CACI No. 3041 Violation of Prisoners' Federal Civil Rights

2.3.2 Civil Rights 42 USC § 1983 Claims Eighth Amendment Claim Convicted Prisoner Alleging Deliberate Indifference To Serious Medical Need

In this case the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant, while acting "under color" of state law, intentionally violated the Plaintiff's rights under the Constitution of the United States. Specifically, the Plaintiff claims that while the Defendant was acting under color of state law as an employee of [the Lake County Corrections Facility] the Defendant intentionally violated the Plaintiff's right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution.

More specifically, the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant was deliberately indifferent to the Plaintiff's serious medical needs. You are instructed that under the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, anyone who is convicted and detained under state law is entitled to necessary medical care, and a corrections officer would violate that right if the officer is deliberately indifferent to an inmate's serious medical need.

Stated another way, to be deliberately indifferent to an inmate’s serious medical need amounts to the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. A "serious medical need" is one that has been diagnosed by a physician as requiring treatment, or one that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for prompt medical attention.

Notice, however, that deliberate or intentional conduct on the part of the officer is required before any violation of the Constitution occurs. Mere negligence or a lack of reasonable care on the part of the officer is not enough; the Plaintiff must prove deliberate and intentional conduct resulting in a deprivation of the Plaintiff's constitutional rights through the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment.

In order to prevail on this claim the Plaintiff must prove each of the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence: First: That the Defendant was deliberately indifferent to the Plaintiff’s serious medical needs; Second: That in so doing the Defendant acted "under color" of the authority of state law; and Third: That the Defendant's acts were the proximate or legal cause of the damages sustained by the Plaintiff.

[In the verdict form that I will explain in a moment, you will be asked to answer a series of questions concerning each of these factual issues.]

[With regard to the second required element of proof - - that the Defendant acted "under color" of state law - - that fact is not disputed in this case and you may accept that fact as proved.]

With regard to the third required element of proof - - that the Defendant's acts were the proximate or legal cause of damages sustained by the Plaintiff - - you are instructed that for damages to be the proximate or legal result of a constitutional deprivation, it must be shown that, except for the constitutional deprivation, such damages would not have occurred.

If you find for the Plaintiff and against the Defendant, you will then consider the Plaintiff's claim for damages. In considering the issue of the Plaintiff's damages, you are instructed that you should assess the amount you find to be justified by a preponderance of the evidence as full, just and reasonable compensation for all of the Plaintiff's damages, no more and no less.

Compensatory damages are not allowed as a punishment and must not be imposed or increased to penalize the Defendant. Also, compensatory damages must not be based on speculation or guesswork because it is only actual damages. On the other hand, compensatory damages are not restricted to actual loss of time or money; they cover both the mental and physical aspects of injury - - tangible and intangible.

Thus, no evidence of the value of such intangible things as emotional pain and mental anguish has been or need be introduced. In that respect it is not value you are trying to determine, but an amount that will fairly compensate the Plaintiff for those claims of damage. There is no exact standard to be applied; any such award should be fair and just in the light of the evidence.

You should consider the following elements of damage, to the extent you find them proved by a preponderance of the evidence, and no others:

(a) Physical as well as emotional pain and mental anguish.

(b) Punitive damages, if any (as explained in the Court’s instructions)

[The Plaintiff also claims that the acts of the Defendant were done with malice or reckless indifference to the Plaintiff's federally protected rights so as to entitle the Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages. If you find for the Plaintiff, and if you further find that the Defendant did act with malice, or reckless indifference to the Plaintiff's federally protected rights, the law would allow you, in your discretion, to assess punitive damages against the Defendant as punishment and as a deterrent to others. If you find that punitive damages should be assessed against the Defendant, you may consider the financial resources of the Defendant in fixing the amount of such damages [and you may assess punitive damages against one or more of the Defendants, and not others, or against more than one Defendant in different amounts].]

SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO THE JURY

Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence:

1. That the Defendant was deliberately indifferent to the Plaintiff’s serious medical needs?

Answer Yes or No Yes No

[Note: If you answered No to Question No. 1, you need not answer the remaining questions.]

2. That the Defendant’s acts were the proximate or legal cause of damages sustained by the Plaintiff?

Answer Yes or No Yes No

3. That the Plaintiff should be awarded damages to compensate for physical as well as emotional pain and mental anguish?

Answer Yes or No Yes No

If you answered Yes, in what amount? $

4. That the Defendant acted with malice or reckless indifference to the Plaintiff’s federally protected rights and that punitive damages should be assessed against the Defendant?

Answer Yes or No Yes No

If you answered Yes, in what amount? $

SO SAY WE ALL.

ANNOTATIONS AND COMMENTS

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (“deliberate indifference” is a subjective test). See also Lancaster v. Monroe County, 116 F.3d 1419, 1425 (11th Cir. 1997).