From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reilly v. Grayson

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Nov 18, 2002
310 F.3d 519 (6th Cir. 2002)

Summary

affirming district court's finding of deliberate indifference to serious medical need when prison failed to house asthmatic prisoner in a non-smoking unit, despite medical recommendations, which resulted in prisoner's exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke

Summary of this case from Tate v. Martin

Opinion

Nos. 01-1993, 01-2189.

Argued September 17, 2002.

Decided and Filed November 18, 2002.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Avern Cohm Senior District Judge.

Daniel E. Manville (argued and briefed), Ferndale, MI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Kevin R. Himebaugh (argued and briefed), Office of Attorney General, Corrections Division, Lansing, MI, for Defendants-Appellants.

Before SILER, DAUGHTREY, and GILMAN, Circuit Judges.


OPINION


This appeal is from the judgment entered in the plaintiff's favor following a four-day bench trial in the district court. The action was brought by Michigan prison inmate Jamie Reilly under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and charged various state prison officials with violation of the plaintiff's Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Reilly, suffering from asthma, claimed that the defendants' repeated failure to house him in a prison unit free of environmental (second-hand) tobacco smoke exposed him to an unreasonable risk of harm to his health and constituted deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Based on evidence presented at trial, the district court agreed, awarding $36,500 in compensatory damages, $18,250 in punitive damages, and $51,786 in attorney's fees. We affirm on the basis of the district court's opinion, reported as Reilly v. Grayson, 157 F.Supp.2d 762 (E.D.Mich. 2001).

The primary issues on appeal are reiterations of the defenses raised at trial. First, the defendants contend as a legal matter that they should have been granted qualified immunity because the plaintiff did not have a constitutional right to a "completely smoke-free environment," but only the right not to be celled with an active smoker, and because, even if there is a broader right to be housed in a smoke-free facility, it was not clearly established at the time of the plaintiff's complaints in this case. Second, they argue as a factual matter that the plaintiff failed to establish that he had a "serious medical need" to which the defendants were "deliberately indifferent." We find no merit to either of these contentions.

Although the leading Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit decisions at the time of Reilly's incarceration, Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993), and Hunt v. Reynolds, 974 F.2d 734 (6th Cir. 1992), involved a prisoner's right not to be housed with a smoker, the language of the opinions is broader than those facts would indicate, repeatedly emphasizing the right to be free from exposure to second-hand smoke. As we said in Hunt, prisoners have a right not to be exposed to environmental smoke that presents a serious risk to health and to be removed "from places where smoke hovers." Id. at 735 ( quoting Steading v. Thompson, 941 F.2d 498, 500 (7th Cir. 1991)). The district court's reliance on those cases was obviously not misplaced. Moreover, we find no clear error in connection with the court's findings that Reilly suffered from a serious medical condition that was exacerbated by exposure to second-hand smoke and, moreover, that the defendants deliberately failed to respond to the repeated recommendations by medical personnel that he be removed to a smoke-free environment in order to avoid further detriment to his health.

Nor do we find reversible error in the district court's calculation of damages in this case. The defendants argue that at most only nominal damages should have been awarded because Reilly failed to prove actual injury and causation. However, we conclude from our review of the record that there was sufficient evidence from which the district court could find that Reilly suffered both an increase in the severity of his asthma and an increase in the risk of future damage to his health as a direct result of his exposure to second-hand smoke. Moreover, there was ample evidence to support the district court's conclusion that punitive damages were justified by the defendants' "reckless . . . disregard of Reilly's rights." Reilly, 157 F.Supp.2d at 774. Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in the calculation of attorney's fees.

Having had the benefit of oral argument, and having studied the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in entering judgment for the plaintiff and in awarding damages and attorney's fees. Because the reasons why judgment should be entered for the plaintiff have been fully articulated by the district court, the issuance of a detailed opinion by this court would be duplicative and would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court upon the reasoning set out by that court in Reilly v. Grayson, 157 F.Supp.2d 762 (E.D.Mich. 2001).


Summaries of

Reilly v. Grayson

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Nov 18, 2002
310 F.3d 519 (6th Cir. 2002)

affirming district court's finding of deliberate indifference to serious medical need when prison failed to house asthmatic prisoner in a non-smoking unit, despite medical recommendations, which resulted in prisoner's exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke

Summary of this case from Tate v. Martin

affirming district court's denial of qualified immunity, emphasizing an inmate's right to be free from exposure to second-hand smoke

Summary of this case from Tolliver v. Collins

affirming trial court's determination that prison officials' repeated failure to house asthmatic prisoner in unit free of second-hand tobacco smoke amounted to deliberate indifference in violation of Eighth Amendment

Summary of this case from Schultz v. Wells

rejecting defendants' contention that ETS claim rested on unestablished general right to smoke-free environment where prisoner had "a serious medical condition that was exacerbated by exposure to second-hand smoke" and medical personnel had recommended a smoke-free placement

Summary of this case from Johnson v. Lappin

recognizing that prisoner was entitled to punitive damages where prison officials acted with "reckless . . . disregard of [inmate's] rights"

Summary of this case from Anthony v. Gilman

In Reilly, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the decision of the district in a case that had been tried to the court, upholding the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law in a case with similar factual allegations to the one at bar.

Summary of this case from Edmonds v. Lane

In Reilly v. Grayson, 310 F.3d 519 (6th Cir. 2002), defendants argued that the inmate plaintiff had not shown actual injury or injury caused by exposure to ETS. The district awarded compensatory damages based on evidence that the plaintiff had suffered an increased risk of future injury to his health as a direct result of ETS exposure.

Summary of this case from Scott v. Hollins
Case details for

Reilly v. Grayson

Case Details

Full title:Jamie REILLY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Henry GRAYSON, Chris Daniels, and…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Date published: Nov 18, 2002

Citations

310 F.3d 519 (6th Cir. 2002)

Citing Cases

Moilanen v. Berghuis

Plaintiff's theory at trial was that the health problems that began to manifest themselves in 2009, including…

Fisher v. Caruso

The Sixth Circuit has held that "prisoners have a right not to be exposed to environmental smoke that…