|
|
Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344 (1985)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344 (1985)
Davidson v. Cannon No. 84-6470 Argued November 6, 1985 Decided January 21, 1986 474 U.S. 344
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Syllabus
When threatened by a fellow inmate in the New Jersey State Prison, petitioner sent a note reporting the incident to respondent Assistant Superintendent of the prison, who read the note and sent it to respondent Corrections Sergeant, who, while informed of its contents, did not read it or notify other officers of the threat, and forgot about it by the time he went off duty. Two days later, the inmate attacked petitioner and inflicted serious injuries. Petitioner then brought a damages action against respondents in Federal District Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that they had violated his rights under, inter alia, the Fourteenth Amendment by negligently failing to protect him from the other inmate. After a bench trial, the District Court awarded damages, holding that petitioner was deprived of his liberty interest in personal security as a result of respondents’ negligence and that such deprivation was without due process because of a New Jersey statute that protects prison officials from liability for injuries caused by one prisoner to another. The Court of Appeals reversed.
Held: The protections of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, whether procedural or substantive, are not triggered by lack of due care by prison officials. Daniels v. Williams, ante p. 327. Respondents’ lack of due care, while leading to serious injuries, simply does not approach the sort of abusive government conduct that the Due Process Clause was designed to prevent. Pp. 347-348.
752 F.2d 817, affirmed.
REHNQUIST, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and WHITE, POWELL, and O’CONNOR, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, ante, p. 336. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 349. BLACKMUN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p. 349.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344 (1985) in 474 U.S. 344 474 U.S. 345. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=D5UE196XLK9BZD2.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344 (1985), in 474 U.S. 344, page 474 U.S. 345. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=D5UE196XLK9BZD2.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344 (1985). cited in 1985, 474 U.S. 344, pp.474 U.S. 345. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=D5UE196XLK9BZD2.
|