Latest Case: Petzold v. Rostollan (Civil Rights)

Taking Stock: A Review of Justice Stevens’s Last Book and an Appreciation of His Extraordinary Service on the Supreme Court

RODGER CITRON

Rodger D. Citron, the Associate Dean for Research and Scholarship and a Professor of Law at Touro College, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, comments on the late Justice John Paul Stevens’s last book, The Making of a Justice: Reflections on My First 94 Years. Citron laments that, in his view, the memoir is too long yet does not say enough, but he lauds the justice for his outstanding service on the Supreme Court.

Read More

Petzold v. Rostollan

Docket: 17-41183

Opinion Date: December 27, 2019

Judge: Don R. Willett

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants in an action brought by plaintiff, a diabetic federal prisoner who injured his ankle while exercising, alleging that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. Plaintiff also alleged a First Amendment claim, alleging retaliation for having filed grievances. The court held that there was no genuine dispute underlying defendant's deliberate indifference claim against the prison nurse where plaintiff failed to produce evidence showing that the nurse had subjective knowledge of plaintiff's exposure to harm, or denied or delayed plaintiff's medical treatment. The court also held that no reasonable jury could find that the prison supervisor denied or delayed medical treatment to plaintiff. In regard to the retaliation claim, the court held that the district court properly granted summary judgment against the nurse, because there was no genuine factual dispute as to whether the nurse's retaliatory acts -- hurried medical treatment, filing various false reports, and making adverse statements -- amounted to a cognizable retaliation claim. The court held that summary judgment on plaintiff's retaliation claim against the special investigation supervisor was also proper where plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Finally, the court held that, in any event, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.