Jere Bishop v. Kent R. Stoneman, Comm'r of Corr. of the State of Vermont, & Julius v. Moeykens, Warden, Vermont State Prison, 508 F.2d 1224 (2d Cir. 1974). · Go Syfert
Search
Jere Bishop v. Kent R. Stoneman, Comm'r of Corr. of the State of Vermont, & Julius v. Moeykens, Warden, Vermont State Prison, 508 F.2d 1224 (2d Cir. 1974). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1991 · …in class actions challenging the entire system of health care, deliberate indifference to inmates' health needs may be shown by proving repeated examples of negligent acts which disclose a pattern of conduct by the prison medical staff. ⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1989 · …medical facilities were so wholly inadequate for the prison population's needs that suffering would be inevitable at p. 1226 ✓
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1980 · …the medical facilities are so wholly inadequate for the prison population's needs that suffering would be inevitable. at p. 1226 ✓
83 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 20 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Smith v. Fricke (nynd, 2022-10-12)
Treatment trajectory · 1974 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1974 2000 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 33 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. Fricke
N.D.N.Y. · 2022 · confidence medium
Coughlin, 623 F. Supp. 392 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (finding that the class plaintiffs “must prove ‘a pattern of conduct amounting to deliberate indifference to [dental] needs of prisoners’” because they “challenge as unconstitutional the system for the delivery of dental services . . . and not merely the dental care provided to one inmate” (quoting Bishop v. Stoneman, 508 F.2d 1224, 1226 (2d Cir. 1974)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Sulton v. Wright
S.D.N.Y. · 2003 · confidence medium
Todaro v. Ward, 565 F.2d 48, 52 (2d Cir. 1977) (quoting Bishop v. Stoneman, 508 F.2d 1224, 1226 (2d Cir.1974)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Morales Feliciano v. Rossello Gonzalez
D.P.R. · 1998 · confidence medium
Todaro v. Ward, 565 F.2d at 52 , quoting Bishop v. Stoneman, 508 F.2d 1224, 1226 (2d Cir.1974); accord, Harris v. Thigpen, 941 F.2d 1495, 1505 (11th Cir.1991); DeGidio v. Pung, 920 F.2d 525, 529 (8th Cir.1990) (lack of “adequate organization and control in the administration of health services”supported finding of Eighth Amendment violation); Free v. Granger, 887 F.2d 1552, 1556 (11th Cir.1989) (“Proof of staffing or procedural deficiencies may give rise to a finding of deliberate indifference”); French v. Owens, 777 F.2d 1250, 1254 (7th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 817 , 107 S.Ct…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Abdush-Shahid v. Coughlin
N.D.N.Y. · 1996 · confidence medium
“Indeed it is well-settled in this circuit that ‘a series of incidents closely related in time ... may disclose a pattern of conduct amounting to deliberate indifference to the medical needs of prisoners.’ ” Todaro v. Ward, 565 F.2d 48, 52 (2d Cir.1977) (quoting Bishop v. Stoneman, 508 F.2d 1224, 1226 (2d Cir.1974)); Brown, 758 F.Supp. at 882-83 (pattern of suffering “might be taken to show that the described incidents were not ‘accidents,’ ‘inadvertent failures,’ or random occurrences of medical malpractice”); Langley v. Coughlin, 709 F.Supp. 482, 484 (S.D.N.Y.1989) (Sand,…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Clarkson v. Coughlin (2×)
S.D.N.Y. · 1995 · confidence medium
See Cruz v. Ward, 558 F.2d 658, 662 (2d Cir.1977); Bishop v. Stoneman, 508 F.2d 1224, 1226 (2d Cir.1974).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bryant v. Maffucci (2×) also: Cited "see"
S.D.N.Y. · 1990 · confidence medium
A. Standard for Constitutional Violation The standard for determining whether there has been an unconstitutional denial 2 of medical care is whether there has been deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical need, illness or injury. 3 See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 , 97 S.Ct. 285 , 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976); Todaro v. Ward, 565 F.2d 48, 52 (2d Cir.1977); Bishop v. Stoneman, 508 F.2d 1224, 1225 (2d Cir.1974).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cleveland-Perdue v. Brutsche
7th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
In Bishop v. Stoneman, 508 F.2d 1224, 1226 (2nd Cir.1974), the court, faced with evidence of several disturbing incidents over a short period of time, explicitly asserted that a claim that “medical facilities were so wholly inadequate for the prison population’s needs that suffering would be inevitable” is cognizable under section 1983.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cleveland-Perdue v. Brutsche
7th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
In Bishop v. Stoneman, 508 F.2d 1224, 1226 (2nd Cir.1974), the court, faced with evidence of several disturbing incidents over a short period of time, explicitly asserted that a claim that "medical facilities were so wholly inadequate for the prison population's needs that suffering would be inevitable" is cognizable under section 1983.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Langley v. Coughlin (3×)
