PLEASE HELP ME PRFECT, EDIT AND REWORD THE FOLLOWING CASE BRIEF: ALSO ARE THESE

Question

PLEASE HELP ME PRFECT, EDIT AND REWORD THE FOLLOWING CASE BRIEF:

ALSO ARE THESE SUBHEADING CORRECT???

Case Study & Citation:

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 US 97 (1976)

Facts of the Case:

On November 9, 1973, J. W. Gamble a prisoner in the Huntington Unit of the Texas prison system had a 600-pound bale of cotton fall on him. He was participating in a work assignment in a textile mill within Huntsville, Texas. He continued to work for, but later became stiff and requested to go to the unit hospital. The hospital gave Gamble a checkup for a hernia and sent him back to his cell, but later his pain became so intense that he was forced to return to the hospital. A nurse gave Gamble two pain pills, and a hospital doctor later examined him but gave him no further treatment. On November 10th, a different doctor examined Gamble, prescribed him painkillers and placed Gamble on a cell-pass and cell-feed routine that confined him to his cell for the most part.

That same doctor later took Gamble off the cell-pass cell-feed routine, concluding that he was able to engage in light work. The prison administrative office soon placed Gamble in “administrative segregation”, essentially solitary confinement, for refusing to work. Gamble remained in solitary confinement through January of the next year, although he complained that his back pain was as intense as on the first day he was injured. On December 6, a different doctor examined Gamble and diagnosed him with high blood pressure; the previous doctor never detected this condition. Gamble refused to work several more times over the next few months, and was repeatedly disciplined for doing so. When Gamble began experiencing pain in his chest on a regular basis, he was hospitalized and treated, but the prison denied him later requests for treatment. In all, medical personnel treated Gamble seventeen times.

On February 11, 1974, Gamble signed a pro se complaint alleging that the prison subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth. The district court dismissed Gamble’s complaint for failure to state a claim. Therefore, the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, reversed, noting that the prison failed to diagnose Gamble’s back injury by giving him an X-ray, that the prison provided no real treatment for Gamble’s back injury, and that Gamble was essentially placed in solitary confinement due to substandard medical care.

Issue

Two issues come into question. First, did Gamble state a claim upon which relief could be granted or at least advance a constitutional issue when arguing that he was exposed to cruel and unusual punishment? Second, was the Fifth Circuit wrong in reversing the lower court’s dismissal of Gamble’s case?

Analysis

The Court’s analysis of this case dove deep into the facts and the plaintiff’s specific complaints. At the onset, it noted that Gamble actually received medical attention more than a dozen times while in prison over just a few months. Further, it stated that if any care given to him was inadequate it may have just been inadvertent or merely negligent-a determination that should be made by his treating medical professionals. However, it did go on to set a standard for the requisite medical treatment due to prisoners. The Court ruled that prisons subject prisoners to cruel or unusual punishment if they act with deliberate indifference to the prisoner’s medical needs. It concluded as much when it said the following: “We therefore conclude that deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain…’”

Breakdown

To the first issue, the court found that Gamble did not state a claim upon which relief could granted or advance a constitutional issue because the Texas government afforded him medical care, despite however inadvertent or negligent it was. To the second issue, the Court ruled that the Fifth Circuit was wrong in reversing the lower court’s dismissal of Gamble’s case because the form of medical treatment was a matter left to the treating medical professionals that could not rise to the level of cruel or unusual punishment. This case broke down 8 to 1. The majority consisted of Burger, Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, and Rehnquist. John Paul Stevens was the lone dissenter.

Consequences

This is a seminal case for prisoners’ rights and the obligations of prison systems throughout the country. It declares that courts cannot act with deliberate indifference when the health of inmates is at stake.

Explanation / Answer

Facts of the Case:

On November 9, 1973, a 600-pound bale of cotton happened to fall on J. W. Gamble, a prisoner in the Huntington Unit of the Texas prison, He was a part of a work assignment in a textile mill in Huntsville, Texas. He continued to work there, but once he felt becoming stiff and requested to go to the unit hospital. The hospital checked up Gamble for hernia and sent him back to his cell, but later his pain got very intense and he was forced to return to the hospital. A nurse gave Gamble two pain pills, and later, a hospital doctor examined him but did not treat him any further. On November 10th, a different doctor examined Gamble, prescribed him painkillers and placed him on a cell-pass with cell-feed routine that confined him in the cell for the most of the time.

The same doctor later took Gamble off the cell-pass cell-feed routine, concluding that he was capable to engage in light work. The prison administrative office soon placed Gamble in “administrative segregation”, essentially solitary confinement, for refusing to work. Gamble remained in solitary confinement through January of the next year, since he complained that his back pain was as intense as on the first day he was injured. On December 6, a different doctor examined Gamble and diagnosed him with high blood pressure which the previous doctor never detected. Gamble refused to work several more times over the next few months, and was repeatedly disciplined for doing so. When Gamble began experiencing pain in his chest on a regular basis, he was hospitalized and treated, but the prison denied him later requests for treatment. Medical personnel treated Gamble seventeen times in total.

On February 11, 1974, Gamble signed a pro complaint alleging that the prison subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment in charge of violation of the Eighth Amendment which was made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth. The district court dismissed Gamble’s complaint for failure to state a claim. Therefore, the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, reversed, noting that the prison failed to diagnose Gamble’s back injury inspite of having X-ray done, the prison provided no real treatment for Gamble’s back injury, and Gamble was essentially placed in solitary confinement due to substandard medical care.

Issue

Two issues arises in this situation. First, did Gamble state a claim upon which relief could be granted or at least advance a constitutional issue when arguing that he was exposed to cruel and unusual punishment? Second, was the Fifth Circuit wrong in reversing the lower court’s dismissal of Gamble’s case?

Analysis

The Court’s analysis of this case dove deep into the facts and the plaintiff’s specific complaints. At the onset, it noted that Gamble actually received medical attention more than a dozen of times while in prison in just a few months. Further, it stated that if any care given to him was inadequate it may have just been inadvertent or merely negligent-a determination that should be made by his treating medical professionals. However, it did go on to set a standard for the requisite medical treatment due to prisoners. The Court ruled that prisons subject prisoners to cruel or unusual punishment if they act with deliberate indifference to the medical needs. It concluded as much when it said the following: “We therefore conclude that deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain…’”

Breakdown

To the first issue, the court found that Gamble did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted or advance a constitutional issue because the Texas government assured him medical care, despite however inadvertent or negligent it was. To the second issue, the Court ruled that the Fifth Circuit was wrong in reversing the lower court’s dismissal of Gamble’s case because the form of medical treatment was a document left to the medical professionals and could not rise to the level of cruel or unusual punishment. This case broke down 8 to 1. The majority comprised of Burger, Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, and Rehnquist. John Paul Stevens was the lone dissenter.

Consequences

This is a seminal case for prisoners’ rights and the obligations of prison systems throughout the country. It declares that courts cannot act with deliberate indifference when the health of inmates is at stake.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse P
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.