AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for
Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Prisoner Assault By Inmates
Monthly
Law Journal Article: Civil Liability for
Prisoner Assault by Inmates, 2007 (5) 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: Prisoners with HIV/AIDS. Part
2, 2014 (3) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
A deputy warden was not liable for failure to protect a prisoner from assault by other inmates. The evidence did not establish that the deputy warden acted with deliberate indifference when the prisoner’s statements to him were “speculative and non-specific.” They were insufficient to show that the deputy warden knew of a specific risk to the plaintiff if he returned to the general population. Blair v. Terry, #18-1486, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 20728, 2019 WL 3046826 (8th Cir.).
Two correctional officers were entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity on an inmate’s claim that one of them pushed him against a pillar, causing him to hit his head in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and that the other officer sprayed pepper spray into his cell, in violation of both the Eighth Amendment and the First Amendment. The officers acted in response to the prisoner’s refusal on the basis of his religion of Taoism to comply with the facility’s rules requiring him to trim his facial hair, and tearing up a form he was asked to sign explaining his refusal to comply. A federal appeals court held that no genuine dispute of material fact existed as to whether the officers violated either the First or the Eighth Amendment. In the first instance, the inmate’s actions could be interpreted as constituting a threat to the officer and there was no indication that the use of force was wanton. In the second incident, in which a guard sprayed pepper spray into his cell after the inmate repeatedly refused to be cuffed and exit the cell for transfer to another unit, he failed to show that his protected activity (filing a claim based on the first incident) was a “substantial or motivating factor” for the decision to use pepper spray in violation of his First Amendment rights. Staples v. Gerry,#18-1727, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 12146, 2019 WL 1785043 (1st Cir.).
Prison officials were improperly granted summary judgment in a prisoner’s lawsuit for excessive force, failure to intervene, deliberate indifference, and retaliation claims arising from use of force during his confinement. In the incident, officers attempted to regain control from the prisoner of a food tray slot into his cell which he had blocked. A federal appeals court ruled that the principles stated in Heck v. Humphrey, #93-6188, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), (barring federal civil rights liability if such an award would imply the invalidity of a conviction that had not been set aside) did not bar the prisoner’s excessive force claims. In this case, those claims implicated neither the validity of his underlying conviction nor the duration of his sentence. As to whether the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, the court ruled that there was a genuine dispute of material fact concerning what occurred during the use of force, requiring further proceedings Bourne v. Gunnels, #17-20418, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 11142, 2019 WL 1613537 (5th Cir.).
Summary judgment was properly granted to a female correctional officer because, based on the evidence presented, no reasonable juror could find that she was deliberately indifferent to the health and safety of the plaintiff prisoner. The plaintiff was severely beaten by other inmates at a medium-security prison. He claimed that the defendant was deliberately indifferent while doing her round, resulting in a delay in medical treatment, which exacerbated her injuries. There was insufficient evidence that the defendant had the required culpable state of mind of deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s need for medical attention. Leite v. Goulet, #18-1682, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 35561 (1st Cir.).
Given an inmate’s own inability to anticipate a surprise attack by another prisoner which injured him, and his decision not to report his altercation with that prisoner the previous afternoon, his claim that prison employees failed to protect him from a specific threat posed by the other prisoner failed. Even assuming that the plaintiff satisfied the objective component of his failure-to-protect claim, the record was devoid of evidence suggesting that any of defendants were subjectively aware of, or deliberately indifferent to, a substantial risk of harm to inmate safety. Patterson v. Kelley, #16-3891, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 25131 (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.).
An inmate sued two correctional officers for alleged failure to protect him from assault by other prisoners. After a jury returned a verdict for the defendant officers, he appealed. A federal appeals court upheld the result and ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit cross examination of a corrections officer about an unrelated disciplinary report about him which the plaintiff claimed showed that the officer might lie, because the probative value of the evidence was low, and the danger of unfair prejudice and a “mini-trial” was great. The appeals court also held that the trial court did not plainly err in admitting evidence of the second disciplinary incident, which was less probative than the first and similarly risked unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony about the plaintiff’s aggressive behavior toward cellmates where any error was harmless. Walker v. White, #17-1345, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 6743 (8th Cir.).
When a prisoner complained that another inmate threatened him, he was moved to another cell block in the county jail. But jail personnel failed to put the other inmate on the facilities’ “enemies” list. Later, the other inmate attacked the prisoner in a hall, resulting in serious injuries. In a lawsuit against two deputies, alleging that they acted with deliberate indifference to his health and safety, in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishments.”
|
The trial court instructed the jury that “[d]eliberate indifference is established only if the defendants . . . had actual knowledge of a substantial risk that [the plaintiff] would be injured . . . and if the defendants recklessly disregarded that risk by intentionally refusing or failing to take reasonable measures to deal with the risk.” The plaintiff objected to the inclusion of the word “intentionally.” A federal appeals court upheld a verdict for the defendants, ruling that the instruction adequately and fairly stated the controlling law. Deliberate indifference is the intentional taking of a risk that the defendant knows might cause harm while lacking any intent to cause such harm. Anderson v. Kingsley, #16-6957, 877 F.3d 539 (4th Cir. 2017). |
A prisoner was stabbed eleven times by another prisoner, a gang member. After surviving the attack, he sued, claiming that four correctional employees (an associate warden and three correctional officers) violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to protect him from the assault. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Finding that the associate warden may have had only one encounter with the plaintiff since his incarceration there, the federal appeals court found summary judgment proper as to the claims against him. However, the appeals court did not agree that the remaining defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, and reversed summary judgment as to claims involving their involvement in the attack. The plaintiff presented evidence that they were subjectively aware of a substantial risk of serious harm that the gang posed to him. Wilson v. Falk, #16-1310, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 25557 (10th Cir.). |
The wife of a detainee could not prevail in her lawsuit against a county arising
out of the death of her husband from a punch in the face while in a holding
room at the county jail, because her only evidence of an alleged custom of
excessive force against inmates consisted of her husband’s death, the punching
officer’s employee history, and a Department of Justice report regarding
conditions in the jail. She failed to demonstrate a persistent, widespread
practice of officials concerning such assaults by prisoners that was so common
and well-settled as to constitute a custom that fairly represented municipal
policy. She also failed to produce competent summary judgment evidence of the
county's failure to train regarding responses to assaults by inmates and
medical aid following a response incident. Hicks-Fields
v. Pool, #16-20003, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 11339 (5th
Cir.).
A former detainee at a
detention center claimed that a former correctional officer violated his rights
by failing to protect him from a violent attack by another prisoner. A
federal appeals court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by
failing to admit evidence regarding the officer's resignation from the center
in lieu of accepting termination of his employment. The officer resigned after
he was accused of passing a cigarette to an inmate in violation of
institutional policy, which appeared to have little relevance to the issues in
the immediate case. The plaintiff did not identify a permissible purpose for
the resignation evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). Judgment for
the defendant was affirmed. Glaze v. Childs,
#15-2271, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 11386 (8th
Cir.).
A correctional sergeant was properly denied
qualified immunity on a prisoner's claim arising from another prisoner's attack
on him. The attacker had a a history of aggressive behavior at the jail, and
had been charged with several violations of jail rules on several occasions for
threatening behavior towards jail staff, including a threat to stab a deputy in
the neck, and toward other inmates, including the plaintiff. The attacker had
threatened the plaintiff shortly after his arrival at the jail, and the
plaintiff requested that he be reassigned to another housing pod away from him.
After an argument between the two prisoners, the plaintiff expressed concern
about the other prisoner's aggression toward him. While he was being escorted
back from a court proceeding by the sergeant, the attacker was unshackled in
the booking area of the jail, which was adjacent to the professional visitation
room. At that time, the plaintiff was in the visitation room, meeting with a
mental health counselor, the sergeant proceeded to unshackle the other prisoner
in the booking area, and instructed him to return to his housing pod. After
taking one or two steps toward the housing pod door, the attacker suddenly
turned around and ran into the visitation room through its unlocked door and
assaulted the plaintiff causing him a facial injury. The substantial risk of
such an attack, it could be found, was well-documented and the sergeant was
informed of and acknowledged the risk and was accompanying the inmate in an
area where the inmate and complainant were visible to each other, such facts
were sufficient to permit a jury to find the officer had actual knowledge of
the risk and disregarded it. Claims against the sheriff individually were
rejected. The mere fact that he was "in charge" of the facility was
not sufficient to hold him individually liable for the attack. Durkee v. Minor,
#16-1003, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 20411 (10th Cir.).
A
trial court acted erroneously in dismissing a pro se handwritten complaint by a
prisoner with a third-grade education for failure to state a claim. He claimed
that he was savagely attacked while on his way to the dining hall by another
prisoner who had been threatening him. He claimed that the attack occurred
because he was not a gang member and not a Muslim and was housed in a unit in
which gang members ruled, weapons were tolerated, and violence was widespread.
He also claimed to have asked officials to move him, but to no avail. The
appeals court found that the allegations in the complaint were sufficient to
make out a claim that the defendants were aware of the severe risk of harm. The
prisoner would be allowed to amend his complaint. Lane v. Philbin, #14-11140, 2016
U.S. App. Lexis 15797, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 723 (11th Cir.).
After a prisoner was beaten to death by his
cellmate, his estate sued, claiming that the decedent's Eighth Amendment rights
were violated when he was housed with that cellmate. While upholding qualified
immunity for other defendants, the appeals court reversed as to a deputy warden
and a corrections officer. These two defendants allegedly knew from the
population chart and cell checklist that the cellmate, a convicted murderer,
was designated as a Level III mental health inmate who had previously been
transferred to the lock-down segregation unit for disciplinary, protected
custody. and mentally ill prisoners after assaulting his former cellmate. They
also allegedly were aware of the cellmate's severe paranoid schizophrenia, his
delusions, and his violent impulses. Bowen v. Warden, #15-11109, 2016 U.S. App.
Lexis 11298, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 431 (11th Cir.).
Genuine issues of material fact precluded
summary judgment for correctional officers on a prisoner's claim that they
failed to protect him from a severe beating by another inmate. A reasonable
jury could find that the correctional officers knew that the plaintiff faced a
serious danger to his safety and could have easily averted the danger but
failed to do so. There was evidence that the inmate repeatedly informed the
officers that he was being threatened and robbed, and feared for his safety.
Cox v. Quinn, #15-6943, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 12444 (4th Cir.).
A federal prisoner sued the U.S. government
under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), claiming that he was
severely beaten by another prisoner because of negligence by prison officials.
The defendants were granted summary judgment under an exception to liability
under the Act for “[a]ny claim based upon . . . the exercise or performance . .
. [of] a discretionary function," in this case decided where to house
inmates. While that lawsuit was pending, the prisoner filed a second claim
asserting constitutional claims against prison employees arising out of the
first incident. The first lawsuit was dismissed based on the discretionary
function, and the second suit was then dismissed based on the first suit's
dismissal. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this was improper. The trial court
did not dismiss the first suit based on a finding that the employees were not
negligent, but only based on an exception to the FTCA as to federal government
liability. That had no bearing on the issue of whether employees could be liable
instead on a constitutional claim. Simmons v. Himmelreich, #15-109, 2016 U.S.
Lexis 3613.
A prisoner in the mental health ward of a county
jail died as a result of being beaten and stabbed by his cellmate. His estate
sued, claiming that the county and jail personnel acted with deliberate
indifference to the decedent's safety. The plaintiff claimed that the
defendants knew or should have known about the dangerous violent propensities
of the cellmate, but disregarded the risk by placing him in the decedent's cell
and by failing to adequately respond to the resulting attack. A federal appeals
court, upholding a denial of summary judgment to the individual defendants,
found that a reasonable jury could find that jail personnel were aware of the
risk of the attack and had actually heard the assault and decided not to
respond. Richko v. Wayne County, #15-1524, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 6835, 2016 Fed.
App. 93P (6th Cir.).
A former gang member was attacked by other
inmates and left permanently disabled and confined to a wheelchair. He was told
that he had been targeted because his assailants thought he was a pedophile. He
learned that his prison records had reference to the Adam Walsh Act, 42 U.S.C.
16901–91, creating a national sex offender registry, although his convictions
were actually for other crimes. He filed a grievance asking that his prison
records be corrected, and that he be placed in segregation because he heard
that inmates at a new facility he had been transferred to were planning to
attack him. He was assigned to a wheelchair accessible cell, but was attacked
by his cellmate within a month over his "Walsh Act stuff." When he
filed a grievance and objected to a new proposed cellmate, guards allegedly
took him to a non-accessible cell and refused to help him to the toilet.
Subsequently, he was found lying on the floor near the toilet, suffering a
sprained spine, a shoulder contusion, and head lacerations. A federal appeals
court vacated the dismissal of his First Amendment retaliation claim and an
Eighth Amendment claim that a guard was implementing a policy of moving every
prisoner who objects to a new cellmate, for the purpose of deterring prisoners
from attempting to reserve one-person cells. Herron v. Meyer, #15-1659, 2016
U.S. App. Lexis 7472 (7th Cir.).
Since the plaintiff prisoner alleged facts that,
if true, would show that the Prison Housing Manager who failed to grant his
transfer request had actual knowledge of an excessive risk to his safety,
granting the defendant summary judgment on a claim for failing to protect the
plaintiff against an attack carried out by his cellmate was erroneous. Raynor
v. Pugh, #14-7746, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 4877 (4th Cir.).
An Indiana inmate sued prison staff members for
allegedly failing to protect him from assault by other inmates who threw feces
at him on four occasions over a two-year period. The trial court dismissed the
lawsuit for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by
the Prison Litigation Reform (PLRA) by pursuing grievances. The prisoner
claimed, however, that prison staff members had interfered with his filing of
formal grievances. A federal appeals court found that summary judgment had been
improper for three of the four incidents--in one case, prison staff had returned
his grievance form unprocessed, and in two other instances, he asked his
counselor and unit manager for a grievance form but they refused to do so, even
though they were responsible for giving him such a form upon request. The
plaintiff failed to properly exhaust available administrative remedies as to
the remaining incident, however, since he had failed to resubmit his formal
grievance form to correct the statement that he had accepted an informal
resolution; Hill v. Snyder, #15-2607, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 6206 (7th Cir.).
An Illinois prisoner sued three prison officials
for failing to protect him from an attack by his cellmate, who stabbed him with
a pen. A federal appeals court reversed summary judgment for the defendants. If
a jury believed the prisoner's allegation that he alerted each of the
defendant's of his cellmate's threats to stab him, a reasonable jury could find
that they were aware of the danger posed to him. Gevas v. McLaughlin, #13-1057,
798 F.3d 475 (7th Cir. 2015).
A prisoner failed to show that prison officials
were aware of a substantial risk of harm to him in the time leading up to his
injuries in a prison riot to impose liability. But he did adequately show a
basis for moving forward on an Eighth Amendment claim relating to his alleged
conditions of confinement in the hospital for his injuries for a three day
period. A deputy warden was not entitled to qualified immunity, as it was
clearly established that forcing a prisoner to soil himself over several days
while chained in a hospital bed could create an "obvious health
risk," and constituted "an affront to human dignity." Under the
Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(e), however, the plaintiff
could not recover compensatory or punitive damages in the absence of a claim of
physical injury resulting from the hospital stay, but could seek nominal
damages for an Eighth Amendment violation. Brooks v. Warden, #13-14437, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 15696
(11th Cir.).
A pretrial detainee in a county jail was attacked
and stabbed. He claimed that his cries for help were ignored by an unidentified
guard standing 10-15 feet away. He suffered injuries including severe nerve
damage and an eye socket fracture that may lead to blindness. His lawsuit
claimed that the jail failed to create or enforce policies necessary to protect
detainees against attacks by other detainees and prisoners. The lawyer for the
defense sent the plaintiff letters demanding that he sign a release to permit
access to all his health records since his birth in 1977, including records
with no apparent relevance to the lawsuit, such as records relating to venereal
disease, AIDS and HIV, as well as allowing the disclosure of those records to
persons not involved in the attack, injuries, or resulting medical treatment.
When the plaintiff argued that the release should be limited to the hospital at
which he was treated after the attack, the defense moved the court to dismiss
the lawsuit for failure to prosecute. The court then dismissed the lawsuit with
prejudice without any explanation and without waiting for a reply from the
plaintiff. It also dismissed the plaintiff's motion for appointment of a
lawyer, which had been pending for two months, as moot. Calling the dismissal
under these circumstances "a miscarriage of justice," a federal
appeals court vacated it, ordering further proceedings. Reyes v. Dart,
#14-3441, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 16475 (7th Cir.).
The mother of a juvenile allegedly beaten to
death by other residents at a juvenile detention facility sued the Districrt of
Columbia, claiming that th death occurred because the facility was overcrowded
and understaffed, that deliberate indifference was shown towards her son's
safety, and that the District was negligent in hiring, training, and supervising
its employees at the detention center in violation of District of Columbia tort
law, the Eighth Amendment, and 42 U.S.C. 1983. A federal appeals court vacated
the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the defendant and its denial of
the plaintiff's motion to disqualify the Attorney General of the District of
Columbia as the counsel for the defendant because of an alleged conflict of
interest. The appeals court ruled that the trial court should have resolved the
motion to disqualify before determining the merits of any dispositive motion,
such as one for summary judgment, since the motion to disqualify called into
question the integrity of the process in which the allegedly conflicted counsel
participated. The plaintiff mother raised at least a plausible claim of
conflict of interest, and the trial court did not consider the merits of her
motion, instead granting summary judgment first and then denying the motion to
disqualify as moot. Before becoming Attorney General, the counsel for the
District had represented a class of detainees that included the decedent, on
claims against the District for alleged overcrowding of its detention
facilities and resulting unsafe conditions. Grimes v. District of Columbi,
#13-7038, 794 F.3d 83 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
An arrestee claimed that he was
"savagely" attacked by another intoxicated arrestee when they were
both placed in a "sobering" cell by employees of the sheriff's
department. A jury entered a verdict against both individual defendants and the
county. A total of $2,605,632.02 in damages was awarded. Based on the jury's
findings, the parties later stipulated to $840,000 in attorney fees, $12,000 in
punitive damages against one jailer, and $6,000 in punitive damages against a
second jailer. A federal appeals court rejected the claim that the individual
defendants were entitled to qualified immunity as there was evidence from which
the jury could have concluded that the jailers had been deliberately
indifferent to the clearly established duty to protect the plaintiff against a
substantial risk of harm, including evidence that one defendant had disregarded
the plaintiff's pounding on the cell door at the time of the attack, while the
other had placed the two arrestees in the same cell despite the fact that
separate cells were then available. As to the jury's award of punitive damages,
once a finding of deliberate indifference was reached, no additional evidence
was needed to make a finding of "reckless disregard." The award
against the county, however, was reversed as there was no evidence that the
county had actual knowledge of the risk to the plaintiff's safety. Castro v.
County of Los Angeles, #12-56829, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 7240 (9th Cir.).
An immigration detainee was being held at a
county facility at the direction of federal immigration authorities. She sued
both federal and county defendants for failing to protect her from attack by
another detainee who threw a lightweight plastic chair at her, allegedly after
she had reported prior threats to a correctional sergeant and an immigration
agent. The plaintiff failed to establish that her statements made the
immigration agent aware of facts from which an inference of a substantial risk
of serious harm existed. The sergeant was also entitled to summary judgment as a
reasonable jury could not find that a little red mark on the plaintiff's cheek
resulting from the attack was objectively serious, particularly as the
plaintiff did not seek medical attention, and the injury was treated with one
pain pill. Chavero-Linares v. Smith, #13-3532, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 5931 (8th
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 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 prison's Special Management Unit
housed violent prisoners and those with a history of gang involvement while
incarcerated. Those in the unit were confined to their cells 23 hours a day and
allwed one hour daily in a recreation cage. A prisoner claimed that prison
officials engaged in a pattern, practice, or policy of improperly placing prisoners
with known conflicts with each other in the same cell, failing to intervene
when predictable violence erupted between such prisoners, and improperly
restraining prisoners who refuse cell assignments with prisoners known to be
hostile to them. A federal appeals court vacated denial of class action
certification and summary judgment on an Eighth Amendment claim. A proposed
class of inmates placed in special housing unit cells with other inmates known
to be hostile to them despite the facility's knowledge of the risk of violence
from such cell assignments was not overly broad or improperly defined. A
dismissal of a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act for negligence was
properly dismissed, however, for failure to exhaust available administrative
remedies. Shelton v. Bledsoe, #12-4226, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 253 (3rd Cir.).
