×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Guards’ Failure to Enforce Prison No-Smoking Policy May Violate 8th Amendment
Guards' Failure to Enforce Prison No-Smoking Policy May Violate 8th Amendment
Dwayne Manning, a federal prisoner, was exposed to cigarette smoke when prison guards didn't enforce the prison's no-smoking policy. He developed medical problems and sued the guards in federal district court in 2004, claiming they had been deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in violation of the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The district court ignored Manning's evidence and granted summary judgment to the guards.
On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit held that Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 required the district court to give due weight to Manning's evidence. If it had, Manning's evidence may have made out an 8th Amendment claim, the appellate court opined. Thus, the 4th Circuit reversed and remanded the case. See: Manning v. Lambert, 140 Fed.Appx. 446 (4th Cir. 2005).
Dwayne Manning, a federal prisoner, was exposed to cigarette smoke when prison guards didn't enforce the prison's no-smoking policy. He developed medical problems and sued the guards in federal district court in 2004, claiming they had been deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in violation of the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The district court ignored Manning's evidence and granted summary judgment to the guards.
On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit held that Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 required the district court to give due weight to Manning's evidence. If it had, Manning's evidence may have made out an 8th Amendment claim, the appellate court opined. Thus, the 4th Circuit reversed and remanded the case. See: Manning v. Lambert, 140 Fed.Appx. 446 (4th Cir. 2005).
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
Manning v. Lambert
| Year | 2005 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 140 Fed.Appx. 446 (4th Cir. 2005) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Injunction Status | N/A |