S.D.N.Y. · 1989 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Todaro v. Ward, 565 F.2d 48, 52 (2d Cir.1977); Bishop v. Stoneman, 508 F.2d 1224, 1226 (2d Cir.1974).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Solomon v. R.E.K. Dress
S.D.N.Y. · 1987 · confidence medium
See Clay v. Martin, 509 F.2d 109, 112 (2d Cir.1975); Bishop v. Stoneman, 508 F.2d 1224, 1225 (2d Cir.1974); Williams v. Vincent, 508 F.2d 541, 543 (2d Cir.1974).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Young v. Calhoun
S.D.N.Y. · 1987 · confidence medium
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 , 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-02 , 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); see Clay v. Martin, 509 F.2d 109, 112 (2d Cir.1975); Bishop v. Stoneman, 508 F.2d 1224, 1225 (2d Cir.1974).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Morse/Diesel, Inc. v. Trinity Industries, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 1987 · confidence medium
See Clay v. Martin, 509 F.2d 109,112 (2d Cir.1975); Bishop v. Stoneman, 508 F.2d 1224, 1225 (2d Cir. 1974); Williams v. Vincent, 508 F.2d 541, 543 (2d Cir.1974).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dean v. Coughlin
S.D.N.Y. · 1985 · confidence medium
Finally, since plaintiffs challenge as unconstitutional the system for the delivery of dental services at Bedford Hills and not merely the dental care provided to one inmate, they must prove “a pattern of conduct amounting to deliberate indifference to [dental] needs of prisoners.” Bishop v. Stoneman, 508 F.2d 1224, 1226 (2d Cir.1974).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dean v. Coughlin
S.D.N.Y. · 1985 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Todaro v. Ward, 431 F.Supp. 1129 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 565 F.2d 48 (2d Cir.1977); Bishop v. Stoneman, 508 F.2d 1224, 1226 (2d Cir.1974); see also Palmigiano v. Garrahy, 443 F.Supp. 956, 973-76 (D.R.I.1977), aff'd, 616 F.2d 598 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 839 , 101 S.Ct. 115 , 66 L.Ed.2d 45 (1980); Inmates of Allegheny County Jail v. Pierce, 612 F.2d 754 , 762-63 (3d Cir.1979); Newman v. Alabama, 349 F.Supp. 278 (M.D.Ala.1972), aff' d, 503 F.2d 1320 (5th Cir.1974), ce rt. denied, 421 U.S. 948 , 95 S.Ct. 1680 , 44 L.Ed.2d 102 (1975); Wellman v. Faulkner, 715 F.2d 269, 272 (7th Cir…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Grubbs v. Bradley
M.D. Tenn. · 1982 · confidence medium
Stated otherwise, the health care system is constitutionally inadequate if staffing, equipment or facilities “are so wholly inadequate that suffering would be inevitable.” Bishop v. Stoneman, 508 F.2d 1224, 1226 (2d Cir.1974).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Robert E. v. Lane (2×)
N.D. Ill. · 1981 · confidence medium
First, “[a] series of incidents closely related in time .. . may disclose a pattern of conduct amounting to deliberate indifference to the medical needs of prisoners.” Bishop v. Stoneman, 508 F.2d 1224, 1226 (2d Cir. 1974).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hutchings v. Corum
W.D. Mo. · 1980 · confidence medium
Further, as this Court observed in Burks v. Teasdale, supra: In class actions challenging systemic deficiencies in the delivery of medical services in prisons, it has been held that in order to show ‘deliberate indifference’ on an institutional basis, plaintiffs must demonstrate either ‘[a] series of incidents closely related in time ... [which] .. . may disclose a pattern of conduct amounting to deliberate indifference to the medical needs of prisoners’ or that ‘the medical facilities were so wholly inadequate for the prison population’s needs that suffering would be inevitable.�…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Burks v. Teasdale
W.D. Mo. · 1980 · confidence medium
Louis Post-Dispatch reporter George Curry, and the hospital staff meeting minutes, plaintiffs’ Exhibits Nos. *675 A-l through A-39. 26 Nonetheless, the only question properly before this Court is the constitutionality of the medical treatment at MSPH. 27 Standards of Review Initially, it must be observed that in class actions challenging systemic deficiencies in the delivery of medical services in prisons, it has been held that in order to show “deliberate indifference” on an institutional basis, plaintiffs must demonstrate either “[a] series of incidents closely related in time . . . …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) La Plante v. Southworth
D.R.I. · 1980 · confidence medium
In the case of a class action challenging the entire system of medical care delivery, “deliberate indifference” can be shown either by a series of incidents closely related in time or by evidence that “the medical facilities [are] so wholly inadequate for the prison population’s needs that suffering would be inevitable.” Bishop v. Stoneman, 508 F.2d 1224, 1226 (2d Cir. 1974); Todaro v. Ward, 431 F.Supp. at 1133 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Johnson v. Harris (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
S.D.N.Y. · 1979 · confidence medium
Bishop v. Stoneman, 508 F.2d 1224, 1226 (2d Cir. 1974). 20 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Palmigiano v. Garrahy
