Court to Decide if Inmates Shot in Riots May File Suit

The Supreme Court agreed Monday to review an unprecedented ruling that gave prison inmates the right to sue for money damages for gunshot wounds they suffer at the hands of guards quelling a riot in a cellblock.

The justices said that they would hear arguments next term over a 2-1 ruling last year by a federal appeals panel in San Francisco that allowed an Oregon prisoner to bring a federal civil rights action charging that he was the victim of “cruel and unusual punishment,” which is banned by the Eighth Amendment.

Excessive Pain Banned

Past rulings by the justices have prohibited the infliction of pain on prisoners when it is excessive and without “justification or purpose.” At the same time, they have given corrections officials substantial latitude in managing prisons, deferring to their expertise and experience.

In the case before the court (Whitley vs. Albers, 84-1077), a riot broke out in 1980 in a cellblock housing more than 200 maximum-security inmates at the Oregon State Penitentiary. A prison guard was held hostage, and authorities sought to negotiate his release from an armed inmate threatening to kill him. Another prisoner, Gerald Albers, played what apparently was a peacemaking role, seeking to move older inmates to safer areas.

According to testimony, a prison officer led a charge to regain control of the cellblock. In the commotion, shots were fired and the hostage was released. No one was killed, but some inmates were wounded. Albers was shot in the knee--and subsequently filed suit.

A federal district court dismissed the suit, but the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the case should go to trial. The appellate court said that officials were not authorized to use “any amount of force, however great,” in putting down a disturbance. Oregon Atty. Gen. Dave Frohnmayer appealed the decision, contending that it would invite judicial “second guessing” of prison officials who must make quick, sensitive decisions.

In another action, the court agreed to decide whether the Environmental Protection Agency violated the constitutional rights of Dow Chemical by taking aerial photographs of a 2,000-acre chemical plant complex in Michigan to see whether the firm was violating anti-pollution laws (Dow Chemical vs. U.S., 84-1259).

To Hear California Case

The court will hear the case next term, along with a California case raising a similar question about a warrantless aerial search by Santa Clara authorities of the fenced residential yard of a person suspected of growing marijuana.

In the Dow case, the EPA took 75 photographs from altitudes as low as 1,200 feet in its search for evidence.