I need help adding to and proofingmy case brief.... PROMPT IN BOLD: Brief one of
ID: 3502654 • Letter: I
Question
I need help adding to and proofingmy case brief....
PROMPT IN BOLD:
Brief one of the cases assigned for this Module. Select one of the three cases in this Module. Identify the key issues that are before the Court for decision (often referred to as the "Questions Presented"). Then discuss the rules (e.g., from the US Constitution and/or prior cases decided by the US Supreme Court) that the Court will apply to the question and how the Court applies those rules to the facts before it. Finally, set forth the Court's conclusion -- What does the Court decide?
Writing assignments should be no more than two pages (double-spaced with 12 point font and one inch margins and excluding a bibliography). For this assignment, you do not need to use sources other than the Court opinion itself.
If you select a case in which more than one question is presented to the Court, you may choose to focus on one of those core questions -- just state that you are doing so in the introduction to your writing assignment. For example, in NFIB v. Sebelius, the Court considers the constitutionality of two core components of the Affordable Care Act. It would be appropriate to focus on just one of those, given the complexity of each.
MY PAPER IS AS FOLLOWS:
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 US 97 (1976)
Facts
On November 9, 1973, a 600-pound bale of cotton happened to fall on J. W. Gamble, a prisoner in the Huntington Unit of the Texas prison, he was a part of a work assignment in a textile mill in Huntsville, Texas. He continued to work after the incident, but when he started becoming stiff he requested to go to the unit hospital. The hospital checked Mr. Gamble and sent him to his cell with no treatment provided. Later his pain worsened, and he was forced to return to the hospital. Mr. Gamble received two pain pills, and the hospital doctor examined him but provided no further treatment. Then on November 10th, a different doctor examined him, the doctor prescribed Mr. Gamble painkillers and placed him on a cell-pass with cell-feed routine that confined him in the cell for most of the time.
That same doctor later took Gamble off the cell-pass cell-feed routine, concluding that he was capable to engage in light work. The prison administrative office placed Gamble in “administrative segregation”, for refusing to work. This basically meant Mr. Gamble was in solitary confinement, for refusing to work. Mr. Gamble stated that his pain had not alleviated since the initial incident occurred. Mr. Gamble remained in administrative segregation through January of the next year. On December 6, a new doctor examined Gamble and diagnosed him with high blood pressure, a diagnosis none of the previous doctors had found. Gamble refused to work several more times over the next few months and was repeatedly disciplined, despite him vocalizing the extreme pain he was in. It was not until Mr. Gamble experienced regular chest pains that he was hospitalized and treated, but his later requests for treatments were denied. In total Gamble was treated seventeen times for the pain he was experiencing.
Procedural History
On February 11, 1974, Gamble signed a pro se complaint alleging that the prison subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth. The district court dismissed the complaint however stating there was a failure to state a claim. Then, the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, reversed, stating that the prison failed to diagnose Gamble’s back injury despite having X-ray done, that the prison provided no real treatment, and it was unfair to place Mr. Gamble in essentially solitary confinement due to negligence.
Issues Presented
Two issues arise in this situation. First, did Gamble state a claim upon which relief could be granted or advance a constitutional issue when arguing that he was exposed to cruel and unusual punishment? Second, was the Fifth Circuit wrong in reversing the lower court’s dismissal of Gamble’s case?
Holding
The first issue, the court found that Gamble did not state a claim that advanced a constitutional issue because the Texas government assured him medical care, despite it being inadequate. The second issue, the Court ruled that the Fifth Circuit was in fact wrong in reversing the lower court’s dismissal of Gamble’s case. Since the medical treatment was a document left to the medical professionals it could not reach the level of cruel or unusual punishment. The case ended in 8 to 1. The majority was made up of Burger, Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, and Rehnquist, with the opposer being Stevens.
