Estelle v. Gamble

• Decision Date: 30 November 1976
• Docket Number: No. 75-929,75-929
• Citation: 50 L.Ed.2d 251,429 U.S. 97,97 S.Ct. 285
• Parties: W. J. ESTELLE, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections, et al., Petitioners, v. J. W. GAMBLE
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

429 U.S. 97

97 S.Ct. 285

50 L.Ed.2d 251

W. J. ESTELLE, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections, et al., Petitioners,

v J. W. GAMBLE.

No. 75-929.

Argued Oct. 5, 1976.

Decided Nov. 30, 1976.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 17, 1977.See429 U.S. 1066, 97 S.Ct. 798.

Syllabus

Respondent state inmate brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against petitioners, the state corrections department medical director (Gray) and two correctional officials, claiming that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment for inadequate treatment of a back injury assertedly sustained while he was engaged in prison work.The District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.The Court of Appeals held that the alleged insufficiency of the medical treatment required reinstatement of the complaint.Held: Deliberate indifference by prison personnel to a prisoner's serious illness or injury constitutes cruel and unusual punishment contravening the Eighth Amendment.Here, however, respondent's claims against Gray do not suggest such indifference, the allegations revealing that Gray and other medical personnel saw respondent on 17 occasions during a 3-month span and treated his injury and other problems.The failure to perform an X-ray or to use additional diagnostic techniques does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment but is at most medical malpractice cognizable in the state courts.The question whether respondent has stated a constitutional claim against the other petitioners, the Director of the Department of Corrections and the warden of the prison, was not separately evaluated by the Court of Appeals and should be considered on remand.Pp. 101-108.

516 F.2d 937, reversed and remanded.

Bert W. Pluymen, Austin, Tex., for petitioners, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court.

Daniel K. Hedges, Houston, Tex., for respondent, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court.

Mr. Justice MARSHALLdelivered the opinion of the Court.

RespondentJ. W. Gamble, an inmate of the Texas Department of Corrections, was injured on November 9, 1973, while performing a prison work assignment.On February 11, 1974, he instituted this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,¹ complaining of the treatment he received after the injury.Named as defendants were the petitioners, W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director of the Department of Corrections, H. H. Husbands, warden of the prison, and Dr. Ralph Gray, medical director of the Department and chief medical officer of the prison hospital.The District Court, sua sponte dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.²The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate the complaint.516 F.2d 937(C.A.51975).We granted certiorari, 424 U.S. 907, 96 S.Ct. 1101, 47 L.Ed.2d 311(1976).

I

Because the complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, we must take as true its handwritten, pro se allegations.Cooper v. Pate, 378 U.S. 546, 84 S.Ct. 1733, 12 L.Ed.2d 1030(1964).According to the complaint, Gamble was injured on November 9, 1973, when a bale of cotton ³ fell on him while he was unloading a truck.He continued to work but after four hours he became stiff and was granted a pass to the unit hospital.At the hospital a medical assistant, "Captain" Blunt, checked him for a hernia and sent him back to his cell.Within two hours the pain became so intense that Gamble returned to the hospital where he was given pain pills by an inmate nurse and then was examined by a doctor.The following day, Gamble saw a Dr. Astone who diagnosed the injury as a lower back strain, prescribed Zactirin (a pain reliever) and Robaxin (a muscle relaxant),⁴ and placed respondent on "cell-pass, cell-feed" status for two days, allowing him to remain in his cell at all times except for showers.On November 12, Gamble again saw Dr. Astone who continued the medication and cell-pass, cell-feed for another seven days.He also ordered that respondent be moved from an upper to a lower bunk for one week, but the prison authorities did not comply with that directive.The following week, Gamble returned to Dr. Astone.The doctor continued the muscle relaxant but prescribed a new pain reliever, Febridyne, and placed respondent on cell-pass for seven days, permitting him to remain in his cell except for meals and showers.On November 26, respondent again saw Dr. Astone, who put respondent back on the original pain reliever for five days and continued the cell-pass for another week.

On December 3, despite Gamble's statement that his back hurt as much as it had the first day, Dr. Astone took him off cell-pass, thereby certifying him to be capable of light work.At the same time, Dr. Astone prescribed Febridyne for seven days.Gamble then went to a Major Muddox and told him that he was in too much pain to work.Muddox had respondent moved to "administrative segregation."⁵ On December 5, Gamble was taken before the prison disciplinary committee, apparently because of his refusal to work.When the committee heard his complaint of back pain and high blood pressure, it directed that he be seen by another doctor.

