×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
OK Prisoners' Argument, Raised for First Time on Appeal, Not Considered
On November 15, 2001, Leticia Smedley was arrested by police in Tulsa, Oklahoma on suspicion of being intoxicated. She was jailed at the David L. Moss Criminal Justice Center, a facility operated by Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). Medical staff discovered that Smedley was having a hypoglycemic reaction due to low blood sugar. Even so, jail officials gave her no food to bring her blood sugar up, and physically and verbally assaulted her. Through her lawyer, Joseph Clark, Jr. of Tulsa, she sued CCA in federal district court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court found that CCA could not be held liable for its employees' behavior unless the same was the result of CCA's inadequate training, supervision or employee policies. Finding no such assertion, the district court dismissed. Smedley appealed.
On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit found that a statement by Smedley's lawyer to the district court that CCA's supervision of its employees was "pretty poor" was insufficient to state an inadequate supervision or policy claim. It therefore refused to consider that claim and affirmed the district court's ruling. See: Smedley v. Corrections Corp. of America, 175 Fed.Appx. 943 (10th Cir. 2005) (unpublished).
On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit found that a statement by Smedley's lawyer to the district court that CCA's supervision of its employees was "pretty poor" was insufficient to state an inadequate supervision or policy claim. It therefore refused to consider that claim and affirmed the district court's ruling. See: Smedley v. Corrections Corp. of America, 175 Fed.Appx. 943 (10th Cir. 2005) (unpublished).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Smedley v. Corrections Corp. of America
| Year | 2005 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 175 Fed.Appx. 943 (10th Cir. 2005) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Injunction Status | N/A |