate in this action. The Report and Recommendation was duly served on the parties, and no objection has been made thereto within the time required by law. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate is approved and adopted as the opinion of the court.
Plaintiff's claims under the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment are dismissed. Judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant on plaintiff's pendent common-law battery claim in the amount of Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($ 750.00), plus statutory interest and costs as allowed by law.
Douglas W. Hillman, Senior Judge
Dated: October 4, 1991.
FINAL JUDGMENT
In accordance with the order entered this date,
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that plaintiff's claims under the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment are dismissed. Judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant on plaintiff's pendent common-law battery claim in [**2] the amount of Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($ 750.00), plus statutory interest and costs as allowed by law.
Douglas W. Hillman, Senior Judge
Dated: October 4, 1991.