PRISONERS SUING PRISONERS - A NEW TREND IN JURISPRUDENCE?
With all the rules and regulations imposed by prison administrators, it would seem that every action taken by a prisoner would be in some way covered or (usually) prohibited by policy. The lack of some (rule) coverage leaves some prisoners no option but to involve the courts in prisoner disputes. In many instances though, if a prisoner violates a prison rule and is punished by prison authorities, a prisoner who is considered a victim (of an assault, etc.) may still have standing to file - and win - a legal action in the courts.
Take for instance an incident which occurred at the ISCC in December, 2017. An inmate (we'll call him Bubba) stands up in the middle of a crowded dining room and falsely accuses another prisoner (we'll call him Doe) - in front of hundreds of other inmates and staff - of possessing and viewing child pornography. Bubba's primary intent was to goad Doe into a physical altercation, as such a response is the only "prison way" of denying such a public allegation. Doe refused to attack Bubba. Secondarily, Bubba hoped to prevent Doe from being (re)employed in a specific job (which Doe had not sought in the first place) in that such allegations would not only make a pariah of Doe amongst fellow prisoners, but would raise a spectre of distrust with staff.
Despite the seriousness of the situation created, Bubba's actions/allegations violated no prison rule or policy, but it did constitute grounds for a civil (tort) action against Bubba (by Doe) for Slander and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress in the local District court. Because Bubba and Doe are citizens of the county in which the prison is situated (and the incident occurred), the fact that either Bubba or Doe are prisoners makes no difference, anymore than if one or both parties were never incarcerated. By preparing the Complaint (and including the facts constituting the tort), paying the filing fee, making appropriate service upon the Defendant (Bubba), the case will proceed as any other case where non-prisoners are involved.
In some jurisdictions, a person filing an Answer to a Complaint filed in district court will have to pay a (filing) fee before the Answer is considered filed. If the appropriate fees are not paid, if the Complaint is not properly answered within a time certain or if the Complaint is not answered at all, the Plaintiff (in this instance, Doe) may move for Summary Judgment. Summary judgment (or another win) will often be in the form of a judgment by the court for the winner which will include an order for not only monetary damages against (Bubba) as requested in the complaint, but the reimbursement of the cost(s) for preparing and filing the case.
Whether by summary judgment or by other means Doe wins the case, he will then file for an Attachment, meaning he (Doe) can take any funds or assets owned or obtained by Bubba by legal means (including attaching Bubba's prison trust account). Some prisons even have SOPs which allow for property owned by a prisoner (TV, radio, hot pot, tennis shoes and other items) to be confiscated and sold to satisfy such judgments. While these SOPs were intended to be used in cases where the state wins a judgment against a prisoner, there are no restrictions which prohibit a prisoner's proper attachment from using this process.
Prisoners involved in fights who are simply defending themselves from serious injury or even death receive disciplinary sanctions, are locked down, lose (inmate) jobs and preferred housing and even lose parole eligibility - all without recourse against their attacker(s). These days are coming to an end, with or without the prison administrators intervention or implementation of corrective SOP.
With standard court filing fees in the hundreds of dollars, using the courts to resolve most any matter is not inexpensive, and will likely prevent a rush of prisoner-on-prisoner litigation, but those that do turn to the courts to resolve civil matters arising behind bars will only increase due to the litigious culture in this country and lack of other available remedies within the prison system. Utilizing the courts - like any other citizen - to settle disputes arising inside the prison is in the public interest, and will likely be an added deterrent to the violence and unbecoming conduct which takes place in prisons, whether there is a rule against that conduct or not. DS
Take for instance an incident which occurred at the ISCC in December, 2017. An inmate (we'll call him Bubba) stands up in the middle of a crowded dining room and falsely accuses another prisoner (we'll call him Doe) - in front of hundreds of other inmates and staff - of possessing and viewing child pornography. Bubba's primary intent was to goad Doe into a physical altercation, as such a response is the only "prison way" of denying such a public allegation. Doe refused to attack Bubba. Secondarily, Bubba hoped to prevent Doe from being (re)employed in a specific job (which Doe had not sought in the first place) in that such allegations would not only make a pariah of Doe amongst fellow prisoners, but would raise a spectre of distrust with staff.
Despite the seriousness of the situation created, Bubba's actions/allegations violated no prison rule or policy, but it did constitute grounds for a civil (tort) action against Bubba (by Doe) for Slander and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress in the local District court. Because Bubba and Doe are citizens of the county in which the prison is situated (and the incident occurred), the fact that either Bubba or Doe are prisoners makes no difference, anymore than if one or both parties were never incarcerated. By preparing the Complaint (and including the facts constituting the tort), paying the filing fee, making appropriate service upon the Defendant (Bubba), the case will proceed as any other case where non-prisoners are involved.
In some jurisdictions, a person filing an Answer to a Complaint filed in district court will have to pay a (filing) fee before the Answer is considered filed. If the appropriate fees are not paid, if the Complaint is not properly answered within a time certain or if the Complaint is not answered at all, the Plaintiff (in this instance, Doe) may move for Summary Judgment. Summary judgment (or another win) will often be in the form of a judgment by the court for the winner which will include an order for not only monetary damages against (Bubba) as requested in the complaint, but the reimbursement of the cost(s) for preparing and filing the case.
Whether by summary judgment or by other means Doe wins the case, he will then file for an Attachment, meaning he (Doe) can take any funds or assets owned or obtained by Bubba by legal means (including attaching Bubba's prison trust account). Some prisons even have SOPs which allow for property owned by a prisoner (TV, radio, hot pot, tennis shoes and other items) to be confiscated and sold to satisfy such judgments. While these SOPs were intended to be used in cases where the state wins a judgment against a prisoner, there are no restrictions which prohibit a prisoner's proper attachment from using this process.
Prisoners involved in fights who are simply defending themselves from serious injury or even death receive disciplinary sanctions, are locked down, lose (inmate) jobs and preferred housing and even lose parole eligibility - all without recourse against their attacker(s). These days are coming to an end, with or without the prison administrators intervention or implementation of corrective SOP.
With standard court filing fees in the hundreds of dollars, using the courts to resolve most any matter is not inexpensive, and will likely prevent a rush of prisoner-on-prisoner litigation, but those that do turn to the courts to resolve civil matters arising behind bars will only increase due to the litigious culture in this country and lack of other available remedies within the prison system. Utilizing the courts - like any other citizen - to settle disputes arising inside the prison is in the public interest, and will likely be an added deterrent to the violence and unbecoming conduct which takes place in prisons, whether there is a rule against that conduct or not. DS