U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 1971

James Edward Nettles v. Alfred T. Rundle, Warden and Arthur T. Prasse, Commissioner of Prisons

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Decided December 8, 1971 · Seitz, Hastie, Herman

453 F.2d 889 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Herbert G. Kenne, Jr., Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant., Herman Rosenberger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Philadelphia, Pa. (J. Shane Creamer, Atty. Gen., Herbert Monheit, Asst. Atty. Gen., by Larry Elliot Jones, Asst. Atty. Gen., Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellees.

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision.

Marvin Jones, on His Own Behalf and on Behalf of Those Similarly Situated v. Fred R. Diamond, Etc. (5th Cir. 1979)
Robinson v. Jordan (District Court, N.D. Texas 1973)
HANNA v. LEHIGH COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 2024)
Davidson v. O'Lone (3d Cir. 1984)
Davidson v. O'Lone (3d Cir. 1984)
Roach v. Kligman (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1976)
Stokes v. Hurdle (District Court, D. Maryland 1975)
Di Febo v. Keve (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 1975)
Gibson v. Charlottesville-Albemarle Joint Security Complex (District Court, W.D. Virginia 1975)
Joseph Fischer v. Hon. William T. Cahill, Governor of New Jersey (3d Cir. 1973)
Barnes v. Dorsey (District Court, E.D. Missouri 1973)
Sloan v. Zelker (District Court, S.D. New York 1973)
Santiago v. Sowers (District Court, M.D. Louisiana 1972)
Brown v. Cliff (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1972)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

This action for damages under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, has been brought by a state prisoner against prison authorities. It charges the defendants with negligence in connection with medical treatment requested and needed by the prisoner. The complaint also contains an allegation that medical attention was withheld because the plaintiff refused to sign a document waiving any claim for injury that might result from treatment. But this allegation is followed by a statement that, shortly after the plaintiff’s refusal to sign a release, the prison authorities did provide him with medical attention. Thus, accepting the petitioner’s allegations as true, we can find no more in the complaint than a charge of ordinary negligence in the course of the handling, diagnosis or treatment of the prisoner’s medical complaint.

While such negligence is a tort, cognizable under state law, it does not amount to such a denial of a constitutional or federally protected right as can be redressed under the Civil Rights Act.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.