A prisoner's mother claimed that two other
inmates attacked and severely injured him, causing permanent mental impairment,
when a corrections officer was escorting the three of them through an isolated
prison passage. The federal appeals court found that there were triable issues
of fact as to whether the officer was aware of an objectively substantial risk
of serious harm since all three prisoners were high-security and mutually hostile
prisoners and were half-restrained, lacking leg restraints. Both a federal
civil rights Eighth Amendment claim and a state law gross negligence claim
could proceed. Cortez v. Skol, #12-16688, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 1178 (9th Cir.).
An inmate gave information to several
correctional officers that a prison nurse was bringing contraband into the
facility. An officer later allegedly labeled him a "snitch" in front
of other prisoners, exposing the fact that he had provided information about the
nurse. The officer was not entitled to qualified immunity because prior
precedent established that a detention officer violates a duty to protect a
prisoner by labeling him a snitch in front of other inmates, exposing him to a
risk of assault. A reasonable officer would have known that such actions
violated the plaintiff's constitutional right to protection. Reeves v. King,
#13-3416, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 23577 (8th Cir.).
A prisoner being admitted to a federal
penitentiary allegedly told an intake psychologist that he was mentally ill to
the extent that it impaired his ability to function and that he was afraid that
he would be attacked if he was placed in the general population. He was placed
in the general population and was attacked by another prisoner without
provocation on his way to lunch, suffering extensive injuries to his face and
head. He sued the U.S. government under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 2674, claiming that the psychologist did not examine all his available
medical documents before releasing him into the general population and that
guards failed to monitor their assigned areas, thereby failing to observe the
assault, all in violation of mandatory regulations. The federal appeals court
overturned summary judgment granted to the government under the discretionary
function exception to liability under the Act. The appeals court found that the
government had failed to meet its burden of showing that the discretion
function exception shielded it from liability as a matter of law under these
circumstances. Keller v. United States, #13-3113, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis
21718 (7th Cir.).
A federal prisoner filed a lawsuit claiming that
he had been placed in administrative detention for 60 days in unlawful
retaliation in violation of the First Amendment for filing a claim under the
Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), as well as a claim of failure to protect in
violation of the Eighth Amendment based on an assault on him by another
prisoner. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, based on
the plaintiff's alleged failure to exhaust available administrative remedies
before suing, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C.
1997e(a), as well as a ruling that the plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim was
barred by his decision to file a FTCA claim regarding the assault. A federal
appeals court vacated the trial court's ruling, holding that the failure to
exhaust available administrative remedies should be excused because of specific
allegations that one of the defendants intimidated him from pursuing a
grievance by a threat to transfer him to another facility where she said he
would be attacked and placing him in a special housing unit after he filed his
FTCA claim, and that the FTCA claim did not bar the Eighth Amendment claim
because the FTCA claim was dismissed by the trial court for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction and there was no judgment on the claim. Himmelreich v. Fed.
Bureau of Prisons, #13-4212, 766 F.3d 576 (6th Cir. 2014).
A prisoner who was attacked by fellow inmates
three times over approximately 118 months claimed that prison officials
violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to protect him against these
assaults. The appeals court noted, however, that the defendant officials had
offered to put the plaintiff into protective custody, an offer he declined, and
when they nevertheless placed him in protective custody anyway, he asked to be
returned to the general population, repeatedly insisting that there was no
problem. Based on these facts, the plaintiff failed to show the deliberate
indifference to a known risk of harm needed for a constitutional violation, or
even negligence, for that matter. Walls v. Tadman, #13-2262, 2014 U.S. App.
Lexis 15284 (8th Cir.).
A number of plaintiff prisoners claimed that they
were seriously injured in assaults by other inmates who used prison issued
padlocks as weapons. The prison had a longstanding practice of issuing
footlockers with padlocks to most inmates. A federal appeals court found that
the small number of assaults that had occurred involving the use of the
padlocks as weapons were insufficient to support the claim that supplying the
padlocks to prisoners rose to a constitutional violation. Lakin v. Barnhart,
#13-2211, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 12756 (1st Cir.).
A pretrial detainee in a county facility was
housed in a small unit with an upper level open to the lower level. Both
minimum and medium security detainees were housed there. Four or five fights
were reported there every day, with 20-30 estimated to occur but remain
unreported. The detainee had a reputation as a bully, and was known for
stealing food. One day, he was confronted by approximately 12 angry prisoners
outside of his upper level cell. An officer was with the crowd, and a verbal
dispute ensued. The inmates did not disperse, and as the detainee began to walk
to the lower level, an inmate struck him. The officer restrained that inmate,
but another inmate then struck him. The detainee suffered a concussion and the
loss of sight in one eye. Evidence in his lawsuit included statements from some
inmates that officers could and should have stopped the argument. Overturning
summary judgment for the defendant county, a federal appeals court found that
there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether there had been
deliberate indifference concerning the need for pre-service training of
officers in conflict de-escalation and intervention, and whether the lack of
such training helped cause the plaintiff detainee's injuries. Thomas v. Cumberland
Cnty., 12-3959, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 6668 (3rd Cir.).
A pretrial detainee claimed that he was
attacked by other inmates after a several-minute long verbal fight in the
presence of corrections officers. His lawsuit asserted federal civil rights
claims against the county and policymakers for failure to properly train the
officers. A federal appeals court found that there were genuine issues of
material fact as to whether the defendants exhibited deliberate indifference to
the need for pre-service training of officers in conflict de-escalation and the
issue of whether the lack of such training helped cause the plaintiff's
injuries. A reasonable jury could, based on the evidence, find in favor of the
plaintiff who presented evidence that similar fights regularly occurred in the
prison, and that the failure to provide the training at issue did not align
with prevailing standards and was a careless and dangerous practice. Thomas v.
Cumberland County, #12-3959, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 6668 (3rd Cir.).
A pretrial detainee in a county jail was
murdered by another pretrial detainee with mental problems. In a lawsuit
seeking to hold the sheriff individually liable, he was entitled to qualified
immunity. Even if the plaintiffs were assumed to have established that the
sheriff violated the decedent's constitutional rights by failing to adequately
train the detention officers regarding the movement of mentally ill detainees,
they did not establish that this violated clearly established law. It was also
not clearly established that failing to segregate inmates with mental health
issues violated the decedent's constitutional rights. There was also no
evidence that the sheriff was on notice about alleged violations of jail
policy. Keith v. DeKalb County, Georgia, #13-11250, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 7617,
24 Fla. L. Weekly C 1280 (11th Cir.).
A federal prisoner served as an informant in an
investigation of a prison officer who he claimed coerced him into sexual
relations. He wore a wire, and the officer resigned because of the
investigation. He was promised that he would be kept safe and be transferred to
a lower security facility, which he was for several months. He was then,
however, transferred to a high-security facility, and the federal Bureau of
Prisons allegedly failed to use confidential correspondence channels in
addressing his grievance against this, as a result of which prison staff
learned of his role as an informant against the officer. Within hours, he
allegedly was placed in a cell with two known sex offenders, who severely beat
and assaulted him, resulting in injuries requiring hospitalization. He was
later transferred to a state facility for his protection. A lawsuit he filed
against the Bureau of Prisons seeking injunctive relief was improperly dismissed
as moot. The defendants had not met the heavy burden of showing "that it
is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be
expected to recur," or that the alleged deliberate indifference to his
safety had been unambiguously terminated, since he might be returned to a high
security federal facility. Doe v. Wooten, #13-10280, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 6395,
24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1242 (11th Cir.).
A prisoner allegedly approached a sergeant and
told him that his cellmate of one week had twice swung at him, that he wasn't
taking his medication, and that he was hearing voices telling him to attack
people. Accordingly, the prisoner asked that his cellmate be moved. The
sergeant instructed another officer to try to make sure that the cellmate took
his mediation. He also asked other officers about the cellmate, but none
indicated knowing of any problems with him. The next evening, the cellmate
attacked the prisoner, damaging one of his teeth. A nurse recommended that the
tooth be removed, but the prisoner did not see a dentist for approximately a
month. Summary judgment for the defendants was upheld, with the appeals court
finding no evidence that the sergeant was subjectively aware that the cellmate
was dangerous or that staff members failed to act promptly once they were aware
of the prisoner's serious medical needs. The prisoner never filled out the
proper request to see a dentist or indicated that he had a medical emergency.
Olson v. Morgan, #12-2786, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 8188 (7th Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that prison officials were
deliberately indifferent in failing to adequately protect him against being
assaulted and stabbed by his cellmate. The defendants were improperly granted
summary judgment. The appeals court found that there were facts alleged from
which a reasonable jury could infer that the defendants had actual knowledge
that the cellmate posed a substantial risk of serious harm, including his
violent past, his disruptive actions, his having started a previous dangerous fire
that endangered the plaintiff, and the fact that he had not expressed regret
for the fire, which he had started with the plaintiff's personal papers and
photographs. There was also evidence that they knew that the plaintiff feared
for his life from the cellmate. There was clearly established law that, under
such circumstances, the failure to investigate the substantial risk of harm
could constitute deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Qualified immunity was therefore not available to the defendants on summary
judgment. Caldwell, et al. v. FCI Talladega Warden, #12-11818, 2014 U.S. App.
Lexis 6367 (11th Cir.).
An inmate was assaulted with a knife by another
prisoner in a back hallway, and nearly killed when his throat was cut. The
appeals court upheld summary judgment for the defendant prison officials on a
deliberate indifference claim, as well as the denial of the plaintiff
prisoner's request to conduct additional discovery. The only evidence that the
plaintiff produced was related to the prison's policies about buying craft
materials and disposing of used hobby craft blades. The record did not show
that a lapse in the oversight of cutting instruments created a substantial risk
of excessive inmate on inmate violence, and even if it did, the defendants were
not deliberately indifferent to the risk. Additionally, while the warden was
aware that some assaults had occurred in the back hallway area, the policies
for monitoring that area did not create a substantial risk of serious harm.
Harrison v. Culliver, #11-14864, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 6093 (11th Cir.).
A prisoner sought damages for injuries he
received when he was attacked by another prisoner at a county detention
facility. He claimed that the facility staff were negligent in classifying him
and housing him with his assailant, and because they failed to release him in a
timely manner. Overturning an award of damages, the Supreme Court of Tennessee
found that the injuries that he received as a result of the delay in releasing
him were not reasonably foreseeable. There had been no prior incident between
the two prisoners. King v. Anderson County, #E2012-00386-SC-R11, 2013 Tenn.
Lexis 989.
A prisoner acting as his own lawyer filed a
lawsuit claiming that jail officials willfully failed to stop other prisoners
from attacking him. The trial judge held a "merit-review hearing"
with the plaintiff over the phone, and then dismissed the lawsuit for failing
to state a claim. There was no transcript of the hearing. A federal appeals
court reversed, characterizing what the trial judge did as an
"inquisitorial" procedure not allowed under U.S. law. While a judge
may dismiss a lawsuit deemed frivolous, but when the validity of an asserted
claim depends on the accuracy of factual allegations, as it did here, and an
oral hearing is required, it must be carried out in a manner governed by trial
procedures. While the judge would be permitted to interview a plaintiff acting
as his own attorney if he needed to do so to clarify an unclear complaint, he
should not turn such an interview into a cross-examination that attempts to
elicit admissions. Williams v. Wahner, #12-1886, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 20116
(7th Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that the defendant prison
officials were responsible fot using excessive force against him on several
occasions. After the lawsuit was dismissed, he appealed, and sought an order
giving him the trial transcript for free on the basis of poverty. Denying this
request, the appeals court noted that he was not--and could not--proceed as a
pauper because he had "three strikes (meritless lawsuits), and the
exception for prisoners in imminent danger of serious physical injury did not
apply. Maus v. Baker, #13-2420, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 18661 (7th Cir.).
A trial court improperly granted summary judgment
to a prison guard in a pretrial detainee's lawsuit for failing to protect him
from being stabbed by another inmate. The plaintiff stated that the guard let
inmates who were supposed to be in their cells locked up out and let them
congregate in a darkened corridor after which she left her post, so that over
20 maximum security prisoners were milling around without supervision. If true,
this could give rise to an inference of a conscious disregard of a significant
risk of violence. Counsel should have been appointed for the prisoner because
the case, while not complex, required evidence that the plaintiff had no access
to, such as the need to depose the guard, after the prisoner was transferred
300 miles away. The prisoner should have also been allowed to testify as to
having overheard other pisoners in the dayroom ask the guard to let others out
of their cells to join them in the dayroom. Junior v. Anderson, #11-2999, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 15573
(7th Cir.).
A correctional officer was not entitled to
summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity for failing to protect a
detainee at a county jail against being attacked by three prisoners. There was
evidence that the detainee's cellmate had told the officer that the detainee
was in danger and that the officer had promised to "talk to the lieutenant
and see what can be done." From this evidence, a reasonable jury could
find that the officer perceived that there was a serious risk to the detainee's
safety. If that was true and the officer then failed to discuss the matter with
the lieutenant, that could be found to constitute deliberate indifference. The
lieutenant, however, was entitled to qualified immunity, as there was no
evidence that he knew anything about a risk of harm to the detainee. Glaze v.
Andrews, #12-2022, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 14625 (8th Cir.).
A 67-year-old male prisoner prone to
disorientation and confusion and suffering from dementia sued jail officers and
the county sheriff after his cellmate at the county jail severely beat him. The
defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because there was no evidence
that officers were subjectively aware that the plaintiff faced a substantial
risk of serious harm or that the sheriff's department policies or customs
caused his injuries. His wife's claims for loss of consortium were also
rejected. Goodman v. Kimbrough, #12-10732, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 12740 (11th
Cir.).
After a prisoner who belonged to a gang was
assigned to share a cell with a member of a rival gang, he was injured in an
attack by his cellmate. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for
defendant prison officials. There was no evidence that officials were
deliberately indifferent to the risk of the assault occurring if the two prisoners
were housed together. While the plaintiff allegedly informed an officer that he
should not be housed with his cellmate, there was no other evidence showing
that any of the defendants knew of any facts that would support an inference
that they knew housing the two men together created a substantial risk of
violence. While the plaintiff had been involved in an earlier fight with a
member of a rival gang, he himself had said that the fight was personal and not
gang related, and that the differences had since been resolved. There were no
earlier disputes between the plaintiff and the man assigned to be his cellmate.
Labatad v. Corrections Corporation of America, #12-15019, 714 F.3d 1155 (9th
Cir.).
A prisoner who served almost 28 months in a
six-man cell claimed that conditions there constituted cruel and unusual
punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. His claims were plausible that
he was deprived of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities and
subjected him to unreasonable health and safety risks because of inadequate
space and ventilation, stifling heat in summer and freezing cold in winter,
unsanitary conditions, including urine and feces on the floor, too narrow a
mattress, insufficient cleaning supplies, and noisy crowded conditions making
sleep difficult and putting him at constant risk of violence from his
cellmates. Claims against some defendants were rejected, but allowed to proceed
against others, with qualified immunity issues to be resolved after further
facts were determined. Walker v. Schult, #12-1806, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 10397
(2nd Cir.).
A federal judge stated that a proposed
wide-ranging consent decree was "the only way to overcome the years of
stagnation that permitted [the prison] to remain an indelible stain on the
community, and it will ensure that OPP inmates are treated in a manner that
does not offend contemporary notions of human decency." The approved
decree aims at remedying problems that led to years of rapes, suicides,
violence, and other consequences of poor conditions at the Orleans Parish
Prison in Louisiana. The decision notes that prisoners testified to being
assaulted by fellow inmates, sometimes in the plain view of officers, and that
there was evidence that some prisoners with mental health problems had been
living in cells filled with feces. The decree mandates increased staffing and
training, among other things, and continuing oversight of the facility's
operations. The judge found that the decree was narrowly tailored to remedy
unconstitutional conditions. Jones v. Gusman, #12-859 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis
79684 (E.D. La.).
A pretrial detainee in a county detention facility was
housed in a maximum security cellblock because of a history of problems during
a prior detention and a parole hold. While housed there another inmate severely
beat him. He sued, claiming that the approach used in classifying detainees for
cellblock placement created a risk to his safety by not taking steps to
separate violent offenders from nonviolent ones, leading to his assault.
Upholding summary judgment for the defendant sheriff's department, a federal
appeals court found that the plaintiff failed to provide any real evidence that
the security classification policy in effect represented a systematic failure
to avoid obvious risks to detainee safety. Smith v. Sangamon Cnty. Sheriff's
Dep't., #11-1979, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 7830 (7th Cir.).
A prisoner stated a plausibly valid claim that 13
prison officials failed to adequately protect him against assault by other prisoners
by placing him in a recreation yard with others who had learned that he was
cooperating with investigators in intercepting notes which prisoners were
passing among each other. He failed, however, to show that there was deliberate
indifference in placing him in a locked recreation pen with one specific
prisoner. He state a valid claim that one prison official reacted unreasonably
to one attack on him, but not to another attack. He also stated a valid claim
for officials keeping him too long in administrative segregation. Bistrian v.
Levi, #10-3629, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 19973 (3rd Cir.).
A federal appeals court rejected the failure to
protect claim of a pretrial detainee stabbed by other prisoners. He claimed
that a guard falsely told other prisoners that he was a leader of the Black
Disciples gang. The appeals court found that the defendants did not have actual
notice of a risk of harm to him beyond the "general risk of violence in a
maximum security unit," which was insufficient to support a claim of
deliberate indifference. The fact that a female correctional officer witnessing
the attack did not herself intervene, but rather called for backup, watching
the fight from a secure location until others arrived, was not a basis for
liability. Shields v. Dart, # 11-2336, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 24742
(7th Cir.).
A sex offender, arrested for failing to report
his new address, was attacked in the county jail's protective custody pod. He
failed to show that the prisoner who assaulted him was even aware that he was a
sex offender, undercutting his theory that the jail ignored the risk that he
would be attacked because of his sex offender status. He also failed to show
that another prisoner attacked by his assailant was a sex offender. Holden v.
Hirner, #10-3656, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 23953 (8th Cir.).
A prisoner faced threats of assault from other
prisoners who knew that he had cooperated in the prosecution of a fellow
escapee, who joined a white supremacist group. He was transferred to various
facilities as a result. He claimed that prison officials deliberately ignored
the risk that inmates would attack him, subjected him to unconstitutional
conditions, and retaliated against him for complaining to his sentencing judge
and for filing a lawsuit. Upholding summary judgment for the defendants, a
federal appeals court ruled that the conditions the plaintiff faced in the
facilities he was transferred to did not constitute "atypically harsh
conditions of prison confinement." The efforts to protect him against
assault had generally been successful (for seven years after one attack), and
there was no proof of unconstitutional retaliation. Yeadon v. Lappin, #10-3744,
2011 U.S. App. Lexis 10706 (7th Cir.).
A pretrial detainee failed to show that a police
detective, by disclosing to other prisoners his role as a state witness in a
murder prosecution, caused him to suffer an assault. At the same time, the
appeals court ordered further proceedings on the prisoner's claim for emotional
and mental damages from the fear he suffered because of the detective's
disclosure to the other prisoners, which was allegedly done when he declined to
be interviewed about an unrelated matter. This claim was not barred by 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(e), which prohibits the awarding of damages for mental or
emotional distress without a showing of prior physical injury, the court ruled,
as the prisoner could still be awarded nominal or punitive damages for the
violation of his constitutional rights. Harris v. Matthews, #10-1405, 2011 U.S.
App. Lexis 6386 (10th Cir.).
A prisoner confined in a privately operated
facility claimed that the company in charge or its authorized decision maker
failed to enforce a policy of protecting inmates from harm, resulting in him
being stabbed by a prisoner with known violent propensities. The prisoner
failed to show that the defendant knew or should have known that housing him
with the prisoner who attacked him created a dangerous risk of harm given his
prior conduct and mental illness. Additionally, the prisoner could not assert
his right to a jury trial simply because of his dissatisfaction with the
findings of the magistrate judge, having previously waived a jury trial.
Winding v. The Geo Group, Inc., #09-60693, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 26259 (Unpub.
5th Cir.).
A man civilly committed in Illinois as a sexually
dangerous person failed to show that facility staff members acted with reckless
disregard to the danger of an attack on him by his cellmate or that they
treated him, as a black man, differently than similarly situated white
detainees. Young v. Monahan, #09-3401, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 4692 (7th Cir.).
