AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for
Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Sexual Assault
Monthly
Law Journal Article: Civil Liability for Sexual
Assaults on Prisoners, 2007 (8) AELE Mo. L.J. 301.
Monthly Law Journal
Article: Transsexual Prisoners:
Protection From Assault, 2009 (7)
AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Sexual Assault of Female Inmates by a Correctional Officer: --A Case Study, 2020 (8) AELE Mo. L.J. 301.
A male county jail employee admitted that he engaged in sexual acts with two female inmates when they were incarcerated at the jail at various times. They sued the employee and county for sexual assault in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as a state law negligence claim against the county. He had urged the women not to discuss his sexual advances, and his assaults were kept hidden from jail officials until a former inmate reported her own sexual encounters with him to an investigator in a neighboring county. An investigation led to him pleading guilty to several counts of sexual assault and being sentenced to 30 years in prison. A jury found the employee and the county liable and awarded each plaintiff $2 million in compensatory damages. It also assessed punitive damages against the employee of $3,750,000 to each woman. A federal appeals court upheld the damage awards against the employee for his “predatory” and “knowingly criminal” assaults. But it overturned the award against the county. To impose liability against the county for these crimes, the court stated, there must be evidence of an offending county policy, culpability, and causation. The employee’s actions were “reprehensible,” but the evidence showed no connection between the assaults and any county policy. McGreal v. Village of Orland Park, #18-3342, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 19088 (7th Cir.).
A female immigration detainee at a county immigration family center claimed that a male employee violated her Fourteenth Amendment right to bodily integrity after the two had sex. The employee’s co-workers and supervisor were allegedly deliberately indifferent to the violation and the county was accused of failing to implement policies to prevent such conduct. A federal appeals court upheld the denial of individual defendants’ motion for qualified immunity. It ruled that immigration detainees are entitled to the same constitutional protections afforded by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as pre-trial detainees and that the plaintiff’s rights in this context were clearly established. Enough evidence was found to support an inference that the defendants knew of the risk facing the plaintiff and that their failure to take additional steps to protect her, acting in their capacity as either a co-worker or supervisor, could be viewed by a factfinder as the sort of deliberate indifference to a detainee’s safety that is constitutionally forbidden. E.D. v. Sharkey, #18-1688, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 19686, 2019 WL 2723370 (3d Cir.).
A male corrections officer regularly patrolled a pod at a county jail where a female inmate was incarcerated with another female inmate. Three or four times, the first female inmate claimed, she had complied with the officer’s demand that she expose her breasts to him. She additionally claimed that she “once or twice” masturbated in his presence because he asked her to do so. She did not claim that the officer ever touched her or explicitly threatened her. She was, however, deeply disturbed by the officer’s demands, and claimed that, as a result of his abuse, her post-traumatic stress disorder worsened and her night terrors and flashbacks increased in severity. She stated that she never reported the officer to the jail administration because she felt intimidated.The inmate and her cellmate sued the officer for Fourth and Eighth Amendment violations, and county officials for municipal liability. The trial court granted the defendants summary judgment on every claim except the first inmate’s Eighth Amendment claim against the officer, finding that he was not entitled to qualified immunity. A federal appeals court affirmed, finding that the plaintiff satisfied the subjective component of her Eighth Amendment claim. A jury could conclude that the officer acted with deliberate indifference or acted maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of causing her harm. When he allegedly sexually abused her, it was clearly established that such abuse could violate the objective prong of the Eighth Amendment. Rafferty v. Trumbull Cty., #17-4223, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 35394, 2018 Fed. App. 625N, 2018 WL 664955 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
A male jail corrections officer was told that a county’s zero-tolerance policy forbid him to have any sexual contact with inmates. The county repeatedly instructed him not to engage in any such contact and trained him to avoid it. He gave answers to quizzes indicating he understood the training. He nonetheless raped a woman in jail. She sued him and sued the county for indemnification under a Wisconsin state statute. A jury awarded her $6,700,000 against the county, finding that the assaults were in the scope of employment. A federal appeals court reversed. Even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and the verdict, the court ruled that no reasonable jury could find the sexual assaults were in the scope of the officer’s employment; that the sexual assaults were natural, connected, ordinary parts or incidents of contemplated services; that the assaults were of the same or similar kind of conduct that the officer was employed to perform; or that the assaults were actuated even to a slight degree by a purpose to serve the county. No reasonable jury could even regard the sexual assaults as improper methods of carrying out employment objectives. The plaintiff presented no evidence that the officer’s training was deficient or that he did not understand it. Martin v. Milwaukee County, #18-1060, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 26124 (7th Cir.).
In a prisoner’s lawsuit arising out of a prisoner’s claim that a former corrections officer sexually assaulted her, the trial court properly granted summary judgment to the defendant county. The plaintiff failed to establish that the county itself caused the alleged constitutional violation. Nothing showed that a failure to train the officer caused the alleged assault or that the county was deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff’s rights in any way. Alleged negligence by two supervisors was insufficient for civil rights liability. A reasonable officer in the sheriff’s position would not have known that he needed to more closely supervise the officer, and he was entitled to qualified immunity. The other supervisor also would not have known, based on the record in the case, that the former corrections officer posed an “obvious risk” of committing sexual assault. Marsh v. Phelps County, #17-1260, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 22600 (8th Cir.).
In a former inmate’s lawsuit claiming that correctional officials failed to protect him from threats, assault, and sexual/physical harassment by other prisoners, the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity when there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that there were material factual disputes concerning their conduct. Berry v. Doss, #17-2565, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 23058 (8th Cir.).
A female arrestee booked into a county jail claimed that a detention officer raped her. She sued the sheriff for the alleged rape, under a theory of inadequate supervision. The sheriff argued that, even assuming he violated the Constitution - the trial court erred in finding that the contours of the constitutional right at issue were clearly established. A federal appeals court agreed: “the clearly established law must be 'particularized’ to the facts of the case.In reaching this conclusion, we do not mean to suggest that “[a] prior case” must have “identical facts” before it will put reasonable officials on notice that their specific conduct is unconstitutional.” Accordingly, the appeals court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded with directions to enter summary judgment in the sheriff’s favor on the basis of qualified immunity. Perry v. Durborow, #17-5023, 892 F.3d 1116 (10th Cir. 2018).
A former inmate at a state correctional facility claimed that a corrections officer, during a routine morning pat-down, rubbed his erect penis against the inmate’s buttocks through both men’s clothing. When the plaintiff stepped away and verbally complained to the officer’s supervisor, the supervisor allegedly “slammed” him against a wall, injuring his face, neck, head, and back. The trial court dismissed his federal civil rights claim, stating that “a small number of incidents in which a prisoner is verbally harassed, touched, and pressed against without his consent do not amount” to an Eighth Amendment violation. A federal appeals court reversed, ruling that a single incident of sexual abuse can constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment if the incident was objectively sufficiently intolerable and cruel, capable of causing harm, and the defendant had a culpable state of mind rather than a legitimate penological purpose. While the sexual abuse claim as to the supervisor under a participation or failure-to-intervene theory was properly dismissed, the excessive force claim against the supervisor should have been permitted to survive the motion to dismiss. Ricks v. Shover, #16-2939, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 15057 (3rd Cir.).
A woman claimed that an officer at a county jail sexually assaulted her while he was detained there. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the sheriff and the jail administrator, as the plaintiff did not show that they were deliberately indifferent to known or obvious risks associated with hiring officers to work at the jail, so they were entitled to qualified immunity. The defendants were also entitled to qualified immunity with respect to plaintiff's inadequate training and supervision claims. In this case, it was not clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct that the county sheriff and the jail administrator needed to make significant changes to their training, supervision, and policies in response to an incident of sexual abuse. Rivera v. Bonner, #16-10675, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 12081 (5th Cir.).
A federal jury awarded $6.7 million to a woman who claimed that she was repeatedly raped by a guard while she was being detained in a county jail. The guard was acting under his scope of employment when the sexual assaults occurred, the jury found, and therefore the county was liable for the damages amount. The jury also found there was "no legitimate government purpose" to shackle the woman during childbirth labor, delivering a child she was carrying before her incarceration, but jurors did not find she was injured and therefore awarded her no monetary damages on that claim. Jane Doe v. Cnty. of Milwaukee, #14-CV-200-JPS, U.S. Dist. Ct. (E.D. Wis. June 7, 2017), reported in the Washington Post (June 8, 2017).
A woman
incarcerated at an all-female state prison claimed that she was raped by a
prison maintenance employee. She sued, claiming that prison officials,
including the warden, violated her Eighth Amendment rights by creating an
environment in which sexual misconduct was likely to occur. A federal appeals
court ruled that qualified immunity should not have been granted to the
defendant warden, since a reasonable jury could have concluded that he created
an atmosphere where “policies were honored only in the breach, and, as a
result, he failed to take reasonable measures to ensure inmates were safe from
the risk of sexual misconduct” by employees. The plaintiff had a clearly
established” constitutional right against sexual assault by prison employees.
Inadequate training claims, however, were properly rejected. Keith v. Koerner,
#15-3219, 843 F.3d 833 (10th Cir. 2016).
A male detainee claimed that
he was sexually assaulted twice by another male prisoner while in a county
correctional facility. His lawsuit claimed that the county sheriff failed to
protect him from a reasonably foreseeable hazard of sexual assault. The highest
court in New York held that the lawsuit should not have been dismissed for
failure to file a notice of claim on the county, since the county had a
statutory duty to indemnify the sheriff on the claims presented. The complaint
was otherwise sufficient to present a claim. Villar v. Howard, #153, 2016
NY Slip Op 06944, 28 N.Y.3d 74, 2016 N.Y. Lexis 3222, 64 N.E.3d 280.
A prisoner in a
medium-security prison was placed in a cell with another prisoner who sexually
assaulted him 12 days later. That assailant was incarcerated for having
sexually assaulted a woman. Both prisoners were classified as “medium security.
The assailant had committed eight violations of the prison’s rule in the past
two years, but no sexual offenses, only offenses such as fighting, lying,
theft, etc. Criminal charges were filed against him on the sexual assault. A
federal appeals court upheld the dismissal of the lawsuit, upholding a practice
of random assignment of cellmates. The court noted the prison’s compliance with
the notification requirements of the 2003 Prison Rape Elimination Act, 42
U.S.C. 15601–15609, and that there was no evidence that plaintiff expressed any
concern about being vulnerable to sexual assault. The prison staff was
apparently unaware that the plaintiff was perceived by other prisoners to be
homosexual, and there was no evidence of such a perception, apart from the
plaintiff’s unsupported claim. Ramos v. Hamblin, #15-3052, 840 F.3d 442 (7th
Cir. 2016).
Eight female alien detainees sued under both 42
U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2671 et
seq., claiming that a male corrections officer at a privately run prison had
sexually assaulted them. Sec. 1983 claims were properly dismissed against the
company running the facility and its facility administrator, as well as summary
judgment granted on that claim against the officer, since the detention of the
plaintiffs according to ICE specifications was carried out under federal law,
not under color of state law as required for a Sec. 1983 claim. Claims against
the county, which had almost no involvement in the facility's operation, were
also rejected. The appeals court also upheld the rejection of FTCA against the
U.S. government, as there was no evidence that ICE officials acted with
deliberate indifference. Doe v. United States, #15-50331, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis
13696 (6th Cir.).
