Menüü

Järgima @ Lockdownlive twitteris.

scdsc

detailid

  • Valitsus nimi: Eric Van Buren
  • Registreeri arv: 11044-068
  • Vanus:42
  • Aeg Serveeritakse:14 aastat
  • Kodulinnas:Washington D.C.
  • Lause:LIFE
  • Praegune Charge:Narkomaania Conspiracy
  • Teise nimega:Big Erk, Tilk Face, Beezer
  • Väljalaskekuupäev:armuandmise kandidaat
  • Vangla Liitumine:Another Chance 4 Legal (AC4L)
  • Ringi mõju:Marcus Martin, Another Chance 4 Legal
  • Institutsioon:USP Kaanan
  • There is no honor in coming to prison. It does NOT make you a man.

Kuidas toimida Medical Küsimused Vangla

medical-neglect-prisons

Paljud inimesed küsivad, teine ​​võimalus 4 Juriidiline ja kunst võitmine Kohtuvaidlus aluse juhiseid oma või kallimale meditsiini küsimustes vangi. What this blogpost will do is breakdown a proven successful method to properly exhaust and forward your medical claim(s) kohtus. This is NOT a treatise on how to file a Prison Litigation Reform Act or Federal Tort Claim Act Claim. Vaatama Roma v. Ühendriigid, 344 F.3d 352, 362 (3d CIR. 2003).

Nagu te võib või ei tea, prisoners are 2,000-times more likely NOT to receive proper and appropriate medical attention while incarcerated. The Vangla Legal Uudised has horror story upon horror story proving that medical negligence in prison is routine. Women prisoners suffer the worst. Medical küsimusi vanglas on küsimus kavatseme käsitleda 2016 ja läheb edasi.

STEP 1: Determine Viability of Claim

The best chance for a WINNING claim is one that involves irreparable injury. Irreparable injury is an injury that can not be repaired or that involves continued treatment. The 8th Amendment obligates prison officials to provide adequate medical care. Vaatama Estelle v. Gamble, 429 Ameerika Ühendriike. 92, 103 (1976). [Mental health and Dental care are governed that same as medical care]. Vaatama Tilley v. Owens, 719 F.Supp. 1256 , 1286 (W.D.PA. 1989); Hoptowit v. Kiir, 682 F.2d 1237, 1253 (9th CIR. 1982)

Hea näide korvamatut kahju, on Wakefield v. Ühendriigid, 2014 Ameerika Ühendriike. Dist. LEXIS 171800 (n • d. fla. Oktoober 16, 2014). This person who was disfigured in prison was a client of The Art of Winning Litigation Foundation. kasutamine The Art of Winning Litigation, we invoked a settlement in this case. A good test to determine the viability of a claim is to ask, on kahju korvamatu või saab seda määrata ise ilma meditsiinilise sekkumiseta? If an injury is not irreparable an does not need medical intervention, me opine see ei ole reaalne nõue.

STEP 2: Prove a “tahtlik Ükskõiksus” Esines

(a) Deliberate indifference is a harder standard to prove than mere negligence. See ei ole tähtis, et vangla meditsiinitöötaja oli hooletu. What matters is that their negligence was the reason for injury AND that it is reasonable to believe a prison medical official should have known, enne vigastuse, that said injury was possible due to their neglect.

What is legally required is an excessive risk of harm to a prisoner. Vaatama Farmer v. Brennan, 511 Ameerika Ühendriike. 825, 836 (1994). Vanglas tahtlik hoolimatus on rutiinne. Paljudes vanglates iga kinnipeetava meditsiiniline virisema on tutvunud umbusklikult. This bias creates a culture. See kultuur on fanaatikud. Ka, vanglas, vindictive behavior between prison staff and prisoners is common. These factors are hard to demonstrate legally. When it is a prisoner’s word against a staff member . . . hästi saab aru, et välja.

(b) This may sound obvious, but to prove a prison medical claim, one must show an injury occurred. This can done by using circumstantial evidence such as: 1) the inability to perform a specific duty upon release 2) the inability to hold or get a job 3) secondary injuries sustained due to the primary injury. Lisaks, otsesed tõendid on suur, things such as: 1) Haige Call taotluse 2) medical records (Ma tean, et see on lihtsam öelda kui teha) 3) kaebusi (kindlasti ära kõik haldusalast kaitsevahendit) 4) treatment or the lack thereof or the inadequacy of treatment. I know submitting or requesting direct evidence often comes with a price so prisoners have to discern if filing is worth all that comes with it.

