Morgan

Morgan v. Morgensen

Caution
465 F.3d 1041·2006 WL 2846367·2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 25028
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 6, 200604-35608California2,847 words

Opinion

Opinion

Clifton, J.

Plaintiff Steven Morgan, a Washington prisoner, was injured by a defective printing press while working at a prison job for which he had voluntarily applied. Morgan alleges that he told his supervisor, Defendant Tom Canady, about the problem, but that Canady forced Morgan to keep working. Morgan brought a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , alleging that the requirement to continue working under those circumstances violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Ca-nady moved for summary judgment, asserting a defense of qualified immunity, which the district court denied. He appeals that decision, and we affirm. In so doing, we hold that under certain circumstances, dangerous prison working conditions can give rise to an Eighth Amendment claim, not-withstanding the fact that the prisoner initially obtained his specific employment assignment through a voluntary application process within the prison system. We further hold that a prison official is not entitled to qualified immunity when he orders a prisoner to continue operating prison work equipment that the official has been warned and has reason to believe is unnecessarily dangerous.

I. Background

Because this case comes…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.