D.R.I. · 1977 · confidence medium
In the case of a class action challenging the entire system of medical care delivery, “deliberate indifference” can be shown either *984 by a series of incidents closely related in time or by evidence that “the medical facilities [are] so wholly inadequate for the prison population’s needs that suffering would be inevitable.” Bishop v. Stoneman, 508 F.2d 1224, 1226 (2d Cir. 1974); Todaro v. Ward, 431 F.Supp. at 1133 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cruz v. Ward
2d Cir. · 1977 · confidence medium
Such indifference may occur on an individual level, such as when a doctor intentionally mistreats an inmate, see id. at 104 n. 10, 97 S.Ct. 285 , or on an institutional level, when the prison's system of medical care is so seriously inadequate as to cause unwarranted suffering, see Bishop v. Stoneman, 508 F.2d 1224, 1226 (2d Cir. 1974); Todaro v. Ward, 431 F.Supp. 1129 (S.D.N.Y.1977). 17 In the present case, the record does not support a finding that transfer decisions have been made in bad faith, out of pique, or on irrational grounds.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cruz v. Ward
2d Cir. · 1977 · confidence medium
Such indifference may occur on an individual level, such as when a doctor intentionally mistreats an inmate, see id. at 104 n. 10, 97 S.Ct. 285 , or on an institutional level, when the prison’s system of medical care is so seriously inadequate as to cause unwarranted suffering, see Bishop v. Stoneman, 508 F.2d 1224, 1226 (2d Cir. 1974); Todaro v. Ward, 431 F.Supp. 1129 (S.D.N.Y.1977).
cited Cited "see" White v. Napoleon
3rd Cir. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bishop v. Stoneman, 508 F.2d 1224, 1226 (2d Cir.1974).
cited Cited "see" White v. Napoleon
3rd Cir. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bishop v. Stoneman, 508 F.2d 1224, 1226 (2d Cir.1974).
discussed Cited "see" Langley v. Coughlin
S.D.N.Y. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
In Todaro , the Court acknowledged that it is “well-settled in this circuit” that while a single example of medical care delayed or denied may be due to negligence, “repeated examples of such treatment bespeak a deliberate indifference by prison authorities to the agony engendered by haphazard and ill-conceived procedures.” Id; see Bishop v. Stoneman, 508 F.2d 1224, 1226 (2d Cir. 1974).
cited Cited "see" Lightfoot v. Walker
S.D. Ill. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bishop v. Stoneman, supra; Newman v. Alabama, supra, 503 F.2d at 1328-30 .
cited Cited "see" Todaro v. Ward
2d Cir. · 1977 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bishop v. Stoneman, supra; Newman v. Alabama,supra, 503 F.2d at 1328-30 .
cited Cited "see" Todaro v. Ward
2d Cir. · 1977 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bishop v. Stoneman, supra; Newman v. Alabama, supra, 503 F.2d at 1328-30 .
cited Cited "see" Laaman v. Helgemoe
D.N.H. · 1977 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bishop v. Stoneman, 508 F.2d 1224 (2d Cir. 1974).
discussed Cited "see" Todaro v. Ward (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
S.D.N.Y. · 1977 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bishop v. Stoneman, supra. The question here is whether a system which, due to failures in administration and communication, repeatedly produces that sort of result for a relatively limited number of individuals is equally répugnant to the Constitution.
discussed Cited "see" Nathaniel Williams v. Leon J. Vincent, Superintendent of Green Haven Correctional Facility
2d Cir. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bishop v. Stoneman, 508 F.2d 1224 (2d Cir. 1974); Corby v. Conboy, 457 F.2d 251, 254 (2d Cir. 1972). 8 Williams also maintains that the complaint states a second cause of action, namely that he was committed to solitary by Superintendent Vincent without being afforded a “fair hearing.” He alleges that the attack upon him was unprovoked, that he did not know his assailant, and that he did not retaliate.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Monroe v. Bombard
S.D.N.Y. · 1976 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e. g., Bishop v. Stoneman, 508 F.2d 1224, 1225 (2d Cir. 1974); Williams v. Vincent, 508 F.2d 541, 544 (2d Cir. 1974); Corby v. Conboy, 457 F.2d 251, 254 (2d Cir. 1972); Martinez v. Mancusi, 443 F.2d 921 (2d Cir. 1970).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jere BISHOP Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Kent R. STONEMAN, Commissioner of Corrections of the State of Vermont, and Julius v. Moeykens, Warden, Vermont State Prison, Defendants-Appellees
137, Docket 74-1326.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Dec 4, 1974.
508 F.2d 1224
William M. Dorsch, Springfield, Vt. (Vermont Legal Aid, Inc., Springfield, Vt., on the brief), for plaintiffs-appellants., Alan W. Cook, Asst. Atty. Gen., Department of Corrections, Montpelier, Vt. (Charles A. Bristow, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept, of Corrections, Montpelier, Vt., on the brief), for defendants-appellees.
Friendly, Feinberg, Gurfein.
Cited by 55 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

