top of page

CONTINUATION OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES AND ARGUMENTS

People confined in jail or prison have a statutory, constitutional and civil right to redress the courts both in state and on the federal level when their civil rights are violated. First, see Article 2 section 6 of the Oklahoma Constitution. This is called Due Process of law which in found both in the Oklahoma Constitution, Article 2 section 7, and the United States Constitution; see the Fourteenth Amendment.

​

The individuals who are confined in jail or prison have a constitutional right to be protected from arm by either those who confine them (jailers or prison guards and even from the activities of other prisoners). In such a case where the inmate is subjected to Eighth Amendment violates (cruel and unusual punishment) he/she would file a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 lawsuit in either state or federal court within the jurisdiction where the act occurred. Smith v. Wade, 103 S. Ct.1625. In some cases, depending on the severity of the situation, plaintiff can ask for and actually receive punitive damages. The legal standard for the award of punitive damages hinges on a finding that the officer displayed a callous or reckless disregard or a deliberate indifference to the inmate's right to safety. These damages are included with compensatory damages, which are awarded for the actual harm done to the plaintiff.

Section 1983 reads in relevant part: "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress." Mind you, prison guards and jailers may try and squirm out of liability by claiming qualified immunity from suit. Procunier v. Navrette, 98 S. Ct. 855, and in some cases they'll win on that defense. So the plaintiff will have to prove more than negligence on part of the perpetrator. The plaintiff will have to prove "gross negligence" which is defined as "a callous indifference" or an "egregious failure to protect." See Smith v. Wade and cases therein cited.

​

© Copyright 2023 Oklahoma Paralegals 94611

FOLLOW US:

  • w-facebook
  • w-twitter
bottom of page