A female inmate was
handcuffed and in leg restraints in a holding cell in the medical unit of a
Criminal Justice Center. Two detention officers on duty there were called away
to assist with a medical emergency elsewhere. During their absence, a male
inmate entered her unlocked holding cell and allegedly raped her. The female
inmate sued the two officers individually, and the county sheriff individually
and in his official capacity for allegedly acting with deliberate indifference
to the risk of the rape in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The three
defendants appealed from the denial of their motions for qualified immunity.
The appeals court rejected the appeals by one detention officer and the sheriff
in his individual capacity, because their appeals did not turn on discrete
questions of law, but instead asked the appeals court to resolve questions of
fact as to whether the officer knew the cell door was unlocked, and whether the
sheriff was aware of the risk of sexual assaults based on alleged
understaffing, the lack of video surveillance, and prior sexual assaults.
Qualified immunity was granted to the second officer, however, as the plaintiff
could not show that he violated a clearly established constitutional right,
since this officer left the unit first and the plaintiff presented no evidence
to contradict their statement that they did not know that the cell door was
unlocked. Henderson v. Glanz, #14-5077, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 22729 (10th Cir.).
Two former inmates sued for alleged sexual abuse
by a male guard, claiming that he fondled their genitals for personal
gratification without any legitimate penological justification. The trial court
improperly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, as the
allegations, if true, would violate the Eighth Amendment. Crawford v. Cuomo,
#14-969, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 14023 (2nd Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that an assistant
caseworker at the facility where he was incarcerated violated his Eighth
Amendment rights by failing to protect him from sexual assault by another
prisoner. A federal appeals court rejected an interlocutory appeal from the
trial court's denial of qualified immunity to the defendant based on the
existence of factual disputes. As the defendant challenged the trial court's
finding that there was sufficient evidence to warrant a trial, he was
essentially asking the appeals court to engage in "the time-consuming task
of reviewing a factual controversy about intent," which it would not do.
Franklin v. Young, #14-2151, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 10739 (8th Cir.).
Female inmates at an Oklahoma facility were given
work assignments to perform landscaping work and grounds maintenance at the
governor's mansion. They claimed that they were sexually assaulted and harassed
by their off-site supervisor, the mansion's groundskeeper, and a cook at the
mansion. Their lawsuit claimed that two guards at the prison were aware of
this, but did nothing to prevent it. Upholding the denial of qualified immunity
to the two guards, a federal appeals court dismissed one guard's appeal for
want of jurisdiction as she only challenged the trial court's determination that
the plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment. It
rejected the second guard's argument that a prison guard who knows of, yet
fails to reasonably respond to, a risk of harm created by another person can
only be liable if the perpetrator is a subordinate. Castillo v. Day, #14-6050,
2015 U.S. App. Lexis 10509 (10th Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that he had been repeatedly sexually
and physically assaulted by his cellmate and the cellmate's gang associates,
that he lodged multiple complaints about this, but that six prison officials
acted with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of injury to him. The
trial court ruled that his claims failed because the defendant officials did
not actually know about the risk. A federal appeals court vacated this judgment
as to three defendants, ordering reconsideration. The appeals court stated that
the subjective "actual knowledge required for a finding of deliberate
indifference can be proved by "circumstantial" evidence, and that
prison officials can be held liable when a risk is "so obvious" that
it had to be known. The plaintiff was a short, middle-aged prisoner with both
mental and physical problems that made him vulnerable to attacks and
harassment. Since the trial court applied the wrong legal framework in
considering this, further proceedings were required. The prisoner failed to
preserve his objection to the dismissal of his claims against three other
defendants. Makdessi v. Lt. Fields, #13-7606, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 3883 (4th
Cir.).
A D.C. prisoner was incarcerated for over two
decades in both federal and state prisons on a conviction for raping and
robbing a woman in 1981 when he was 18. After his parole, he was required to
register as a sex offender, limiting his employment, housing, and other
opportunities. During his incarceration, he suffered multiple instances of
several sexual and physical assaults, and contracted HIV. In 2012, at the age
of 50, he was exonerated and determined to be actually innocent of the robbery
and rape, based on DNA evidence. He reached a settlement of claims against the
federal government under the Unjust Convictions Act, 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1495 and
2513, and the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2671 et seq. of
$1,128,082.19, based on $50,000 times the 22.56 years he was incarcerated.
Continuing to pursue his claims against the District of Columbia under the D.C.
Unjust Imprisonment Act, D.C. Code Sec. 2-421 et. seq., he was awarded
$9,154,500 in damages for wrongful conviction, unjust imprisonment, sexual and
physical assaults, contracting HIV, lost income, and physical and psychological
injuries. A D.C. court found that his wrongful conviction and unjust
imprisonment had been a proximate cause of all these damages. It also rejected
an argument that D.C. was entitled to an offset from the award for the amount
of the plaintiff's settlement with the federal government. Odom v. District of
Columbia, #2013-CA-3239, 2015 D.C. Super. Lexis 2.
A ward at a Hawaii youth correctional
facility received a jury award on claims that a male youth correctional officer
sexually assaulted her, and against a number of other defendants. The officer's
motion for a new trial was granted, however, because there was an
irreconcilable conflict in the jury's answers to various special verdict
questions that rendered it impossible to determine what each defendant was to
pay. The retrial would be limited to the amount of general and special damages
each defendant was to pay, and whether the awards were against each defendant
in their individual or official capacities. A state statute did not bar the
plaintiff from obtaining judgment both against the state and against the
individual officer. Costales v. Rosete, #SCWC-30683, 133 Haw. 124, 324 P.3d 934
(2014).
A teenage pretrial detainee was sexually
assaulted by an older heavier registered sex offender while in a county jail.
The appeals court held that the plaintiff had to show that the defendant
sheriff and jail administrator personally knew of the constitutional risk posed
by their alleged inadequate training or supervision and proximately caused his
injuries by failing to take required remedial action. Findings of fact by the
trial court so far showed that the jail administrator was not presently
entitled to qualified immunity as it was alleged that he failed to train a
jailer concerning the jail's policy of locking all cell doors overnight. The
sheriff, however, was granted qualified immunity, as there was nothing
presented but conjecture to refute his testimony that he did not know about a
substantial risk arising from the administrator's failure to train the jailer.
Walton v. Dawson, #12-4000, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 9304 (8th Cir.).
Female immigration detainees, who were ordered
released after presenting a prima facie case for asylum, claimed that they were
each sexually assaulted by a male employee of a private prison company while he
was transporting them from an immigration detention center where they had been
interviewed to a bus station or airport, with no other officers present. He
pled guilty to federal and state charges stemming from the assaults. While two
defendant federal officials knew of a contractual requirement that such
transported immigration detainees be escorted by at least one officer of the
same gender, and that the aim of this was to deter such assaults, their alleged
failure to take action to enforce that condition did not violate a clearly
established constitutional right. Doe v. Robertson, #13-50459, 2014 U.S. App.
Lexis 8534 (5th Cir.).
Two guards who had sex with a female prisoner in
solitary confinement in a county jail confessed to doing so and were fired. The
prisoner sued the two guards and the county sheriff, seeking damages. A federal
appeals court ruled that the defendants were properly granted summary judgment
because the sexual acts had been consensual. The court stated that while
"we recognize a need to examine consent carefully in the prison context,
this case does not present a factual issue with regard to" the prisoner's
consent. Graham v. Sheriff of Logan County, #12-6302, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis
25401 (10th Cir.).
The U.S. government can be sued under the Federal
Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2680(h) for an alleged sexual assault by
guards, according to a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision. The statute
waives the federal government's sovereign immunity from tort lawsuits, but
contains exceptions for intentional acts. An exception to the exception extends
the waiver to claims for six intentional torts, including assault and battery
that are based on acts or omissions of an “investigative or law enforcement
officer” “who is empowered by law to execute searches, to seize evidence, or to
make arrests.” The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this applied to acts of
officers within the scope of their employment when they have legal authority,
regardless of whether the officers are engaged in investigative or law
enforcement activity, or are executing a search, seizing evidence, or making an
arrest. It did apply to a correctional officer's alleged sexual assault on a
prisoner. Millbrook v. United States, #11-10362, 2013 U.S. Lexis 2543.
A female former prisoner claimed that her
instructor at the facility engaged in unlawful sexual acts with her and got her
pregnant. A federal appeals court found that her lawsuit adequately stated a
claim against a former warden for allegedly creating and allowing a policy or
culture of sexual misconduct to exist at the facility, and failed to take
reasonable measures to abate it. There were facts cited from an audit report
that could support a conclusion that the ex-warden had been aware of multiple
incidents of unlawful sexual conduct at the facility, and that the discipline
surrounding such incidents was inconsistent. She adequately alleged facts that
would tend to show structural policy problems that contributed to the alleged
unlawful sexual conduct. Keith v. Koerner, #12-3101, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 2924
(10th Cir.).
A prisoner transported to a county
detention center for a court hearing raped another prisoner there. When
correctional officials learned of the pending criminal rape charges stemming
from the incident, they also initiated disciplinary charges. A disciplinary
officer concluded that the prisoner was guilty of disciplinary infractions
involving rape and threats to other prisoners and imposed a loss of 69 days
earned good time, as well as sending him to disciplinary segregation for 455
days. The prisoner was subsequently convicted of criminal charges. He
challenged the disciplinary determination, arguing that his due process rights
had been violated by denying him the right to call witnesses or elicit written
testimony at the hearing. The New Mexico Supreme Court reversed a trial court
ruling overturning the discipline. "In focusing on Petitioner's procedural
due process rights, the district court appears to have lost sight of the reason
for such a hearing. The court failed to appreciate the significance of the
intervening criminal convictions - not to whether due process was violated -
but, pivotally, to what remedy was appropriate under the circumstances."
Perry v. Moya, #32,938, 2012-NMSC-040, 289 P.3d 1247, 2012 N.M. Lexis 415.
Three female inmates who had been confined to a county
substance abuse treatment facility could not pursue premises liability claims
against the state based on alleged sexual assaults by officers because of state
law immunity for liability for the intentional torts of employees. The Texas
Supreme Court rejected arguments that the immunity was waived because the
officers allegedly made use of tangible property such as a laundry room or cart
to carry out the assaults. There was no claim that the property was inherently
unsafe, and the officers allegedly used it intentionally to carry out the
assaults, so such use was within the immunity of the state and its agencies for
intentional wrongdoing by employees. Texas Dep't of Criminal Justice v. Campos,
#11-0728, 2012 Tex. Lexis 900, 56 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 75
The U.S. Justice Department released a letter of
findings stating that its investigation determined that Topeka Correctional
Facility (TCF), an all-female facility in Topeka, Kan., under the jurisdiction
of the Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC), failed to protect women
prisoners from harm due to sexual abuse and misconduct from correctional staff
and other prisoners in violation of their Eighth Amendment constitutional
rights. The letter recommends a series of remedial actions, including changes
in policy, staffing, correctional practices, training, investigations,
grievances, and compliance with the provisions of the National Standards to
Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Prison Rape, 28 C.F.R. Part 115. Letter of
Findings, re: Investigation of the Topeka Correctional Facility, Civil Rights
Division, U.S. Dept. of Justice (Sept. 6, 2012).
