New York Post June10, 2016
A federal appeals court on Tuesday revived a lawsuit in which a West Virginia inmate accused state prison officials of invading his privacy by surgically removing marbles he had implanted in his penis.
By a 3-0 vote, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Adrian King could pursue claims that officials at Huttonsville Correctional Center illegally threatened him into consenting to the June 2013 surgery, or risk being segregated from other inmates and lose his eligibility for parole.
Circuit Judge Roger Gregory found “overwhelming evidence” that the intrusion was unreasonable, despite the asserted need by prison officials to police the security threat posed by inmates carrying contraband within their bodies
“The interest in bodily integrity involves the most personal and deep-rooted expectations of privacy, and here, the nature of the surgery itself, surgery into King’s penis, counsels against reasonableness,” Gregory wrote for the Richmond, Virginia-based appeals court.
King had had the marbles implanted in and tattoos drawn on his penis in late 2008, prior to his incarceration, during a “body modification” craze.
He said the surgery left his penis with tingling and numbness, and pain when it is touched or when it rains, snows or gets cold.
King said the surgery also resulted in mental and emotional anguish, saying that prison officials call him “Marble Man” and ask when searching him where his marbles are, and that gay inmates approach him because of how staff gossip about him.
Tuesday’s decision restores claims that King’s Fourth Amendment right against illegal searches and seizures, Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment, and 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection, were violated.
It reversed much of a February 2015 ruling by Chief Judge Gina Groh of the federal court in Martinsburg, West Virginia, and returned the case to her for further proceedings. King is seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
Lawyers for the prison officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A lawyer for King did not immediately respond to similar requests.
The appeals court upheld the dismissal of claims against some defendants, including Commissioner Jim Rubenstein of the West Virginia Division of Corrections.
The case is King v Rubinstein et al, 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 15-6382.
6 comments:
Interesting they don't state what got him incarcerated. Either way, he didn't deserve this type of abuse. I hope he wins and I say that not as a sympathetic person towards him, but that there should be expectations that this type of intrusion isn't only illegal, but should never have happened.
I disagree with his financial claims because the financial burden will be passed to and paid for by taxpayers. There will be no punitive measures for the "penal" authorities.
I'm reminded of the time I sat as a juror in a civil trial. We ruled for defendants but awarded no damages. Moral victory for you but suck up the costs for making us sit through this little get rich scheme, chumps!
He had WHAT done?
Well, that's one way to make sure he always keeps it up and gives all the ladies a thrill.
3rd grade memories: Recall playing marbles "for keeps" and how the kid with the steelie was alway cheating?
O I get it now. He's suing because his marbles became an unnecessary problem all the way through. From beginning to end the system could not handle the marbles in his dick.
heh heh heh
And the complaints about tingling, when it rains, and cold, are thrown in there as as descriptives, as normal marble-in-your-dick complaints, in case you were wondering, and not part of the marble removing forced surgery suit.
It's kind of confusing.
He must have really hated his dick. Why would a guy want it to make his dick lumpy? Because they hate it and think it would be better enhanced. A lumpy dick would be improvement for this poor pathetic dangling participle.
That's okay, Mr. Marble Person, when you get out of prison with your settlement you can surgically enhance a fabulously knobbed little knob. Like warts upon a wart. Just as you prefer. I hope you win. Because all of that was unnecessary. As for weapons, what were they afraid of, that you would beat somebody to death with your weaponized dick? That is ridiculous. That you would rip them out and throw them? Both those things would hurt too much.
Or maybe some other prisoner might rip them out of you and throw them.
Maybe that's it. Their one single thread of fear. I did see drunk guys in a crowded bar start throwing pool balls. Instant chaos. Bad as a gun. They can throw really hard. Unlike some people. If I were state lawyer, that's what I'd go with. I think.
Post a Comment