×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Nevada Prisoner's Dismissed Deliberate Indifference Claim on ETS Exposure Reversed
Nevada Prisoner's Dismissed Deliberate Indifference Claim on ETS Exposure
Reversed
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the U.S. District Court of
Nevada's dismissal of a prisoner's claim that state prison officials were
deliberately indifferent in exposing him to environmental tobacco smoke
(ETS). Christopher A. Jones, a Nevada prisoner with a chronic throat
problem, was celled with a heavy smoker. Jones alerted Nevada prison
officials to his throat condition and requested to be moved. Prison
officials refused, and medical records indicated that Jones' throat
condition worsened.
Jones sued prison officials under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth
Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment to the prison
officials, and Jones appealed.
The Ninth Circuit, citing Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 113 S.Ct. 2475,
125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993), held that Jones showed that ETS exposure worsened
his health. From the record, a reasonable jury could conclude that prison
officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need by
denying his cell change requests. Consequently, summary judgment in favor
of the defendants was error.
The district court's decision was reversed and the case remanded for
further proceedings. This was not a ruling on the merits of the claims.
This case is published in the Federal Appendix and is subject to rules
governing unpublished cases. See: Jones v. Bayer, 56 Fed.Appx. 408 (9th
Cir. 2003).
Reversed
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the U.S. District Court of
Nevada's dismissal of a prisoner's claim that state prison officials were
deliberately indifferent in exposing him to environmental tobacco smoke
(ETS). Christopher A. Jones, a Nevada prisoner with a chronic throat
problem, was celled with a heavy smoker. Jones alerted Nevada prison
officials to his throat condition and requested to be moved. Prison
officials refused, and medical records indicated that Jones' throat
condition worsened.
Jones sued prison officials under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth
Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment to the prison
officials, and Jones appealed.
The Ninth Circuit, citing Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 113 S.Ct. 2475,
125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993), held that Jones showed that ETS exposure worsened
his health. From the record, a reasonable jury could conclude that prison
officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need by
denying his cell change requests. Consequently, summary judgment in favor
of the defendants was error.
The district court's decision was reversed and the case remanded for
further proceedings. This was not a ruling on the merits of the claims.
This case is published in the Federal Appendix and is subject to rules
governing unpublished cases. See: Jones v. Bayer, 56 Fed.Appx. 408 (9th
Cir. 2003).
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
Jones v. Bayer
| Year | 2003 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 56 Fed.Appx. 408 (9th Cir. 2003) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
CHRISTOPHER A. JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROBERT BAYER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 02-15650
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
56 Fed. Appx. 408; 2003 U.S. App.
February 10, 2003 **, Submitted
** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
February 20, 2003, Filed
NOTICE: [**1] RULES OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. D.C. No. CV-99-00088-ECR. Edward C. Reed, Jr., District Judge, Presiding.
Jones v. Bayer, 190 F. Supp. 2d 1204, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4544 (D. Nev. 2002).
DISPOSITION: REVERSED and REMANDED.
COUNSEL: CHRISTOPHER A. JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, Pro se, Ely, NV.
For HEDDY, Defendant-Appellee: Keith G. Munro, STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE OF NEVADA, Carson City, NV.
For GREG SMITH, Defendant-Appellee: Daniel Wong, Esq., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Carson City, NV.
JUDGES: Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
OPINION:
[*408] MEMORANDUM *
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Christopher A. Jones, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's [*409] summary judgment [**2] for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging defendants subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment by exposing him to environmental tobacco smoke ("ETS") by housing him with a smoker. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam), and we reverse and remand.
To establish an Eighth Amendment violation based on ETS exposure, a prisoner must show (1) exposure to levels of ETS that pose an unreasonable risk of serious damage to his present or future health and (2) deliberate indifference on the part of prison officials. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 34-35, 125 L. Ed. 2d 22, 113 S. Ct. 2475 (1993). Exposure to ETS by people who are sensitive to ETS because of pre-existing conditions may constitute cruel and unusual punishment. See Franklin v. State of Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1346-47 (9th Cir. 1981).
Here, the record shows that, in November 1998, Jones was assigned to a cell with a heavy smoker. Medical consultation reports indicate that Jones suffered from a chronic throat condition [**3] which significantly affected his quality of life and which worsened with exposure to cigarette smoke. The record also shows that, after Jones was housed with a smoker, he notified defendants of his throat condition and made several requests for a change in housing, but his requests were denied.
Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to Jones, a jury could reasonably conclude that defendants were deliberately indifferent to Jones' heightened vulnerability to ETS. See Franklin, 662 F.2d at 1346-47 (holding that housing an inmate suffering from throat tumor with a smoker may constitute violation of the Eighth Amendment). Accordingly, we reverse the district court's summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.
Jones' December 27, 2002, motion for clarification is denied as moot because we have considered the opening brief.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
No. 02-15650
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
56 Fed. Appx. 408; 2003 U.S. App.
February 10, 2003 **, Submitted
** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
February 20, 2003, Filed
NOTICE: [**1] RULES OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. D.C. No. CV-99-00088-ECR. Edward C. Reed, Jr., District Judge, Presiding.
Jones v. Bayer, 190 F. Supp. 2d 1204, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4544 (D. Nev. 2002).
DISPOSITION: REVERSED and REMANDED.
COUNSEL: CHRISTOPHER A. JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, Pro se, Ely, NV.
For HEDDY, Defendant-Appellee: Keith G. Munro, STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE OF NEVADA, Carson City, NV.
For GREG SMITH, Defendant-Appellee: Daniel Wong, Esq., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Carson City, NV.
JUDGES: Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
OPINION:
[*408] MEMORANDUM *
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Christopher A. Jones, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's [*409] summary judgment [**2] for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging defendants subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment by exposing him to environmental tobacco smoke ("ETS") by housing him with a smoker. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam), and we reverse and remand.
To establish an Eighth Amendment violation based on ETS exposure, a prisoner must show (1) exposure to levels of ETS that pose an unreasonable risk of serious damage to his present or future health and (2) deliberate indifference on the part of prison officials. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 34-35, 125 L. Ed. 2d 22, 113 S. Ct. 2475 (1993). Exposure to ETS by people who are sensitive to ETS because of pre-existing conditions may constitute cruel and unusual punishment. See Franklin v. State of Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1346-47 (9th Cir. 1981).
Here, the record shows that, in November 1998, Jones was assigned to a cell with a heavy smoker. Medical consultation reports indicate that Jones suffered from a chronic throat condition [**3] which significantly affected his quality of life and which worsened with exposure to cigarette smoke. The record also shows that, after Jones was housed with a smoker, he notified defendants of his throat condition and made several requests for a change in housing, but his requests were denied.
Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to Jones, a jury could reasonably conclude that defendants were deliberately indifferent to Jones' heightened vulnerability to ETS. See Franklin, 662 F.2d at 1346-47 (holding that housing an inmate suffering from throat tumor with a smoker may constitute violation of the Eighth Amendment). Accordingly, we reverse the district court's summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.
Jones' December 27, 2002, motion for clarification is denied as moot because we have considered the opening brief.
REVERSED and REMANDED.