On December 6, respondent saw petitioner Gray, who performed a urinalysis, blood test, and blood pressure measurement.Dr. Gray prescribed the drug Ser-Ap-Es for the high blood pressure and more Febridyne for the back pain.The following week respondent again saw Dr. Gray, who continued the Ser-Ap-Es for an additional 30 days.The prescription was not filled for four days, however, because the staff lost it.Respondent went to the unit hospital twice more in December; both times he was seen by Captain Blunt, who prescribed Tiognolos (described as a muscle relaxant).For all of December, respondent remained in administrative segregation.

In early January, Gamble was told on two occasions that he would be sent to the "farm" if he did not return to work.He refused, nonetheless, claiming to be in too much pain.On January 7, 1974, he requested to go on sick call for his back pain and migraine headaches.After an initial refusal, he saw Captain Blunt who prescribed sodium salicylate (a pain reliever) for seven days and Ser-Ap-Es for 30 days.Respondent returned to Captain Blunt on January 17 and January 25, and received renewals of the pain reliever prescription both times.Throughout the month, respondent was kept in administrative segregation.

On January 31, Gamble was brought before the prison disciplinary committee for his refusal to work in early January.He told the committee that he could not work because of his severe back pain and his high blood pressure.Captain Blunt testified that Gamble was in "first class" medical condition.The committee, with no further medical examination or testimony, placed respondent in solitary confinement.

Four days later, on February 4, at 8 a. m., respondent asked to see a doctor for chest pains and "blank outs."It was not until 7:30 that night that a medical assistant examined him and ordered him hospitalized.The following day a Dr. Heaton performed an electrocardiogram; one day later respondent was placed on Quinidine for treatment of irregular cardiac rhythm and moved to administrative segregation.On February 7, respondent again experienced pain in his chest, left arm, and back and asked to see a doctor.The guards refused.He asked again the next day.The guards again refused.Finally, on February 9, he was allowed to see Dr. Heaton, who ordered the Quinidine continued for three more days.On February 11, he swore out his complaint.

II

The gravamen of respondent's § 1983 complaint is that petitioners have subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth.⁶SeeRobinson v. Califor- nia, 370 U.S. 660, 82 S.Ct. 1417, 8 L.Ed.2d 758(1962).We therefore base our evaluation of respondent's complaint on those Amendments and our decisions interpreting them.

The history of the constitutional prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishments" has been recounted at length in prior opinions of the Court and need not be repeated here.See, e. g., Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 169-173, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2923, 49 L.Ed.2d 859(1976)(joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.(hereinafter joint opinion));see alsoGranucci, Nor Cruel and Unusual Punishment Inflicted: The Original Meaning, 57 Calif.L.Rev. 839(1969).It suffices to note that the primary concern of the drafters was to proscribe "torture(s)" and other "barbar(ous)" methods of punishment.Id., at 842.Accordingly, this Court first applied the Eighth Amendment by comparing challenged methods of execution to concededly inhuman techniques of punishment.SeeWilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130, 136, 25 L.Ed. 345(1879)("(I)t is safe to affirm that punishments of torture . . . and all others in the same line of unnecessary cruelty, are forbidden by that amendment . . .");In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436, 447, 10 S.Ct. 930, 933, 34 L.Ed. 519(1890)("Punishments are cruel when they involve torture or a lingering death . . .").

Our more recent cases, however, have held that the Amendment proscribes more than physically barbarous punishments.See, e. g., Gregg v. Georgia, supra, at 171, 96 S.Ct. at 2924(joint opinion);Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 100-101, 78 S.Ct. 590, 597, 598, 2 L.Ed.2d 630(1958);Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 373, 30 S.Ct. 544, 551, 54 L.Ed. 793(1910).The Amendment embodies "broad and idealistic concepts of dignity, civilized standards, humanity, and decency . . . ,"Jackson v. Bishop, 404 F.2d 571, 579(C.A.81968), against which we must evaluate penal measures.Thus, we have held repugnant to the Eighth Amendment punishments which are incompatible with "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society."Trop v. Dulles, supra, at 101, ...