State pays $73,000 to settle Woods Run prisoner lawsuit
The state paid a former Woods Run inmate $73,000 to settle his lawsuit against three former prison administrators, according to a copy of the settlement released by the Department of Corrections.
The lawsuit by “John Roe” claimed that guards abused him and threatened him with rape while he was being held at SCI-Pittsburgh. He reported that former administrators Melvin Lockett, Martin Kovacs and Janice Niemiec either knew about the widespread abuse of inmates at the prison or chose to avoid learning about it.
The administrators, in the settlement, deny any liability for the abuse.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Consumer, core prices inch up
- Steelers’ defense on pace for fewest sacks in 16-game season
- Starkey: Century mark beckons for Ben
- Flyers continue mastery of Penguins at Consol
- Penn State defense returns to familiar spot atop Big Ten Conference
- Canadians more fearful, aware after ‘very rare’ attack in Ottawa
- Pitt offense eyes healthy balance
- Florida fugitive nabbed in Pittsburgh-area homeless shelter
- Highmark seeks double-digit increase for more benefits, heavy use
- Contempt citation sought by state against Highmark for alleged violation of deal with UPMC
- VA promotion for administrator stuns legislator