A supervisor in a jail or other detention
facility, including a sheriff, can be held personally liable based on a finding
of deliberate indifference to the rights of detainees under his control. A
federal appeals court overturned the dismissal of a lawsuit against a county
sheriff. The plaintiff prisoner claimed that other inmates in Los Angeles
County jail gathered in a group at his cell door, threatening him with physical
harm. When he yelled for a guard to come to his aid, one allegedly instead
opened his cell gate, allowing the other inmates to enter and repeatedly stab
him and his cellmate. The plaintiff prisoner was stabbed some twenty-three times.
For liability, a supervisor's "participation
could include his own culpable action or inaction in the training, supervision
or control of his subordinates, his acquiescence in the constitutional
deprivations of which the complaint is made, or conduct that shows a reckless
or callous indifference to the rights of others." The injured prisoner
asserted that the county sheriff "receives weekly reports from his
subordinates responsible for reporting deaths and injuries in the jails, and
receives ongoing reports of his Special Counsel and Office of Independent
Review." He was allegedly "given notice, in several reports, of
systematic problems in the county jails under his supervision that have
resulted in . . . deaths or injuries," but failed to take corrective
action. Starr v. Baca, #09-55233, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 2798 (9th Cir.).
A Mississippi prisoner claimed that prison
officials knew he was housed with n inmate with a violent history, but failed
to take steps to protect him from assault. The trial court ruled against him.
The prisoner made a post-trial motion asking for a jury trial, but he had
previously waived a jury, and made his request too late. The prisoner's appeal
was found to be frivolous, as he raised no substantial issues, and submitted no
transcript of the trial for the court to examine (after representing that he
didn't need one to make his arguments). Winding v. Williams, #09-60943, 2010
U.S. App. Lexis 26301 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
A Texas prisoner claimed that while he was a
pretrial detainee at a county jail, a guard failed to protect him from assault
by putting him in the same holding cell as an inmate with whom he had
previously fought. She had allegedly broken up that fight. That inmate
allegedly subsequently attacked him and broke his rib. The guard, however,
stated that she had never seen the plaintiff involved in a fight with his
assailant or anyone else, and that he was not on a no contact list with any
prisoner because of a fight. There was no record of the alleged prior fight
between the two prisoners. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for
the defendant guard, as the prisoner failed to produce sufficient evidence to
defeat the material presented by her. Green v. Ross, #09-20540, 2010 U.S. App.
Lexis 18666 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
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 prisoner who was attacked by another inmate
sufficiently raised a factual issue as to whether a defendant officer was
deliberately indifferent for failing to recommend that he be transferred after
he allegedly told her that he wanted to be transferred because he feared
serious, imminent injury. Because the inmate who made threatening statements
about the plaintiff allegedly made conflicting statements concerning his
intentions during the officer's investigation, a reasonable jury could find her
reliance on his statements as a basis for not recommending a transfer to be
unreasonable. Because of this, she was not entitled to qualified immunity.
Burling v. Simon, #10-40047, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 26418 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
While incarcerated in Pennsylvania, a prisoner
was assaulted by his former cellmate, suffering injuries to his knee, teeth,
nose, and the top of his head. He sued, claiming that prison personnel knew of
the cellmate's violent propensities, but disregarded the serious risk of harm
in placing them together in the same cell. The court found no evidence of
inadequate medical care for the prisoner's injuries on the part of a prison
nurse, and upheld summary judgment for other prison personnel on failure to
protect claims. There was no evidence that they had any reason to know that
there was a substantial risk of harm to the plaintiff prisoner from his former
cellmate. Additionally, when they learned of the assault, they moved his
attacker to a different cellblock, and directed the plaintiff to prison medical
staff for treatment. Everett v. Donate, #10-2197, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 21302
(Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
A pretrial detainee claimed that a jail guard and
various supervisory officials failed to properly protect him from an assault by
another detainee that allegedly caused him facial injuries requiring surgery.
Summary judgment for the defendants was affirmed, as the prisoner did not show
that any of them failed to respond reasonably to a substantial risk of harm. An
earlier incident between the plaintiff and his assailant resulted in no injury,
and the two detainees appeared after that to be reconciled, so the defendants
did not act with knowledge or notice of a substantial risk of serious harm.
Schoelch v. Mitchell, #08-2776, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 23416 (8th Cir.).
A pre-trial detainee claimed that a correctional
officer opened his cell door to allow another inmate to enter and attack him
with a master lock inside a sock, causing serious injuries. His lawsuit sought
damages against his assailant, the correctional officer, and the warden. Claims
against the warden were properly rejected, because there was no indication that
he was personally involved in the incident in any way. Claims against the
attacking inmate were rejected as he is a private person and did not act under
color of law as required for a federal civil rights lawsuit. Finally, the
appeals court ruled that the correctional officer's alleged conduct was, at
most, negligence, and did not rise to the level of deliberate indifference
required for a federal civil rights claim. Burton v. Kindle, #10-2915, 2010
U.S. App. Lexis 23299 (Unpub.3rd Cir.).
A federal prisoner filed a federal civil rights
lawsuit claiming that prison officials had been deliberately indifferent to his
safety, seeking compensatory and punitive damages for past assaults on him by
other inmates. He also sought an injunction against the defendants housing him
with inmates who pose a danger to his safety, which was denied because the
alleged risk of harm was speculative. He was allegedly attacked because other
prisoners learned that he had quit a gang and had cooperated with authorities.
A federal appeals court ruled that he was not entitled to an injunction, as
prison officials had transferred him to a new facility, and had not shown that
he was in any immediate danger of attack there. Pinson v. Pacheco, #10-1360,
2010 U.S. App. Lexis 20813 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).
A federal appeals court overturned the dismissal
of a prisoner's lawsuit claiming that officers failed to protect him against
assault by a fellow inmate. His complaint sufficiently alleged that one officer
observed the fight, but failed to intervene, and that another officer knew of
the grudge that his assailant had against him but still sent him into the
housing unit to pick up supplies, resulting in the attack. Brown v. N. Carolina
Dep't of Corr., #08-8501, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 525 (4th Cir.). On remand, Brown
v. Winkler, #5:08CV113, 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 9546 (W.D.N.C.), summary judgment
was granted for the defendants. The officer that the prisoner claimed sent him
into the housing unit presented evidence that she was not even at work at the
time. The officer who allegedly witnessed the attack but failed to intervene
presented evidence that he was in another building at the time.
A prisoner claimed that correctional employees
were deliberately indifferent to his safety when they double-celled him in the
general population rather than placing him in protective custody when he had
initiated the process of dropping out of a prison gang. Rejecting this claim,
the court found that there was "uncontroverted evidence" that the
prisoner actually did not begin the "official debriefing and dropout
process" until well after the attack, that he himself had asked that he
not be placed in protective custody, and that the defendants lacked any
information that would have indicated that the plaintiff's cellmate posed a
risk to his safety. Sherwood v. Tancrator, #08-56119, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis
18215 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
A prisoner attacked by his cellmate, suffering
injuries including severe bleeding from lacerations, claimed that prison
employees violated his rights by assigning him to a cell with another prisoner
known to be dangerous, and by failing to provide adequate medical attention
following the attack. A federal appeals court found that the prisoner had
failed to show how the defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his
serious medical needs. The court ordered further proceedings, however, as to
the prisoner's claims against a former guard for failure to protect, finding
that it was unreasonable to have dismissed claims against the guard based on
the prisoner's failure to serve him. "It is unreasonable to expect
incarcerated and unrepresented prisoner--litigants to provide the current addresses
of prison-guard defendants who no longer work at the prison. Thus, we conclude
that, as long as the court-appointed agent can locate the prison-guard
defendant with reasonable effort," service should be obtained. Claims
against the warden for failure to protect the prisoner against the assault were
properly rejected, as the prisoner's prior grievance asking to be transferred
because his cellmate was "unhygienic" did not show that the warden
was aware of, but disregarded, a serious risk of assault. Richardson v.
Johnson, #08-16795, 598 F.3d 734 (11th Cir. 2010).
A prisoner's cellmate attacked and killed him on
the first night they were housed together. His estate filed a federal civil
rights lawsuit over the alleged failure to protect him against the assault. No
evidence was presented that would indicate that the individual defendants had
any knowledge of the risk to the prisoner that would indicate that they acted
with deliberate indifference. Additionally, as to money damage claims against
state officials in their official capacities, the Texas Tort Claims Act did not
waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal court. Walker v. Livingston,
#09-20508, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 12391 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
Officials at a treatment center for sex offenders
were properly denied summary judgment in a lawsuit claiming that the were
deliberately indifferent to the risk that he would be assaulted by another
offender. He adequately alleged that it was "readily apparent" that
placing him in a room with another sex offender who then assaulted him
subjected him to an objectively serious risk of harm. There were also
sufficient facts from which a jury could find that a defendant acted with
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need by failing to provide him
with prescribed psychological treatment. Nelson v. Shuffman, #09-2225, 603 F.3d
439 (8th Cir. 2009).
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 prisoner claimed that a prison inspector and a
guard, as well as others, violated his rights by assigning him to a cell with a
dangerous cellmate who attacked him. A federal appeals court noted that the
prisoner's own sole complaint about his cellmate prior to the attack was that
he was "unhygienic," which did not suffice to put anyone on notice
that there was a substantial risk of assault. Richardson v. Johnson, #08-16795,
2010 U.S. App. Lexis 4269 (11th Cir.).
The estate of an inmate fatally stabbed with a
homemade glass shank by a fellow prisoner who broke a cell window sued the Ohio
state correctional authorities for wrongful death. Affirming a judgment for the
defendant, the appeals court found that the prior conduct of the assailant had
not provided notice that he would attack the decedent. While the assailant was
involved in many altercations, all but one of these incidents occurred ten
years before the attack. Additionally, the most recent prior incident, which
occurred two years before, involved the assailant threatening officers with a
piece of glass and did not make it foreseeable that he would commit similar
violent acts against fellow inmates. Elam v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and
Correction, #09AP-714, 2010 Ohio App. Lexis 1010 (10th Dist.).
A pretrial detainee claimed that a warden and a
deputy at a jail failed to protect him from other prisoners, resulting in one
hitting him in the face and another stabbing him in the eye. A jury found that
these defendants had been negligent, and awarded $12,500 in damages against
them, but rejected the claim that they had violated the plaintiff's
constitutional rights. Upholding this result, a federal appeals court found
that jury instructions on the federal constitutional claims properly required a
finding of deliberate indifference for liability. McCray v. Peachey, #08-31077,
2010 U.S. App. Lexis 4159 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
Four days before an assault by his cellmate,
which resulted in a prisoner's death from his injuries, he had filed an
emergency grievance requesting placement in another cell. His estate's lawsuit
adequately alleged that a defendant warden had engaged in a practice of housing
him in "explosive" situations that ended in physical confrontations,
and that the warden either actually knew of or consciously turned a blind eye
towards obvious risks of assault and injury. Santiago v. Walls, #07-1219, 2010
U.S. App. Lexis 6465 (7th Cir.).
Reinstating a prisoner's claim that correctional
officers failed to protect him against assault by another inmate, a federal
appeals court noted that the prisoner sufficiently alleged that the first
officer observed the fight and failed to intervene, and that the second officer
was aware that the other inmate had a grudge against him but still sent him
into the housing unit to pick up supplies. He also claimed that a third officer
was present in the unit when the attack occurred, and it could be reasonably
inferred that his failure to respond showed deliberate indifference. Brown v.
N.C. Dept. of Corrections, #08-8501, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 525 (Unpub. 4th
Cir.).
A DUI arrestee, while at a local jail, had a
verbal dispute with two prisoners. An officer, acting for the purpose of
relieving overcrowding in the booking area, then placed the arrestee and one of
these two prisoners into a drunk pod with several others. Minutes later, the
other prisoner gave the arrestee a severe beating. In a failure to protect
lawsuit against the officer, the officer was properly denied summary judgment.
His contention that he relied on an alleged policy directing that he place
intoxicated and non-intoxicated prisoners together in the event that the
booking area became too crowded did not entitle him to qualified immunity since
such a policy, even if it existed, did not explicitly authorize what he
allegedly did--ignore the risk of an assault by the other prisoner. Bass v.
Goodwill, #08-6168, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 26767 (10th Cir.)
A prisoner in a medium security facility sued the
state for alleged failure to properly protect him from the risk of the assault
by three other prisoners he suffered in the bathroom of a recreational yard.
The court found no evidence that the state had either actual or constructive
notice of the risk of such an attack. There was no indication that the three
assailants were particularly prone to violence or were a threat to the
plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff had no prior encounters with these
assailants, and had not requested protective custody. The fact that another
prisoner had been attacked in the same bathroom four years earlier did not make
the later assault reasonably foreseeable. Vasquez v. N.Y., #506205, 2009 N.Y.
App. Div. Lexis 8936 (A.D. 3rd Dept.).
The record showed that each time the plaintiff
prisoner reported that his life was in danger, prison officials conducted an
investigation and found his claim to be unfounded, but still relocated him. The
prisoner's claim of failure to protect really was based on his preference for
single cell housing status, but his mere disagreement with his classification
in the general population of the prison did not entitle him to get what he
wanted. Parker v. Currie, #08-41023, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 92 (5th Cir.).
A prisoner was found guilty of self-mutilation,
fraud, and bribery in a disciplinary hearing, based on evidence that he and
another prisoner had staged their fight. He then filed a lawsuit against a
number of correctional officers, asserting that they failed to protect him from
assault, provided him with inadequate medical attention for his injuries, and
created an atmosphere where prisoners could be deprived of due process. Since
the prisoner had staged a "phony" fight, his failure to protect claim
lacked merit, and success on that claim would imply the invalidity of his
disciplinary conviction, which had not been set aside. He also failed to show
that he really needed any medical treatment, as he did not suffer serious
injuries. His other claims were also without merit. Jackson v. Mizzel,
#09-30667, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 1258 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that the warden, two
caseworkers, and the prison education director failed to provide him with
needed protection against a beating by another prisoner. The fact that the other
prisoner had a history of assaults did not establish that the warden knew of
and disregarded an excessive risk he posed to the plaintiff's safety. One of
the caseworkers had carried out his duties by noting in his logbook and
informing his supervisor that the assailant had made statements about fighting
the plaintiff and his failure to take further steps did not amount to
deliberate indifference. A second caseworker, who initialed the logbook, at
worst was negligent in failing to take action in response to the threat. The
prisoner failed to present any evidence supporting his contention that the
education director did anything to incite other prisoners against the
plaintiff, although he did allegedly show them written complaints the plaintiff
had filed against the director. Norman v. Schuetzle; #08-1686, 2009 U.S. App.
Lexis 26702 (8th Cir.).
A prisoner asserted that another inmate shoved
him in the face during basketball games, punched him in the face, fracturing
his jaw, in the dining hall, and falsely accused him of being a child molester.
Rejecting his claims of failure to protect and inadequate medical care, the
appeals court found that there was no evidence that corrections officers or a
nurse knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his safety. Any fear of harm
from the other inmate was not strong enough to prevent the plaintiff from
voluntarily playing in basketball games where the other inmate was present. As
for a defendant mental health counselor, there was no evidence that the plaintiff
had ever complained to him concerning any threats. As for the medical care
claims, the prisoner both failed to establish deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need and failed to exhaust his available administrative
remedies prior to filing suit, as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). Davis v.
Williams, #09-2602, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 26637 (Unpub.3rd Cir.).
Parents of a pretrial detainee sued correctional
officials for his murder by another patient while at a state hospital for
observation. The murder occurred during a "free period" when patients
were allowed to visit each other's rooms. A deputy superintendent was entitled
to qualified immunity from liability, as it was not clearly established that,
in the absence of individualized threats or a history of prior violence that
the failure to discontinue a long-standing practice of allowing unsupervised
visits to patient rooms by other patients constituted deliberate indifference
to the risk of assaults. The defendant commissioner of corrections could have
reasonably thought that existing staffing, which complied with hospital
recommendations, was sufficient to be constitutionally adequate, so she was
also entitled to qualified immunity. Mosher v. Nelson, #09-1636, 2009
U.S. App. Lexis 27730 (1st Cir.).
A prisoner failed to show that jailers violated his
rights by not protecting him from attacks by other inmates, since they acted on
his requests for cell transfers based on his fears of threats to his safety.
Inadequate medical care claims were also rejected, since evidence showed that
jail medical staff responded "diligently" to all of his
"myriad" medical complaints. Krause v. Leonard, #09-40273, 2009 U.S.
App. Lexis 24387 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
A prisoner was not entitled to an injunction directing
his transfer to another facility based on the alleged risk of assault he faced
while visiting with his family. He had not shown that his conditions of
confinement created a substantial risk of such attacks. Johnson v. Miles,
#08-0658, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 22704 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.).
After a detainee testified against a member of the
Aryan Brotherhood of Texas (ABT), a white prison gang, he was allegedly
attacked by another ABT member when he was placed in the general jail
population as a pretrial detainee. After the attack, he was put into
administrative segregation for his safety. In his lawsuit against jail
officials over the attack, the detainee failed to show that the defendants knew
of a substantial risk that he would be attacked by ABT members, so he could not
show that they acted with deliberate indifference to his safety. He did,
however, state a valid claim for deliberate indifference to his medical needs
after the attack, asserting that the defendants knew he suffered from
persistent pain, but delayed getting him under a doctor's care for a
significant period of time. His placement in administrative segregation was not
a violation of his rights, but done for his safety, and his placement in
solitary confinement did not violate his due process rights. Perez v. Anderson,
#08-10952, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 23818 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
A prisoner failed to show that prison officials
should be held liable for another prisoner's attack on him. The inmate who
attacked him, while having a troubled past history, had recently completed an
anger management program and earned his way into a preferred housing unit by
his positive behavior, and the defendants had no reason to know of his
dangerousness. Further, while the prisoner claimed that the supervisor of a
restaurant management class at the prison was inciting other inmates against
him because he had asked that the supervisor be fired, he did not request
protection. The defendants' conduct did not amount to deliberate indifference
to a known risk of assault. Norman v. Schuetzle, #08-1686, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis
26702 (8th Cir.).
A prisoner claimed to have reported that he
received a letter saying that a prison gang had called for a "hit" on
him because documents in his cell were used to prosecute a gang member for a
murder. Prison officials decided not to place him in protective custody,
instead transferring him to another facility, believing that the threat to him
was localized to the institution. When he was attacked by gang members six
months later in his new facility, he sued a prison official for failing to take
adequate measures to protect him. A federal appeals court found that the
defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity, because there was evidence
that he was aware of facts from which it could be inferred that that the
prisoner faced a serious risk of harm, and that the defendant actually made
that inference. He allegedly disregarded knowledge that gang "hits"
could be transferred to other facilities, and recommendations that the prisoner
be placed in protective custody. Hamilton v. Eleby, #08-4499, 2009 U.S. App.
Lexis 18020 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
A deceased prisoner's estate failed to show that
a correctional facility had constructive notice of another prisoner's attack on
the decedent. The court found no liability for negligence and wrongful death in
failing to prevent the attack and death. While the attacker did have a history
of removing glass from windows, the incidents involving this, except for one,
were all over ten years old, and none of these incidents led to violence
against another prisoner. There was no indication of a propensity for violent
attacks from which the facility should have been able to anticipate the attack.
Elam v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction, #2007-07728, 2009 Ohio
Misc. Lexis 138 (Ohio Ct. of Claims).
When an inmate failed to inform prison employees
that his cellmate had allegedly made threats against him, they could not be
held liable for failure to prevent the ensuing attack. The prisoner also failed
to show deliberate indifference to his resulting injuries, when he was provided
with cool compresses and pain medication, as well as seen by a nurses three
hours after the assault, and by a doctor who provided additional treatment the
following morning. Whaley v. Erickson, #08-1628, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 16589
(Unpub. 7th Cir.).
A prisoner who claimed to have been injured in an
attack by other prisoners himself stated that jail policies required violence
prone prisoners be separated out and alleged that deputies violated those
policies when they placed him in a cell with the prisoner who attacked him. He
did not claim, however, that the sheriff had directed the deputies to violate
those policies or knew that anyone would do so. The sheriff, therefore, could
not be subjected to supervisory liability. The prisoner also failed to show
that the deputies were alerted to the threat against him in time to take action
to prevent the assault. Gross v. White, #08-14411, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 15939
(Unpub. 11th Cir.).
The estate of a prisoner murdered by another
inmate failed to show that county officials acted with deliberate indifference
to the safety of the murdered prisoner. The county's booking policy did not
approve of the housing of violent and nonviolent prisoners together, but
instead mandated that incoming prisoners be classified as high risk or low risk
after an intake interview. High-risk prisoners were then housed in a separate
area, in order to separate out violent offenders. There was no evidence that
the county had any notice of the purported inadequacy of this policy. Moyle v.
