Settlement for IN Man Deprived of Critical Meds While Incarcerated in County Jail
by Joe Watson
Gary L. Marshall, a former Hancock County, Ind. jail prisoner, settled for unspecified damages in June 2008 after he suffered multiple seizures while incarcerated, which he attributed to the jail’s alleged refusal to give him several psychotropic drugs he was prescribed for anxiety and insomnia.
Marshall was incarcerated on Sept. 13, 2004, and the next day Marshall’s son Jason brought his dad’s medications to the jail, but was told that he was only permitted medications for life-threatening issues or ailments. The jail allegedly refused to distribute any other type of drugs, including psychotropic or narcotic drugs. Over the next several days, Marshall began having health problems, including seizures so severe he was placed in a padded cell. Marshall was transported from the jail and hospitalized from Sept. 21 to Sept. 27. After he was returned to the jail, he was still allegedly denied his medications.
Two years later, Marshall filed suit against the Hancock County Sheriff’s Department, Sheriff Nick Gulling, and jail guards Roger Sitton and Sally Aldridge in U.S. District Court, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983, to redress violations of his Fourteenth Amendment rights, including depriving Marshall of necessary medication while incarcerated. Marshall alleged that such policies, without regard to individual situations, constituted deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.
Marshall sought compensatory and punitive damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. The parties settled prior to trial and filed a joint stipulation of dismissal, presided by Judge Richard L. Young, who dismissed the case with prejudice and costs paid. See: Marshall v. Hancock County Sheriff’s Department, U.S.D.C. (S.D. Ind.), Case No. 1:06-CV-01345.
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
Marshall v. Hancock County Sheriff’s Department
|Cite||U.S.D.C. (S.D. Ind.), Case No. 1:06-CV-01345|