A prison guard allegedly spent five to seven
seconds fondling a clothed pretrial detainee's genitals during a pat down
search, as well as another two or three seconds doing so during a subsequent
strip search, despite the detainee's verbal protests. Reversing summary
judgment for the defendant guard in the detainee's lawsuit, a federal appeals
court stated that "an unwanted touching of a person's private parts,
intended to humiliate the victim or gratify the assailant's sexual desires, can
violate a prisoner's constitutional rights whether or not the 'force' exerted
by the assailant is significant." The trial court's mention of "de
minimus injury" inappropriately invoked excessive force cases. Washington
v. Hively, #12–1657, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 17426 (7th Cir.).
A male prisoner's lawsuit claimed that a female
prison guard violated his First, Fourth, and Eighth Amendment rights by
perpetrating "romantic but not sexual" acts on him without consent,
and that other prison officials failed to protect him against such conduct. He
claimed that she touched him inappropriately, placing her hand on his groin
and, in a subsequent incident, stroking his penis. A federal appeals court
reversed summary judgment for the defendants, since the prisoner was entitled
to a presumption that the conduct was not consensual and alleged that it
constituted sexual abuse, serving no legitimate purpose. The defendants had not
met a burden of showing that the conduct at issue was not coercive. Because of
"the enormous power imbalance between prisoners and prison guards,
labeling a prisoner's decision to engage in sexual conduct in prison as
'consent' is a dubious proposition." The appeals court upheld, however,
the trial court's rejection of deliberate indifference and retaliation claims
by the prisoner. Wood v. Beauclair, #10-35300, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 18575 (9th
Cir.).
A jury awarded $500,000 to a female pretrial
detainee against a county on her claim that a male sheriff's deputy raped her
while she was in custody. The trial court erroneously set this award aside, a
federal appeals court ruled, and stated that the mere fact that a county policy
prohibited such sexual misconduct was an inadequate defense. "No County
policy prohibited a single deputy of one sex from being alone with a prisoner
of another sex. Nor were any monitoring devices, such as surveillance cameras,
ever employed to supervise such one-on-one interactions." Cash v. County
of Erie, #09-4371, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 17163 (2nd Cir.)
Present and former female inmates of New York
state prisons could pursue class action claims for injunctive and declaratory
relief, seeking protective measures against what they asserted was a pattern of
sexual molestation by prison guards. The fact that some of them had been
released did not make their claims moot, since they alleged misconduct which
was capable of repetition, but which would evade review if the mootness
doctrine was applied. Amador v. Andrews, #08-2079, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 17440
(2nd Cir.)
An Ohio prisoner sued the state for damages based
on his claim that a nurse touched him in an inappropriate sexual manner. The
nurse was not entitled to civil immunity under state law, and, as a result, the
state agency could not be held vicariously liable. Under state law, an employer
is not vicariously liable for the "self-serving" acts of employees
that do not serve to facilitate or promote the employer's business. The court
also rejected claims based on negligent hiring, retention, and supervision,
since there was no evidence that the state agency had any reason to believe
that the nurse would engage in sexual misconduct with a prisoner, and there was
no evidence calling into question the nurse's supervision or training. Garrett v.
Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction, #2009-04858, 2010 Ohio Misc. Lexis
73 (Ct. of Claims).
A former prisoner in an Ohio facility claimed
that a correctional officer had sexually assaulted her on two consecutive
nights, and sued two superintending prison officers, a case manager on her
living unit, and a prison investigator. She claimed that the case manager
failed to take any action to prevent the second assault after she reported the
first one, and that the investigator retaliated against her for her accusations
by placing her, shackled and handcuffed, in solitary confinement in a cell
without adequate heat, clothing, bedding, or blankets. The trial court denied
the defendants summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, finding that
there were disputed material issues of fact, and the defendants did not appeal
that ruling. After a full trial, a jury awarded the plaintiff $350,000 in
compensatory and punitive damages against the case manager and $275,000 against
the investigator. The defendants did not then file a motion seeking judgment as
a matter of law after the verdict, nor did they seek a new trial. Instead, they
argued, on appeal, that the trial court should have granted their motion for
summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. A federal appeals court
agreed, and reversed the jury's verdict. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed,
reversing the appeals court, and holding that a party may not appeal a denial
of summary judgment after a district court has conducted a full trial on the
merits. There was no "purely legal" issue of qualified immunity
preserved for appeal, as the dispute was not over what the pre-existing law
was, but instead what the facts were--such as whether the case manager was
adequately informed, after the first attack, of the assailant's identity. The
defendants could not argue, on appeal, that the plaintiff had not proven her
case, as they failed to raise an issue of the sufficiency of the evidence by a
post-judgment motion for judgment as a matter of law. Ortiz v. Jordan, #09–737,
2011 U.S. Lexis 915.
After a detainee in a county jail told a deputy
that he was having trouble with other prisoners, she told him to move his
mattress into a day room attached to the cellblock, where he would be directly
in her line of sight at all times. Despite this, he was sexually assaulted in
the afternoon after this deputy's shift ended. The deputy who relieved her did
not see the attack. Jail officials were unable to identify who staged the
attack, partially because the victim's account of the incident was inconsistent
with the physical evidence. Upholding summary judgment for the county in the
detainee's lawsuit, a federal appeals court found no evidence of deliberate
indifference by any jail personnel, and any failure to observe or prevent the
attack was, at most, negligence, which is inadequate for a federal civil rights
claim. The county had taken significant steps to try to protect inmate safety,
including moving prisoners who face special threats to separate cellblocks, and
providing for deputies to be able to directly observe nearly the entire
cellblock. There was no evidence that any county custom or policy caused the
attack. Brown v. Harris County, Texas, #10-20213, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 25569
(Unpub. 9th Cir.).
A correctional officer was prosecuted for
custodial sexual misconduct while working in the county jail's women's
division, and terminated. He was acquitted of the criminal charges in state
court. He sued, asserting claims for race and gender discrimination. The
appeals court found no evidence of race or gender discrimination. The court
noted that there was a lower standard of proof as to the termination than was
required for the criminal proceeding. Egonmwan v. Cook County Sheriff's Dep't,
#09-2764, 602 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 2010).
A former Cook County corrections officer who was
prosecuted for custodial sexual misconduct while working in the women's section
of a jail was later acquitted of the charges. Rejecting constructive discharge,
race and gender discrimination, and malicious prosecution claims, a federal
court found no evidence of race or gender discrimination, and noted that, as to
the malicious prosecution claim, Illinois law regards a grand jury indictment
as prima facie evidence of probable cause for a prosecution. Swearnigen-El v.
Cook County Sheriff's Dep't, #09-2709, 602 F.3d 852 (7th Cir. 2010).
Reacting to reports of male correctional officers
engaging in sexual abuse of female prisoners, the State of Nevada adopted a
policy of hiring only female correctional lieutenants at a women's prison to
serve as shift supervisors. Four male correctional officers filed a Title VII
lawsuit challenging the policy as unlawful sex discrimination. Overturning
summary judgment for the defendants, a federal appeals court found that they
had not shown that "all or nearly all" males, if placed in
supervisory positions, would tolerate male officers' sexual abuse of female
inmates, or that an individual assessment of applicants on this issue would be
impossible or highly impractical. The court further emphasized that the law
protects the ability of applicants and employees to pursue their career goals
without sex discrimination, and that the fact that all those of the same sex
faced the same disadvantage did not justify the policy. The court rejected
arguments that the policy only imposed a minimal restriction on male prison
employees' promotional opportunities, or that the sex discrimination, in this
instance, constituted a bona fide occupational qualification. Breiner v. Nev.
Dep't of Corr., #09-15568, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 13933 (9th Cir.).
A former inmate claimed that she was
sexually assaulted by a corrections officer, and sued for intentional
infliction of emotional distress and negligent supervision. She claimed that
her failure to file her lawsuit within a two-year statute of limitations should
be excused, based on her alleged inability to pursue her legal remedies during
her imprisonment because of the officer's continuing threats. The court rejected
this, as the officer had not been employed at the facility for five years
before the lawsuit was filed. Gilley v. Ohio Reformatory for Women,
#2009-05030, 2010 Ohio Misc. Lexis 41 (Ct. of Claims).
A former Ohio prisoner claimed that she was sexually
assaulted by a prison guard on two successive nights, the second incident
occurring on the guard's last day on the job, and that prison officials failed
to properly protect her against the second assault, as well as retaliating
against her for reporting the incident. A jury found in favor of her and
against the two prison officials, awarding $625,000 in compensatory and
punitive damages. A federal appeals court found that the two officials were
entitled to qualified immunity, as they did not act with deliberate
indifference to a known risk of harm. The U.S. Supreme Court has granted review
of this case, and the Court's decision will be reported in a future issue of
this publication. Ortiz v. Jordan, 316 Fed. Appx. 449, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis
5245 (Unpub. 6th Cir.), cert. granted, #09-737, 2010 U.S. Lexis 3524.
A female prisoner being transported was placed in
a van with four male prisoners. The van was allegedly very dark and she was
instructed where to sit. During the transport, she claimed, a male prisoner in
the same caged area as her within the van managed to remove his hand
restraints, grab her arm, sit her on his lap, pull her pants down, and rape
her. A federal appeals court, overturning summary judgment for the defendant
officers on a failure to protect claim, found that there was evidence from
which a factfinder could conclude that they acted with deliberate indifference
towards a substantial risk to her safety Whitson v. Stone County Jail,
#08-1468, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 8299 (8th Cir.).
A county sheriff hired a deputy, who was a
allegedly provided with little or no training. The deputy was first assigned
duties as a jailer, and later as a "road deputy." During his last
week on the job, after resigning to pursue a position with the state Department
of Corrections, he encountered a female employee at a convenience store who
asked his advice on some legal problems. She declined his offer to go on a date
with him. Learning that she had several outstanding arrest warrants, and owed
approximately $800 in fees and fines, he drove to the store on his last day on
the job, arrested her, and transported her to the jail, telling her that he
would not have done so if she had agreed to the date. At the jail, the deputy
bet a jailer that he could get the arrestee to reveal her breasts. He then told
the arrestee that he could get her fines reduced if she would show him her
breasts, and she eventually complied. He then allegedly grabbed her exposed
breast. She sued the deputy and the sheriff, claiming that the sheriff failed
to properly train the deputy. The deputy was also arrested and pled guilty to
second degree sexual assault. The deputy had received a policy manual, but had
not been required to read it, and, in fact, did not read it. He was scheduled
to attend a training academy, but had not yet attended it at the time of the
incident. The trial court found the deputy liable, as well as the sheriff in
his official capacity, while granting the sheriff qualified immunity in his
individual capacity. A federal appeals court overturned the inadequate training
liability, noting that there was no duty specified in state statutes for
sheriffs to train subordinates not to sexually assault detainees, and that
there had been no past pattern of such conduct by the sheriff's deputies that
would have put him on notice about the need for such training. Additionally,
since a reasonable officer would know that intentionally sexually assaulting a
detainee was illegal, and the deputy admitted that he knew "that such
conduct was impermissible," the plaintiff failed to show that the lack of
training caused the assault. Parrish v. Ball, #08-3517, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis
2748 (8th Cir.).