Anderson, #08-3730, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 15120 (8th Cir.).
A prisoner in protective custody claimed that a
warden acted with deliberate indifference when, after Hurricane Katrina, he was
transferred to a field at another facility, where he was placed with the
general population and attacked by other prisoners. The appeals court ordered
limited discovery to focus on the issue of qualified immunity for the warden, and
specifically on the warden's knowledge of facts from which he could reasonably
conclude that an excessive risk of harm was present. Morgan v. Hubert,
#08-30388, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 14355 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
A prisoner who presented evidence establishing a
"tangible threat" to his safety, who also claimed to have spoken
directly to certain prison officials about the threat before he was attacked by
another prisoner could proceed with his lawsuit on a failure to protect claim.
Prison officials denied that the prisoner told them about the threat, but this
merely created a disputed issue of fact, which could not be decided on a motion
for summary judgment. There was also a disputed issue of fact as to whether the
level of human waste in the prisoner's cell rendered it uninhabitable. Morris
v. Ley, #08-2549, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 13588 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
A jury verdict for a correctional officer in a
lawsuit over the failure to protect a prisoner from a beating by his cellmate
had to be overturned and further proceedings ordered when a jury instruction
improperly indicated that, in order to find the officer liable, the jurors
would have to conclude that the officer himself directly caused the prisoner's
injuries. The instructions would not have allowed the jury to find for the
plaintiff on the basis of his claim that the officer improperly failed to act,
hearing the plaintiff's call for help, and failed to then take any steps to
prevent the assault. Clem v. Lomeli, #07-16764, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 11931 (9th
Cir.).
A prisoner could pursue claims against an officer
who allegedly arranged for and paid members of a prison "clique" to
attack him after the officer was told that the prisoner had reported him for
taking payments from prisoners. He had no claim, however, against another
officer who told the first officer about his reporting, since that officer was
not shown to have had knowledge that the information would lead to retaliatory
action. Davis v. Tucker, #08-40157, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 7288 (Unpub. 5th
Cir.).
When correctional officers were not aware
of any risk that a prisoner might be attacked in his sleep by his cellmate,
they could not be held liable for failing to prevent the attack. Once they
learned that the attack was taking place, they immediately responded, running
to the cell, calling for backup, commanding the cellmate to stop, and breaking
up the fight within minutes. Their three to five minute delay in opening the
cell door complied with a policy designed to protect officer safety in the
maximum-security facility. Eddmonds v. Walker, #08-1906, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis
5962 March 18, 2009 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
Federal appeals court upholds jury verdict
finding that a correctional officer violated a prisoner's civil rights by
disregarding his warning that another prisoner had threatened him, after which
he was attacked with a razor, but awarding him no damages. Compensatory damages
may only be awarded for actual injuries stemming from the violation of inmate
rights. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in failing to allow
additional evidence concerning whether the inmate's loss of a kitchen job
resulted from the attack after the deliberating jury asked a question
concerning this. The jury evidently did not believe that the prisoner met his
burden of establishing actual damages, and the prisoner did not request an
award of nominal damages. Scott v. Mahlmeister, #07-4197, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis
5711 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
Based on the fact that a sergeant was subjected
to discipline for handling the aftermath of an assault on a prisoner
improperly, there was a genuine issue of material fact requiring the
overturning of a dismissal of the prisoner's lawsuit. The plaintiff prisoner
stated that he was held against his will by other prisoners who entered his
cell and robbed him, and that, following this incident, the sergeant and an
officer had him make an in-person identification of his assailants, which
resulted in a further violent assault on him later. While the favorable
resolution of the inmate's grievance, resulting in the discipline of the
sergeant, did not, by itself, prove that there was deliberate indifference to a
serious risk of physical harm to the prisoner, it was sufficient to defeat the
motion for dismissal of the lawsuit against the sergeant. Additionally, summary
judgment should not have been granted to the officer, since there was
sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury or judge could have found that
the officer ignored an "obvious" risk of physical harm to the prisoner.
Weatherholt v. Bradley, #08-7157, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 5211 (Unpub. 4th Cir.).
Prisoner failed to show that the defendant prison
officials had the required knowledge that he faced a substantial risk of
serious harm from another prisoner, making them liable for failing to provide
him protection against the assault that occurred. Moorman v. Jowers, #08-10262,
2009 U.S. App. Lexis 4928 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
There was no evidence that deliberate indifference by
three jail officers was the cause of a pretrial detainee's death from a beating
by his cellmate. While the claim was governed by the Fourteenth Amendment
rather than the Eighth Amendment because the decedent was a pretrial detainee,
the legal standard for liability was still deliberate indifference to a
substantial risk of serious injury. There was no indication that the officers
believed that such a risk existed. Further, they were all off-duty when the
beating actually took place, after the cellmate returned from a court
appearance. Their placement of the cellmate in the cell did not cause the
detainee's death. Jenkins v. DeKalb County, Georgia, No. 07-15820, 2009 U.S.
App. Lexis 657 (11th Cir.).
The plaintiff prisoner failed to show that he had
been threatened by the inmate who attacked him, and that the defendant prison
officials had been aware of any such threat and acted with deliberate
indifference to the risk of harm. Cortez v. Ford, Civil Action No.
1:07-CV-1466, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 86348 (M.D. Pa.).
A prisoner's allegation that a lieutenant at the
prison deliberately permitted another prisoner to throw feces on him, if true,
showed an Eighth Amendment violation. Norfleet v. Stroger, No. 08-1066, 2008
U.S. App. Lexis 22495 (7th Cir.).
Prisoner who was a member or associate of the
Mexican Mafia gang could pursue his claim that a prison guard put him at risk
of assault by gang members by telling others that he had engaged in a
homosexual act. This was the case even though he had not actually been
subsequently attacked as a result of the statement. The prisoner presented
undisputed facts indicating that the gang did not tolerate homosexual acts, and
that the guard knew of the risk of harm that making such a statement to gang
members created. The court stated that this was different from cases in which
prisoners' claims of a failure to protect were rejected when they were based on
a speculative fear that they would later be attacked if other prisoners thought
that they were a "snitch," since the alleged action here would create
a known specific risk of attack. Radillo v. Lunes, 1:04-CV-5353, 2008 U.S.
Dist. Lexis 82576 (E.D. Cal.).
Prisoner failed to show that the Commissioner of
the New York State Department of Correctional Services had personal knowledge
of a history of inmate attacks on other prisoners in a facility's recreation
yards, or that prisoners there had a substantial risk of being attacked. There
was, however, sufficient evidence to raise a genuine factual issue as to
whether the superintendent of that facility did have such knowledge. There was,
however, a lack of proof that any of the defendants failed to take reasonable
measures to prevent prisoners from bringing weapons into the yard or that the
security methods employed were unreasonable. There was no evidence that the use
of metal detectors would have substantially reduced the risk of inmate
violence. Warren v. Goord, 05 Civ. 9590, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 76875
(S.D.N.Y,).
Prison officials were entitled to summary
judgment in prisoner's lawsuit claiming that they violated his rights by
failing to protect him from an assault by a fellow prisoner, since the
defendants were not made aware of the risk of such harm. The plaintiff's prior
statements indicating that other prisoners were "asking questions"
about his trips to court and/or "pressuring" him were insufficient to
put the defendants on notice that there was a threat to his safety in the form
of other prisoners who might attack him. Additionally, the fact that other
prisoners thought he was a "snitch" was not, by itself, enough to
establish his claim, as he could have requested protective custody, but failed
to do so. Dale v. Poston, No. 06-2847, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 24667 (7th Cir.).
Federal magistrate recommends that court grant summary
judgment to deputy warden on prisoner's lawsuit claiming that he was injured in
a prison riot that the deputy warden failed to prevent. The riot involved
a fight between Northern and Southern Hispanic inmates, and a subsequent
lockdown. The deputy warden later allegedly saw that a controlled unlock was
not going as the warden had planned, but then failed to ask that the yard be
closed down until after a riot started. The court ruled that the plaintiff
failed to show that the deputy warden had been aware of a change in plan
regarding the release of prisoners into the yard, and disregarded the risk
thereby created. Lopez v. Butler, No. CIV S-04-0822, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis
89642 (E.D. Ca.).
Prisoner allegedly assaulted and injured by
fellow inmate failed to show that sheriff, deputies, or the county were aware
of the danger he encountered from being transported together with the other
prisoner on an elevator. He failed to show that they acted with deliberate
indifference to the risk of harm to him. Farah v. Wellington, No. 07-3476, 2008
U.S. App. Lexis 21166 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
Prisoner stabbed by other inmates failed to show
any deliberate indifference by the warden or two associate wardens. These
officials could not be held liable simply on the basis of responsibility for
the alleged actions of their subordinates. Following a trial against a deputy
warden and several officers, the court granted judgment as a matter of law for
the deputy warden, and the jury returned a verdict for the remaining
defendants. The appeals court found that the evidence supported the jury's
finding that there was no showing of deliberate indifference. Brown v. Kelly,
No. 07-60329, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 20564 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
In a lawsuit by a pretrial detainee attacked by
other prisoners who were gang members, he failed to show that correctional
officials and officers acted with deliberate indifference in housing gang
members together with non-gang members and allegedly periodically leaving them
unsupervised. He failed to show the existence of a "de facto" policy
of housing gang members and non-gang members together, of allowing gang members
to retain weapons, or of leaving prisoners unsupervised. Further, he failed to
show that officers were aware of a specific threat to him, since he did not
tell them about threats after a first attack, or tell them that the attack
occurred because he was not a gang member. Klebanowski v. Sheahan, No. 06-2572,
2008 U.S. App. Lexis 18760 (7th Cir.).
Prisoner did not show that prison officials were
on notice that he faced a substantial risk of assault by a fellow inmate and
disregarded that risk. His claim that the risk should have been obvious to them
after another prisoner called him a child molester was insufficient. Davis v.
Williams, No. Civ. No. 05-067, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 64032 (D. Del.).
A detainee presented no evidence, for six
assaults on him by other prisoners, that jail guards knew about the risks to
his safety. Summary judgment should not have been granted, however, as to a seventh
assault, which the detainee claimed was watched by one of the guards, as there
was a genuine issue of material fact, in that instance, whether the guard was
deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff's safety. There were also genuine
issues as to whether three guards acted with deliberate indifference to the
detainee's medical needs. Grieveson v. Anderson, No. 05-4681, 2008 U.S. App.
Lexis 17554 (7th Cir.).
While a inmate's complaint stated viable claims
that prison officials violated his civil rights by failing to protect him from
an assault by a fellow prisoner, as well as a viable claim for negligence under
the Federal Tort Claims Act, the prisoner failed to seek to hold the U.S.
government, the proper defendant in the FTCA claim, liable, so that claim was
properly dismissed. The federal civil rights claim was also properly dismissed
as frivolous because it was time barred. Bynum v. Menifee, No. 07-30821, 2008
U.S. App. Lexis 13261 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
Prisoner failed to properly allege that prison
officials violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to protect him from
attack by another prisoner. Specifically, he failed to assert that officials
had subjective awareness of the risk of harm to him or that they were actually
aware of his own earlier attack on the other prisoner, or the likelihood that
the other prisoner would retaliate. Given that the prisoner was acting as his
own attorney, and that the trial court noted that he might have been able to
allege additional facts to show the officials' had subjective knowledge of the
risk of an attack on him, the complaint should not have been dismissed with
prejudice without first giving him a chance to amend the lawsuit. Clark v.
Maldonado, No. 07-14876, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 16564 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
Prison personnel were entitled to qualified
immunity on a prisoner's claim that they failed to protect him against attack
by another inmate. A prison unit classification officer and a reviewing
classification committee member made reasonable attempts to prevent a feared
assault, including transferring various prisoners who allegedly were harassing
him, and denying his transfer request after these harassers had been
transferred out. The fact that the prisoner's ultimate assailant remained did not
show that they acted with deliberate indifference, particularly as the
purported "gang leader" had also been transferred out. The court also
found that, even if an officer had told the attacker about statements that the
plaintiff prisoner had "snitched" on him, this did not cause the
attack, since the plaintiff had already been labeled a "snitch" and
targeted by the prison gang. Moore v. Lightfoot, No. 06-41648, 2008 U.S. App.
Lexis 13624 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
Other prisoners beat up a detainee at a county
jail after word spread throughout the facility that he was charged with child
rape. The appeals court held that one defendant officer was not entitled to
qualified immunity in a lawsuit brought by the detainee for failure to protect
him, as this officer's own statements showed that he was aware of facts which
could have indicated that a substantial risk of harm of such an assault existed
and that he in fact drew the inference that the risk existed. The court also
held that there was a clearly established right to be protected against assault
under these circumstances. A claim against a second officer for excessive use
of force was rejected, because the detainee himself testified that a blow to
his neck did not hurt, and there was no injury that could be objectively
verified. Leary v. Livingston County, No. 06-2603, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 12370
(6th Cir.).
A prisoner's allegations that he was diagnosed
with emphysema and subsequently suffered chest pains because of smoking by his
cellmate--and that prison officials knew of this problem, but did nothing to
remedy it, were sufficient to state a claim for both present and future injury
based on violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. The plaintiff prisoner also
adequately presented a claim that prison officials failed to protect him from
another cellmate who attacked him after having previously threatened to kill
him. Glick v. Walker, No. 07-2929, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 7716 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
Prisoner attacked by other prisoners who
allegedly identified him as a "snitch" based on the circulation of
information to that effect by an unidentified prison guard could not pursue his
failure to protect claim when he had no evidence that any of the defendants
were direct participants in the alleged actions. Skinner v. U.S. Bureau of
Prisons, No. 07-6293, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 8754 (10th Cir.).
Correctional officer on duty did not violate a
prisoner's rights by failing to prevent another inmate's attack on him with a
metal pipe when the officer had no prior warning that such an attack was
threatened. Blaylock v. Borden, No. 06 Civ. 4387, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis
31743 (S.D.N.Y.).
Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity
on claims that they failed to properly protect a prisoner against an assault by
another inmate. The plaintiff claimed that the attack occurred because two of
the officers opened cell doors to enable the attack, that he suffered fear for
his life from the officers' death threats, which were made "credible"
by their conduct, and that one officer also labeled the prisoner a
"snitch." If the facts were as alleged by the prisoner, no reasonable
officer could have believed that such conduct was constitutional. Irving v.
Dormire, No. 07-1591, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 4925 (8th Cir.).
Prisoner failed to show that prison employees
were deliberately indifferent to her serious dental needs, improperly revoked
her authorization to receive acne medication from an outside source, or failed
to protect her from an assault by another prisoner. Wilkens v. Ward, No.
07-6225, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 4211 (10th Cir.).
Federal trial court finds no evidence to support
prisoner's claim that jail employees paid other prisoners or gave them
cigarettes to attack him. Additionally, there was no evidence that the
defendants knew that the plaintiff was at risk of assault but failed to protect
him. Carr v. Head, No. 1:07CV180-03, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 7809 (W.D.N.C.).
Trial court improperly dismissed inmate's lawsuit
claiming that he was knowingly exposed to the risk of assault by other inmates
when a guard allegedly told his cell mate that he was a child molester. These
facts, if true, were sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim. Brown v.
Narvais, No. 07-6120, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 3769 (10th Cir.).
Prisoner's claim that correctional officials
ignored three requests that he be moved because of concerns about his safety,
and that he was attacked by two other inmates and injured two weeks after his
third request to be moved stated a claim for violation of his rights. Claims
against the sheriff, however, were dismissed since the plaintiff did not claim
that he had informed the sheriff himself of his safety concerns. The sheriff
could not be held vicariously liable merely because he was the employer of the
other defendants. Brewer v. McCoy, No. 07-1356, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 7379
(C.D. Ill.).
Prisoner attacked by another inmate failed to
present evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the
defendant had information from which he should have foreseen the assault but
failed to take action to prevent it. Thompson v. Sosa, No. 06-55871, 2008 U.S.
App. Lexis 2141 (9th Cir.).
Sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity on a
claim by a civilly committed sexually violent predator (SVP) that he was not
adequately protected from assault by other inmates while at the county jail.
The law concerning the placement of civil detainees within a jail was not
clearly established at the time of the incident at issue. Odom v. Kolender, No.
06-56180, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 29004 (9th Cir.).
Prison officials were not entitled to qualified
immunity on a claim that they were liable for the death of a prisoner stabbed
to death by fellow inmates using shanks. They allegedly failed to carry out a
departmental mandate for a weekly search of cells, and 62 shanks had been, at
one point, found during a search of the same building where the prisoner was
stabbed. In light of the defendants' alleged knowledge of the large amount of
shanks found on the premises, and the poor condition of prison gates and doors,
their alleged non-compliance with the weekly search requirement could
constitute deliberate indifference to prisoner safety. Sanchez v. Pereira, No.
Civil 05-1293, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 88759 (D. Puerto Rico).
Prison officials were not entitled to
qualified immunity when there was evidence supporting the conclusion that they
were aware of a substantial risk of serious harm to the plaintiff prisoner from
his roommate, based on the prisoner's prior complaints that the roommate was
"deranged" and had threatened him. They allegedly did not reasonably
respond to that known risk, resulting in an assault. Young v. Selk, No.
06-3883, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 27395 (8th Cir.).
When an inmate being held in administrative
segregation claimed that he had, on at least two occasions, told a prison
official that members of his former gang had threatened to kill him if he were
released into the general population, there was a genuine issue of fact as to
whether it violated his Eighth Amendment rights to fail to grant his request
that he either be transferred or placed in protective custody. The prisoner was
stabbed in the back and chest with a shank within hours of his placement in the
general population. Rodriguez v. McDonough, No. 05-14600, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis
26882 (11th Cir.).
Relatives of prisoner who died from a drug
overdose failed to provide any evidence to support their argument that the
drugs had been administered to him by other inmates forcing him to take them,
or that his death resulted from prison officials failure to provide adequate
personnel to supervise inmates to avoid such incidents. The plaintiffs could
proceed, however, on their claim that certain defendants acted with deliberate
indifference by eliminating in-house emergency medical facilities despite the
common occurrence of drug overdoses among the inmate population.
Rivera-Quinones v. Rivera-Gonzalez, Civil No. 03-2326, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis
81258 (D. Puerto Rico).
Federal government was not liable under the
Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2671 et seq. for failure to protect a
prisoner from an assault by another inmate on the basis of the alleged failure
of the prison staff to supervise and monitor a stairwell while prisoners were
passing through it. The federal government was entitled to summary judgment
under a "discretionary function" exception to liability under the
Act, as the prisoner failed to show any evidence that there was a mandatory
duty to monitor a specific inmate or the area of the stairwell. Queen v.
U.S.A., No. 05-3341, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 78823 (D. Kan.).
Prison employees were not deliberately
indifferent in failing to protect a prisoner from an attack by another inmate
in a gym when there were no prior conflicts between the two prisoners. The
prisoner himself did not request permission to leave the gym at the time prior
to the assault, indicating that he himself did not believe that he was facing a
substantial risk of harm. The alleged failure to provide continuous supervision
of the inmates in the gym was, at most, negligence, which was insufficient to
show a violation of constitutional rights. Burnley v. Evans, No. 06-2053, 2007
U.S. App. Lexis 23384 (8th Cir.).
Prison officials were not entitled to qualified
immunity on inmate's claim that they acted with deliberate indifference in
failing to protect him and two other inmates from injury in an assault by four
members of a rival gang. Their appeal was dismissed due to remaining disputed
issues of fact which had to first be decided by the trial court. Adame v.
Flowers, No. 06-41764, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 23714 (5th Cir.).
Because Maine statutes clearly made a prison a
state facility, a federal civil rights claim against a corrections superintendent
in his official capacity was a claim against the state, and was barred by
Eleventh Amendment immunity. Under a state statute, however, the prisoner could
pursue an individual capacity claim for the superintendent's alleged deliberate
indifference to his health and safety on the basis of an attack by a fellow
inmate. Nilson-Borrill v. Burnheimer, Civil No. 07-98-P-H, 2007 U.S. Dist.
Lexis 65025 (D. Maine).
