Braga v. Hodgson, et al

Filing 920100514

Opinion

var gAgent = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase()
var gWindows = ( (gAgent.indexOf( "win" ) != -1 ) || ( gAgent.indexOf( "16bit" ) != -1 ) )
var gIE = ( gAgent.indexOf( "msie" ) != -1 )
var bInlineFloats = ( gWindows && gIE && ( parseInt( navigator.appVersion ) >= 4 ) )
var floatwnd = 0

var WPFootnote1 = 'The Hon. David H. Souter, Associate Justice (Ret.) of the\
Supreme Court of the United states, sitting by designation.\
'

var WPFootnote2 = 'Braga also named Prison Health Services, Inc. ("PHS") as a\
defendant in his amended complaint. The district court granted\
summary judgment in favor of PHS on one count (a claim under 42\
U.S.C. § 1983), but denied summary judgment as to a second claim\
against PHS (negligent provision of medical care regarding surgical\
repair of his knee). Braga and PHS apparently settled the\
negligence claim without proceeding to trial. \
'

var WPFootnote3 = 'See Monell v. Dep\'t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694-95\
(1978) (permitting Section 1983 suits against municipalities and\
other local governments for a policy or custom that violates an\
individual\'s constitutional rights).\
'

var WPFootnote4 = 'This conclusion is based on the paucity of evidence put forth\
by Braga in support of his claims against the Sheriff. We thus\
affirm the district court\'s grant of a protective order without\
reaching the issue pressed by the Sheriff on appeal, namely that\
his status as a high-ranking public official provides an\
alternative ground to affirm the protective order grant. A\
resolution of this issue is not necessary here. \
'

var WPFootnote5 = 'In its oral decision on the protective order, the district\
court rightly acknowledged that deciding that issue required the\
court to consider, at least preliminarily, the viability on the\
merits of Braga\'s claims against the Sheriff. Indeed, the two\
issues are closely intertwined for our purposes as well.\
'

var WPFootnote6 = 'We also note that, beyond the presentment problem, Braga\'s\
own deposition fatally undermined his negligence claim. He alleged\
in his complaint that the Sheriff failed to maintain the jail in a\
reasonably safe manner, which in turn caused an injury to his knee. \
Yet Braga was unable, at deposition, to identify the cause of the\
knee injury or what area of the jail had been negligently\
maintained. When asked how his knee was injured he replied, "I do\
not know." He went on to answer similar questions with "I don\'t\
know," "I don\'t remember," and "I just don\'t remember what [the\
cause of the injury] was." Plainly, then, there was no factual\
basis for his claim of negligence. \
'

var WPFootnote7 = 'On appeal, Braga attempts to create a question of material\
fact on this issue by pointing to his post-deposition affidavit\
wherein he, Braga, alleged that he sent several letters to the\
Sheriff complaining of his medical treatment while he was\
incarcerated. However, the district court granted the Sheriff\'s\
motion to strike that affidavit and Braga did not appeal from that\
grant. Therefore the affidavit is not part of the record before\
us. \
'

var WPFootnote8 = 'We need not reach an additional, obvious infirmity with\
Braga\'s Section 1983 claim, namely that he cannot connect his\
allegedly poor medical treatment to any action or inaction of the\
Sheriff or to any policy or practice of the county. \
'

function WPShow( WPid, WPtext )
{
if( bInlineFloats )
eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'visible'" );
else
{
if( floatwnd == 0 || floatwnd.closed )
floatwnd = window.open( "", "comment", "toolbars=0,width=600,height=200,resizable=1,scrollbars=1,dependent=1" );
floatwnd.document.open( "text/html", "replace" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( " p { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:1px; } \r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( WPtext );
floatwnd.document.write( 'Close');
floatwnd.document.write( "