David v. Hill

21 Citing cases

  1. Rivera v. Long

    Civil Action 19-cv-03608-CMA-NYW (D. Colo. Dec. 10, 2021)   Cited 2 times

    [Id. at ¶ 3 (citing David v. Hill, 401 F.Supp.2d 749 (S.D. Tex. 2005))]. Finally, he appears to argue that the purposeful exposure to “death risks by prison officials forcing [inmates] to cooperate with active prison investigations before receiving their privileges, or in order to receive them” could constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

  2. Rivera v. Long

    Civil Action No.19-cv-03608-CMA-NYW (D. Colo. Jan. 31, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    Defendants argue in the alternative that, even if any of the foregoing conditions were objectively serious deprivations, Mr. Rivera fails to allege facts to show that Defendants were subjectively aware of a risk such deprivations posed to Mr. Rivera. Mr. Rivera counters by arguing that the red tag policy "purposely ignores life threatening risks through incrimination and violence in a dangerous environment," [#67 at 13 ¶ 17], and citing a string of cases from other circuits, [id. (citing, e.g., David v. Hill, 401 F. Supp. 2d 749 (S.D. Tex. 2005); Thomas v. D.C., 887 F. Supp. 1, 4-5 (D.D.C. 1995); Trammel v. Keane, 338 F.3d 155, 163 (2d Cir. 2003); Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521, 1528 (9th Cir. 1993); Holt v. Sarver, 309 F. Supp. 362, 381 (E.D. Ark. 1970))]. But the cases on which Mr. Rivera rely do not present facts similar to this action.

  3. Jon-Erik Roosevelt Bolds v. Luevanos

    1:21-cv-01668-KES-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jul. 2, 2024)

    Mora-Contreras v. Peters, 851 Fed.Appx. 73, 74 (9th Cir. 2021); but see Burns v. Martuscello, 890 F.3d 77, 84, 94 (2d Cir. 2018) (the Second Circuit has recognized such right stating, “the First Amendment protects a prisoner's right not to serve as an informant); Powell v. Wilner, No. 06-cv-00545-WYD-MEH, 2009 WL 840756, at *1 (D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2009) (recognizing a “First Amendment right not to speak.”); David v. Hill, 401 F.Supp.2d 749, 757 (S.D. Tex. 2005); Jackson v. Johnson, 15 F.Supp.2d 341, 364 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (assuming, without deciding, that an inmate has a constitutional right to refuse to participate in a prison investigation); Soto v. New Jersey, No. CV17-13450-FLW-DEA, 2020 WL 2537857, at *5 (D.N.J. May 19, 2020) (same).

  4. Smith v. Goostrey

    1:22-cv-753 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2022)

    Cases from outside the Sixth Circuit are split on the question. In David v. Hill, 401 F.Supp.2d 749 (S.D.Tex.2005), the court noted a long line of cases recognizing the dangers of a prison inmate being labeled a “snitch,” and the resulting “threat to an inmate's health and safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment.”

  5. Shanks v. Mendez

    1:20-cv-01083-JLT-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2022)

    In addition, several District courts have assumed, without deciding, that an inmate has a constitutional right to refuse to participate in a prison investigation. SeeDavid v. Hill, 401 F.Supp.2d 749, 757 (S.D. Tex. 2005); Jackson v. Johnson, 15 F.Supp.2d 341, 364 (S.D.N.Y. 1998);

  6. Ball v. Evers

    No. 19-10315 (E.D. Mich. Jul. 27, 2021)   Cited 7 times

    It is widely understood that prisoners do not take kindly to those who report others to authorities. Cantazaro v. Mich. Dep't Corr., No. 08-11173, 2011 WL 768115, at *5 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 10, 2011) (noting a “long line of cases recognizing the dangers of a prison inmate being labeled a ‘snitch,' and the resulting ‘threat to an inmate's health and safety.'”) (quoting David v. Hill, 401 F.Supp.2d 749 (S.D. Tex. 2005)). Udell's comments “justifiably created massive fear” for Ball.

  7. Estrada v. Dir., TDCJ-CID

    Civil Action 5:20-CV-030-BQ (N.D. Tex. Feb. 25, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    Accepting Estrada's allegations as true, as the Court must at this stage, he has alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for deliberate indifference against Defendant Bundy. See, e.g., David v. Hill, 401 F.Supp.2d 749, 759 (S.D. Tex. 2005) (finding prisoner's allegation that defendant "forced him to bend over, against his medical restrictions, until he fell onto his knees," stated claim for deliberate indifference sufficient to survive screening). The Court therefore recommends that the District Judge order Defendant Bundy to answer.

  8. Nelson v. Stevens

    18-cv-238-wmc (W.D. Wis. May. 4, 2020)   Cited 2 times
    In Nelson, the court concluded that a retaliation claim failed because the defendant (the officer who issued the conduct report) "had sufficient, objective information" that the prisoner had violated prison rules.

    And certain district courts have held that a prisoner has a right not to participate in prison investigations or to act as an informant. David v. Hill, 401 F. Supp. 2d 749 (S.D. Tex. 2005) (right not to participate in investigation); Jackson v. Johnson, 15 F. Supp. 2d 341, 364 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (assumes without deciding that prisoners have a constitutional right not to be an informant). Neither party has cited any authority suggesting how the Seventh Circuit might ultimately come down on this question.

  9. Rosas v. Reed

    Civil Action No: SA-14-CA-827-XR (W.D. Tex. Feb. 2, 2015)   Cited 2 times

    C. "Snitch" Claims in the Emergency Injunction Motion Rosas argues the Defendants violated his constitutional rights not to be labeled a "snitch," citing David v. Hill, 401 F. Supp. 2d 749, 757 (S.D. Tex. 2005), and Jackson v. Johnson, 15 F. Supp. 2d 341, 364 (S.D. N.Y. 1998). The Magistrate Judge stated in his Report and Recommendations that Rosas may have a Fourteenth Amendment claim against Alvarado for deliberate indifference for the prisoner's safety by labeling him a snitch.

  10. Brearton v. Green

    Civil Action No. 14-CV-045-HRW (E.D. Ky. Jan. 8, 2015)

    Courts have long held that prison officials who identify an inmate as a "snitch" to other inmates, with the intent to provoke an assault or the fear of assault, demonstrate deliberate indifference to the inmate's safety and may be liable under the Eighth Amendment. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833; Comstock v. McCrary, 273 F.3d 693, 699 n. 2 (6th Cir. 2001); Benefield v. McDowall, 241 F.3d 1267, 1271 (10th Cir. 2001); Northington v. Jackson, 973 F.2d 1518, 1525 (10th Cir. 1992); Catanzaro v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, No. 1:08-CV-11173, 2009 WL 4250027 (E.D. Mich., November 19, 2009); David v. Hill, 401 F. Supp.2d 749, 756-57 (S.D. Tex. 2005). Brearton claims that Sparks, McKinney, and Gilum were deliberately indifferent to his safety needs by telling other inmates that he was a "snitch" and by their actions on December 27 and December 28, 2013, when they failed to keep him segregated from a general population inmate and when they placed him in the shower with a general population inmate and then locked the shower door, all of which violated his safety and security needs.