Prisoner who allegedly was attacked by fellow
inmates while "indiscriminately placed" together with other
unclassified inmates during an "initial evaluation period" did not
show that the prison director was deliberately indifferent to the possibility
of such an assault. The director had no contact with the plaintiff prisoner,
and was the acting director of corrections for the entire state. Additionally,
there was no evidence that she knew or should have known of the risk of harm to
the plaintiff during the evaluation period. The defendant director had not
written the policy or procedures challenged, and was new to the job. The
prisoner presented no evidence of anything that would have alerted the director
to any alleged deficiencies in the procedures, such as complaints of other
attacks. Byerly v. McConnell, No. 06-15267, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 21312 (9th
Cir.).
There was no proof that correctional personnel
were aware that the prisoner who allegedly attacked a pretrial detainee had a
"proclivity for violence," and a guard who became aware of the attack
responded in a reasonable manner by immediately seeking backup. The plaintiff
detainee also failed to show that the county sheriff was aware of the extent of
delays in reclassifying detainees, which the plaintiff claimed was responsible
for him being attacked. The defendants could not be held liable for the attack
on the detainee. Guzman v. Sheahan, No. 06-3647, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 18660
(7th Cir.).
A former corrections officer now serving a
sentence for rape, sexual battery, and burglary failed to show that the prison
warden was deliberately indifferent to his safety in violation of the Eighth
Amendment, resulting in him being attacked and beaten by two other prisoners
causing the loss of his left eye. There was no showing that the warden failed
to take measures to prevent harm to the plaintiff, including the prisoner's
housing assignment, even though those measures did not suffice to prevent the
attack. Further, the attack took place four and one-half years after the
prisoner was incarcerated at the facility, and he had not renewed or repeated his
initial request for a more segregated housing assignment. O'Brien v. Indiana
Dep't of Correc., No. 06-3064, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 17804 (7th Cir.).
In a lawsuit by a federal prisoner under the
Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2680, concerning an alleged attack on
him by other prisoners, the court ruled that the only proper defendant was the
United States government, rather than the Bureau of Prisons, the defendant the
plaintiff prisoner named. The court therefore properly dismissed the Federal
Tort Claims Act claim. The prisoner also failed to properly state a federal
civil rights claim against defendants who were supervisory prison officials,
since he did not show that they were either involved personally in the
incident, or had carried out an improper policy that caused the injuries he
suffered. The conduct claimed, at most, suggested possible negligence, which is
inadequate for a showing of a violation of constitutional due process. Toledo
v. Bureau of Prisons, No. 06-11265, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 13441 (5th Cir.).
Trial court properly entered a judgment in favor
of prison officials on inmate's claim that they failed take proper action to
protect him from assault by other prisoners when he failed to provide them with
the names of those making threats against him. The trial court's decision to
exclude from evidence a settlement agreement between the U.S. government and
the Montana Department of Corrections that barred prison officials from
requiring prisoners, as a precondition for being moved to protective custody,
to identify the persons threatening him was upheld. The prisoner failed to show
that a defendant prison official had known about the document and its contents
at the time at issue, and the prisoner's lawyer could still have asked the
defendant questions about the document. Hummel v. Hurlbert, No. 04-35386, 2007
U.S. App. Lexis 13939 (9th Cir.).
Prisoner who was allegedly placed in a cell with
a cousin of the man he was accused of murdering failed to state a claim against
the warden, the jail, the sheriff, and the parish for failure to protect him
from the assault. The appeals court rejected the prisoner's argument that he
should have been allowed to amend his complaint and add, as a defendant, a
correctional officer who was allegedly also a cousin to the murder victim, and
who supposedly was involved in his placement in the cell where he was
assaulted. The plaintiff's initial complaint was detailed, and the court found
that it was apparent that he had asserted his best case, and that his
consistent complaints were not about the officer's alleged actions, but about
security at the jail. Clark v. Herbert, No. 05-30957, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis
12548 (5th Cir.).
An Indiana prisoner did not have a substantive
due process right to use violence to defend another prisoner which could be
asserted in a prison disciplinary hearing. Federal appeals court rejects
challenge to sanctions imposed by a prison's Conduct Adjustment Board after the
plaintiff prisoner hit another inmate with a cane in an attempt to stop that
inmate from stabbing a third prisoner. The plaintiff also failed to show a
violation of his procedural due process rights. The plaintiff himself admitted
his actions, and the Board had not disputed that he may have done so to protect
another prisoner, but instead determined that punishment was still required.
Additionally, his rights were not violated when the Board denied him access to
a surveillance video of the incident, to live witnesses, or to prison medical
records, given that the Board had accepted the prisoner's own version of the
events, so that such evidence would not add anything to his defense, but
instead would be merely repetitive of his own account. Scruggs v. Jordan, No.
05-4238, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 10790 (7th Cir.).
Inmate failed to show that the City of New York
was negligent in failing to prevent him from being attacked with a knife by
another prisoner. There was no evidence that the city either knew or should
have known that the plaintiff was at risk of being subjected to such an attack
and needed protection, or that his assailant had a propensity to engage in such
attacks. Craig v. City of New York, #2225/93, 2007 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 1624 (Civil
Court of the City of N.Y., Bronx County).
Prison officials were not liable for an attack on
a prisoner by another inmate who stabbed her with a pen, absent any evidence
that they should have anticipated the attack or taken specific measures to
prevent the fight. Alleged verbal abuse when the plaintiff was informed that
she and her assailant would be transported together to receive medical care
also did not violate her constitutional rights. Brown v. Saj, No. 06-CV-6272,
2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 25553 (W.D.N.Y.).
Trial court acted erroneously by dismissing
prisoner's lawsuit claiming that prison guards failed to adequately protect him
from assault by another inmate who had posted a note saying that he was a
homosexual and allegedly threatened to harm him. While guards separated the two
men when they first fought, they were subsequently housed two doors away from
each other, despite the knowledge of the prior fight and prior threats. Miller
v. Fisher, No. 05-2024, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 5982 (7th Cir.).
Inmate in county jail on a probation violation
failed to show that jail personnel violated his rights by failing to segregate
and protect him, resulting in an attack by another inmate causing him to suffer
a broken jaw. Loggins v. Franklin County, Ohio, No. 05-4135, 2007 U.S. App.
Lexis 5614 (6th Cir.).
Prison employees were entitled to summary
judgment from inmate's claim that they failed to protect him from assault by
other prisoners. One of them offered to place him in protective custody when
first notified of an alleged threat against him, and he refused this offer, and
then failed to tell her of any further threats. Three other employees were also
found not to have acted with deliberate indifference to a known substantial
risk of harm. Belcher v. U.S., No. 06-3009, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 3799 (10th
Cir.). [N/R]
Prisoner could not pursue a claim for
unconstitutional failure to protect him from injuries in a jail fight when he
failed to identify the officials he claimed were responsible for that failure,
and the one officer he did specifically name was so far removed from the events
that occurred to be held responsible for his injuries. Finally, his claim
against the county failed, in the absence of any viable claim against any
individual. Petty v. County of Franklin, No. 06-3552, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 3377
(6th Cir.). [N/R]
Prison warden was entitled to qualified immunity
in prisoner's lawsuit claiming that he acted with deliberate indifference to
the risk that the prisoner would be attacked by another inmate. The evidence
failed to show that the warden had knowledge of the risk to the inmate, and
even the plaintiff prisoner himself stated that, while he spoke to the warden
about the need for more security, he did not inform her that he believed his
life was endangered by gang activities. Mathis v. Warden Stevenson,
No.C-05-523, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 7373 (S.D. Tex.). [N/R]
Prison officials could not be held liable for
failure to protect a prisoner from an assault in a prison yard when the
prisoner himself stated that he had not anticipated the attack, and there was
no information from which the defendants could have known that it was going to
take place. The mere fact that the plaintiff prisoner and his assailants were
allegedly in rival gangs did not suffice when he and his assailants were in
separate pens in the prison yard when the attack took place. Turner v. Cabana,
No. 05-61062, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 248 (5th Cir.). [N/R]
Six officers who did not know of or did not
deliberately ignore an inmate's reports that he was in danger of being attacked
by other prisoners as a "snitch" were entitled to qualified immunity,
but there was a genuine issue as to whether two other officers who knew that he
was an informant had known of the risk and ignored his plea for protection,
resulting in him being stabbed 28 times by other prisoners. Longoria v. Texas,
No. 05-41052, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 31449 (5th Cir.). [N/R]
Further proceedings ordered as to whether warden
and correctional officers should have known that a prisoner faced a substantial
risk of serious harm from an attack by another prisoner and that they should
have reasonably known that it would violate his rights to not remove him from
the general population while they proceeded to investigate an alleged threat
against him. Leach v. Lowe, No. 04-16815, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 27974 (9th
Cir.). [N/R]
In prisoner's lawsuit claiming that prison
officials improperly failed to protect him from assault by other inmates,
factual issues as to whether the defendants were aware of the significant risk
of harm certain other prisoners posed to him, but still gave him a housing
assignment exposing him to these risks, precluded dismissal of his claims.
Smith v. Freil, No. 05-4252, 170 Fed. Appx. 580 (10th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
Despite prisoner's statement that he and another
inmate he was being housed with had had "problems," prison officials
were not liable for cellmate's subsequent assault on , when the plaintiff had
failed to identify a specific prior incident from which it could be inferred
that there was a substantial risk of harm in housing the two prisoners
together. Prisoner also failed to show that correctional officers used
excessive force against him while restraining him following a fight with
another prisoner. McBride v. Rivers, No. 05-13328, 170 Fed. Appx. 648 (11th
Cir. 2006). [N/R]
New York Commissioner of Corrections and deputy
prison superintendent were not entitled to qualified immunity on prisoner's
claim that they conspired to violate his civil rights in a lawsuit brought by a
prisoner over the alleged failure to protect him from attacks by other
prisoners. Jury awarded a total of $150,000 in compensatory damages and $7.5
million in punitive damages, but a new trial was ordered on the punitive
damages issue. Britt v. Garcia, No. 05-0641, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 18795 (2d
Cir.). [2006 JB Sep]
Los Angeles County Sheriff, in establishing
policies concerning the assignment of detainees at the jail was carrying out
state law enforcement functions rather than acting as a county policymaker, and
the county therefore could not be held liable for injuries a detainee allegedly
suffered because he was placed in close proximity to other prisoners who
threatened and assaulted him. The sheriff was entitled to Eleventh Amendment
immunity. Bougere v. County of Los Angeles, No. B183930 2006 Cal. App. Lexis
1065, 141 Cal. App. 4th 237 (Cal. 2d App. Dist. 2006) [2006 JB Sep]
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 failed to show that a prison employee
knew that his cellmate posed a serious risk of harm to him, and therefore could
not impose liability on him for injuries suffered in an attack by the cellmate.
Pickett v. Hartung, No. 05-15406, 168 Fed. Appx. 226 (9th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
Prison officers did not act with deliberate
indifference in having a prisoner with "mental problems" become
another inmate's cellmate. The officers knew that he had been taking his
medication, and had been screened and cleared for housing in the general
population. There was no evidence that the officers knew that the inmate's new
cellmate posed a substantial risk of injury to him, so that they could not be
held liable for a subsequent physical assault. Jones v. Beard, No. 04-3669, 145
Fed. Appx. 743 (3rd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Prison employees did not act with deliberate
indifference by failing to remove prisoner's cellmate, who he complained was
"nuts" and had tried to assault him. They promptly had the cellmate
evaluated by a psychiatrist and took other steps to assess the situation, and
were therefore not liable for the cellmate's subsequent attack on the prisoner
approximately a week later. Borello v. Allison, No. 05-3515 446 F.3d 742 (7th
Cir. 2006) [2006 JB Jul]
Prisoner failed to show either that correctional
officers caused his injuries from assault by another prisoner by failing to
adequately protect him or were deliberately indifferent to his injuries
following the assault. Pinkston v. Madry, No. 03-2973 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 6108
(7th Cir.). [2006 JB May]
Correctional officials and employees did not act
with deliberate indifference in placing white supremacist prisoner in two cells
with black cellmates who were members of a prison gang that he had a dispute
with. No liability for two subsequent attacks on him by cellmates when his
expressed reason for requesting a transfer was his desire not to be housed with
blacks, a request he had no right to have granted. Lindell v. Houser, No.
04-2020, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 8066 (7th Cir.). [2006 JB May]
Prisoner failed to show that an assault on him by
another inmate was foreseeably caused by any failure of correctional employees
or officials to comply with his requests for protective custody or failure to
address the presence of gangs at the facility. His request for protective
custody was based on an incident at another facility, and the assault in
question occurred more than a year after that request was denied. Further,
there was no evidence showing any link between the unknown prisoner who
assaulted the plaintiff and any prison gang. Donato v. State of New York, 807
N.Y.S.2nd 456 (A.D. 3rd Dept. 2006). [N/R]
Nebraska correctional officer was not liable for
failure to prevent attack on prisoner in his cell when he had no knowledge that
the prisoner had been transferred to the facility to avoid retaliation against
him by a motorcycle gang for having exposed their plot to kill a correctional
officer in Virginia. Fender v. Bull, No. 04-3898, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 3236 (8th
Cir.). [2006 JB Apr]
Prisoner could not pursue a federal civil rights
claim based on a jail employee's alleged incitement of other inmates to attack
him, when he did not assert that any such attack actually occurred. Henslee v.
Lewis, 153 Fed. Appx. 178 (4th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Requirement, under Prison Litigation Reform Act,
42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997(e)(a) that available administrative remedies be exhausted
before a federal civil rights lawsuit over prison conditions is filed did not
apply to a lawsuit by relatives of a prisoner who died while incarcerated, as
they were not prisoners, and the prisoner, at the time the lawsuit was filed,
was no longer "confined." Relatives stated a possible claim for
deliberate indifference to the medical and security needs of the deceased
prisoner, who they alleged was forcibly intoxicated with morphine by fellow
prisoners, with the drug causing his death by overdose. Rivera-Quinones v.
Rivera-Gonzalez, No. CIV. 03-2326, 397 F. Supp. 2d 334 (D. Puerto Rico. 2005).
[N/R]
Intermediate New York appellate court reinstates
jury's verdict in favor of city in lawsuit seeking to impose liability for
injuries inmate suffered from attack by fellow prisoners at Riker's Island,
overturning grant of new trial. Trial judge's alleged mistakes in reading the
jury instructions on how to address an issue of missing documents would not
have misled the jury and did not justify setting the jury's verdict aside.
Genco v. City of New York, 794 N.Y.S.2d 558 (Sup. App. Term 2005). [N/R]
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]
Prisoner who was attacked by other inmates failed
to show that county jail officials knew of a risk of such an attack when they
moved him to another unit in the jail. He failed to inform anyone, prior to the
move, of his safety concerns based on his claimed gang affiliation with the
Crips, a black gang. He failed to tell anyone that he believed that he should
not be housed with Hispanic inmates as a result of this affiliation. Collins v.
County of Kern, No. CVF03-6424, 390 F. Supp. 2d 964 (E.D. Cal. 2005). [N/R]
New York state inmate did not enter into a valid
release and settlement agreement on his claim that a correctional officer told
another prisoner that he was an informer, subjecting him to subsequent
harassment and risk of physical attack. While the prisoner did receive a
18-week decrease in his confinement in a special housing unit, as proposed in
the settlement agreement, the settlement agreement was not the cause of the
reduction, and the prisoner never actually signed the settlement agreement. The
release and settlement agreement were therefore not enforceable, and the
prisoner could proceed with his lawsuit. Burgess v. Morse, No. 03-CV-63451, 387
F. Supp. 2d 246 (W.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
Federal trial court abused its discretion in denying
defendant prison officials' motion for summary judgment on the basis of
qualified immunity as untimely in prisoner's lawsuit claiming that they were
deliberately indifferent to threats of physical violence against prisoners.
This motion, filed within three weeks of the court's motion ruling on a motion
to dismiss, and one week before trial, was not clearly untimely because no
local rule or court order clearly provided the officials with a specific
deadline for filing the motion, and the officials therefore did not have
adequate notice that their motion would be untimely if filed when it was. Further
proceedings ordered on defendant officials' motion. Moore v. Cockrell, No.
04-40474, 144 Fed. Appx. 397 (5th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Federal prison employee could not be held liable
for failing to prevent an attack on an inmate by his cellmate, in the absence
of any evidence that he had either notice or knowledge concerning the alleged
threats against the prisoner. Mohamed v. Tattum, No. 04-3165, 380 F. Supp. 2d
1214 (D. Kan. 2005). [N/R]
District attorney was entitled to absolute
prosecutorial immunity on prisoner's claims that he was denied equal protection
because the prosecutor failed to pursue criminal charges against the other
prisoner who allegedly attacked him in a holding cell. Jones v. Baysinger, No.
04-16944, 135 Fed. Appx. 132 (9th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Appeals court orders further proceedings to
determine whether prisoner, in filing three inmate request forms asking for a
change of cell to get away from a cellmate who allegedly threatened him,
sufficiently exhausted available administrative remedies to allow him to
proceed with a federal civil rights lawsuit for alleged failure to protect him
after the cellmate allegedly attacked him and he was moved to a different cell.
Braham v. Armstrong, 03-0153, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 21085 (2nd Cir.). [2005 JB
Nov]
Prisoner failed to show that correctional
employees and officials had knowledge or reason to anticipate that a fellow
prisoner would use a combination lock as a weapon to assault him. The mere fact
that an object is solid or hard is insufficient to prove it is inherently
dangerous, giving rise to liability on the part of correctional authorities for
allowing a prisoner to possess it. No liability in prisoner's negligence claim.
Morris v. Union Parish Police Jury, No. 39,709-CA, 902 So. 2d 1276 (La. App.
2nd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Injuries that a prisoner suffered during an
assault by another inmate were not foreseeable, so that the State of New York
could not be held liable for them in a negligence lawsuit. Codrington v. State
of New York, 797 N.Y.S.2d 100 (A.D. 2nd Dept. 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]
Inmate's lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims
Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2401(b) was properly dismissed as untimely when he failed
to file it within six months of the Bureau of Prisons' rejection of his
application for compensation for prison guards' alleged negligence in failing
to protect him from a beating by other inmates. Myles v. US , #02-3944, 2005 U.S.
App. Lexis 4646 (7th Cir.). [N/R]
Correctional officer who required detainee to
stand against the wall near hostile inmates after he had been stabbed did not
act unreasonably or with deliberate indifference, and was not liable for the
subsequent additional stabbing of the detainee. Fisher v. Lovejoy, No. 04-3776,
2005 U.S. App. Lexis 13312 (7th Cir.). [2005 JB Aug]
Muslim prisoner adequately alleged that prison
officials knew of a threat to him from other Muslim inmates, but failed to take
action to protect him. Hearns v. Terhune, No. 02-56302, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis
13034 (9th Cir.). [2005 JB Aug]
Correctional officer who allegedly reacted to a
dispute with a prisoner over an overflowing toilet by body slamming him onto a
concrete floor and punching him in the face was entitled to qualified immunity
from an Eighth Amendment claim when the prisoner failed to show that he
suffered more than "de minimus" (minimal) physical injuries as a
result of the incident. Wilson v. Taylor, No. 03-51107, 100 Fed. Appx. 282 (5th
Cir. 2004). [N/R]
The amount of force used by a correctional
officers during a fight with a prisoner, and the level of injuries sustained by
the prisoner were insufficient to show a violation of the Eighth Amendment
prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Officers threw three punches and
made two shoves, and the prisoner only suffered a broken facial pimple, a cut
and swollen area on his cheekbone, and a small laceration on the bridge of his
nose. Additionally, the prisoner was subsequently charged with assault of the
two correctional officers during the incident. Thomas v. Ferguson, No. CIV.A.
02-3016, 361 F. Supp. 2d 435 (D.N.J. 2004). [N/R]
Jail officers were entitled to qualified immunity
in lawsuit claiming that they failed to protect prisoner from assault by other
inmates, in the absence of any allegation that they disregarded any known risk
of harm. General allegations that the facility was overcrowded were
insufficient to show deliberate indifference and, at most, indicated
negligence, which could not be the basis for a constitutional claim. Crow v.
Montgomery, No. 03-3859, 403 F.3d 598 (8th Cir. 2005). [2005 JB Jun]
County could not be held liable for the alleged
actions of a correctional officer in "orchestrating" an attack on a
detainee which was unauthorized and not motivated by a purpose of serving the
employer. Officer was therefore not entitled to indemnification under Illinois
law for $400,000 jury verdict against him. Copeland v. County of Macon, 2005
U.S. App. Lexis 6074 (7th Cir.). [2005 JB Jun]
State prison officials were not liable for
failure to protect a prisoner against an attack by another inmate, despite
knowledge of past confrontations between the two, when the attacked prisoner
failed to report assailant's alleged recent statements about him. Defendant
officials had no reason to anticipate this particular assault. Hewes v.
