Published March, 2020
Davenport v. Nussbaumer, 2019 WL 4678776 (E.D.N.C. 2019)
This district court decision from North Carolina rejected an inmate’s allegation that state prison officials violated his right to medical privacy and treated him in a discriminatory manner after learning that he was living with HIV.
Plaintiff Travis Lamont Davenport filed this 1983 suit against a collection of defendants who included prison guards and medical staff who worked on contract within North Carolina’s Bertie-Martin Regional Jail. Among his allegations were that the defendants failed to provide appropriate medical treatment and invited mistreatment by other inmates and prison staff by posting signs on his cell door regarding “loose stools.” Additionally, Mr. Davenport alleged that once he disclosed his HIV status on a medical questionnaire, the defendants treated him in a discriminatory manner, calling him derogatory names and denying him food that he was entitled to because of his medical condition.
The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding that the officer defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and that, while the medical staff defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity, Mr. Davenport failed to prove a constitutional violation. Troublingly, the court based its decision that the officer defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on its finding that neither the Supreme Court nor the Fourth Circuit had ever found that pretrial detainees have a constitutional right to medical privacy, so the officers could not have violated any clearly established law. The court further found that the medical staff did not violate any law by divulging medical information to other jail staff, even when it was not medically necessary.
Copyright Information: CHLP encourages the broad use and sharing of resources. Please credit CHLP when using these materials or their content. and do not alter, adapt or present as your work without prior permission from CHLP.
Legal Disclaimer: CHLP makes an effort to ensure legal information is correct and current, but the law is regularly changing, and the accuracy of the information provided cannot be guaranteed. The legal information in a given resource may not be applicable to all situations and is not—and should not be relied upon—as a substitute for legal advice.