Bishop v. Cox, Civ. A. No. 70-C-32-H.
| Decision Date | 25 November 1970 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 70-C-32-H. |
| Citation | 320 F. Supp. 1031 |
| Parties | Wallace C. BISHOP, Plaintiff, v. J. D. COX, Superintendent, Virginia State Penitentiary, O. L. Brown, Director, Department of Welfare and Institutions, and W. P. Edwards, Director, Division of Correctional Field Units, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia |
William P. Robinson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richmond, Va., for defendants.
Wallace C. Bishop is incarcerated at a Virginia State road camp. He has filed a "petition for Redress" in which he alleges that the institutional physicians have denied him medicine for his nervous condition. It is further alleged that he had been taking this medicine for some time before incarceration and that its deprivation amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. Since Bishop complains of the treatment being received in prison instead of the validity of the underlying conviction, the petition is accepted as an action for injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The defendants have moved for summary judgment. A report of a psychological examination conducted to determine competency to stand trial and an affidavit of the Associate Medical Director of the Division of Corrections have been submitted with the motion. The psychological report discusses the plaintiff's complaints of nervousness and severe headaches but apparently expresses some doubt as to the necessity of any medicine. The Associate Medical Director states that a routine medical examination failed to disclose any evidence that the prisoner was unfit for normal work duties and that in his judgment the prisoner was not in need of any medication at the time of his examination.
There have been a number of recent cases dealing with allegations by prisoners that they have not received proper medical attention. Unless allegations of terrible or shocking neglect were made, however, the courts have been unwilling to interject themselves into this area of prisoner administration. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that a claim of improper medical care is legally insufficient to establish a denial of rights secured under the Federal Constitution or laws. Fear v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 413 F.2d 88 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 935, 90 S.Ct. 278, 24 L. Ed.2d 234 (1969). Accord, Bowman v. Hale, 302 F.Supp. 1306 (S.D.Ala.1969). Mere negligence in giving or failing to supply medical treatment does not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stokes v. Hurdle
...no constitutional issue is raised absent evidence of abuse, intentional mistreatment, or denial of medical attention. Bishop v. Cox, 320 F.Supp. 1031 (W.D.Va.1970). And where the claim is based merely on a difference of opinion between the prisoner and the doctor over matters of legitimate ......
-
Clappier v. Flynn
...as to shock the conscience or to be intolerable to basic fairness. Gittlemacker v. Prasse, 428 F.2d 1 (3rd Cir. 1970); Bishop v. Cox, 320 F.Supp. 1031 (W.D.Va.1970). Failure to procure urgently needed medical attention may amount to cruel and unusual punishment. Coleman v. Johnston, 247 F.2......
-
Dewell v. Lawson
...as to shock the conscience or to be intolerable to basic fairness. Gittlemacker v. Prasse, 428 F.2d 1 (3rd Cir.1970); Bishop v. Cox, 320 F.Supp. 1031 (W.D.Va.1970). Failure to procure urgently needed medical attention may amount to cruel and unusual punishment. Coleman v. Johnston, 247 F.2d......
-
Mathis v. Pratt, 73 C 67.
...of some "conduct that shocks the conscience" or a "barbarous act". Church v. Hegstrom, 416 F. 2d 449 (2nd Cir. 1969); Bishop v. Cox, 320 F.Supp. 1031 (W.D.Va.1970). For a denial of medical treatment for a prisoner to be actionable under Section 1983, in the absence of a showing of intent to......