Magnusson, No. CIV.03-106, 350 F. Supp. 2d 222 (D. Me. 2004).[N/R]
White detainee's assertions that prison guards improperly
failed to protect him against an assault by a black prisoner with a known
propensity for attacking whites by allowing him unsupervised access to a
dayroom occupied by him were sufficient to state federal civil rights claims.
Trial court improperly dismissed detainee's lawsuit. Brown v. Budz, No.
03-1997, 2005 U.S.App. Lexis 2646 (7th Cir. 2005) [2005 JB Apr]
Conditions at Georgia county jail failed to
create a substantial risk of serious harm necessary to show a violation of
constitutional rights in the failure to protect a prisoner from attack by other
inmates who thought he had taken money from one of them. Allowing inmates to
possess money for commissary purchases, while perhaps not the "best
practice," was not a violation of the constitution. Purcell v. Toombs
County, No. 02-11994, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 3221 (11th Cir. 2005). [2005
JB Apr]
Massachusetts prisoner failed to show that the
county sheriff, in his individual capacity, committed any acts or omissions
that could be said to constitute either reckless or callous indifference to the
risk that he would be attacked by another prisoner. Further, county sheriff, in
his official capacity, was a state employee following the abolition of the
county government, so that official capacity federal civil rights claims for
damages could not be pursued against him. Broner v. Flynn, No. CIV.A. 01-40027,
311 F. Supp. 2d 227 (D. Mass. 2004). [N/R]
Deputy who allegedly failed to go investigate
after prisoner pushed an "emergency" button in his cell was not
entitled to qualified immunity in prisoner's lawsuit claiming that this
inaction allowed his cellmate, then holding a razor to his neck, to proceed
with a physical assault and anal rape. Velez v. Johnson, No. 04-1943, 2005 U.S.
App. Lexis 588 (7th Cir.). [2005 JB Mar]
Disputed issues of fact as to whether
correctional officer intervened when a razor blade-wielding gang member inmate
attacked the plaintiff prisoner in the facility's law library, or instead fled
the library when the fight broke out precluded summary judgment for the
officer. Trial court also finds that there were disputed factual issues as to
whether correctional officers should have been aware of "tension"
between the attacked prisoner and incarcerated gang members, and therefore
should have taken additional steps to protect him against the attack. Smith v.
County of Albany, 784 N.Y.S.2d 709 (A.D. 3d Dept. 2004). [N/R]
Placing prisoner with a known violent history in
an "open-spaced" dormitory, and allowing him to remain there after a
conviction for possessing a weapon while incarcerated was sufficient to uphold
a jury's award of damages against responsible prison employees after the
prisoner brutally attacked another prisoner, crushing his left testicle.
Federal appeals court reinstates jury award of $100,000 in damages. Pierson v.
Hartley, No. 02-3491, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 25775 (7th Cir. 2004). [2005 JB Feb]
Prisoner showed an adequate connection between
the alleged attack on him by other inmates and a D.C. alleged policy or custom
of transferring prisoners without informing the transferee correctional
facility about active orders requiring their separation from other prisoners to
state a federal civil rights claim against the District. Ashford v. District of
Columbia, No. Civ.A. 02-1955, 306 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 2004). [N/R]
Jail personnel were not liable for placing a
pregnant female detainee in a visiting room with a male prisoner and his
attorney when they had no knowledge of a no-contact court order or the male
prisoner's prior alleged conspiracy to murder her. Whiting v. Marathon County
Sheriff's Department, No. 03-3515, 382 F.3d 700 (7th Cir. 2004). [2005 JB Jan]
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]
Plaintiff who obtained injunctive and declaratory
relief in class action lawsuit claiming that correctional officials failed to
adequately train and supervise its employees, thereby subjecting prisoners to a
risk of assaults by other inmates, but who received no monetary relief was
entitled to an award of $427,158.73 in attorneys' fees and expenses. The
maximum hourly rate for the attorneys' in the case was limited, under the
Prison Litigation Reform Act, 1997e(d)(3) to 150% of the hourly fee for
appointed lawyers paid in the federal circuit where the lawsuit was brought,
rather than 150% of the rate established by the Judicial Conference. This
resulted in a maximum hourly fee of $135 per hour, rather than $169.50 per hour,
in this case. Court also rules that plaintiff's attorney was entitled to a fee
multiplier in the case because of "excellent work" enabling case to
be resolved through summary judgment and settlement, avoiding a costly trial
and saving defendant officials higher attorneys' fees and costs. Skinner v.
Uphoff, 324 F. Supp. 2d 1278 (D. Wyoming. 2004). [N/R]
Prison warden and other officials were not
entitled to qualified immunity in lawsuit by three prisoners claiming that they
exhibited deliberate indifference to attacks on them and other actions by
HIV-positive prisoner who threatened to "infect them," urinated on
the floor and placed fecal matter there when assigned to "clean" the
restrooms. Plaintiffs also claimed that they faced unlawful retaliation by some
of the defendants after filing their lawsuit. Nei v. Dooley, #03-3261, 372 F.3d
1003 (8th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Oct]
Correctional officer was entitled to qualified
immunity from liability in a lawsuit against him for failing to intervene, and
instead running to get help, when a prisoner he was escorting back to his cell
was stabbed to death by another prisoner. There was no clearly established
constitutional right to have the officer immediately intervene rather than
summoning assistance. Rios v. Scott, No. 03-41088, 100 Fed. Appx. 270 (5th Cir.
2004). [N/R]
Prisoner was properly awarded $820,000 in damages
against county for failure to protect him from physical assault by another
inmate who he had helped imprison by cooperating in law enforcement narcotics
investigation. Federal appeals court rejects argument that damages were
excessive, and upholds trial court's reduction of jury's prior award of
$1,610,000. Rangolan v. County of Nassau, #03-7367, 370 F.3d 239 (2nd Cir.
2004). [2004 JB Sep]
Trial court improperly dismissed prisoner's
lawsuit concerning prison officials' alleged failure to protect him from
another inmate on the basis of failure to exhaust available administrative
remedies without considering prisoner's claim that prison officials prevented
him from exhausting his administrative remedies by beating him, threatening
him, denying him grievance forms and writing implements, and transferring him
to another facility. Trial court could also have considered his claim that complaints
to the FBI constituted an informal exhaustion of his administrative grievances
sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42
U.S.C. Sec. 1997e. Failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an
"affirmative defense," and is subject to "estoppel" barring
the defense if prison officials actually did prevent a prisoner from pursuing a
grievance. Ziemba v. Wezner, No. 02-0340, 366 F.3d 161 (2nd Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Correctional officers were entitled to
qualified immunity for failing to protect prisoner from an attack by his
cellmate when there was no evidence that anyone, including the plaintiff
himself, believed that he was in danger from the cellmate until the attack
actually occurred. Berry v. Sherman, No. 03-2828, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 7927
(8th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Jun]
Federal prison officials were not liable for the
death of a prisoner beaten to death by two fellow inmates with a fire
extinguisher. Their decisions regarding where to house the prisoner and how to
protect his safety fell within the "discretionary function" exception
to the Federal Tort Claims Act, as those decisions were discretionary and
"grounded in policy," since there was no mandatory course of conduct
for officials to follow. Montez v. U.S., No. 02-6303, 359 F.3d 392 (6th Cir.
2004). [2004 JB Jun]
Mere fact that two inmates were of different
races was insufficient to put corrections officer on notice that white inmate
posed a threat of physical assault to black inmate in exercise yard. Officer,
who had no knowledge of white inmate's alleged membership in racist gang or
that anyone had threatened the black inmate, could not be held liable for
alleged failure to protect him against assault. Jones v. Bernard, #02-1349, 77
Fed. Appx. 467 (10th Cir. 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]
Federal appeals court reinstates claim against
prison warden for alleged failure to protect transsexual inmate from an attack
by a maximum-security prisoner. Plaintiff prisoner raised a sufficient factual
issue as to whether the warden had knowledge of the possible risk to her safety
because of her vulnerability and her attacker's status as a
"predator," but failed to act to protect her. Greene v. Bowles, No.
02-3626, 361 F.3d 290 (6th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB May]
Correctional officers' alleged failure to remove
prisoner from area where fellow inmates were attempting to gain access to him
to assault him, if true, constituted deliberate indifference to his safety, so
that officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. Odom v. South Carolina Dept.
of Corrections, #02-7086, 349 F.3d 765 (4th Cir. 2003). [2004 JB Apr]
State, county, and individual officials were
entitled to immunity for criminal actions of one mentally ill offender in
assaulting another in a conditional release program. State statute provides
absolute immunity for any liability for the criminal actions committed by
persons in the Forensic Conditional Release Program, including persons on
parole or judicial commitment status. Cal. Penal Code Sec. 1618. Ley v. State,
8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 642 (Cal. App. 2nd Dist. 2004). [N/R]
Detainee who was in the process of bonding out of
a county jail when he was attacked by other inmates and injured was still an
"inmate" for purposes of a Mississippi state statute providing
governmental entities and employees immunity under state law for injury claims
by prisoners. State Supreme Court also rules that an exception to governmental
immunity for wanton or reckless disregard by a governmental employee does not
apply to claims by prisoners. Love v. Sunflower County Sheriff's Department,
No. 2002-CA-01724-SCT, 860 So. 2d 797 (Miss. 2003). [2004 JB Mar]
Correctional officers could not be held liable
for prisoner's injuries from stabbing by his cellmate. Their awareness of
cellmate's plans to "fake a hanging" and statement that the prisoner
would help him "one way or another" did not provide them with
specific knowledge of a particular threat of assault as required to show
deliberate indifference to a serious risk of harm. Carter v. Galloway, No. 02-16635,
352 F.3d 1346 (11th Cir. 2003). [2004 JB Mar]
Prisoner could not succeed in suing correctional
officials for allegedly failing to protect him from assault by another inmate
who he was convicted of murdering. Appeals court rules that any injuries
plaintiff prisoner suffered, including his conviction and subsequent placement
in solitary confinement, were the result of his "affirmative act of
murder," rather than any failure on the part of the defendants.
Encarnacion v. Dann, #02-0312, 80 Fed. Appx. 140 (2nd Cir. 2003). [2004 JB Mar]
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]
Corrections employee and prison doctors were not
entitled to qualified immunity brought by prisoner who suffered a fractured
skull as a result of an attack by his co-defendant in a criminal trial.
Prisoner claimed that no action was taken to transfer him or separate him from
his attacker, despite knowledge of the hostility between them. Inadequate
medical care claims also asserted, based on alleged transfer to facility not
equipped to address prisoner's medical needs, and three-week delay of doctor at
new facility in examining prisoner. Scicluna v. Wells, No. 02-2117, 345 F.3d
441 (6th Cir. 2003).[2004 JB Feb]
Lawsuit by New York prisoners against over fifty
correctional employees concerning more than forty separate and unrelated
incidents at fourteen different prisons over a period of almost ten years was
properly dismissed, federal appeals court rules. Complaint failed to establish
the existence of a policy or practice existing throughout the state
correctional system or even within one prison which caused a violation of
Eighth Amendment rights. Claims included alleged assaults by correctional
officers, failure to protect inmates from assaults by other prisoners, and
failure to provide medical care for injuries. Additionally, none of the
plaintiffs stated that they had exhausted available administrative remedies
prior to filing suit. Webb v. Goord, #02-0097(L), 340 F.3d 105 (2nd Cir.
2003). [2003 JB Nov]
New York state commissioner of correctional
department, in merely sending prisoner a response letter advising him to
address his safety concerns with local officials and his counselor, was not
sufficiently involved in alleged failure to protect prisoner against assault by
other inmates to be held liable. Plaintiff prisoner also did not exhaust
available administrative remedies before filing lawsuit claiming that
correctional officer identified him to other prisoners as a "snitch"
and then failed to protect him against assault. Burgess v. Morse, 259 F. Supp.
2d 240 (W.D.N.Y. 2003). [N/R]
Court's order requiring prisoner to be kept in a
particular facility to allow him to effectively pursue pending litigation did
not entitle prison officials to absolute immunity from the inmate's claim of
deliberate indifference to his confinement there which allegedly resulted in
his being attacked by a cellmate for being a "snitch." Hamilton v.
Leavy, #01-3062, 322 F.3d 776 (3rd Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Oct]
Guards and operator of private facility with custody
over only federal prisoners could not be sued under federal civil rights
statute, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, since they did not act under "color of state
law," but the guards at the facility were acting under color of federal
law and therefore could still be sued directly for alleged violations of
prisoner's constitutional rights in leaving him unprotected against assault by
another prisoner. Such a claim could not, however, be asserted against the
corporation which operated the prison. Sarro v. Cornell Corrections, Inc., 248
F. Supp. 2d 52 (D.R.I. 2003). [2003 JB Oct]
Jury awards estate of inmate murdered by another
prisoner $2,641 in damages on claim that a prison employee showed deliberate
indifference to the risk of harm after the inmate had taken action which
resulted in his assailant getting suspended from a prison print shop work
assignment for improperly using the telephone. Flint v. Kentucky Department of
Corrections, No. 96-CV-0591 (E.D. Ky. July 10 2003), reported in The National
Law Journal, p. 14 (Aug. 11, 2003). [N/R]
Even if correctional officer was "grossly
negligent" in leaving prison dorm without obtaining a replacement monitor,
this was insufficient to impose civil rights liability for subsequent assault
on prisoner by alleged gang member housed in the same unit, as it did not show
"deliberate indifference" to a known risk of harm. Miller v. McBride,
No. 02-1147, 64 Fed. Appx. 558 (7th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Jail guards on duty at the time that a inmate
with a history of violent outbursts and mental instability killed a pretrial
detainee were not entitled to qualified immunity from liability for failure to
protect the decedent when they allegedly knew that the assailant posed a
serious risk of harm to fellow prisoners. Supervisory personnel, however, had
no knowledge that guards were failing to monitor assailant, as required.
Cottone v. Jenne, #02-14529, 326 F.3d 1352 (11th Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Sep]
Plaintiff prisoner who sued correctional
employees for alleged failure to protect him from stabbing by another prisoner
could not object on appeal to the admission of evidence that he was labeled a
"homosexual predator" on correctional records when his own lawyer
made a "strategic decision" to allow the jury to learn that in order
to lessen any "negative impact the information may have had if left
unexplained." Gibbs v. Bolden, No. 02-1560, 65 Fed. Appx. 519 (6th Cir.
2003). [N/R]
Prison employees were not liable for alleged
failure to protect inmate from assaults by prison gang members when they each
responded to his complaints about threats and assaults by making reports to
supervising officers, conducting investigations, or informing appropriate officials
so that the alleged problem could be investigated. Thompson v. Eason, 258 F.
Supp. 2d 508 (N.D. Tex. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner was barred from pursuing federal civil
rights claim that he was placed in danger when prison officials identified him to
the general prison population as a gang member when he failed to exhaust
available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform
Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). Labounty v. Johnson, 253 F. Supp. 2d 496
(W.D.N.Y. 2003). [N/R]
Prison investigative agents were not liable for
injuries to prisoner placed in a cell with gang members who allegedly
physically assaulted him because of his Cuban nationality. Plaintiff prisoner
failed to show that the defendants were subjectively aware of the alleged risk
to him resulting from placing him in the cell, thus barring a finding of
deliberate indifference to a known risk of harm. Verdecia v. Adams, No.
01-1130, 327 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Aug]
Prisoner assaulted by gang members, and attacked
yet again when he was moved to a new housing assignment after identifying his
assailants, did not show that jail officials were responsible for the second
assault. Prisoner failed to provide evidence of his claim that the jail had
policies of segregating prisoners by race, and putting predominantly black
prisoners in "gladiator cell blocks" in which staff members failed to
intervene when fighting erupted. Palmer v. Marion County, #02-2267, 327 F.3d
588 (7th Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Aug]
Prison inspector was not deliberately indifferent
to alleged threats of assault by other inmates against prisoner, when he was
not involved in investigating these complaints, but rather the prisoner's claim
that his food was being poisoned by prison staff putting human waste in his
food. Inspector had no knowledge of alleged assault threats to prisoner prior
to actual attacks on him in the dining hall. (Prisoner's claims regarding
purported food poisoning were concluded to be unfounded and it was recommended
that he be sent for psychological intervention). Webster v. Crowley, #02-1998,
62 Fed. Appx. 598 (6th Cir. 2003).[N/R]
California Supreme Court overturns $175,006 award
to man beaten by another detainee in city jail while confined there for public
intoxication. Plaintiff, arrested for public intoxication, was a
"prisoner" while confined, entitling city to governmental immunity,
despite subsequent decision not to pursue charges. Teter v. City of Newport
Beach, No. S106553, 66 P.3d 1225 (Cal. 2003). [2003 JB Jul]
No liability for federal prison officials for
death of prisoner stabbed by another inmate following a fight over a chess
game. Having one officer supervising 219 inmates with violent propensities
during a facility-wide move did not, by itself, establish either a violation of
civil rights or negligence under the Federal Tort Claims Act, in the absence of
any expert testimony or other evidence that this caused the assault. Officer
did not act with deliberate indifference to assaulted prisoner's serious
medical needs when he summoned help as soon as he learned of the stabbing.
Robinson v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 244 F. Supp. 2d 57 (N.D.N.Y. 2003). [2003
JB Jul]
Prison officials were not liable for a
"vicious beating" a prisoner suffered from an inmate in an adjoining
cell who had previously threatened him. Defendant officials were never made
aware of that threat, and the assailant's prior attack on another inmate had
been against someone scheduled to testify against him, which was not the case in
the immediate incident. Taylor v. Little, No. 01-5651, 58 Fed. Appx. 66 (6th
Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner could not pursue a federal civil rights claim
against correctional officials for failure to protect him against other inmates
who allegedly threatened him with harm because his crime involved a child when
he could not show that he suffered physical harm as a result of the alleged
failure to protect. A provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 1997e(e) prohibits recovery for mental or emotional injury suffered in
custody without a prior showing of physical injury. Wolff v. Hood, 242 F. Supp.
2d 811 (D. Ore. 2002). [N/R]
Prisoner's lawsuit against prison officials for
failing to protect him against assault by other inmates should not have been
dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies despite the fact that
he never filed an administrative grievance, when prisoner was told by officials
that he had to "wait" until their "investigation" was finished,
and he was not informed, months later, that it had ended. Brown v. Croak, No.
01-1207, 312 F.3d 109 (3rd Cir. 2002). [2003 JB May]
Prisoner did not provide evidence that
supervisors of prison guards had any awareness of a particular risk of harm to
him from assault by other inmates. While some of his injuries and
"predicaments" were documented in prison logbooks, there was no
indication that the supervisors were obligated to review these logbooks, or
that it was their actual practice to do so. One supervisor's transfer of the
plaintiff prisoner to a different cell tier instead of to protective custody
did not constitute "deliberate indifference" to the risk of harm,
since the prisoner could not show that the supervisor's belief that a different
tier would be more secure was unreasonable when plaintiff prisoner did not know
the identity of the other inmates who attacked him, what their motive was, or
any possible gang affiliation. Boyce v. Moore, #01-2809, 314 F.3d 884 (7th Cir.
2002). [N/R]
Past prison officials failed to protect inmates
from violence by other prisoners, creating an excessive risk to prisoner
safety, as demonstrated by evidence of inadequate supervision and training of
subordinates in how to investigate and abate dangerous conditions, and failing to
discipline "malfeasant" employees. While successor officials
instituted new policies, this did not make the prisoners' claims for injunctive
and declaratory relief moot. Skinner v. Uphoff, 234 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (D.
Wyoming 2002). [2003 JB Apr]
Plaintiff prisoner did not show that officials
were deliberately indifferent to his safety, since they did place him in
administrative segregation in order to protect him from possible assault by
other prisoners seeking to harm him because he had been incarcerated for sexual
offenses. Additionally, the attack on him was carried out by a prisoner who was
under escort and in restraints at the time, also indicating an effort to
protect the plaintiff's safety. Carter v. Padilla, No. 02-2196, 54 Fed. Appx.
292 (10th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
County jail's alleged policy of failing to
classify and segregate violent and nonviolent detainees was not the cause of an
assault by one prisoner on another in an adjoining cell. Injured prisoner
himself requested his particular cell assignment because of its view, and never
requested being placed in protective custody or moved. Additionally, the attack
occurred when he voluntarily followed the assailant into his cell. Burrell v.
