Ending the Charade: The Fifth Circuit Should Expressly Adopt the Deliberate Indifference Standard for ADA Title II and RA § 504 Damages Claims

In December 1995, the Eighth Circuit decided Kennedy v. Schafer, holding that a teenage patient who committed suicide while under treatment at a state psychiatric facility had a constitutionally protected liberty interest in a safe and humane environment under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if her status changed from voluntary to involuntary during the course of her admission. The fifteen year old patient, Kathleen Kennedy, had been identified as a suicide risk, and had been placed on “Protective Suicide Precautions,” which required a designated staff member to keep her in constant eyesight and to interact with her at fifteen to twenty minute intervals. Despite these stringent requirements for supervision and contact, Kathleen was found dead in her room more than two hours after her last contact with a staff member. Her parents brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against state and hospital officials, alleging that chronic understaffing and falsification of the records used to determine staffing levels amounted to a pattern of deliberate indifference to patient safety which violated their daughter’s protected liberty interest in a safe and humane environment.

Download Full-text

Deliberate Indifference

Journal of Prisoners on Prisons ◽

10.18192/jpp.v13i0.5634 ◽

2004 ◽

Vol 13 ◽

pp. 12-15

Author(s):

Steven King Ainsworth

Keyword(s):

Deliberate Indifference

Download Full-text

The Supreme Court, solitary confinement, and the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment

Solitary Confinement ◽

10.1332/policypress/9781447337539.003.0004 ◽

2017 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

David Polizzi

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Solitary Confinement ◽

Specific Structure ◽

Similar Attitude ◽

Current Attitude ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Psychological Harm ◽

The Relationship ◽

Deliberate Indifference

The relationship between solitary confinement and cruel and unusual punishment dates back to the mid-1880s. However, it is important to note that the Supreme Court was more concerned with the procedural application of this approach, rather than any legitimate consideration on the practice itself. The relationship between solitary confinement and the Court, for the most part, remained within this procedural context, with the exception of a few exceptional examples. The current attitude of the Court attitude to more focused on the specific structure of solitary confinement and the specific harms it imposes on those so confined. A similar attitude has not yet emerged concerning supermax confinement. Given that most sides in this debate seem to agree concerning the psychological harm caused by solitary confinement, deliberate indifference, a major feature of the Court’s attitude concerning the unconstitutionality of this practice, can no longer be denied.

Download Full-text