We notched a win against the feds!
Friends,
Earlier this week, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Hurst v. Derr, a Public Accountability case about whether federal inmates have a right to sue prison officials who refuse to provide medical care. It held that they do. This is a huge win for people in federal prison. Read on for more details, as well as updates on other recent work.
Hurst v. Derr
Background. The “Bivens” doctrine is what lets you sue federal agents for violating your constitutional rights. Without it, federal agents could beat protesters, assault prisoners, and intimidate journalists with absolute impunity. Problem is, the Supreme Court has been cutting away at Bivens for decades. But it’s always said that the “core” of Bivens—which includes lawsuits for prisoner mistreatment—remains intact. (We did a deep dive into Bivens last year.)
Hurst's claim. Our client, an inmate in federal prison, was injured when a gang fight broke out in the dayroom where he was trying to watch television. Three gang members attacked him with a “lock in a sock.” He had visible wounds on his head and body, but the prison nurse decided not to x-ray him or assess him for a concussion and just discharged him without treatment. This kind of case is clearly within the “core” of Bivens—but the district court held that Hurst had no claim and tossed his case out.
The Ninth Circuit’s decision. The court of appeals reversed the district court’s decision. Along the way, it rejected some common arguments the federal government has been making in cases like these, such as that differences in the severity of injury, the type of medical mistreatment, or the existence of a prison grievance system take a case outside the core of Bivens. These are ludicrous arguments, but courts have been buying them. Convincing the court to reject them is a major victory.
Other recent work
In other news, it's been a minute since our last update! Here's what we've been up to the last few months.
Hannah v. Oregon. The State of Oregon has been prosecuting thousands of people without a public defender. Our clients sued, but the court of appeals dismissed their claims as moot because—quelle surprise—once they sued, the state found them public defenders. We fought back and convinced the Oregon Supreme Court to grant review. You can check out the briefs at our Hannah case page. Oral argument is set for September 12.
McCrae v. City of Salem. Our client, a college student and track star, was peacefully protesting the murder of George Floyd when a police officer shot her in the eye and ended her athletic career. A jury awarded her a million dollars in damages. Then came the rub: After trial, the district court decided that the officer should get qualified immunity and our client should get bupkis. You can check out the briefs at our McCrae case page, and watch our ED present oral argument on YouTube.
Fagon v. Kiely. In a shocking display of violence and brutality, five New Britain police officers shot 28 rounds at a young Black man as he was trying to flee arrest in a car. Two rounds hit him in the head and neck and he died. We represent his mother, who sued on behalf of his estate. The district court denied the officers’ request for qualified immunity, but they took an immediate appeal to the Second Circuit. You can check out the briefs at our Fagon case page.
If you’ve been wondering what happened to Clearly Established, our monthly roundup of accountability decisions from the federal courts of appeals, fear not—it’ll return next month. In the meantime, please feel free to send this newsletter to any friends or family who might find it interesting. If you got this from a friend, you can sign up to receive future issues here. And if you’re able to support our important work, please do:
Thanks for reading,
Athul K. Acharya
Founder & Executive Director
Public Accountability