Hampshire County, #02-1504, 307 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002). [2003 JB Feb.]
Prisoner failed to show that his injury from
assault by another prisoner was caused by the facility's cell assignment policy
of allowing inmates to choose their own cellmates. Prisoner had previously
shared his cell with his alleged attacker without prior incident and did not
inform correctional employees that he had any dispute with cellmate or feared
any harm from him. Washington v. LaPorte County Sheriff's Department, #01-3812,
306 F.3d 515 (7th Cir. 2002). [2003 JB Jan]
Prisoner stabbed 16 times by fellow inmates and
left paralyzed from the waist down receives $300,000 settlement of lawsuit
claiming that jail personnel failed to implement policies requiring that he be
separated from rival gang members and ignored his requests for protection.
Mayoral v. Sheahan, No. 96C7249, U.S. Dist. Ct., Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, reported in The Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, p. 3 (November 8,
2002). [N/R]
Associate warden and correctional officers were
entitled to qualified immunity in lawsuit over prisoner's alleged murder by his
cellmate when available information did not make it so clear that cellmate
would harm him that no reasonable officer would have allowed them to be celled
together. Both prisoners had previously been celled together without incident
and had requested to be celled together again. Estate of Ford v.
Ramirez-Palmer, #01-15769, 301 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002).
[2002 JB Dec]
Prisoner's claim that corrections officer
returned a weapon (a laundry bag filled with rocks and cement) to his
fellow-inmate assailant and thereby facilitated a second assault on him by a
fellow inmate adequately stated a claim for deliberate indifference by the
officer to the risk of such a second attack. Peate v. McCann, #00-2937, 294
F.3d 879 (7th Cir. 2002). [2002 JB Nov]
Jury properly awarded $22,500 to ex-gang member
slashed with razor by another prisoner. Evidence was sufficient for jury to
conclude that prison employees acted with deliberate indifference to safety of
the prisoner, who had previously complained about officers at the facility, and
allegedly left the door to the assailant's cell open, facilitating the assault.
Cantu v. Jones, #01-50905, 293 F.3d 839 (5th Cir. 2002). [2002 JB Nov]
A prisoner's assertion that a prison official
deliberately exposed him to the risk of assault by other inmates by telling
another inmate that the prisoner had tried to "set him up" for
disciplinary charges by planting a knife in his cell stated a claim for violation
of the Eighth Amendment right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment.
Johnson-Bey v. Ray, #01-3382, 38 Fed. Appx. 507 (10th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Prisoner was entitled to proceed on his claim
that correctional officers "set him up" for an assault by another inmate,
deliberately removing obstacles to the violent attack. Case v. Ahitow,
#01-3564, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 17277 (7th Cir.). [2002 JB Oct]
Prison employees were not deliberately indifferent to a
risk of harm to a prisoner assaulted by another inmate after he was allowed to
"wander about" unescorted in violation of prison policy. Employees'
actions were, at most, negligent, but they had no basis to foresee that the
assailant posed a particular risk to the injured prisoner. Benner v. McAdory,
#01-2140, 34 Fed. Appx. 483 (7th Cir. 2002). [2002 JB Aug]
Prison officials did not show deliberate indifference
to prisoner's safety by placing him in the general population days before his
parole date, where he was stabbed, since they were not aware of any enhanced
risk, and were therefore entitled to qualified immunity. O'Connor v. Terhune,
#01-15517, 32 Fed Appx. 314 (9th Cir. 2002). [2002 JB Jul]
Federal prison psychologist was entitled to
qualified immunity for failing to take any action to prevent violent attack
after patient prisoner reported threats. Psychologist reasonably believed that
prisoner, who was paranoid, and who was being treated for symptoms of psychosis
and depression, was not in any real danger. Swan v. U.S., #01-15847, 32 Fed.
Appx. 315 (9th Cir. 2002). [2002 JB Jul]
Prisoner did not show that correctional officer
was deliberately indifferent to the risk of an assault by another inmate on the
prisoner by including his name as the informant in a misconduct report
introduced at a hearing against his cellmate. Cellmate did not have a violent
history, and there was no evidence the officer was aware of a significant risk
that he would attack the prisoner. Williams v. McGinnis, 192 F. Supp. 22d 757
(E.D. Mich. 2002).[N/R]
Prisoner who claimed that correctional officials
had subjected him to a substantial risk of being attacked and sodomized by
other prisoners by placing him in a particular prison unit without adequate
security and protection had to exhaust available administrative remedies before
bringing suit in federal court. Exhaustion requirement was intended to curtail
frivolous prisoner litigation, and by 1995, prisoners filed more than 25% of
the cases filed in federal trial courts, which Congress concluded included more
frivolous lawsuits than suits pursued by "any other class of
persons." Torres v. Alvarado, 143 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D. Puerto Rico 2001).
[N/R]
Sheriff was not
deliberately indifferent to risk of harm to detainees, although detainees were
exposed to an objectively substantial risk of harm, specifically of assault and
injury by other inmates, in overcrowded jail. While facility was overcrowded,
the sheriff took "immediate and reasonable measures" to attempt to
alleviate problems associated with overcrowding. Further sheriff was not
present at the jail on the evening of the assault, and did not direct that the
two plaintiff detainees be housed in the area of the jail where the assault
occurred. Hedrick v. Roberts, 183 F. Supp. 2d 814 (E.D. Va. 2001). [N/R]
Officer was not liable for failing to
prevent a fatal attack on an inmate by other prisoners. Earlier
"argument" between the decedent and one of his alleged later
attackers over the location of an Arkansas town was carried on in a friendly
manner and there was nothing from which the officer could have anticipated the
later murderous assault. Tucker v. Evans, #01-1778, 276 F.3d 999 (8th Cir.
2002). [2002 JB Apr]
Sheriff was not entitled to qualified immunity
from lawsuit claiming that jail conditions were bad enough that they enhanced
the possibility of prisoner-on-prisoner assault. Conditions alleged included
overcrowding, understaffing, and failure to segregate pretrial detainees from
convicted criminals, violent prisoners from nonviolent ones, juveniles from
adults or prisoners with mental disorders from the general population. Marsh v.
Butler County, Ala., #99-12813, 268 F.3d 1014 (11th Cir. 2001). [2002
JB Apr]
Prison Litigation Reform Act's provisions
requiring the exhaustion of available administrative remedies before proceeding
with a lawsuit did not apply to prisoner's New York state law negligence claim
based on the alleged failure of correctional officers and prison officials to
protect him from assaults by other inmates. Nunez v. Goord, 172 F. Supp. 2d 417
(S.D.N.Y. 2001). [N/R]
Correctional officers were not entitled to qualified
immunity in lawsuit alleging that they watched television all evening while on
duty and, as a result, failed to break up a fight between two cellmates which
resulted in the death of one of them. Two cellmates allegedly belonged to rival
gangs, but Commissioner of Corrections and warden lacked sufficient knowledge
of the two gangs and their purported rivalry to be liable for failing to change
a practice of allowing members of the two gangs to be housed in the same cell.
Rodriguez v. Connecticut, 169 F. Supp. 2d 39 (D. Conn. 2001). [2002 JB Mar]
Correctional officials and employees who
allegedly had knowledge of prisoners' death threats against inmate subsequently
murdered at his prison printshop workplace yet took no protective actions were
not entitled to qualified immunity from liability. Flint v. Kentucky Department
of Corrections, No. 00-5129, 270 F.3d 340 (6th Cir. 2001). [2002 JB Mar]
Prisoner's allegations of negligence against
sheriff, county, and detention guard were insufficient to support a federal
civil rights lawsuit against them for failure to prevent an assault by another
inmate which resulted in a broken jaw. Further, federal court would not hear
state law negligence claim, since an identical claim had already been resolved
in state court. Lawson v. Toney, 169 F. Supp. 2d 456 (M.D.N.C. 2001). [N/R]
Prison psychologist had no legal duty under California
law to disclose prisoner's confidential communications that indicated a
possible risk of harm to plaintiff prisoner from other inmates. Swan v. United
States, No. C 99-5401, 159 F. Supp. 2d 1174 (N.D. Cal. 2001). [2002 JB Feb]
299:171 New York high court rules that state
statute did not preclude a county from seeking a jury instruction that damages
be apportioned between itself and the actual assailant in a lawsuit brought by
a prisoner against the county for alleged negligence in failing to prevent
another prisoner's attack on him. Rangolan v. County of Nassau, 96 N.Y.2d 42,
725 N.Y.S.2d 611, 749 N.E.2d 178 (2001).
299:170 Former correctional officer serving a
sentence for murder failed to show that the state of New York was negligent in
failing to protect him against an in- cell assault by two other prisoners;
plaintiff himself chose to be housed in the general prison population after
three years in segregated housing. Smith v. State of New York, 728 N.Y.S.2d 530
(A.D. 2001).
299:170 Prisoner could recover damages for negligent
supervision by correctional officer during touch football game during which he
was allegedly assaulted by another prisoner. Schindler v. State of New York,
Claim No. 96692 (N.Y. Ct. of Claims, Rochester, N.Y.), reported in The National
Law Journal, p. B4 (Aug. 13, 2001).
298:153 Supervisor who ordered cell isolation of
inmate who previously assaulted male prisoner dressed as a woman was not liable
for subsequent assault; supervisor was not deliberately indifferent to risk of
future assaults and could not have reasonably foreseen that another officer
would let the assailant out of his cell after the isolation was ordered. Doe v.
Bowles, No. 00-3159, 254 F.3d 617 (6th Cir. 2001).
298:153 Appeals court overturns award of $725,000
to prisoner allegedly beaten by other inmates because he was arrested on rape
charges; trial court abused its discretion by failing to define for jury the
term "housing area," which was essential to its determination whether
a sufficient amount of supervision was provided where the inmate was housed.
Arnold v. County of Nassau, #00-7248, 252 F.3d 600 (2nd Cir. 2001).
297:136 Supervisory corrections officer could not
be held liable for death of inmate stabbed by five fellow inmates; no direct
connection was shown between the death and any alleged conduct of the officer.
Reyes Vargas v. Rosello Gonzalez, 135 F. Supp. 2d 305 (D. Puerto Rico 2001).
295:104 N.Y. prisoner awarded $392,000 in failure
to protect lawsuit; jury finds correctional sergeant was deliberately
indifferent to the risk of a second assault by returning prisoner to his cell
without taking protective measures after first attack. Hutchinson v. McCabee,
#95- Civ. 5449, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5205 (S.D.N.Y.).
295:103 African-American prisoner stated a
failure to protect claim based on his placement in a racially integrated
exercise yard with Mexican-American inmates who attacked him twice; prison
officials and guards allegedly knew that this created a "serious
risk" of harm but were indifferent to it. Robinson v. Prunty, #00-55922,
249 F.3d 862 (9th Cir. 2001).
295:100 Correctional officers' alleged statements
labeling a prisoner a "rat" and an "informant," based on
his complaints that an officer was allegedly seeking to incite another prisoner
to attack him in retaliation for successfully appealing a disciplinary order
did not suffice to constitute unconstitutional retaliation for his exercise of
his First Amendment rights. Dawes v. Walker, No. 99-252, 239 F.3d 489 (2nd Cir.
2001).
294:89 Failure of jail to segregate inmates by
which gang they belonged to could not be a basis for holding supervisory
officials liable for assault on former gang member attacked by rival gang
members; appeals court reinstates claims, however, against two correctional
officers who allegedly ignored prisoner's request to be placed in protective
custody. Mayoral v. Sheahan, No. 00-1034, 245 F.3d 934 (7th Cir. 2001).
291:39 Correctional officer's alleged statement
to other prisoners that a particular inmate was a "snitch" could
constitute an Eighth Amendment violation even without proof that a physical
assault or particular threats followed the statement. Benefield v. McDowall,
No. 00-1097, 241 F.3d (10th Cir. 2001).
292:60 N.Y. prisoners could not pursue federal
civil rights claim over alleged "conspiracy" of failure to protect
them from assault by officers or inmates in 13 different prisons over a ten
year period when the incidents were unrelated and no "conspiracy" was
shown. Webb v. Goord, 197 F.R.D. 98 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
294:88 Correctional officer was not deliberately
indifferent to a prisoner's risk of injury from assault by another inmate when
she took affirmative steps to prevent the assault, including stepping between
the two prisoners and thereby exposing herself to danger. Delph v. Trent, 86 F.
Supp. 2d 572 (E.D. Va. 2000).
291:40 Jail officials were not liable for alleged
attack on a pre-trial detainee by his cellmate as he slept; evidence did not
show deliberate indifference to a serious risk of harm and cellmate, the
evidence showed, was also a pre-trial detainee, not a sentenced prisoner as the
plaintiff argued. Burciaga v. County of Lenawee, 123 F. Supp. 2d 1076 (E.D.
Mich. 2000).
291:39 Prisoner could pursue claim against deputy
for failure to protect him from assault by another prisoner when other inmates
shouted threats against him as he was being taken to his cell assignment
because of the highly publicized rape charges against him and deputy told him
that he would have to "face the music." Weiss v. Cooley, No. 98-2880,
230 F.3d 1027 (7th Cir. 2000).
290:22 Warden was entitled to qualified immunity
from liability for prisoner's murder of another inmate some 16 months after he
wrote a note threatening to commit "mass murder" in the prison;
warden only released prisoner from segregation into the general population
after an investigation concluded that the threats were not serious Curry v.
Crist, No. 99-4184, 226 F.3d 974 (8th Cir. 2000).
[N/R] Former inmates stated a claim against the
sheriff and county for deliberate indifference to the risk of assault against
them by other prisoners at county jail by alleging that armed inmates were
allowed to roam freely. Marsh v. Butler County, Alabama, No. 99-12813, 225 F.3d
1243 (11th Cir. 2000).
284:125 County liable for $40,000 for injuries to
prisoner in protective custody who was attacked by two gang member pre-trial
detainees in common recreation area; court rules that policy allowing prisoners
with different security levels to take recreation together was deliberate
indifference in light of knowledge of specific threats to plaintiff prisoner.
Miller v. Shelby County, Tenn., 93 F. Supp. 2d 892 (W.D. Tenn. 2000).
286:154 County was liable for attack by other
prisoners on man arrested for traffic offenses; sheriff had a policy of
confining all arrestees, including those with prior felony arrests and a
history of violence, together in one large cell, which amounted to deliberate
indifference to the risk of harm to prisoners such as the plaintiff; limits on
attorneys' fees in the Prison Litigation Reform Act did not apply in a suit by
a former prisoner. Janes v. Hernandez, Nos. 99- 50092 & 99-50141, 215 F.3d
541 (5th Cir. 2000).
287:170 Correctional officer's inadvertent
housing of prisoner in a dormitory with another inmate who he had informed on
was not deliberate indifference, but at most negligence; officer merely failed
to notice "remarks" section of prisoner's record, stating that the
two prisoners should not be housed together; further proceedings to follow on
state law negligence claims in which jury initially awarded $1.55 million in
damages. Rangolan v. County of Nassau, No. 99- 9343 & 99-9397, 217 F.3d 77
(2nd Cir. 2000).
287:171 Prison official with no personal
involvement could not be held liable for assault on prisoner who was in general
population despite prior attack on him; cell unit manager, however, to whom
prisoner allegedly voiced fears of further attack, was not entitled to
qualified immunity from liability. Pearson v. Vaughn, 102 F. Supp. 2d 282 (E.D.
Pa. 2000).
286:155 Prisoner who was assaulted by other
inmates did not show that any purported inadequate training and supervision of
jail personnel caused his injuries, but he did state a possible claim for
liability by the county sheriff by asserting that there was a policy of
understaffing the jail and failing to monitor inmates. Lopez v. LeMaster, No.
98- 6203, 172 F.3d 756 (10th Cir. 1999).
285:137 Correctional officer who demonstrated
that he was not assigned to work in the prisoner's division on the date that
another inmate attacked him in the shower and in his cell could not be held
personally responsible for failure to prevent the attack, since he had no
personal involvement in the incident. Brooks v. Shahan, 50 F. Supp. 2d 821
(N.D. Ill. 1999).
277:6 New York correctional officers were not
liable for failure to protect prisoner in his cell from having hot coffee
thrown at him when the attack was not reasonably foreseeable. Schittino v. New
York, 692 N.Y.S.2d 760 (A.D. 1999).
278:25 Prisoner stated a claim for violation of
his constitutional rights by asserting that officer told other inmates it was
"open season" on him, following which two or three prisoners attacked
him; plaintiff need not show that officer was present during assault. Snider v.
Dylag, #98- 2271, 188 F.3d 51 (2nd Cir. 1999).
280:53 Prisoner who was assaulted three times by
other inmates after assignment to a medium security housing unit when he stated
that he was a bisexual failed to show that county jail had a policy or custom
of assigning homosexual, bisexual or HIV-positive prisoners to medium-security
unit regardless of their violent propensities. Wayne v. Jarvis, No. 97-9152,
197 F.3d 1098 (11th Cir. 1999).
282:89 Correctional officers were not liable for
failure to protect prisoner from being hit in the head by another inmate with a
softball bat; there were no prior fights or threats between the two prisoners
or anything else that would lead them to anticipate such an attack; no evidence
showed deliberate indifference to subsequent medical needs and there was no
liability for alleged decision to parole prisoner to avoid additional medical
expenses. Randolph v. State of Maryland, 74 F. Supp. 2d 537 (D. Md. 1999).
284:118 Prisoner failed to show that his injuries
were the result of sodomy and assault by other inmates rather than a seizure as
the state contended. Zi Guang v. State of New York, 695 N.Y.S.2d 142 (A.D.
1999).
272:120 Inmate beaten in his cell by fellow
prisoners could not seek to impose liability for incident on county sheriff on
the basis of alleged broken cell lock when assault occurred at a time when his
cell door was properly open. Moore v. Sheahan, 38 F.Supp.2d 695 (N.D. Ill.
1999).
275:170 Texas prisoner was deemed to have
exhausted administrative remedies when he properly filed grievance, despite the
fact that prison system did not address some of his arguments in its response
to his grievance; lawsuit over alleged failure to protect him from assault by
another prisoner could proceed. Powe v. Ennis, #98-40234, 177 F.3d 393 (5th
Cir. 1999).
266:23 Warden was not liable for two inmates'
attack on prisoner with a razor blade; complaint did not allege that he actually
knew about missing razor blade or that absence of guards in area at the time
was anything more than a momentary condition. Steidl v. Gramley, #96-2073, 151
F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 1998).
267:41 Prisoner who asserted that he had been
assaulted twice in the past by the same prisoner stated sufficient claim for
"imminent danger" to invoke exception to Prison Litigation Reform Act
section prohibiting him from proceeding as pauper in federal civil rights
lawsuit because he had filed three previous frivolous lawsuits. Ashley v.
Dilworth, #97-4082, 147 F.3d 715 (8th Cir. 1998).
269:73 Federal appeals court reinstates lawsuit
against jailer who allegedly incited two prisoners to attack a third, arrested
on child molestation charges, by making statements that the third prisoner was
"sick" and "should have his ass beat"; trial court had
ruled defendant jailer was entitled to qualified immunity. Martinez v. Mathis,
#97- 8363, 159 F.3d 1360 (11th Cir. 1998).
270:89 Prison officials were not liable for one
prisoner's attack on another when they had no knowledge of an alleged prior
separation of the prisoners based on one inmate's threat to kill the other;
failure to protect against assault also did not rise to an Eighth Amendment
violation when injuries suffered during the attack were minimal and did not
require medical attention. Mabine v. Vaughn, 25 F.Supp.2d 587 (E.D. Pa. 1998).
270:90 Trial judge properly dismissed prisoner's
lawsuit alleging that he was placed in a cell with a dangerous inmate who
injured him, when lawsuit failed to name prison officials claimed to be
responsible; plaintiff prisoner was not entitled, under Prison Litigation
Reform Act, to notice or an opportunity to amend complaint before court
dismissed it. Lopez v. Smith, #97-16987, 160 F.3d 567 (9th Cir. 1998).
» Editor's Note: See also In re Prison Litigation
Reform Act, #97-01, 105 F.3d 1131 (6th Cir. 1997), holding that the PLRA
clearly overruled the "opportunity to amend or correct" rule for pro
se prisoner-litigants proceeding as paupers.
273:139 Officer was not liable for one inmate's
attack, with a knife, on another; officer promptly investigated anonymous note
predicting assault, and both prisoners denied "having a problem" with
each other; further, attack occurred in prison cafeteria, not in sleeping area
as note predicted. Jackson v. Everett, #97-2359, 140 F.3d 1149 (8th Cir. 1998).