(c) Pea meeles, 8. Muudatusettepanek keelab “tarbetu ja liiderdaja nuhtlus valu”. Tõsine meditsiiniline vajadus on: 1) Something a doctor would perceive as an important or worthy need, piisavalt, nii et see oleks kommenteerida või pakkuda ravi; 2) a medical condition that affects daily activity or will at sometime; 3) chronic and substantial pain is so obvious even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity of medical attention. Vaata Adams vs.. POAG, 61 F.3d 1537, 1543-44 (11th CIR. 1995).

Naised meeles pidada, et hilises raseduse, eriti kolmandal trimestril, constitutes a serious medical need. Vaatama Doe v. Gustav, 294 F. supp. 2d 1003, 1008 (E.D. WIS. 2003).

(d) Lõpuks, vanglaametnikud näidata tahtlik hoolimatus kui nad keelavad teil tegemast oma haigusseisundi tuntud meditsiinitöötajatele või kui töötajad on saamatud
uurida, diagnoosima, ravida ja saata meditsiiniline seisund. Vaatama Hoptowit v. Kiir, 682 F.2d 1237, 1252-53 (9th CIR. 1982).

STEP 3: Korralikult ära kõik õiguskaitsevahendid

Kasulik link vanglasse ja vanglas töövaidluste poliitika.

(a) See on keeruline. PLRA (Vangla Litigation Reform Act) seab piirid ja nõuded vangi. The PLRA tells you how to file a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 nõue. There is a BIVENS claim to bring against an official acting outside their official duty. A good example is the BIVENS case itself where policeman ran up in a house without probable cause or a search warrant. Vaatama Bivens, 403 Ameerika Ühendriike. 388 (1971). Siis on FTCA (Federal kahjunõue seadus) väidavad, kus Ameerika Ühendriigid on ainus kostja. Vaatama CNA v. Ühendriigid, 535 F.3d 132 (3d CIR. 2008).

(b) Iga vang kahjutasu või esialgse õiguskaitse põhineb tingimused nende sünnitust võib tuua ülikond alla 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. vastavalt § 1983 a prisoner can seek monetary relief, sealhulgas nominaalse, compensatory and punitive damages. Vaatama Memphis Comm. Sch. Dist. sisse. Stachura, 477 Ameerika Ühendriike. 299, 308 (1986).

(c) Prisoners having trouble exhausting a claim due to “asju kaugemale [oma] kontroll” should look at these cases. Jones v. Brock, 548 Ameerika Ühendriike. 199, 216 (2007) ja Dole v. Chandler, 483 F.3d 804, 809 (7th CIR. 2006). These cases offer instances when a prison official interferes with the exhaustion process, or if a claim is asked to be dismissed for failure to exhaust when an attempt to was made.

(d) Füüsiline vigastus tuleb näidata veenda võimalikke kompenseerivaid nõude kahju. Vaatama Davis v. D.C., 158 F.3d 1342, 1349 (D.C.. CIR. 1998) ja Mitchell v. Sarv, 318 F.3d 523, 533-36 (3d CIR. 2003). Also remember a prisoner’s constitutional rights are vähese tähtsusega. Näiteks: A free citizen MUST be given notice BEFORE their property is seized. In prison this is not required and in certain circumstances you have a right to be given notice AFTER your property has been seized. So keep this is mind when filing BIVENS actions.

(ja) TEADE kõigile kinnipeetavatele: FTCA forms for injury or loss are being given out in substitute for BP-8 request. Know the difference. Kohta Mars v. Hanberry, 752 F.2d 254, 255 (6th CIR. 1985), once you bring a TORT claim for monetary compensation on this form you are “lukustatud” to the decision of the Agency. Kui amet ei taha teile rahalise lahenduse siis ei saa, suuremalt jaolt, appeal this decision to the court. We believe this is a trick because claims of injury or loss that do not have an officer’s acquiescence or a group of prisoners to back it usually lose. Not in all cases but in most cases.

Me isegi ei tea juhtumeid, kui üks vang hakkab BP-8 protsessi, then files a FTCA claim (kohta selles vormis), manustamist automaatselt rebib üles või eitab
vangide väidab all PLRA. Hiljuti vangid on nõudnud, et faili kasutades FTCA kujul. Ära meelitatakse. Fail oma BP-8 minna, läbi protsessi, siis
esitada oma FTCA nõude vajaduse korral pärast olete kohtusse.