■ Plaintiffs, prisoners at the Vermont State Prison, brought a class action against the State Commissioner of Corrections and the Warden of the Prison charging that medical facilities and medical care at the prison are grossly inadequate to meet the continuing needs of the inmates and that the defendants are deliberately indifferent to requests for essential medical treatment. They allege that this constitutes cruel and unusual punishment denying the prisoners their constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs do not seek individual damages for inadequate treatment in the past nor do they seek individual injunctive relief. They ask for an injunction ordering the defendants to provide adequate medical treatment to their class and to institute a program to improve medical facilities.

The District Court, Coffrin, J., granted defendants’ motion to dismiss under F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6), first testing each[*1225] “typical incident” alleged “to determine whether, standing alone, it would support a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that the prisoner involved had been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.” While recognizing that factual allegations indicating that the defendants are deliberately indifferent to plaintiffs’ requests for medical treatment are sufficient to support a Section 1983 claim, the court decided that it could not find from the specific incidents enumerated in the complaint that there has been a deliberate indifference to the prisoners’ medical needs. We disagree and remand for a trial on the merits.

Six “typical incidents” were alleged; [1] (1) Plaintiff Bishop asked to see the prison’s only doctor, who apparently is there' only part-time, about a back problem; he waited six months before he was given an appointment; x-rays were taken but he was not told the results; he was given no treatment. (2) Plaintiff Kasper lost 30 lbs. in three weeks, during which time he sought unsuccessfully to see the doctor; when he saw the doctor, he was not given a physical examination, but was told to take vitamins; three weeks later his attorney requested that a blood test be given; the blood test indicated “massive liver damage” and eventually his condition was diagnosed as cirrhosis of the liver; he received no treatment. (3) Plaintiff Mayer waited ten days to see the doctor about an injured shoulder. (4) Plaintiff Blow waited one week to see the doctor about getting a new orthopedic shoe; he was given a new shoe that gave him considerable pain; he was not allowed to see the doctor about it, but eventually was x-rayed; no results were provided to him. (5) Plaintiff Gregory had a temperature and was vomiting blood, yet waited three days to see the doctor; eventually admitted to prison hospital, he was treated but saw the doctor infrequently. (6) Plaintiff Provost could not eat and was vomiting; he was treated by a dispensary attendant; after about a week, he saw the doctor who prescribed vitamins; five days later he started turning yellow and was quarantined; he stayed in the prison hospital for a few weeks, seeing the doctor twice; after release, he was given a special diet.

