A federal district court’s November ruling that medical care provided at the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola amounted to “abhorrent cruel and unusual punishment” and ordering that the prison’s medical wards be overseen by court-appointed “special masters” now hangs in the balance after a federal appeals court considered a challenge Monday (March 4) by the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, among other defendants.
State Attorney General Liz Murrill told a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans that Angola has made significant improvements since a group of prisoners filed the 2015 class action lawsuit — which alleged that inadequate care at the prison amounted to a violation of their constitutional rights — and challenged claims there was ever a problem in the first place.
Murrill cited the addition of specialty clinics, telemedicine and air conditioning in several medical dorms within the sprawling maximum security facility as examples of the changes.
She also maintained that the plaintiffs have never proven that the Department of Corrections acted with “deliberate indifference” toward the sick and infirm, which is a legal bar the plaintiffs must meet in order to prove violations of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
“I believe that the judges should give us credit for what we have done to improve conditions,” Murrill said. “And that didn’t happen in this case.”
Plaintiffs’ attorney Jeffrey Dubner, told the judges that in spite of the state’s efforts, medical care at Angola continues to fall well below constitutionally acceptable standards.
“We’re asking for a prison when, for example, the medical director is told a patient has gone into shock in the infirmary, his blood pressure at 65 over 40, his oxygen saturation plummeting, he doesn’t say, ‘I don’t need to see him. Leave him in a locked room so he can die an hour later,’” said Dubner, the legal director for the nonprofit legal group Democracy Forward.
Dubner then summarized the testimony of several experts who testified on behalf of the plaintiffs that medical records at Angola showed pervasive and often “grossly substandard” care.
Those exact same problems have been found throughout the nearly decade-long life of the case, Dubner added.
The original complaint, filed on behalf of 12 named plaintiffs, alleged the prison’s health care “falls far short of minimal constitutional requirements and fails to meet prisoners’ basic health needs, leaving painful and often life-threatening conditions unaddressed or inadequately addressed.”
U.S. District Court Judge Shelly Dick ruled in favor of the prisoners in November, ordering the appointment of three special masters to develop, implement and monitor plans to improve health care at the prison. Along with their claims that Dick ignored recent reforms, attorneys for the state argued on appeal that she erred by demanding a level of care expected of a community clinic or hospital. Prisons, the state argues, are not required to provide community-level or optimal care, but merely adequate care.
The three-member panel, which included Judges Edith Jones, Catharina Haynes and Dana Douglas, appeared somewhat split. Haynes, who was appointed to the seat in 2008 by President George W. Bush, impressed upon both sides that the case was now more than nine years old and pushed for a resolution. Douglas, a 2022 appointee of President Joe Biden, remained largely quiet throughout the proceedings, which lasted about an hour.
Jones, who was appointed in 1985 by President Ronald Reagan, made her sympathy for the state clear. She accused the plaintiffs of demanding perfection while ignoring any changes or improvements made by the prison which, she said, has “been under a Damocles sword imposed by the federal courts.”
“You’re asking for a standard that exceeds what I can get in the free world,” Jones said.
Dubner responded: “I don’t believe we are trying to measure against a standard of perfection. We’re trying to measure it against a standard of minimal constitutional adequacy, so there’s not shockingly abhorrent mistreatment and lack of treatment.”
Toward the end of the hearing, Jones floated the idea of sending the case back to the district court with an order to consider, within 60 days, additional evidence presented by the state to prove it has made significant changes.
Murrill said they would be happy with that decision. “I’m not going to look a gift horse in the mouth,” she said.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