STEP 4: Tähtajad

Tea piirid. The duration of the statute of limitations applied by federal courts depends on the structure of the state’s statute of limitations in which the claim arose. Vaatama Wallace v. Kato, 549 Ameerika Ühendriike. 384, 387 (2007). If there is a persisting medical condition, one can bring suit anytime during the existence of this condition. FTCA claims must be filed within two years from when the claim arose and 42 USC § 1983 claims limitations are guided by the state. (Vt eespool).

STEP 5: Kuidas esitada

(a) Pange tähele, et me alati esitada nõudeid abil, mida The Art of Winning Litigation calls fact-based-litigation. We suggest filing the initial BP-8 (Kaebuste nõue) kasutades numbrilist ja kronoloogilist lähenemisviisi.

Näiteks:

1. On August 2014, Mul ei olnud TB (Vaata Exh. 1)
2. septembril 2014, Ma pandi raku kellegagi, kes oli TB (Vaata Exh. 2)
3. On ehk umbes september 2014 detsember 2014, I complained to prison officials about being celled w/someone who had TB. (Vaata Vandena)
4. On January 2015, Ma viidi erinevatesse lahtritesse. (Vaata Exh. 3)
5. Märtsil 2015, Mul diagnoositi latentse TB (Vaata Exh. 4)
6. Mail 2015, Hakkasin ravimeid, latentse TB (Vaata Exh. 4)
7. On October 2015, I was diagnosed with liver failure due to the medication I was taking for latent TB. (Vaata Exh. 5)
8. November 2015, Ma haigestus tugev valu minu alaselja & kõht.
9. Kohta, BOP Policy 12345.678 & C.F.R 1999, Ei vang võib pidada mis tahes muu vang diagnoositud TB. Vaata Prisoner v. Ühendriigid 123 F.3d 456 (13th CIR. 2014).
10. Ma palun Karistusmeetmete ja kahjuhüvitise suuruse $500,000.00 dollarit, ettevaatamatuse tõttu ja valu ja kannatusi.

(b) Ei erine esitamisel esialgne BP-8. olema täpne, Lühidalt ja selgelt. DO NOT blame or make accusations. Just riik oma nõude. Litigating vihane on üks
hullem viise protsessima. Ära tee seda, especially when someone has been wronged.

STEP 6: Taotluse kohtus

(a) Kui kõik potentsiaalsed abinõud, et nõue on ammendatud, it can now brought to court. A federal prisoner housed in a federal prison files to the U.S. Ringkonnakohus kus nõude tekkimise.

(b) Do not deviate from the claim made in the Administrative Remedy Process. It must be the same claim, kirjutatud samamoodi. Selle eesmärk on tagada usaldusväärsus. The court will usually assign a Magistrate Judge to oversee initial claims. This judge will make a recommendation to the Article III Judge. The judge will state whether the claim is viable, teeneka või kergemeelne all värvi õiguse.

(c) Hoiduma, seal on rohkem kui üks voor kokkuvõte vallandamise meede. Vaatama Alba v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1254-55 (11th CIR. 2008); Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639-40 (2d. CIR. 2007). Summary dismissal is when the defendant asks that your claim be dismissed because it has no merit. This is why it is important not to waiver or try to sneak in different claims after your initial filing. This usually results in claims being dismissed. Vaatama Miller vs.. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1100-01 (11th CIR. 2008).

PALUN BEWARE what I have given you is merely an outline of how to properly exhaust your medical claim and bring it into court for the FIRST round of summary motions. If you know someone on prison, soovitame printida see välja ja saata see neile.

“Teie tervis on sama oluline kui oma vabadust . . . Vanglas oled võidelda oma elu”.

Eric Van Buren
Live kujul Lockdown

Post-Veendumus strateeg
Co-asutaja TAWL Sihtasutus
Autor kunsti võita Kohtuvaidlus
Konsultant hammustada seaduse
Konsultant teine ​​võimalus 4 Legal

  

Leave a Reply

Sinu e-postiaadressi ei avaldata. Kohustuslikud väljad on märgitud *


Read this book!

Vali keel


Edit Tõlge

Quick Shots

Category