There were sufficient facts alleged to allow a
prisoner to proceed on her claims that prison officials failed to adequately
train, supervise, or investigate a prison guard's alleged yearlong sexual
encounters with her. The court declined to accept the defendant officials'
argument that they were entitled to qualified immunity on the basis that the plaintiff
prisoner had denied a sexual relationship existed when she was questioned. The
prisoner's environment was "fully controlled" by the officials and
they had a "wide range" of methods to investigate repeated reports of
sexual misconduct and to monitor her activities. The plaintiff, while a
prisoner, was subject to "coercive dynamics" frequently present among
the incarcerated. Chao v. Ballista, #07cv10934, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 56948
(W.D. Mass.).
The state of Michigan will pay a total of $100
million in settlement of a class action lawsuit by over 500 female prisoners
who said that they suffered sexual assaults by prison guards. As part of the
settlement, the state dropped an appeal of two verdicts for 18 women, which
totaled almost $24 million. The settlement will be paid in six payments over
five years. In the lawsuit, pending since the 1990s, women claimed that guards
in Michigan correctional facilities sexually abused them, and that prison
officials ignored reports by human rights groups that included warnings that
male officers were "preying" on female prisoners. One of the named
plaintiffs in the lawsuit stated that she was raped eight times by prison
guards during her incarceration from 1993-1996. $28 million of the settlement
will pay for lawyers' fees in the case, and is reportedly for 30,000 hours of
time. Bunton v. Dept. of Corrections, Washtenaw County Circuit Court, Michigan,
reported in Detroit Free Press, July 16. 2009. To read a special report by the
newspaper's reporters on the lawsuit, click here. In a January 2009 decision,
the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld a $15.5 million award to 10 female
prisoners concerning their sexual assault by officers at Michigan's Scott
Correctional Facility, and stated that the defendants' arguments, raised on
appeal, were "disingenuous," "fundamentally flawed" and
"muddled," finding that there was sufficient evidence" for the
jury's award. In that case, it was alleged that approximately 30% of the male
staff at Scott were involved in sexual assaults. A further appeal to the
Michigan Supreme Court was dropped as part of the settlement. Neal v. Dept. of
Corrections, #28532, 2009 Mich. App. Lexis 182 (Unpub.).
A former pre-trial detainee at a county
jail, who was allegedly raped and sodomized by a deputy there, failed to show
that the sheriff was aware of any sexual misconduct at the facility prior to
the incident at issue. The court rejected her claims against the sheriff for
deliberate indifference based on purported policies of underfunding, understaffing,
inadequate training, and allowing male deputies to escort female prisoners
without supervision. Boyd v. Nichols, #7:08-cv-26, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 37750
(M.D. Ga.).
A female pretrial
detainee claimed that a trainee corrections officer at a jail had entered her
cell three times at night and forced sexual contact on her. A jury awarded her
$500,00 in compensatory damages, and $600,000 in punitive damages. The trial
court ordered that 1% of the damage award be applied to an award of attorneys'
fees to the plaintiff. Upholding the damage awards, the appeals court ruled
that the trial court did not act erroneously in finding that the defendant
officer's attorney, in using all three of his peremptory jury challenges to
attempt to remove females from the jury, engaged in gender-based
discrimination, rejecting purported gender-neutral reasons offered for the
challenges. Jury instructions properly told the jury to take into account the
nature and extent of the plaintiff's injuries in assessing damages, and to
consider whether those injuries were temporary or permanent. The appeals court
ordered further proceedings on the proper amount of attorneys' fees to be
awarded. Kahle v. Leonard, #08-1647/08-2578, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 8908 (8th
Cir.).
A jailer was not entitled to qualified immunity
in a lawsuit seeking to impose liability for a male inmate's alleged rape of a
female inmate at the jail. The jailer knew that he violated a jail policy by
allowing a male inmate to remain closed in a female detainee's cell for ten
minutes, and that the purpose of the policy was to prevent sexual assaults.
Hostetler v. Green, #08-7029, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 7965 (Unpub 10th Cir.).
Prisoner's lawsuit claiming that a correctional
officer twice confined her in an isolated locked classroom and imposed physical
and verbal abuse on her, including forcible rape, established liability for
violation of constitutional rights as well as state law claims, since the
officer failed to respond to the accusations. The prisoner failed, however, to
establish a claim for emotional distress under New York state law, since she
failed to assert that the officer acted with the intent or disregard of a
substantial probability to cause severe emotional distress. Further proceedings
were required on the amount of damages to be awarded. Ortiz v. Lasker,
08-CV-6001, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 101363 (W.D.N.Y.).
When detainee-on-detainee violence was "very
rare" and there was no prior complaint by a detainee of sexual assault at
the juvenile detention facility, a juvenile detainee allegedly raped by another
detainee failed to show deliberate indifference to the risk of such an assault.
Officers' alleged failure to provide assistance to the plaintiff detainee might
constitute negligence, but was hardly deliberate indifference. The defendant
juvenile detention officers, however, did not have discretion under state law
to leave a detainee at the facility unsupervised, but allegedly did
"exactly that," so that they were not entitled to "state agent
immunity" under Alabama law on state law negligence, recklessness, and
wantonness claims. D.S. v. County of Montgomery, Alabama, No. 07-15671,
2008 U.S. App. Lexis 14237 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
An inmate's action of kissing a nurse on the
cheek was insufficient to support disciplinary charges against him for
"soliciting a sexual act." Despite the nurse's testimony that the
inmate did not harass her, however, the rule against harassment was broad
enough to cover the prisoner's conduct. The court ordered expunging from the
prisoner's record of all references to the charge of "soliciting a sexual
act." Wells v. Dubray, No. 504063, 2008 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 6255
(A.D. 3rd Dept.).
Female inmate adequately alleged that she was
sexually assaulted by correctional personnel, and that certain supervisory
personnel failed to intervene and protect her from unwanted sexual contact by
knowingly allowing officers who had sexually harassed her to remain in contact
with her. Knight v. Simpson, Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-0495, 2008
U.S. Dist. Lexis 36631 (M.D. Pa.).
While severe or repetitive sexual abuse by a
correctional officer could be serious enough to violate the Eighth Amendment, a
prisoner's claim that he was subject to excessive and intrusive body searches,
including the handling of his penis, on three occasions, did not amount to such
a violation. These, the court found, were minor, isolated incidents, and that,
whatever the officers' motivations for these actions, the searches were
conducted in a private location, and in a reasonable manner without
humiliation, physical injury, or "undue" intrusion, and were
justified by a purpose of locating contraband. Williams v. Fitch, No.
04-CV-6440, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 36481 (W.D.N.Y.).
Evidence was present from which a jury could find
that a sheriff was aware of conditions in the county jail which were likely to
result in the sexual assault of the plaintiff, a female detainee. The evidence
included facts about two prior alleged sexual assaults on female prisoners by
male correctional officers. These prior assaults were held, in the prior case
of Gonzales v. Martinez, #31348, 403 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2005) to be the
product of "unconstitutional jail conditions maintained through the
deliberate indifference" of Sheriff Salazar, the defendant in the
immediate case. The plaintiff in the immediate case was allegedly sexually
assaulted in the jail twice in December of 2001, three years after the prior
two assaults. Summary judgment for the defendant sheriff was therefore
reversed. Tafoya v. Salazar, No. 06-1191 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 3740 (10th Cir.).
At the time the plaintiff inmate was allegedly
sexually assaulted by a guard, defendant correctional officials only knew that
he had previously been accused of sexually assaulting one other prisoner. Given
that the guard denied that prior allegation, the officials' response in
beginning an investigation, rather than immediately firing the guard, was not
objectively unreasonable, so that the officials could not be held liable for
the alleged sexual assault of the plaintiff prisoner. Doe v. Georgia Dept. of
Corrections, No. 06-15915, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 19676 (11th Cir.).
County did not act with deliberate indifference
in hiring a correctional officer who had previously been fired from his job at
a high school based on an accusation of making improper sexual advances to
students, and who subsequently allegedly raped a female inmate. The county's
failure to follow up to learn the circumstances of the guard's termination from
the school was, at most, negligence, which was insufficient for federal civil
rights liability, and the circumstances of that termination would not
necessarily show that the guard was likely to rape an inmate. Additionally, the
fact that the guard was reprimanded several times for touching inmates but was
not fired showed, at most, negligence, and also did not suffice to establish
liability based on inadequate supervision. Hardeman v. Kerr County, No.
06-50636, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 18830 (5th Cir.).
A detainee's affidavit that she was subjected to
a sexual assault by a correctional officer was adequate to bar summary judgment
on her state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Further, at the time of the alleged incident, the officer was involved in the
performance of his job duties, which included supervising the plaintiff and
other inmates in a medical unit, so that a claim for assault and battery
against the employer would also go forward. The court rejected, however, negligent
hiring and retention claims, since there was no evidence that the employer
knew, at the time that the officer was hired, that he had any propensity to
sexually assault a prisoner. Heckenlaible v. Virginia Peninsula Regional Jail
Authority, No. 4:06cv25, 2007 U.S.Dist. Lexis 43256 (E.D. Va.).
Federal prison officer did not act within the
scope of his employment during his alleged sexual assault on a female prisoner.
His alleged wrongful actions did not arise from a legitimate employment duty or
goal furthering his employer's interests. The fact that the officer was
successfully criminally prosecuted for abuse of a ward under 18 U.S.C. Sec.
2243(b) did not bar the U.S. government from denying that the officer was
acting outside of the scope of his employment, because a conviction for that
offense did not establish, under Texas state law, that the officer acted within
the scope of his employment. Accordingly, the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA),
28 U.S.C. Sec. 1346(b) sovereign immunity waiver did not apply. Shirley v.
U.S., No. 06-10654, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 11696 (5th Cir.).
New York corrections department was liable for
damages for sexual assault on prisoner when it failed to comply with a criminal
court judge's order that he be placed in protective custody based on prior
sexual assaults against him while in a jail's general population. Further
proceedings ordered on the amount of damages to be awarded. Hunt v. New York,
9623-9624, Claim 101841, 2007 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 602 (1st Dept.).
While the U.S. government was not liable for the
intentional actions of one federal prison guard who was convicted of sexual
assault of an inmate, there was an issue of material fact as to whether two
other guards, who allegedly brought the inmate to that guard at his request,
giving him unmonitored access to a female prisoner, in violation of prison
regulations, after midnight, led to the assault. Summary judgment denied on
plaintiff prisoner's lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1346. Davis v. U.S., 3:03-CV-0415, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 11198 (N.D. Tex.).
Deputy who served as supervisor at county jail
was not entitled to summary judgment in female detainee's lawsuit claiming that
he had been deliberately indifferent to the risk that a correctional officer
would sexually assault her. The deputy himself stated that no officer was
authorized to go into a detainee's cell after lockdown, but that he knew that a
trainee officer went into the plaintiff detainee's cell three times within an hour
after lockdown. The detainee's right to be protected against sexual assault was
clearly established, so that the supervisor was not entitled to qualified
immunity. Kahle v. Leonard, No. 06-2485, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 3107 (8th Cir.).
[N/R]
Correctional officer did not act with deliberate
indifference by placing an inmate in a cell with inmates who had previously
sexually assaulted him when she did not have knowledge of that prior attack,
and removed him from the cell as soon as he made a request that she do so.
