Content area
Full Text
I. INTRODUCTION
The United States Supreme Court articulated the purpose of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 decades ago in its landmark decision, Monroe v. Pape} In Monroe, the Court determined that the purpose of the legislation was, and still is, to enforce rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution - most notably, the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.2 Section 1983 allows a person to recover damages from an actor who, under the color of state or local law, causes a deprivation of any ofthat person's guaranteed constitutional rights.3 But how far does this remedy extend with regard to a state official' s failure to act? Does the United States Constitution guarantee a minimum level of safety and security that constitutes a deprivation of liberty if not met?
When the issue concerns a state actor's neglect insofar as that harm is caused through omission, the Court applies a standard of "deliberate indifference."4 The most common scenario where an allegation of deliberate indifference arises is one where state officials have custody and direct authority over the alleged victim - a scenario typically manifested in prisons, where the complainant is a prisoner upset with the omissions of the prison guards. Although this deliberate indifference standard is impossible to define with precise clarity, the Court has explained that "deliberate indifference entails something more than mere negligence, [but] ... is satisfied by something less than acts or omissions for the very purpose of causing harm or with knowledge that harm will result." In other words, deliberate indifference lies "somewhere between the poles of negligence at one end and purpose or knowledge at the other."6
This Note will explore the deliberate indifference standard and address some of the questions that the standard raises - such as whether the standard allows for an obtainable remedy under § 1983, and whether the courts have properly applied the standard in recent decisions. To explore these issues in a narrower context, this Note will limit its review to the Fifth Circuit's application of the deliberate indifference standard in two recent Fifth Circuit decisions, both of which dealt with a § 1983 claim involving an attempt to recover damages through allegations of deliberate indifference on the part of state actors.7 Part II of this Note recites...