Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Doe v. Gustavus

294 F. Supp. 2d 1003 (2003)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 35,800+ case briefs...

Doe v. Gustavus

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin

294 F. Supp. 2d 1003 (2003)

Facts

On April 18, 2001, Jane Doe (plaintiff), who was incarcerated while pregnant, was informed that she would be transported to the hospital for inducement. Doe requested to be induced the following week instead. The request was granted, and although it was against policy to inform an inmate of an off-site appointment, the officer told Doe that the new date was April 25. Because of the policy breach, Captain Jeanette Gustavus (defendant) ordered Doe to segregated confinement. On April 21 at 1:00 a.m., Doe felt a wet discharge. A nurse examined the discharge but concluded that Doe’s water had not broken. Throughout the day and evening, multiple nurses examined Doe and concluded that she was in false labor. At 1:00 a.m. on April 22, Doe felt discharge again and pressed the emergency button in her cell. The prison staff was unable to reach the on-call doctor and contacted personnel at the nearby hospital. The hospital staff explained that if Doe was in labor, her abdomen would feel hard. At 2:00 a.m., a nurse examined Doe and concluded that she was not in labor because her abdomen was soft. Shortly after, Doe delivered the baby without any medical assistance, and Doe and the baby were transported to the hospital. Twelve hours later, Doe returned to the facility. Gustavus informed Doe that she believed Doe had forced the baby out so that she could leave segregated confinement. Gustavus ordered Doe be placed in maximum security, where Doe did not receive any postdelivery ice or pads until 7:00 a.m. the following day. In response to the lack of medical treatment received, Doe filed a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Gustavus and the staff had violated her constitutional rights by showing deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs. Gustavus and the staff motioned for summary judgment.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Griesbach, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 620,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 620,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,800 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 620,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 35,800 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership