×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Motion to Dismiss in Eighth Amendment Suit Denied in Part
U.S. District Judge Christopher Conner has granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss filed by four Bureau of Prisons (BOP) defendants accused of Eighth Amendment violations.
David Lee Womack sued D. Scott Dodrill, Harley Lappin, John Vanyur, Newton Kendig, Linda Thomas, and John Oliver after Womack was restrained for an extended period of time. Womack alleged that his prolonged restraint violated the Eighth Amendment.
Several of the defendants, high level BOP officials in Washington DC, moved to dismiss Womack’s suit based on Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009), arguing that a supervisory official may only be held liable for constitutional violations if they are personally involved.
Judge Conner ultimately agreed to dismiss five of the defendants, but not based on their reading of Iqbal. According to Judge Conner, Iqbal only requires allegations of
personal involvement by supervisory officials when the claim is related to discrimination.
Judge Conner agreed to keep Dodrill in the suit because he was notified 75 times of Womack’s restraint.
See: Womack v. Smith, Nol. 1:06-CV-2348 (M.D. Penn. 2009).
David Lee Womack sued D. Scott Dodrill, Harley Lappin, John Vanyur, Newton Kendig, Linda Thomas, and John Oliver after Womack was restrained for an extended period of time. Womack alleged that his prolonged restraint violated the Eighth Amendment.
Several of the defendants, high level BOP officials in Washington DC, moved to dismiss Womack’s suit based on Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009), arguing that a supervisory official may only be held liable for constitutional violations if they are personally involved.
Judge Conner ultimately agreed to dismiss five of the defendants, but not based on their reading of Iqbal. According to Judge Conner, Iqbal only requires allegations of
personal involvement by supervisory officials when the claim is related to discrimination.
Judge Conner agreed to keep Dodrill in the suit because he was notified 75 times of Womack’s restraint.
See: Womack v. Smith, Nol. 1:06-CV-2348 (M.D. Penn. 2009).
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
Womack v. Smith
| Year | 2009 |
|---|---|
| Cite | Nol. 1:06-CV-2348 (M.D. Penn. 2009) |
| Level | District Court |
| Conclusion | Bench Verdict |
| Injunction Status | N/A |