A seventh prisoner, DiLaura, sought to intervene, alleging that prison officials neglected to treat him when he had an attack of malaria, which he had' originally contracted in Vietnam. The supporting affidavit of his attorney, whose efforts eventually secured him medical care indicates that he did indeed have such an attack and that prison officials disbelieved him and would not have taken him seriously if his attorney had not interceded. The District Court denied his motion to intervene at the same time it dismissed the main action, but with leave to file a separate action on his own behalf.

Finally, plaintiffs presented to the court the affidavit of an eighth prisoner, Ellison, who had severe stomach pains and was denied access to a doctor. After a week, he was taken to a hospital, where he was operated on (just in time, according to the surgeon) for a gangrenous appendix. The District Court did not consider this affidavit, stating that it was not before the court on a motion to dismiss.

To secure a dismissal un$er 12 (b)(6), a defendant must show “beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957).

Taking the factual allegations as true, we think that they state a claim for relief under Section 1983. As Judge Coffrin recognized, deliberate indifference to the medical needs of a prisoner can amount to a Section 1983 violation. Martinez v. Mancusi, 443 F.2d 921 (2 Cir. 1970); Corby v. Conboy,[*1226] 457 F.2d 251, 254 (2 Cir. 1972), and cf. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). A series of incidents closely related in time, within several months as these are, may disclose a pattern of conduct amounting to deliberate indifference to the medical needs of prisoners. We hold the cumu-lation of incidents alleged in the complaint entitled plaintiffs to a trial of the underlying allegation of deliberate indifference to their medical needs.

We venture no opinion on the validity of the allegations, of course, but if sufficient indifference on the part of the prison officials can be proved by the plaintiffs, or if it can be shown that the medical facilities were so wholly inadequate for the prison population’s needs that suffering would be inevitable, they can make out a case under Section 1983. Since only injunctive relief is asked, class action treatment may well be appropriate.

The order dismissing the complaint is reversed and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

1

. The suit was originally brought by six prisoners ; three have since been released and were held to have no standing to sue. The District Court nevertheless considered the allegations of all six in deciding the motion.