This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Civil Rights
Prisoners' Rights
Failure to Provide Suitable Housing to Inmates

Arjang Dante Panah v. United States of America

Published: Sep. 15, 2012 | Result Date: Aug. 9, 2012 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: CV-09-6535 GAF (PLAx) Settlement –  $425,000

Court

USDC Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Jason K. Feldman
(The Law Office of Jason K. Feldman PC)

Ian M. Wallach
(Law Offices of Ian Wallach PC)


Defendant

Joanne S. Osinoff


Experts

Plaintiff

Hans Einstein
(medical)

Royce Johnson
(medical)

Adrian R. Fleissig
(technical)

Defendant

Antonino Catanzaro
(medical)

Facts

In 2004, plaintiff Arjang Dante Panah was sentenced to prison for drug-related offenses. He was originally incarcerated in New York but was transferred to the Taft Correctional Institution in Kern County in March 2005.

While in Taft, Plaintiff contracted an incurable and potentially fatal disease, Coccidiodomycosis, also known as Valley Fever. A fungus found in soil, particularly in the southwestern United States, causes the disease.

Despite Plaintiff's constant fight against the disease, Plaintiff was able to earn both a masters and Ph.D. while in prison. He was released in 2008. During his incarceration and since his release, Plaintiff has continued to suffer debilitating symptoms.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that Defendant breached its duty under 18 U.S.C. 4042 to provide suitable housing to inmates and its duty, as owner of the land--and under a theory of premises liability--to warn and protect inmates from known harms.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant contended that the Court lacked jurisdiction as the issue fell within the Discretionary Function exception to the FTCA; that it could not be liable as another entity operated by the facility; the USA was not liable for the conduct of independent contractors; that reasonable preventive measures were taken; and that Plaintiff did not mitigate damages.

Result

Thirteen days prior to trial, the parties arrived at a settlement of $425,000. There was no acknowledgement of wrongdoing by Defendant.

Other Information

In August 2011, summary judgment had been denied early on by Hon. Gary A. Feess as to the issue of jurisdiction and the application of the Discretionary Function exception. FILING DATE: Sept. 9, 2009.


#103890

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390