Rationale
Looking intensely at the plaintiff’s specific complaints the Court’s analyzed Mr. Gambles arguments in depth. They noted that over the course of a few months Mr. Gamble received medical attention over a dozen times. Then, they stated that if any care given to Mr. Gamble was inadequate it may have been negligence from medical professionals providing his care. It did go on to set a standard for the requisite medical treatment for prisoners. The Court ruled that a prison does subject prisoners to cruel or unusual punishment if they act with deliberate indifference to the medical needs.
Concurring
They concluded by stating the following: “We therefore conclude that deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain…’” This is a case for prisoners’ rights and the obligations within the prison systems throughout our country. It declares that courts cannot act with deliberate indifference when the health of inmates is at stake.
Explanation / Answer
Answer. ( I have proof read your document and added some details. The edited answer is added below. Your answer is detailed and well composed. Good luck!)
On November 9, 1973, a 600-pound ball of cotton happened to fall on J. W. Gamble, a prisoner in the Huntington Unit of the Texas prison. He was a part of a work assignment in a textile mill in Huntsville, Texas. He continued to work after the incident, but when he started becoming stiff he requested to go to the unit hospital. The hospital checked Mr. Gamble and sent him to his cell with no treatment provided. Later his pain worsened, and he was forced tok return to the hospital. Mr. Gamble received two painkillers, and the hospital doctor examined him but provided no further treatment. Then on November 10th, a different doctor examined him, the doctor prescribed Mr. Gamble painkillers and placed him on a cell-pass with cell-feed routine that confined him in the cell for most of the time.
That same doctor later took Gamble off the cell-pass cell-feed routine, concluding that he was capable to engage in light work. The prison administrative office placed Gamble in “administrative segregation”, for refusing to work. This basically meant Mr. Gamble was in solitary confinement, for refusing to work. Mr. Gamble stated that his pain had not alleviated since the initial incident occurred. Mr. Gamble remained in administrative segregation through January of the next year. On December 6, a new doctor examined Gamble and diagnosed him with high blood pressure, a diagnosis none of the previous doctors had found. Gamble refused to work several more times over the next few months and was repeatedly disciplined, despite him expressing the extreme pain that he continued to experience. It was not until Mr. Gamble complained of having regular chest pains that he was hospitalised and treated, but his later requests for treatments were denied. In total Gamble was treated seventeen times for the pain he was experiencing.
Procedural History
On February 11, 1974, Gamble signed a pro se complaint alleging that the prison administration had subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The district court dismissed the complaint however stating there was a failure to state a claim. Then, the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, reversed, stating that the medical experts failed to diagnose Gamble’s back injury despite having X-ray done, that the prison provided no real treatment, and it was unfair to place Mr. Gamble in essentially solitary confinement due to negligence.
Issues Presented
Two issues arise in this situation. First, did Gamble state a claim upon which relief could be granted or advance a constitutional issue when arguing that he was exposed to cruel and unusual punishment? Second, was the Fifth Circuit wrong in reversing the lower court’s dismissal of Gamble’s case?
Holding
The first issue, the court found that Gamble did not state a claim that advanced a constitutional issue because the Texas government assured him medical care, despite it being inadequate. The second issue, the Court ruled that the Fifth Circuit was in fact wrong in reversing the lower court’s dismissal of Gamble’s case. Since the medical treatment was a document left to the medical professionals it could not reach the level of cruel or unusual punishment. The case ended in 8 to 1. The majority was made up of Burger, Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, and Rehnquist, with the opposition juror being Stevens.
Rationale
Looking intensely at the plaintiff’s specific complaints the court analysed Mr. Gamble’s arguments in depth. They noted that in the course of a few months Mr. Gamble received medical attention over a dozen times. Then, they stated that any inadequacy in the care given to Mr. Gamble may have been due to negligence from the medical professionals. The court worked towards setting a standard for the requisite medical treatment for prisoners. The Court ruled that a prison is justified in subjecting prisoners to cruel or unusual punishment if they act with deliberate indifference to the medical needs.
Concurring
They concluded by stating the following: “We therefore conclude that deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain…’” This is a case for prisoners’ rights and the obligations within the prison systems throughout our country. It declares that courts cannot act with deliberate indifference when the health of inmates is at stake.
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.