AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for Jails, Prisons and
Detention Facilities
Officer Assault: By Inmate
A correctional officer
was attacked by two prisoners while she was escorting them to a jail's
law library. The library was located in a drunk tank cell with handles
on the front and back of the door. She claimed that one of the prisoners
threw her off balance when he grabbed the inside door handle, and the prisoners
then took her hostage. The officer failed to prove that the attack was
a "state created danger" with the incident facilitated by jail
understaffing and a dangerous door handle in violation of due process.
The alleged actions of the sheriff and county commissioners in allowing
understaffing and the door handles did not rise to the level of deliberate
indifference and were not shocking to the conscience. Fields v. Abbott,
#10-2805, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 18027 (8th Cir.).
An prisoner attacked
a corrections officer preparing to conduct a pat down search, punching
her, knocking her to the ground, and taking her baton, which he used to
strike her. The officer filed suit against the Ohio state Department of
Rehabilitation and Corrections. The court ruled that the Department had
refuted the argument that its decisions regarding the deployment of security
devices and staff members constituted conduct equivalent to an intent to
exposure her to injury. These decisions were based on both safety concerns
and financial constraints. The officer was experienced and capable and
there was no evidence that the Department had reason to believe that she
was "substantially certain" to be injured by coming into contact
with the prisoner, or that the Department failed to act to remedy a dangerous
condition. Abrams v. Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction, #2006-04679,
2010 Ohio Misc. Lexis 30 (Ct. of Claims).
A sheriff, captain, sergeant, and watch commander
were not liable for a detainee's brutal attack on a female courtroom deputy,
inflicting severe brain damage, when he was brought to the courtroom from
a holding cell and disarmed her. The courtroom deputy, the appeals court
noted, was not in custody, so that the failure to provide adequate security
to prevent the attack violated her due process rights only if the defendants
acted with deliberate indifference or engaged in conduct that was conscience
shocking, which was not the case here. Further, the courtroom deputy was
exposed to the danger of such an assault by the nature of her employment,
and the claims against the defendants amounted to those similar to negligence,
not deliberate indifference or conscience shocking behavior. Hall v. Freeman,
No. 08-11238, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 18421 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
New York's highest court upholds reversal
of award of damages for death of two officers shot and killed by a prisoner
transported from a correctional facility to a prosecutor's office for a
polygraph test. In the lawsuit by the estates of the officers, the plaintiffs
contended that their deaths were caused by the improper use of a detective
squad's locker room as a prisoner detention area, which allowed the prisoner
to gain access to the locker containing the gun because its lock was either
open or defective, and that the city was therefore liable for violating
state labor law and its own city code requiring that buildings be maintained
in a safe condition. While a jury awarded verdicts of $5,226,252 for the
survivors of one officer, and $8,975,625 for the second, these awards were
overturned on appeal. The immediate decision upholds those reversals and
held that a provision of state labor law imposing a general duty to furnish
a workplace free from recognized hazards "does not cover the special
risks faced by police officers because of the nature of police work."
The court also rejected the argument that rules requiring building owners
to maintain safe conditions could be used as a basis for liability in these
circumstances. Williams v. City of New York, 811 N.E.2d 1103 (N.Y. 2004).
[N/R]
Correctional officer was properly awarded
$250,000 on his counterclaim against prisoner even though this exceeded
the damages requested, in light of the unprovoked nature of the prisoner's
attack and the seriousness of the "life-threatening" injuries
suffered by the officer. Douglas v. McCarty, #03-6776, 87 Fed. Appx. 299
(4th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
254:21 Prison
officials not liable for failure to protect officer against attack by prisoner
who had threatened to kill him; while officer faced danger from assignment
to cellblock in which prisoner was housed, this was a risk of his job.
Wallace v. Adkins, 115 F.3d 427 (7th Cir. 1997).
Two deputies
attacked by inmate they were transporting awarded $5.3 million against
county; former deputy had supplied inmate with handgun and handcuff keys
in order to aid escape attempt. Paradinovich v. Milwaukee Co., Circuit
Court, Milwaukee, Wis., reported in the Milwaukee Sentinel, p. 1A (April
16, 1992).