preview

Phillips V Bluebird Case

Better Essays
Open Document

I. DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE DEFENDANTS CONDUCT DID NOT RESULT IN AN OBJECTIVELY SERIOUS INJURY TO THE PLAINTIFF NOR DID THE DEFENDANTS ACT WITH DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE OR RECKLESS DISREGARD TOWARD THE PLAINTIFF’S RIGHTS, HEALTH, OR SAFETY. In order to assert a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C § 1983, the plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) the prison officials alleged conduct was objectively, sufficiently serious or caused an objectively serious injury to the plaintiff and (2) that the prison official acted with deliberate indifference or reckless disregard toward the plaintiff's constitutional rights, health, or safety by showing that the prison official acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind. …show more content…

Bird, while imprisoned the plaintiff engaged in four incidents of agreed to sexual activity with the defendant who was employed as a correctional officer, consisting of kissing, sexual intercourse, and the plaintiff performing oral sex on the defendant. Id. at *3. At the conclusion of the relationship, plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the defendant violated her civil rights because she was a prisoner and, as a matter of law, could not consent to sexual activity. Id. at *7. Defendant moved for a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the plaintiff had no cognizable claim for relief under the Eighth Amendment because plaintiff agreed to participate in the sexual acts and the sexual acts did not inflict pain or injury. Id. at *6-7. The court granted the defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that plaintiff failed to prove that defendant’s conduct caused her pain and that the inmate voluntarily and willingly had sex with the guard, which did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment simply because it occurred within the walls of the prison. Id. at …show more content…

Ballista, plaintiff and defendant were engaged in a long-term sexual relationship. Chao, 772 F. Supp. 2d at 340-41. Over the course of a year, the defendant had plaintiff perform oral sex fifty to one hundred times, sometimes three times in one night. Id. at 341. Plaintiff alleged that during the relationship, the defendant would use rubber gloves and plastic bags for protection, and enter the plaintiff’s cell several times a night, awakening her to perform oral sex. Id. at 352. At one point, defendant confessed to plaintiff that he felt like he was abusing his authority and taking advantage of her. Id. Over time the relationship became abusive, although the plaintiff had told the defendant about her past abusive relationships. Id. at 343. The court found that in addition to being reckless with plaintiff’s mental health, the defendant was also reckless with her physical health. Id. at 353. Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. at 341. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment in which the court denied, holding that the facts presented were sufficient to show that the defendant exhibited the classic deliberate indifference to the harm he was visiting on the plaintiff. Id. at

Get Access
Related
Get Access