Tobacco.org

• MURRELL v. CASTERLINE, et. al. 

Murrell has established that a genuine issue of material fact exists concerning whether the defendants were subjectively deliberately indifferent to his plight. Whitley v. Hunt, 158 F.3d 882 (5th Cir. 1998), abrogated on other grounds, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001); Rochon v. City of Angola, 122 F.3d 319, 320 (5th Cir. 1997). Murrell’s summary judgment evidence shows that the defendants knew that Murrell was allergic to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and that ETS caused him to have migraines and high blood pressure. Murrell specifically asked the defendants to enforce the no smoking policy. His evidence, particularly the sworn statements of two other inmates, indicates that prison officials essentially looked the other way when inmates smoked in their cells or in other no smoking areas. He also asked prison officials to house him with inmates who did not smoke and gave the officials the inmates’ names. The prison responded that it was not feasible to move him. Accordingly, the district court erred when it granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. . . . .

the summary judgment evidence shows that a material issue of genuine fact exists regarding whether the defendants were deliberately indifferent.

The district court’s dismissal of Murrell’s suit is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings.

Jump to full article »