Deliberate Indifference is hard to define and difficult to define. It is hard for a prisoner to meet the deliberate indifference standard. The court figures out deliberate indifference from negligence. They have also ruled that an act of negligence is not enough to impose liability under the 1983. (Ross, 2015) Negligence is the failure to use care as a reasonable person may do under the same circumstances. (Ross, 2015) Since the standard was first established the court has determined that deliberate indifference is a between “mere negligence and something less than acts or omission for the very purpose of causing harm” (Farmer v. Brenan 1994) Deliberate Indifferences has certain requirements. The requirements are serious medical complaints even when it is a continuous nature should not be ignored.
…show more content…
When the assault occurred, Sherry was medically treated. They also did not send her back to D-block. The correctional officials did what they felt was in her best interest which was protecting her by placing her back in segregation. Sherry does not have enough facts to present a case. In fact, she will not win the case if she tries to file a claim. Sherry’s eighth amendment rights were not violated. The prison officials did a good job at protecting Sherry because now that she is in segregation the assault will not occur again. Sherry should appreciate what they are doing for her because they could have simply sent her back to D-block where she could have been assaulted worse than she was the first time. I agree with the court’s decision in reasoning in developing this standard because it makes a lot of sense. The prisoner should have proof that a correctional facility knew of risks that was going to occur or even before it occurred. For example, Sherry was put in segregation before the incident occurred until she kept requesting to get out of segregation and into general
When the assault occurred, Sherry was medically treated. They also did not send her back to D-block. The correctional officials did what they felt was in her best interest which was protecting her by placing her back in segregation. Sherry does not have enough facts to present a case. In fact, she will not win the case if she tries to file a claim. Sherry’s eighth amendment rights were not violated. The prison officials did a good job at protecting Sherry because now that she is in segregation the assault will not occur again. Sherry should appreciate what they are doing for her because they could have simply sent her back to D-block where she could have been assaulted worse than she was the first time. I agree with the court’s decision in reasoning in developing this standard because it makes a lot of sense. The prisoner should have proof that a correctional facility knew of risks that was going to occur or even before it occurred. For example, Sherry was put in segregation before the incident occurred until she kept requesting to get out of segregation and into general