Thursday, June 7, 2012

SOUTH DAKOTA: Inmate loses suit against his circumcision

June 6, 2012

Judge throws out SD inmate's circumcision lawsuit

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) — A federal judge threw out a South Dakota prison inmate's claim he was permanently harmed when he was circumcised as an infant.

Twenty-eight-year-old Dean Cochrun had sought $1,000 in damages from Sanford Health. He also demanded "restoration" surgery.

U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier dismissed the case last week. She says the court doesn't have jurisdiction because both Cochrun and the hospital are in South Dakota.

Argus Leader June 6, 2012
But U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier dismissed his case last week, finding that the federal court system has no jurisdiction over such a small claim. [So he should have sued for millions....] She also ordered him to pay a $350 filing fee.

Cochrun's lawsuit says he was circumcised shortly after he was born in Sioux Valley Hospital in Sioux Falls, S.D. The hospital is now known as Sanford Health.

Cochrun says the circumcision left him feeling inadequate and unable to fully enjoy sexual intercourse.
Sanford Health says circumcision wouldn't have been done without parental consent. [And that changes what?]
Cochrun is serving time in South Dakota's state prison for kidnapping. [But he won't be there forever, so that changes what?]
Earlier story


  1. Not that I agree that this man should have lost, but I think that, for many reasons, this wasn't the lawsuit we were looking for.

    He's an inmate. What chances did he actually have? As a prisoner, what rights is he actually entitled to?

    The case was dismissed because it's easy to dismiss an inmate. I reckon he might have not had a ghost of a chance in many other cases that didn't have to do with circumcision as well.

    We should let this one die; I think if we use this as an example of "injustice" we're just going to get ridiculed.

    As America wakes up, there will be many other lawsuits.


    1. But it is a case of injustice, and we would do well to remember that. Justice should not disappear when someone is convicted of a crime.

      It may be best to tactically, let this one "die", but fear of ridicule should not be the reason.

      As a prisoner, what rights is he actually entitled to?

      I guess the question really is: what rights do any of us actually have?

    2. "Justice should not disappear when someone is convicted of a crime."

      *Should* is the key word here.

      Look, I think that an inmate wakes up one day and realizes there's something wrong with his penis, and wants to take this case to court is ridiculous, and I'm an intactivist.

      No, I'd have to say, any case an inmate tries to bring to court is going to be heavily influenced by the fact that he is an inmate.

      It has "Go straight to jail, do not collect $200" written all over it.

      The de facto rule seems to be that prisoners have less rights than any of us.

      I think the tune would have been different were the case brought by any other man that wasn't in jail.

      Let this one die.

      There will be plenty more.

      I promise.

  2. I like the valuable information you provide in your articles. I’ll your weblog and check again here frequently.
    I am quite sure I will learn many new stuff right here! Best of luck for the next..,.,.
    yaz lawsuit