Allen v. York County Jail, No. 06-1461, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 1436 (1st Cir.).
[N/R]
Prisoner asserted a viable claim for sexual
assault during a strip search by alleging that an officer pressed his own penis
against the inmate's buttocks and also made "inappropriate"
statements during the search. Bromell v. Idaho Dept. of Corrections, No.
CV05-419, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 80804 (D. Idaho). [N/R]
Prisoner could pursue his claim that Bureau of
Prisons (BOP) officers lost his personal property, since immunity for law
enforcement officers for such losses under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA),
28 U.S.C. Sec. 2680(c) did not apply to those officers. Mendez v. U.S., No.
05-1716, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 76099 (D.N.J.). [N/R]
Federal appeals court orders a new trial in lawsuit by
prisoner claiming that housing unit manager improperly denied his request for
protective custody after his cellmate allegedly raped him, resulting in
multiple subsequent rapes. Trial judge improperly told the jury, in response to
their question, that there was "no evidence presented" about prior
complaints about the defendant denying requests for protective custody, rather
than instructing them that their question was irrelevant, after which the jury
quickly found for the defendant. Conley v. Very, No. 05-2650, 2006 U.S. App.
Lexis 15548 (8th Cir.). [2006 JB Aug]
Prisoner allegedly sexually assaulted in another
prisoner's cell after being brought there by a prison guard failed to show that
other prison officials violated his constitutional rights in failing to protect
him. Rather than acting with deliberate indifference, prison officials promptly
acted to transfer him to another facility for his protection after learning
that he felt unsafe, even in protective custody. Prisoner is awarded $6,000 in
damages in default judgment against prison guard. Further proceedings ordered
on whether Florida prisoner incarcerated in Kansas for protective reasons was
still a citizen of Florida, entitled to federal court jurisdiction over his
Kansas state-law claims against Kansas prison officials. Smith v. Cummings, No.
05-3180. 445 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2006). [2006 JB Jul]
Wisconsin inmate stated a viable claim for sexual
assault based on officer's alleged grabbing of his buttocks and fondling of his
penis during a pat down search, as well as a viable civil rights claim against
a second officer who allegedly held him and laughed during the encounter.
Turner v. Huibregtse, No. 05-C-508, 421 F. Supp. 2d 1149 (W.D. Wis. 2006). [N/R]
Juvenile facility in Hawaii ordered to take steps
to remedy "pervasive" sexual, physical, and verbal abuse of lesbian,
gay, bisexual, or transgender juvenile wards, and to stop, except in
emergencies, using isolation as a means of "protecting" such wards
against abuse and harassment. Court rejects, however, the claim that staff
members violated the First Amendment rights of the juveniles by quoting from
the Bible or discussing religion with them, when there was no evidence that
these actions were based on the facility's policies. R.G. v. Koller, No.
Civ.05-00566, 415 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (D. Hawaii 2006). Subsequent decision at
2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 21254. [2006 JB Jun]
Prison records requested by inmate under New York
Freedom of Information Law, relating to an investigation of his claim that a
correctional officer sexually assaulted him, were not subject to disclosure
based on an exemption in the law for information that could endanger a person's
life or safety, based on court's review of the documents at issue. John H. v.
Goord, 809 N.Y.S.2d 682 (A.D. 3rd Dept. 2006). [N/R]
Female prisoner could not pursue lawsuit over her
alleged gang rape by male prisoners over thirty years earlier. Her claims were
barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and it could not reasonably be
concluded that she was mentally ill from 1971 until 1996, thereby extending the
statute. Douglas v. York County, No. 05-1940, 433 F.3d 143 (1st Cir. 2005).
[2006 JB Apr]
Male prisoner's claim that female guard made him
strip naked and masturbate for her enjoyment, if true, was a violation of his
privacy rights, but not "cruel and unusual punishment," since he only
suffered minimal injury. Prisoner also claimed he was retaliated against for
complaining about this treatment, in violation of his First Amendment rights.
Boxer X v. Harris, No. 04-13083, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 2008 (11th Cir.). [2006
JB Mar]
Correctional officer's alleged conduct of
repeatedly groping or caressing a prisoner's chest, genitals and buttocks
during a pat search, if true, constituted a sexual assault which would violate
the Eighth Amendment, so that he was not entitled to qualified immunity.
Further, the officer's alleged retaliation against the prisoner for complaining
by planting evidence against him and filing a misbehavior report against him,
if true, would violate the prisoner's First Amendment rights. Rodriguez v.
McClenning, No. 03 Civ. 5269, 399 F. Supp. 2d 228 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
Nebraska Supreme Court holds that state correctional
agencies were entitled to sovereign immunity in lawsuit by female inmate
claiming that a correctional employee sexually assaulted her, whether her
claims were based either on the mere fact that he was an employee or on the
defendants' alleged own negligence in hiring and supervising him. Johnson v.
State of Nebraska, No. S-03-1362, 700 N.W.2d 620 (Neb. 2005). [2006 JB Feb]
New Jersey prisoner failed to show that prison
officials were liable for an alleged physical attack against him in the prison
carpentry shop and for later threats of physical and sexual assault by another
prisoner. Plaintiff prisoner did not claim that any of the defendant officials
had any awareness of his fears for his safety. Stringer v. Bureau of Prisons,
No. 04-1510, 145 Fed. Appx. 751 (3rd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Prison administrators were not shown to have
acted with deliberate indifference to the risk of sexual assaults by male
guards on female prisoners when they investigated six prior incidents occurring
in a four year period, and this resulted in the firing and prosecution of five
guards. Heggenmiller v. Edna Mahan Correctional Institution for Women,
#04-1786, 128 Fed. Appx. 240 (3rd Cir. 2005). [2005 JB Sep]
Lawsuit against Texas county by female prisoners
who claimed that guards subjected them to sexual assault and harassment was
improperly dismissed by lower court. Prisoners' claims that the county knew or
should have known that security cameras in the facility were non-functioning
and improperly placed, and that aspects of the layout of the facility permitted
guards to have unlimited, unmonitored access to prisoners to facilitate such
assaults and harassment was sufficient to come within a statutory waiver of
governmental immunity based on premises defects. Campos v. Nueces County, No.
13-03-724, 162 S.W.3d 778 (Tex. App. 2005). [N/R]
County jail detainee beaten and raped by fellow
prisoners showed genuine factual issues as to whether county sheriff had acted
with deliberate indifference to the risk of such assaults by housing him with
detainees with records of prior violence. Merriweather v. Marion County
Sheriff, No. 02 CV 01881, 368 F. Supp. 2d 875 (S.D. Ind. 2005). [N/R]
Sheriff who allegedly left two female inmates in
the custody of the same male employees they alleged had sexually molested them
was not entitled to qualified immunity in a lawsuit by one of them for failing
to protect her against a known risk of harm. Gonzales v. Martinez, No. 03-1348,
2005 U.S. App. Lexis 6169 (10th Cir.). [2005 JB Jun]
Prisoner's claim that prison guard attempted to
solicit sexual favors from him in return for special consideration and groped
his genitals in front of him, even if true, failed to establish a violation of
the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, when there
was no claim of any physical injury. Ornelas v. Giurbino, No. 03 CV 1673, 358
F. Supp. 955 (S.D. Cal. 2005). [N/R]
Prison guard did not violate a Pennsylvania
prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights by allegedly "blowing kisses" at
him. While the prisoner claimed that this made him "fearful" of a
future potential sexual assault, such conduct, while "unprofessional"
did not state a claim for violation of federal civil rights. Prison psychiatrist
had a clear obligation to report the prisoner's alleged subsequent threats
against the guard, and was not required to give him Miranda warnings before
discussing the incidents with him. The prisoner's statements to the
psychiatrist were therefore admissible in subsequent prison disciplinary
proceedings against him. Burkholder v. Newton, 116 Fed. Appx. 358 (3rd Cir.
2004). [N/R]
Female prisoners who claimed that they were
sexually assaulted by a jailer stated a viable claim against the city for
alleged failure to adequately train or supervise its jailers. "We are
unwilling to say, at this point, that it is not obvious that male jailers who
receive no training and who are left virtually unsupervised might abuse female
detainees." Drake v. City of Haltom, 106 Fed. Appx. 897 (5th Cir. 2004).
[N/R]
Prison guard was properly convicted of separate
counts of unlawful sexual activity with an inmate on the basis of two incidents
occurring on different days. The trial court's decision not to group the two
incidents together in one count for sentencing purposes was proper. U.S. v.
Vasquez, No. 03-1763, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 23480 (2nd Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Federal appeals court rules that if prison
officials and employees actually declined to protect homosexual prisoner from
repeated prison rape because of his sexual orientation, that would violate
clearly established law, so that qualified immunity on that claim should be
denied. Race discrimination claim dismissed for failure to exhaust available
administrative remedies. Johnson v. Johnson, No. 03-10455 385 F.3d 503 (5th
Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Dec]
U.S. government could not be sued, under the
Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2671 et seq., for negligent hiring,
supervision, management, and training of an officer who allegedly raped a
female jail inmate while assigned to transport her between correctional
facilities. Because the underlying claim arose out of the alleged commission of
intentional wrongdoing, the rape, and the FTCA only provides for lawsuits based
on negligence, the U.S. government was immune from the plaintiff's claims.
Martinez v. U.S., No. CV02-1164, 311 F. Supp. 2d 1274 (D.N.M. 2004). [N/R]
Manager of residential unit in state prison was
not entitled to dismissal or summary judgment in lawsuit asserting that he
failed to protect prisoner from a sexual assault by his cellmate. There were
genuine issues of fact as to whether the defendant knew that the cellmate was a
"predatory" homosexual who had attacked others. The plaintiff
prisoner claimed that he had informed the manager of this in making a request
for a different cell assignment, and the court found that the inmate's right to
be protected against such assaults by his cellmate was clearly established.
Brown v. Scott, 329 F. Supp. 2d 905 (E.D. Mich. 2004). [N/R]
A county juvenile training facility was not
entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity against liability in a
federal civil rights lawsuit concerning the alleged failure to adequately train
employees and failure to investigate and prevent sexual abuse committed against
one juvenile resident by another. The facility was not an arm of the state,
because the county rather than the state would be responsible for paying any
damage award against the facility, even though the facility was built pursuant
to a state statutory scheme concerning juveniles found to be delinquent,
dependent, abused, unruly or neglected, as well as juvenile traffic offenders.
S.J. v. Hamilton County, Ohio, No. 02-3852, 374 F.3d 416 (6th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Appeals court orders further proceedings on
whether woman should be allowed to proceed on lawsuit concerning her alleged
gang rape in county jail over thirty years ago. Plaintiff argued that the
statute of limitations should be extended because of her mental illness, and
trial court made improper inferences, in the appeals court's opinion, in ruling
on that issue. Douglas v. York County, No. 03-2086, 360 F.3d 286 (1st Cir.
2004). [2004 JB Aug]
Female former inmates of federal community
confinement center operated by a private company failed to show that company
was negligent in failing to uphold a one-year security experience requirement
when transferring an employee to a "resident advocate" position,
since they failed to demonstrate that there was any connection between the
employee's lack of security experience and his alleged sexual abuse of inmates.
Company could not be held vicariously liable for the alleged abuse simply on
the basis of the employer-employee relationship. There was, however, a triable
issue of whether the company was negligent in retaining the employee after it
received a report of his alleged sexual harassment of one female prisoner.
