Wilson v. Seiter
SimpleOriginal

Summary

In this 1991 Supreme Court case, the Court clarified that an Eighth Amendment claim over prison conditions requires proof that officials acted with “deliberate indifference,” not mere negligence, extending Estelle’s standard.

1991 | Federal Juristiction

Wilson v. Seiter

Keywords Eighth Amendment; deliberate indifference; prison conditions; Estelle; 1991 Supreme Court case; Supreme Court; negligence; prison litigation; inmate rights; cruel and unusual punishment
Open Case as PDF

Wilson v. Seiter (1991)

The 1991 Supreme Court decision in Wilson v. Seiter refined the Eighth Amendment standard for evaluating claims of inhumane prison conditions. The Court held that a showing of mere negligence is insufficient; instead, prison officials must exhibit "deliberate indifference" to prevail against such claims. This ruling extended the precedent set by Estelle v. Gamble.

Open Case as PDF

Wilson v. Seiter (1991)

The 1991 Supreme Court case Wilson v. Seiter refined the standard for Eighth Amendment claims regarding prison conditions. The ruling established that demonstrating deliberate indifference, rather than simple negligence, is necessary to prove a violation. This decision built upon the precedent set in Estelle v. Gamble.

Open Case as PDF

The Deliberate Indifference Standard

The 1991 Supreme Court case established a higher bar for proving that prison conditions violate the Eighth Amendment. Instead of simply showing negligence, prisoners must now demonstrate that prison officials acted with "deliberate indifference" to their health or safety. This ruling built upon a previous case, Estelle, by clarifying what constitutes a constitutional violation in this context.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

In 1991, the Supreme Court made a ruling about prisons. They said that if prisoners think their rights are being violated, they have to prove the prison guards knew about the problem and didn't care. It's not enough to just say the guards were careless; they have to show the guards intentionally ignored the problem. This ruling built on an earlier case called Estelle.

Open Case as PDF

Footnotes and Citation

Cite

501 U.S. 294 (1991)

Highlights