Skip to main content

Griggs v. City of Lanett (MAG+)

M.D. Ala.September 26, 2019No. 3:19-cv-00362
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
440 Civil Rights: Other
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
motion to dismiss
State
Alabama

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

The court dismissed claims against most defendants (L. Ivers, the unnamed doctor, and Centurion) but allowed plaintiff to proceed against two unnamed nurses for deliberate indifference to serious medical need under the Eighth Amendment.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened:** Griggs, likely an incarcerated person, sued several healthcare providers including Centurion Health (a private medical company), individual nurses, a doctor, and administrator L. Ivers. The lawsuit claimed that these defendants failed to properly accommodate his serious medical needs while he was in custody. This appears to be a case about inadequate medical care in a correctional facility setting. **What the Court Decided:** The court had mixed results for Griggs. Most of his claims were dismissed - the court threw out the cases against the administrator, the doctor, and Centurion Health company itself. However, the court allowed Griggs to continue his lawsuit against two unnamed nurses. The court found he had enough evidence to potentially prove these nurses showed "deliberate indifference" to his serious medical condition, which violates the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment. **What This Means for Workers:** This case shows that individual healthcare workers can be held personally responsible when they deliberately ignore serious medical needs of people in their care. While the employer company escaped liability here, individual employees still faced potential consequences for their actions, demonstrating that workers have personal accountability for how they treat vulnerable populations.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Dukes
D. Ariz.Dec 2025
Mixed Result
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
People in re S.L. and A.L
COLOCTAPPDec 2017

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi

Defendant Win
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff Win
James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.