Adorno v. Correctional Services Corp., 312 F. Supp. 2d 505 (S.D.N.Y. 2004 ).
[N/R]
Overturning dismissal of criminal charges against
corrections officer on three counts of institutional sexual assault under 18
Pa. C.S.A. Sec. 3124.2 (prohibiting sexual intercourse, deviate sexual
intercourse or indecent conduct with an inmate by a corrections employee), Pennsylvania
Supreme Court rejects arguments that the statute was void for vagueness,
overbroad, or violated due process. Commonwealth v. Mayfield, 832 A.2d 418 (Pa.
2003). [N/R]
Lieutenant who assigned a prisoner a new cellmate
who subsequently sexually assaulted him was not liable, despite prisoner's
claim that he feared an assault from a Latin Kings gang member. There was no
showing that the sexual assault had anything to do with this gang, and there
was no evidence from which the lieutenant could be said to be aware of a
substantial risk of harm from pairing these two prisoners together. Riccardo v.
Rausch, #02-1961, 359 F.3d 510 (7th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB May]
Homosexual prisoner did not successfully show
that prison guard was deliberately indifferent to his safety in placing him
with a cellmate who subsequently raped him. The plaintiff's statement to the
guard that he was "nervous" about being placed in a cell with another
prisoner was insufficient to show that the guard in fact knew of the risk and
ignored it. Alleged three-day delay in providing medical treatment following
the rape did not show inadequate medical care, in the absence of any showing
that the delay caused any harm. Harvey v. California, No. 02-16539, 82 Fed.
Appx. 544 (9th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Prison superintendent and assistant
superintendent could not be held personally liable for correctional officers
alleged sexual assault on female prisoner in her cell, in the absence of any
evidence that they were personally involved in the incident, had any actual or
constructive knowledge of past violations which they failed to remedy, were
grossly negligent in supervising the officer, or were deliberately indifferent
to a known risk of harm. Morris v. Eversley, 282 F. Supp. 2d 196 (S.D.N.Y.
2003). [N/R]
Update: Federal appeals court upholds
ruling that drivers' license examiner's alleged conduct of forcing female
inmate in work release program to have sex with him in exchange for special
privileges, and under threat of being removed from the program, violated
clearly established Eighth Amendment law. Smith v. Cochran, #01-5085, 339 F.3d
1205 (10th Cir. 2003). [2004 JB Jan]
Federal officers responsible for convicted drug
felon in witness protection program were not liable for his alleged sexual
abuse of a female at a residential juvenile facility where they helped him
obtain employment, or for his alleged continued sexual abuse of her after he
became licensed as a foster parent and obtained custody of her. Nothing in his
past criminal record made it foreseeable that he would engage in such conduct,
since he had no prior crimes of violence or sexual abuse. Lawrence v. United
States, #01-36142, 340 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2003). [2004 JB Jan]
Correctional lieutenant who had sexual contact
with female prisoner in federal facility held to have used "force"
justifying the imposition of an enhanced criminal sentence despite not using a
weapon, threatening or physically harming the victim, or inflicting pain on
her. Court rules that the combination of the size disparity between the
defendant lieutenant and the prisoner, the prisoner's circumstances in solitary
confinement in a tiny cell with no other persons nearby, and being locked in
her cell between his alleged attacks and repeatedly made to submit to him
constituted "force" which placed her in fear. United States v.
Denjen, 258 F. Supp. 2d 194 (E.D. N.Y. 2003). [N/R]
Female prisoner stated a claim for violation of
her Eighth Amendment rights by male correctional officer who allegedly made
sexual advances towards her and by supervisors who allegedly took no remedial
action despite prior complaints of similar conduct by the same and other
officers towards other female prisoners. Williams v. Prudden, No. 02-1754, 67
Fed. Appx. 976 (8th Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Nov]
President Bush on September 4, 2003 signed into
law the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 unanimously passed by Congress on
July 24, 2003 (Senate) and July 25, 2003). [N/R]
Female jail inmate who said she was sexually assaulted
by a correctional officer could pursue claims against the county and its
sheriff based allegations that sexual relationships at the facility between
correctional officers and female inmates were "so widespread" that
policy-makers had "constructive knowledge" of them but did nothing to
remedy the situation. Faas v. Washington County, 260 F. Supp. 2d 198 (D. Me.
2003). [2003 JB Sep]
Congress passes new federal statute: the Prison
Rape Elimination Act of 2003. [2003 JB Sep]
Texas correctional agency was not liable for
alleged sexual assault on female prisoner at state jail by male guard in men's
restroom. Intermediate appeals court rejects argument that facility's physical
layout was a proximate cause of the alleged assault, bringing the claim within
an exception for harms arising from the condition of state property to the
immunity provided under a state tort claims act. Bonham v. Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, No. 03-02-00389-CV, 101 S.W.3d 153 (Tex. App. 2003). [2003 JB
Jul]
City liable under state law for alleged rape of
16-year-old female juvenile doing court mandated community service by
inmate-trustee working for the city. Trial court properly assessed city as 70%
negligent and inmate-trustee as 30% at fault when city had an obligation to
supervise the inmate-trustee, but knowingly allowed the teenage victim to work
with him in a situation where they were left alone. City liable for 70% of
$153,365.64 general damage award, but no liability found for damages or
attorneys fees under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and 1988. Ashmore v. Hilton, No.
02-816, 834 So. 2d 1131 (La. App. 2002), rehearing denied (2003). [N/R]
In lawsuit alleging that officer at juvenile
correctional facility sexually assaulted a male minor prisoner, there was good cause
to postpone the deposition of the minor plaintiff for a short time until after
his release from custody in order to protect the minor from the possibility of
further psychological harm. Williams v. Greenlee, 210 F.R.D. 577 (N.D. Tex.
2002).
Drivers' license examiner's alleged conduct of
forcing female inmate in work release program to have sex with him in exchange
for special privileges, and under threat of being removed from the program,
violated clearly established Eighth Amendment law and was sufficiently
outrageous to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress
under Oklahoma state law. Smith v. Cochran, 216 F. Supp. 2d 1286 (N.D. Okla.
2002). [2003 JB Jan]
Prisoner allegedly sexually assaulted in her room
by a correctional officer a day after he fondled her and threatened to
"get" her "tomorrow" presented a genuine issue of fact as
to whether she made cottage manager aware that she reasonably feared a sexual
assault by the officer and whether cottage manager acted reasonably in
response. Prisoner also presented genuine issue as to whether "gag
order" was imposed as a pretext to make her stop claiming that she had
been assaulted. Ortiz v. Voinovich, 211 F. Supp. 2d 917 (S.D. Ohio 2002).
[2002 JB Dec]
Pretrial detainee allegedly sodomized by four
prisoners in his cell sufficiently alleged deliberate indifference by prison
officials based on the failure to take measures to classify and separate
inmates based on security risks. Calderon-Ortiz v. Laboy-Alvarado, #01-2469,
300 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2002). [2002 JB Dec]
New York female prisoner adequately alleged that
correctional officials knew of prior sexual misconduct of correctional officers
with female inmates, including the one she said sexually assaulted her, but failed
to take action to prevent it. Defendant officials were not entitled to
qualified immunity. Morris v. Eversley, 205 F. Supp. 2d 234 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).
[2002 JB Nov]
Under Illinois state law, sheriff could not be
held vicariously liable for the alleged sexual misconduct of a correctional
officer with a female prisoner. Dorsey v. Givens, 209 F. Supp. 2d 849 (N.D.
Ill. 2001). In a related decision, the court held that the officer's alleged
sexual misconduct was not within the scope of his employment, so that he was
not entitled to indemnification from his employer under state law. Dorsey v.
Givens, 209 F. Supp. 2d 850 (N.D. Ill. 2001). [N/R]
Supreme Court of Indiana summarily affirms
intermediate appeals court decision [(Robins v. Harris, 740 N.E.2d 914 (Ind.
App. 2000), aff'd on rehearing, 743 N.E.2d 11422 (Ind. App. 2001)] that sheriff
was liable for sexual assault allegedly committed on female jail inmate but
that the county commissioners were not, following settlement of the case,
except for a portion of the opinion stating that consent by the inmate was not
available as a defense in the civil lawsuit, just as it was not available,
under state law, I.C. Sec. 35-44-1-5(b) to a criminal charge of sexual assault
arising out of the same incident. Robins v. Harris, No. 84S01-0106-CV-00315,
769 N.E.2d 586 (Ind. 2002). [N/R]
Female prisoner who reported that she had been
raped by a supervising deputy in the county jail failed to show that the county
had a policy of ignoring sexual harassment and sexual assault complaints. While
accused deputy was not disciplined following the county's own investigation, he
was suspended when a subsequent state police investigation resulted in criminal
charges against him, and the record showed three other cases in which a deputy
had been disciplined for alleged sexual misconduct. Ford v. County of Oakland,
#00-2140, 35 Fed. Appx. 393 (6th Cir. 2002). [2002 JB Sep]
Hospital and correctional department were not
vicariously liable for therapist's alleged fondling of female prisoner and
subsequently contacting her after her release and coercing her into
prostitution. The therapist's alleged actions were entirely for his own
interests and were not in furtherance of the defendants' interests. There was
also no liability for negligent hiring and supervision since nothing indicated
that the therapist's alleged actions were foreseeable. Garcia v. Montefiore
Medical Center, 740 N.Y.S.2d 307 (A.D. 2002). [N/R]
Female inmate sexually assaulted by prison guard
was properly awarded $15,000 in compensatory and $5,000 in punitive damages
against prison security director and $25,000 in punitive damages against warden
for failure to protect her against the assault, based on guard's prior actions
that a jury could have found put them on notice that he posed a substantial
risk of serious harm to female prisoners. Riley v. Olk-Long, #00-3411, 282 F.3d
592 (8th Cir. 2002). [2002 JB Jun]
Mother of juvenile detainee allegedly sexually
assaulted and abused by warden in juvenile detention facility did not show that
alleged assault was caused by the failure of state employees to mention
warden's prior marijuana conviction when writing letters of reference to obtain
warden position. Warden had previously received a pardon on that conviction
from the governor and the conviction had been effectively expunged, with a
criminal records search not revealing it. K.S., v. Summers, No. 2001 CW 0794,
799 So. 2d 510 (La. App. 2001) [2002 JB Mar]
Prisoner stated an Eighth Amendment claim for sexual
assault against private medical service employees brought into correctional
facilities. Prisoner, who was pregnant at the time, claimed that two nurses
sexually assaulted her by conducting an internal exam without gloves, asking if
she was HIV positive, giving her hugs and kisses, and giving her one of their
home phone numbers.. Goode v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc., 168 F. Supp.
2d 289 (D. Del. 2001). [N/R]
Prisoner awarded $1.5 million in damages for
sexual assault by his cellmate. Riccardo v. Rausch, No. 99CV-372, U.S. Dist.
Ct. (N.D. Ill. April 11, 2001), reported in Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, p. 21
(Dec. 21, 2001). [N/R]
Two female former residents of juvenile detention
facility awarded $200,000 against former employee for his alleged sexual
assaults against them; federal appeals court reinstates civil rights claim
against assailant's co-worker, a counselor who admitted that she had heard
"numerous rumors" that he was having sex with female detainees.
Beers-Capitol v. Whetzel, No. 00-2479, 256 F.3d 120 (3rd Cir. 2001). [2002 JB
Jan]
297:140 Correctional center supervisor's alleged
decision to allow lieutenant to continue to have access to female unit after
receiving information that he was sexually abusing female inmates in order to
attempt to catch him "red-handed" could be found to be deliberately
indifferent to the risk that the lieutenant would rape a female prisoner.
Noguera v. Hasty, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2458 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
297:139 Qualified immunity denied to prison
officials on claim that they acted with deliberate indifference to male guard's
alleged sexual misconduct towards female prisoner in special unit for past
victims of sexual trauma; factual issues presented also on whether practice of
pat searches of such prisoners by male guards was reasonably related to
legitimate penological objectives. Colman v. Vasquez, 142 F. Supp. 2d 226 (D.
Conn. 2001).
296:124 Jail chaplain acted under color of state
law in allegedly engaging in sexual acts with female prisoner who came to him
for religious purposes; prisoner could pursue federal civil rights claim. Paz
v. Weir, 137 F. Supp. 2d 782 (S.D. Tex. 2001).
294:83 Incident in which a white female
correctional officer was not disciplined for allegedly kissing an inmate did
not show that firing an African-American male officer for allegedly having sex
several times with a female prisoner was a "pretext" for racial
discrimination. English v. Colorado Dept. of Corrections, No. 99-1452, 248 F.3d
1002 (10th Cir. 2001).
293:76 Indiana sheriff was liable for officer's
alleged intentional sexual assault on a female prisoner; "consent"
was not an available defense in the lawsuit, and state tort immunity statute
did not apply. Robins v. Harris, No. 84A01-0002-CV-57, 740 N.E.2d 914 (Ind.
App. 2000).
291:46 Correctional officials were not liable for
alleged rape of female prisoner by correctional officer, which caused her to
give birth to a son; plaintiff inmate did not show "deliberate
indifference" by correctional officials to the risk of such attacks, and
training given to officer included training on policy prohibiting sexual
contact with prisoners. Daniels v. Delaware, 120 F. Supp. 2d 411 (D. Del.
2000).
289:13 South Dakota correctional officials were
entitled to sovereign immunity from liability for alleged negligent hiring,
training and supervision of correctional officer who allegedly raped a female
prisoner in a prison bathroom on two occasions. Casazza v. State, No. 21217,
616 N.W.2d 872 (S.D. 2000).
284:124 Georgia prisoner's claim that a
correctional employee sexually abused him was subject to dismissal when he
failed to exhaust available administrative grievance procedures before filing
his federal civil rights lawsuit. Dillard v. Jones, 89 F. Supp. 2d 1362 (N.D.
Ga. 2000).
285:142 U.S. Supreme Court strikes down federal
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) as unconstitutional. Some plaintiffs were
attempting to use statute to assert claims arising out of alleged sexual
assaults by law enforcement personnel. United States v. Morrison, #99-5, 120 S.
Ct. 1740 (2000).
278:27 Sexual abuse of female prisoner by male
correctional officer could be the basis of Eighth Amendment and "Violence
Against Women Act" (VAWA) claims against supervisory officials who
allegedly knew or should have known of risk that officer would sexually molest
inmates. Peddle v. Sawyer, 64 F. Supp. 2d 12 (D. Conn. 1999).
280:58 Prisoner's assertion that correctional
officers sexually assaulted him on three occasions satisfied the requirement of
a physical injury for recovery for emotional damages stated in the Prison
Litigation Reform Act. Liner v. Goord, No. 98-2925, 196 F.3d 132 (2nd Cir.
1999).
280:59 Federal trial court rules that sexual
relations between a female prisoner and a male correctional officer, even if
allegedly consensual, were a per se violation of the Eighth Amendment in a
state which criminalized such conduct; consent defense was not available to
officer in federal civil rights lawsuit. Carrigan v. Davis, 70 F. Supp. 2d 448
(D. Del. 1999).
282:88 Prisoner was required to pursue available
administrative remedies over alleged failure to protect him against rape by a
fellow prisoner even though the damages he was seeking in a federal civil
rights lawsuit were not available in the administrative process; appeals court
finds, however, that prisoner "substantially complied" with
exhaustion requirement. Wyatt v. Leonard, No. 98-4161, 193 F.3d 876 (6th Cir.
1999).
282:93 County was not liable for guard's alleged
sexual assault on female prison based merely on policy of allowing cross-gender
guarding of prisoners; random sexual assault did not constitute
"punishment" for Eighth Amendment purposes; officer could be liable
for a violation of prisoner's due process rights however, and be subject to
punitive damages if allegations were true. Cain v. Rock, 67 F. Supp. 2d 544 (D.
Md. 1999).
272:124 Co. and sheriff were not liable in
federal civil rights lawsuit based on jail guards' alleged sexual assault on
female jail inmate; county ordinance prohibited indemnification for criminal
misconduct; federal trial court declines to hear state law claim against
sheriff after default against guards settles all federal claims in case. Boyd
v. Herron, 39 F.Supp.2d 1129 (N.D. Ind. 1999).
265:12 Female prisoner properly awarded $80,000
against male correctional officer who allegedly raped her and then tried to
compel her to abort pregnancy with quinine and turpentine; second officer who
allegedly sexually harassed plaintiff prisoner granted new trial because of
erroneous admission of evidence concerning alleged misconduct towards other
prisoners; warden and state correctional director not liable. Berry v. Oswalt,
#97-1505, 97-1509, 143 F.3d 1127 (8th Cir. 1998).
266:27 Co. liable for $50,000 in lawsuit where
female prisoner at jail alleged that male correctional officer raped her;
evidence was sufficient to show a "continuing, widespread, and
persistent" pattern of prior sexual misconduct by officers at the jail and
a deliberate indifference to such misconduct evidence by failure to discipline
officers or investigate some past incidents. Ware v. Jackson Co., Missouri,
#97-1800, 150 F.3d 873 (8th Cir. 1998).
267:45 Correctional officer employed by private
corporation running state prison acted under "color of state law"
when he allegedly raped female prisoner in her cell, but was not a "state
employee" entitled to immunity from state law assault and battery claim;
no showing that prison officials had knowledge of "substantial risk"
of sexual assault on prisoner. Gibon v. Corrections Corp. of America, 14
F.Supp.2d 1245 (D.N.M. 1998); Gibon v. Corrections Corp. of America, 14
F.Supp.2d 1252 (D.N.M. 1998).
268:60 Jail officials not liable for rape of prisoner
by cellmate in holding cell; jailers did not know that cellmate posed a threat
of sexual assault on prisoner and therefore did not act with deliberate
indifference by placing the two together in a holding cell. Perkins v. Grimes,
#98-1111, 161 F.3d 1127 (8th Cir. 1998).
269:76 No liability for county and its employees
for alleged repeated sexual assaults by one prisoner on his cellmate; victim of
alleged assaults did not report any problem for four days because of his fear
of his assailant, and defendants took immediate action to remove victim from
his cell once they learned of the problem; South Dakota statute gave defendants
immunity from state law negligence claim. Webb v. Lawrence Co., #96-2096, 144
F.3d 1131 (8th Cir. 1998).
271:108 Co. and sheriff were not liable for
sexual assault by male jailer of two female prisoners serving 48-hour sentences
for minor offenses at county jail; county and sheriff had no indication that
jailer would assault prisoners and no prior similar incidents had occurred
there; court rejects inadequate training and hiring theories. Braney v.
Pulsipher, #96-4192, 143 F.3d 1299 (10th Cir. 1998).
275:173 Unit warden who allegedly had knowledge
of sexual assaults by prisoners could be sued by prisoner allegedly repeatedly
raped by more than twenty inmates over a one year period, who allegedly
contracted HIV as a result. Spruce v. Sargent, #97-1078, 149 F.3d 783 (8th Cir.
1998).
[N/R] Phlebotomist who administered "sex
kit" examination on rape suspect in custody was not liable in prisoner's
lawsuit claiming Fourth Amendment violation; phlebotomist acted in good-faith
reliance that officers who directed her to do so were acting constitutionally.
Robinson v. City of San Bernardino Police Dept., 992 F.Supp. 1198 (C.D. Calif.
1998).
261:140 Brief touching of prisoner's buttocks by
civilian maintenance workers did not amount to a "sexual assault";
while behavior was "inappropriate," it did not give rise to a federal
civil rights claim. Berryhill v. Schriro, 137 F.3d 1073 (8th Cir. 1998).
254:27 Prison officials not liable for officer's
alleged rape of female prisoner when they were not shown to be deliberately
indifferent to incident; defendant officials were also entitled to qualified
immunity when law concerning incident was not clearly established in 1995.
Carrigan v. State of Delaware, 957 F.Supp. 1376 (D. Del. 1997).
255:45 Failure of city jail to have a female
jailer on duty or to have two male jailers on duty who could watch each other
did not constitute a policy of inadequate staffing making it liable for male
jailer's repeated sexual assault of female pretrial detainee in her cell. Scott
v. Moore, 114 F.3d 51 (5th Cir. 1997).
256:59 Correctional officer who sodomized male
prisoner at county jail liable for $253,220 in damages; New Jersey Supreme
Court rules that claim against county was not barred, despite lack of physical
injury, since permanent post-traumatic stress disorder could constitute a
"permanent loss of a bodily function" as required by state statute.
Collins v. Union Co. Jail, 150 N.J. 407, 696 A.2d 625 (N.J. 1997).
257:78 Co. liable for $100,000 to female prisoner
sexually assaulted and rendered pregnant by male correctional officer who was
left alone with her for almost two hours in private room by female officer
after he requested that female prisoner repair tear in his pants; assailant
officer liable for $1 million in damages. Downey v. Denton Co., Texas, 119 F.3d
381 (5th Cir. 1997).
258:91 Correctional officer sued by former
prisoner who claimed he raped her was not entitled to discovery concerning all
of her past sexual contacts, but could receive information concerning any prior
sexual contacts which were "violent or damaging." Giron v.
Corrections Corp. of America, 981 F.Supp. 1406 (D.N.M. 1997).
258:93 Officer was not liable for failure to
protect prisoner from sexual assault by his cellmate or failure to transfer him
to another cell; she had no reason to believe that the cellmate was
particularly dangerous. Luttrell v. Nickel, 129 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 1997).
258:93 Correctional officer in charge of security
at facility liable for $250,000 in compensatory damages and $200,000 in
punitive damages for alleged anal rape of male prisoner in his office. Mathie
v. Fries, 121 F.3d 808 (2nd Cir. 1997).
260:126 Company which operated juvenile
correction center under contract with state was not liable for one youth's
sexual assault on another; plaintiff did not show that company had
unconstitutional policy or custom of ignoring concerns about room assignments.
Burton v. Youth Services International, Inc., 176 F.R.D. 517 (D. Md. 1997).
261:141 New York state prisoner was not entitled
to transfer to federal prison while her lawsuit, claiming that a number of state
correctional officers had raped her was pending; her claims were not credible
and prison officials had also taken steps to protect her; court also lacked
jurisdiction to order federal prisons to accept custody of state prisoner.
Fisher v. Goord, 981 F.Supp. 140 (W.D.N.Y. 1997).
262:148 Oklahoma state Department of Corrections
was an "arm" of the state and, as such, could not be the defendant in
a federal civil rights lawsuit; prisoner's lawsuit alleging that correctional
officer employed by the state had sexually assaulted her dismissed when
Department was only defendant named. Glenn v. State Dept. of Corrections, 943
P.2d 154 (Okl. App. 1997).
[N/R] Male prisoner's claim that he was sexually
assaulted by female correctional counselor was sufficient to show state action
in that he claimed that she was able to take her alleged actions due to her
position of authority. Walker v. Taylorville Correctional Center, 129 F.3d 410
(7th Cir. 1997).
251:172 Co. was not liable for deputy's alleged
sexual assaults on female prisoner when county had policy against such assaults
and promptly investigated once it was reported; no showing of "deliberate
indifference" in the absence of any prior allegation that deputy engaged
in assaultive behavior. Thomas v. Galveston Co., 953 F.Supp. 163 (S.D. Tex.
1997).
242:27 In prisoner's lawsuit claiming that jail
officials failed to protect him against sexual assault by other prisoners,
defendant officials could not introduce evidence of prisoner's homosexual
relationships before confinement or in another facility, but could introduce
evidence that prisoner allegedly engaged in sexual "teasing" of other
prisoners in jail. Blackmon v. Buckner, 932 F.Supp. 1126 (S.D. Ind. 1996).
245:77 Male pretrial detainee awarded $750,000 on
claim that male director of jail security repeatedly engaged in oral sexual
acts with him in security officer during 20 visits, and finally handcuffed and
anally penetrated him. Mathie v. Fries, 935 F.Supp. 1284 (E.D.N.Y. 1996).
250:157 Correctional officials not liable for
cellmate's alleged rape of prisoner; no deliberate indifference in placing two
inmates in the same cell when officials had no reason to know of any
substantial risk of such an assault; one hour delay in medical treatment
following alleged attack was not an Eighth Amendment violation when injuries
were minor and no harm resulted from delay. Langston v. Peters, 100 F.3d 1235
(7th Cir. 1996).
230:26 Lawsuit against prison officials and
guards by prisoner allegedly raped by HIV positive cellmate should not have
been dismissed as frivolous, despite his failure to specify required mental
state of individuals or name of guard who allegedly stood by and failed to
intervene during rape. Billman v. Indiana Dept. of Corrections, 56 F.3d 785
(7th Cir. 1995). [Cross-reference: AIDS Related; Defenses: Eleventh Amendment;
Frivolous Suits].
230:27 State of Louisiana and prison guard liable
for $150,000 in damages to child of female inmate conceived as a result of
guard raping her in prison; guard but not state also liable for $35,000 in
attorney fees. Latullas v. State, 658 So.2d 800 (La. App. 1995).
[Cross-reference: Attorneys' Fees].
231:44 Illinois appeals court overturns $1.1
million award against county and $110,000 in punitive damages against jail
officials for failure to prevent alleged rape of retarded inmate by six other
prisoners; evidence was inadequate to show jail officials acted "willfully
and wantonly." Mitchell v. Elrod, 275 Ill. App. 3d 357, 655 N.E.2d 1104
(1995).
233:76 Prisoner's assertion that correctional
officer "sexually assaulted" him during strip searches stated a
federal civil rights claim, even if officer was acting to satisfy his personal
sexual desires rather than for any investigatory purpose. Seltzer-Bey v. Delo,
66 F.3d 961 (8th Cir. 1995).
239:173 Female inmate at city jail allegedly
sexually assaulted by male jailer awarded $300,000 in damages and $62,794.34 in
attorneys' fees and costs; Georgia appeals court rules that inmate was not
barred, after settlement of claims against city for $175,000, from seeking
payment from city's insurer for $100,000 judgment against male jailer,
rejecting argument that male jailer's actions were outside the scope of his
employment. Isdoll v. Scottsdale Insurance Co., 466 S.E.2d 48 (Ga. App. 1995).
224:125 Arrestee stated federal civil rights
claim both against officer she alleged sexually assaulted her in booking cell
and officers she alleged watched the assault and declined to help her. Huffman v.
Fiola, 850 F.Supp. 833 (N.D. Cal. 1994).
226:157 Erroneous admission into evidence of
hearsay contained in police reports in prisoner's lawsuit alleging that prison
employees failed to protect him from known danger of sexual assault requires
new trial after jury determined, based on reports, that rape of inmate did not
take place. Miller v. Field, 35 F.3d 1088 (6th Cir. 1994).
Co. sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity
from suit based on male officer's alleged sodomizing of female inmate; absent
any reason to believe that male officer was a threat to female inmates, sheriff
had no reason to take unusual preventative measures. Hovater v. Robinson, 1
F.3d 1063 (10th Cir. 1993).
Kansas Supreme Court holds that state had a duty
to take reasonable steps to protect 12 year old juvenile from sexual assault by
17 year- old fellow inmate at county juvenile hall when 17-year-old had an
allegedly known history of violence and sexually deviant conduct. C.J.W. v.
State, 853 P.2d 4 (Kan. 1993).
Prison officials were not liable for three
inmates' rapes of a prisoner serving time for a sexual offense; officials had
no reason to know of particular risk of harm to raped inmate, having offered
him an opportunity to be placed in protective custody, which he declined.
Mooreman v. Sargent, 991 F.2d 472 (8th Cir. 1993).
U.S. government could not be held liable for
alleged sexual assault of female inmate by male correctional officer
transporting her off prison grounds to a doctor's office; alleged sexual
assault would be outside the scope of employment of the officer, and
correctional officials had no reason to believe that officer had a
predisposition for violence. Fleschig v. United States, 991 F.2d 300 (6th Cir.
1993).
Appeals court reverses $100,000 award against
county for prisoner sexually assaulted by another prisoner inserting a
toothbrush into his anus. Doe v. Sullivan Co., Tenn., 956 F.2d 545 (6th Cir.
1992).
Appeals court reinstates detainee's suit against
county and jail officials for his repeated homosexual rape by other prisoners.
Redman v. Co. of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112
S.Ct. 972 (1992).
Female prison guard could not sue prison
officials for violation of her constitutional rights based on her being taken
captive and raped by prisoner; prisoner did not act under "color of
law," and his assault on prison guard therefore could not violate the
guard's due process rights. Nobles v. Brown, 985 F.2d 235 (6th Cir. 1992).
Appeals court upholds awards of $1 nominal
damages to prisoners who prevailed in suit asserting that prison superintendent
violated their Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment by
not preventing their homosexual rape by other inmates; plaintiffs were not, however,
entitled to either declaratory or injunctive relief, but were properly awarded
$94,680 in attorneys' fees because their suit served the interest of other
prisoners by encouraging the adoption of safety measures. Butler v. Dowd, 979
F.2d 661 (8th Cir. 1992).
Registered nurse working at prison could bring
federal civil rights suit against her supervisors for her rape by inmate with a
known history of violence against women who was left alone with her. L.W. v.
Grubbs, 974 F.2d 119 (9th Cir. 1992).
Prison officials were not liable for sexual
assault on prisoner by another inmate; evidence did not show defendant's
reckless disregard of risk of assault. McGill v. Duckworth, 944 F.2d 344 (7th
Cir. 1991).
U.S. government not liable for alleged sexual
assault of female inmate by correctional officer who was transporting prisoner
to medical appointment; officer did not act within the scope of his employment
in allegedly assaulting inmate. Flechsig v. U.S., 786 F.Supp. 646 (E.D. Ky.
1991).
Court could not dismiss as frivolous a lawsuit,
filed by inmate in a state hospital for the criminally insane, alleging he was
drugged and homosexually raped 28 times by inmates and prison officials, since
it could not determine that none of the incidents happened. Hernandez v.
Denton, 929 F.2d 1374 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 435 (1991).
City liable for $250,000 to nineteen year-old
inmate homosexually raped in jail's shower, based on negligent implementation
of policies calling for segregation of violent or homosexual prisoners. City of
Waco v. Hester, 805 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. App. 1991).
Federal trial court holds that officer's alleged
sexual demands on inmate are not "under color of state law." Rembert
v. Holland, 735 F.Supp. 733 (W.D. Mich. 1990).
Court holds that deputy sheriff could not
possibly have sexually assaulted female arrestee in jail; on dates of alleged
assaults, detainee was not even there. Herron v. Jackson, 558 So.2d 303 (La.
App. 1990).
Inmate sodomized by three cellmates settles for
$179,500 lawsuit against four deputies for failure to prevent attack. Bailey v.
Allmon, U.S. Dist. Court, Norfolk, Val., reported in Norfolk Ledger-Star, p. 1,
April 25, 1990.
Prison officials not liable for repeated rape of
pretrial detainee transferred from "young and tender" unit to cell
with aggressive homosexual. Redman v. Co. of San Diego, 896 F.2d 362 (9th Cir.
1990).
Sixteen-year-old female who alleged deputy jailer
raped her in custody could not sue because of Kentucky's one year statute of
limitations; her marriage at age 17 stopped the tolling of the statute. Holbert
v. West, 730 F.Supp. 50 (E.D. Ken. 1990).
Suit by prisoner who claimed guards forced him to
have oral sex on five occasions is settled out-of-court. Ford v. City of St.
Louis, U.S. Dist. Ct. St. Louis, Missouri, reported in St. Louis Post-Dispatch,
September 15, 1989.
Co., sheriff and former chief jailer liable for
former chief jailer's kidnap and rape of female prisoner after she reneged on
deal to pose for pornographic pictures. Parker v. Williams, 855 F.2d 763 (11th
Cir. 1988).
Human Leukocyte antigen test admissible to
corroborate inmate's testimony that guard had sexually assaulted her. State v.
Spann, 529 A.2d 1039 (N.J. Super. L. 1987).
Inmate claims he was raped by cellmate for three
consecutive days and that jailer refused to protect him; court rules state
statute of limitations is tolled by periods of imprisonment. Hughes v. Sheriff
of Fall River Co. Jail, 814 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1987).
Sheriff and deputy could be liable for failure to
protect inmate from being sodomized. Kemp v. Waldron, 497 N.Y.S.2d 158 (A.D. 3
Dept. 1986).
Level of sexual assault in county jail violated
eighth amendment; plaintiff's counsel's duel role as advocate and ombudsman not
unfair to defendants. Alberti v. Klevenhagen, 790 F.2d 1220 (5th Cir. 1986).
Depositions of defendants ordered in suit
alleging they didn't prevent sexual assault. Villante v. Dept. of Corrections
of City of New York, 786 F.2d 516 (2d Cir. 1986).
In light of Brandon, a U.S. Supreme Court
decision, county could be liable for sheriff's actions in inmate rape. Carroll
v. Wilerson, 782 F.2d 44 (6th Cir. 1986).
Co. commissioners may have duty to prevent rape.
Warner v. Co. of Washoe, 620 F.Supp. 59 (D.C. Nev. 1985).
Failure to orient a new inmate of prison violence
not ground for liability for rape. Wheeler v. Sullivan, 599 F.Supp. 630 (D.
Del. 1984).
Jury to decide whether uncompleted booking
process means arrestee was not yet a "prisoner". Zeilman v. Co. of
Kern, 214 Cal.Rptr. 746 (Cal.App. 1985).