274:151 Officers who escorted prisoner past
another inmate's cell twice, to and from showers, were entitled to qualified
immunity from liability from inmate throwing feces on both occasions; court
rules that no rational fact finder would conclude that the officers acted with
deliberate indifference on the second occasion, since they were also in the
"zone of danger," and were, in fact, themselves hit by the feces that
time. Ramsey v. Busch, 19 F.Supp.2d 73 (W.D.N.Y. 1998).
259:105 Correctional lieutenant not liable for
failure to protect prisoner from assault by gang members seeking "cell
rent" from him; evidence did not clearly show that lieutenant knew of
"cell rent" requests or of prisoner's request for protective custody.
Soto v. Johansen, 137 F.3d 980 (7th Cir. 1998).
261:137 Federal appeals court overturns $10,000
award to Mississippi prisoner in lawsuit alleging that Lieutenant was
negligent, under state law, for failing to take action to protect him after
other prisoner allegedly made threat to harm him; defendant's determination
that threat was not serious and did not require him to notify his supervisor
was discretionary decision, entitling him to qualified immunity. Newton v.
Black, 133 F.3d 301 (5th Cir. 1998).
261:136 Lawsuit alleging that correctional
officers themselves assaulted prisoner was not a lawsuit over "prison
conditions" requiring the exhaustion of available administrative remedies
under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, as lawsuit alleging officers failed to
protect prisoner from assault by other inmates would have been. Rodriguez v.
Berbary, 992 F.Supp. 592 (W.D.N.Y. 1998).
» Editor's Note: In the following cases,
prisoners were required to exhaust administrative remedies before pursuing
federal civil rights lawsuits: Tafoya v. Simmons, 116 F.3d 489 (Table) (10th
Cir. 1997) (inmate must exhaust administrative remedies regardless of whether
or not the administrative action is futile); Morgan v. Arizona Dept. of
Corrections, 976 F.Supp. 892 (D. Ariz. 1997) (inmate's claim that prisoner
officials threatened his safety and allowed other inmates to assault him
considered a prison condition and therefore must be grieved); Midgette v. Doe,
1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15918, 1997 WL 634280 (S.D.N.Y.) (inmate must exhaust his
administrative remedies in a failure to protect claim); Mitchell v. Gomez, 1997
WL 305273, No. C96-3939 FMS, (N.D. Cal. June 2, 1997) (inmate must exhaust
administrative remedies for a claim that prison guards incited other inmates to
assault him); McCoy v. Scott, 1997 WL 414185, No. C 97-0472 TEH(PR), (N.D. Cal.
July 15, 1997) (inmate must exhaust administrative remedies for a claim that
prison officials ignored his concerns about problems with his cellmate).
[Cross-reference: Prisoner Assault: By Inmate].
262:153 Prisoner beaten by cellmate did not show
that prison officials knew of a "substantial risk" of serious harm
posed by cellmate; new cellmate had no prior history of disputes with him and
indeed initially assured him that he would never harm or hit him. Oetken v.
Ault, 137 F.3d 613 (8th Cir. 1998).
254:24 Officer's alleged statement, in front of
other inmates, that prisoner was a "snitch," purportedly resulting in
other inmate cutting prisoner's throat, stated Eighth Amendment claim. Watson
v. McGinnis, 964 F.Supp. 127 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). Further proceeding: Evidence was
insufficient to support inmate's claim. Watson v. McGinnis, 981 F.Supp. 815
(S.D.N.Y. 1997). » Editor's Note: Other courts have also found that a
correctional officer's calling a prisoner a "snitch" in front of
other prisoners may constitute an Eighth Amendment violation. Northington v.
Jackson, 973 F.2d 1518 (10th Cir. 1992); Miller v. Leathers, 913 F.2d 1085 (4th
Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1109 (1991); Valandingham v. Bojorquez, 866
F.2d 1135 (9th Cir. 1989); Harmon v. Berry, 728 F.2d 1407 (11th Cir. 1984);
Hendrickson v. Emergency Med. Services, Civ. A. 95-4392, 1996 WL 472418 (E.D.
Pa. Aug. 20, 1996); Thomas v. District of Columbia, 887 F.Supp. 1 (D.D.C.
1995).
255:40 Nebraska prisoner awarded $198,145.38 for
failure to prevent attack by cellmate who had previously sent note to
correctional officials requesting transfer and containing threat against
prisoner. Sherrod v. State, 557 N.W.2d 634 (Neb. 1997).
257:73 Correctional officer who may have
inadvertently hit switch that opened cell door of prisoner, allowing prisoner
to enter tv day room and stab two other inmates, liable for $1,000 for failing
to protect inmates from attack. Newman v. Holmes, 122 F.2d 650 (8th Cir. 1997).
259:106 Mere fact that warden and correctional
Commissioner were supervisors of correctional officer and captain could not be
a basis for liability in prisoner's lawsuit claiming that officer's failure to
be at his post led to assault on him by other inmates; prisoner's claims
against warden and Commissioner were frivolous when no personal involvement in
incident or other basis for liability was stated. Wright v. Nunez, 950 F.Supp.
610 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).
261:138 Officer did not act with deliberate
indifference to risk of assault on prisoner when he violated
"super-maximum security" facilities rules concerning the handling of
prisoners; federal appeals court overturns $40,000 award to prisoner stabbed by
inmate who had stabbed him once before. Rich v. Bruce, 129 F.3d 336 (4th Cir.
1997).
[N/R] There was a genuine issue as to whether
prison officials acted with deliberate indifference to risk of harm to inmate
when recommendation that he be placed in protective custody was rejected;
appeals court reinstates lawsuit over his subsequent assault by another inmate.
Hamilton v. Leavy, 117 F.3d 743 (3rd Cir. 1997).
[N/R] Factual issues remained as to whether
officer opened door to prisoner's cell for inmates who attacked him. Fischl v.
Armitage, 128 F.3d 50 (2nd Cir. 1997).
[N/R] Arrestee's allegation that jailer
encouraged other prisoners to beat him stated federal civil rights claim, but
jailer was entitled to qualified immunity; law was not clearly established that
he violated constitution when he allegedly made the statement, in the presence
of other prisoners, that a particular inmate, arrested on child molestation
charges, was "sick" and "should have his ass beat."
Martinez v. Mathis, 970 F.Supp. 1047 (S.D.Ga. 1997).
253:8 Federal appeals court orders new trial in
suit where prisoner claimed that correctional officer ordered other inmate to
murder him because of his knowledge of officer and inmate's drug transactions;
trial court erred by refusal to admit into evidence plaintiff's prior
inconsistent statements concerning whether a knife was displayed. Arnold v.
Groose, 109 F.3d 1292 (8th Cir. 1997).
253:9 Unarmed officers were not required to
immediately intervene in incident where one prisoner was stabbing another with
a metal "shank"; officers may not be deliberately indifferent to risk
of harm to a prisoner, but they are not required to take "heroic
measures." Winfield v. Bass, 106 F.3d 525 (4th Cir. 1997).
241:8 Iowa prisoner allegedly assaulted by his
cellmate could not bring a claim for protection under the state's Domestic
Abuse Act; Iowa Supreme Court rules that Act was not intended to apply to
prison cell mates. Livingood v. Negrete, 547 N.W.2d 196 (Iowa 1996).
242:23 Louisiana Supreme Court overturns $75,000
award to inmate who was stabbed and had his throat cut by another prisoner who
allegedly obtained knife through work in prison hobby shop; absent any warning
of attack or history of animosity between the prisoners, officials had no
reason to anticipate the attack. Jackson, State Ex Rel., v. Phelps, 672 So.2d
665 (La. 1996).
244:54 Prison officials did not act unreasonably
in failing to take further steps to protect inmate from assault by another
prisoner when they received assurances from that prisoner that he would not
make good on his threats; defendants entitled to qualified immunity. Prater v.
Dahm, 89 F.3d 538 (8th Cir. 1996).
244:55 Co. could not be held liable for
employees' alleged failure to protect pretrial detainee from violence by other
prisoners in county jail, in absence of any showing that employees' actions
were based on county policy or custom. Grabowski v. Jackson Co. Public
Defenders Office, 79 F.3d 478 (5th Cir. 1996).
245:68 Members of Iowa county board of
supervisors were entitled to absolute legislative immunity from prisoner's
claim that their failure to provide more funding for jail or to inspect jail
resulted in his being assaulted by another prisoner. Teague v. Mosley, 552
N.W.2d 646 (Iowa 1996).
245:72 Prison officials were not
"deliberately indifferent" to safety of prison informant released
from protective custody into general population, when a classification hearing
did not result in any evidence of a specific serious threat to the prisoner;
officials were not liable for subsequent attack on prisoner. Davis v. Scott, 94
F.3d 444 (8th Cir. 1996).
245:73 Louisiana state correctional agency had no
duty to warn parish sheriff not to use parole violator prisoner for work
assignment outside of the jail; parish sheriff liable for prisoner's assault on
fellow prisoner Harper v. State, DPSC, 679 So.2d 1321 (La. 1996).
246:88 Federal appeals court upholds jury award
of $75,000 in damages and trial judge's award of $55,000 in attorneys' fees to
prisoner who complained of threats by three other inmates and was later beaten
by these same inmates; award was against officer in charge of transfers who had
knowledge of threats but took no action to transfer prisoner. Pope v. Shafer,
86 F.3d 90 (7th Cir. 1996).
248:120 Inmate awarded $5,000 in damages and
$93,649.61 in attorneys' fees against deputy sheriff who allegedly spread rumor
to other prisoners that inmate was a "snitch" after inmate cooperated
in internal affairs investigation of another deputy; rumor allegedly led to
other prisoners assaulting plaintiff inmate on several occasions. Northington
v. Marin, 102 F.3d 1564 (10th Cir. 1996).
248:120 Prisoner who was placed in administrative
detention and not transferred for ten months after he informed prison officials
that members of a gang which had threatened to kill him were present in the
facility could not recover damages for his "fear" of possible assault
that never happened. Babcock v. White, 102 F.3d 267 (7th Cir. 1996).
249:137 Jailer was not entitled to qualified
immunity for allegedly failing to protect prisoner from known threat of assault
by other inmate, but jailer who was not on duty at the time, and conveyed
knowledge of threat to other defendant jailer could not be held liable.
Erickson v. Holloway, 77 F.3d 1078 (8th Cir. 1996).
251:168 Merely housing prisoner with history of
violence in the same unit as prisoner he later assaulted was insufficient basis
to impose liability on warden when facility was not overcrowded and staffing
levels were adequate; private corporation engaged in running county
correctional facility not liable for assault on prisoner in absence of showing
that an official policy or custom was responsible for correctional officer's
alleged failure to act after assailant made threats to assault plaintiff
prisoner. Street v. Corrections Corporation of America, 102 F.3d 810 (6th Cir.
1996).
[N/R] Factual issues precluded summary judgment
for prison officials in prisoner's suit alleging that they had knowledge of
prior threats against him and were therefore liable for failure to prevent
three assaults on him by other prisoners. Hayes v. New York City Dept. of
Corrections, 84 F.3d 614 (2nd Cir. 1996).
239:170 Trial court rules that murder convictions
and life sentences of plaintiff prisoner and his inmate witnesses should not be
introduced into evidence in plaintiff's suit alleging that correctional
employees overheard a third prisoner threaten him and failed to prevent the
attack; court finds that prejudice to jury's fact finding would outweigh
probative value of convictions on issue of inmate credibility as to whether
defendants overheard threat. Tabron v. Grace, 898 F.Supp. 293 (M.D. Pa. 1995).
229:9 Deputy liable for $100 for failure to
prevent assault on prisoner at jail by other prisoners; court rules that 200
year old North Carolina statute calling for triple damages for injured
prisoners did not apply since deputy's actions were negligent rather than
criminal. Letchworth v. Gay, 874 F.Supp. 107 (E.D.N.C. 1995).
230:23 New York State liable for $45,000 to
inmate whose face was slashed with piece of glass in prison yard; assailant had
been involved in at least seven prior assaults and was known to be dangerous,
so his attack on yet another person was foreseeable. Littlejohn v. State, 630
N.Y.S.2d 407 (A.D. 1995).
232:58 Federal appeals court upholds jury
instructions which altered wording in U.S. Supreme Court ruling concerning test
for determining when prison officials acted with deliberate indifference to
risk of one prisoner assaulting another; court also rules that evidence of
plaintiff prisoner's prior criminal record was properly introduced as relevant
since it impacted on prison officials' subjective evaluation of whether he
could defend himself against possible attack. Williams v. Nebraska State
Penitentiary, 57 F.3d 667 (8th Cir. 1995).
232:58 City and sheriff not liable for deputy's
alleged action of arranging to have two prisoners attack a particular detainee
in city jail because detainee had burglarized deputy's house. Westmoreland v.
Brown, 883 F.Supp. 67 (E.D. Va. 1995).
233:71 Correctional officers were not liable for
failure to prevent attack on prisoner when prisoner himself had no information
to indicate that an attack was impending; further, officers were not liable for
allegedly slow response to incident once fight began when each acted within the
scope of their duties and speed of response did not show "deliberate
indifference" to prisoner's rights or intent to see him injured. Torrence
v. Musilek, 899 F.Supp. 380 (N.D. Ill. 1995).
233:72 Trial court's denial of qualified immunity
to officers accused of failing to intervene when one inmate assaulted another
was not immediately appealable when denial was based on factual issues rather
than legal grounds. Winfield v. Bass, 67 F.3d 529 (4th Cir. 1995).
[Cross-reference: Defenses: Qualified (Good-Faith) Immunity].
234:90 Jail shift supervisor's failure to inform
staff of new shift that prisoner had complained of threats by another inmate
did not, by itself, constitute deliberate indifference to known danger,
particularly when he took steps to send prisoner to holding cell elsewhere and
prisoner was not attacked until two days later, after his transfer back to same
floor but different cellblock. McCoy v. Webster, 47 F.3d 404 (11th Cir. 1995).
[Cross-reference: Defenses: Qualified (Good-Faith) Immunity].
235:103 Correctional officer was entitled to
qualified immunity for failing to intervene when one prisoner attacked another
in light of the fact that the assailant was armed and that the officer stood
alone at the end of a walkway, with over a dozen other prisoners separating him
from other officers. Prosser v. Ross, 70 F.3d 1005 (8th Cir. 1995).
[Cross-reference: Defenses: Qualified (Good-Faith) Immunity].
236:120 Federal appeals court upholds jury
instruction that prison guards could be found to have acted with deliberate
indifference in failing to intervene during attack on prisoner if they knew of
impending injury and injury was "readily preventable"; jury verdict
for defendant guards based on these instructions affirmed. Gibbs v. Franklin,
49 F.3d 1206 (7th Cir. 1995).
236:121 Amendment to Maryland state Tort Claims
Act, waiving sovereign immunity for wrongful acts of sheriffs, applied
retroactively; Maryland appellate court upholds $50,000 award to pre-trial
detainee who claimed sheriff, a State employee, was negligent in failing to
prevent attack on him by another prisoner, allegedly known to have been
"dangerous." Maryland, State of, v. Card, 656 A.2d 400 (Md. App.
1995).
239:169 Trial court should not have dismissed as
frivolous prisoner's claim that correctional employees failed to protect him
against assault by other prisoner when there was evidence that he repeatedly
complained that this prisoner was threatening him and trying to extort money,
and the other prisoner allegedly assaulted others. Horton v. Cockrell, 70 F.3d
397 (5th Cir. 1995). [Cross-reference: Frivolous Lawsuits].
[N/R] Correctional officers not liable for
failure to prevent attack on prisoner by other inmates; evidence showed that
one officer did not unlock door to area where attack took place and that other
officers did not witness attack. Thornton v. Brown, 47 F.3d 194 (7th Cir.
1995).
218:26 D.C. appeals court overturns $750,000 jury
verdict to prisoner stabbed in the back and legs by several prisoners; expert
witness testimony failed to adequately spell out a standard of care against
which to measure the defendant District's conduct, or give a detailed
explanation of how the District's actions violated such standards. District of
Columbia v. Moreno, 647 A.2d 396 (D.C. App. 1994).
225:135 Officers did not act with deliberate
indifference in failing to physically intervene in fight where one prisoner was
stabbing another with a "shank"; they acted reasonably in calling for
backup, verbally ordering the prisoners to cease fight, and waiting for
additional personnel. MacKay v. Farnsworth, 48 F.3d 491 (10th Cir. 1995).
227:168 Correctional officer was not liable for
failure to prevent assault on inmate by other prisoners when inmate failed to
communicate to officer specific identities of other prisoners who allegedly
threatened him. Smith v. Ullman, 874 F.Supp. 979 (D. Neb. 1994).
Prison official, who took no action to further
investigate after prisoner wrote him two letters mentioning threats to him and
"enemies" among the other inmates, was not entitled to qualified
immunity from suit by inmate, who was later attacked by two prisoners. Nelson
v. Overberg, 999 F.2d 162 (6th Cir. 1993).
Co. enters into $1.7 million settlement with
detainee in a vegetative state after being beaten by a dangerous prisoner with
whom he was placed into hallway alone and unsupervised. Cubbison v. Co. of Los
Angeles, BC 0560666, U.S. Dist. Ct. Los Angeles, Ca., Feb. 15, 1994, reported
in The National Law Journal, p. A13 (April 11, 1994).
U.S. Supreme Court holds that liability in a
civil rights lawsuit for "deliberate indifference" to inmate safety
and health must be based on a showing that prison officials were
"subjectively aware" of the risk, rejecting an objective test that
would base liability on what officials "should have known." Farmer v.
Brennan, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994).
Prison officials were not liable for failing to
place prisoner into protective custody when he would not reveal the name of the
other prisoner he claimed might assault him. Robinson v. Cavanaugh, 20 F.3d 892
(8th Cir. 1994).
Award of damages against former prison
superintendent on claim that failure to provide adequate security resulted in
prisoner assaults overturned for further proceedings because of failure of
trial court to focus on whether he acted with deliberate indifference based on
what he knew at the time of the assaults; injunction requiring regular patrols
and disciplining of prisoners found with contraband upheld. LaMarca v. Turner,
995 F.2d 1526 (11th Cir. 1993).
Federal appeals court upholds trial court's jury
instructions, which led to jury verdict for defendant guards in prisoner's
civil rights suit claiming they were liable for failure to intervene when he
was attacked by other inmates. Gibbs v. Franklin, 18 F.3d 521 (7th Cir. 1994).
Indiana inmate could proceed with his suit
against Department of Corrections based on being beaten after he was placed,
handcuffed, into a witness room with other unhandcuffed prisoners. Cole v. Ind.
Dept. of Correction, 616 N.E.2d 44 (Ind. App. 1993).
Prisoner violated a prison rule prohibiting
assault when he supplied a mentally distraught fellow inmate with a weapon with
which to inflict harm upon himself. Cook v. Oregon State Correctional
Institution, 126 Or. App. 249, 868 P.2d 16 (1994).
Assistant county attorney who told media that
prisoner had earlier received a reduced sentence for providing information in a
murder prosecution was not liable for prisoner being stabbed in his cell in
retaliation by alleged gang members. Latimore v. Johnson, 7 F.3d 709 (8th Cir.
1993).
Indiana inmate's constitutional rights were not
violated by correctional policy which did not allow him to use self-defense as a
complete defense to charges that he assaulted another prisoner allegedly
attempting to rape him in his cell. Rowe v. DeBruyn, 17 F.3d 1047 (7th Cir.
1994).
Minnesota statute requiring that inmate claims
for injury sustained while performing assigned work duties be presented to the
legislature, and barring lawsuits, upheld as constitutional and providing
exclusive remedy for inmate stabbed by another prisoner while doing kitchen
duties. Davis v. State Dept. of Corrections, 500 N.W.2d 134 (Minn. App. 1993).
Prison employee present during repeated assaults
by four inmates on one prisoner liable for $500 in compensatory and $1,000 in
punitive damages because he failed to either intervene or summon help to stop
assaults. Holloway v. Wittry, 842 F.Supp. 1193 (S.D. Iowa 1994).
Estate of inmate stabbed to death by another
prisoner with a knife taken from kitchen area awarded $153,400; suit claimed
prison failed to implement its own rules on the handling of knives. Walton v.
Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction, Ohio, Ct. Cl., No. 89-14545, Aug. 6,
1993, reported in 37 ATLA L. Rep. 56 (March 1994).
Female inmate who lost vision after another
prisoner hit her in the eye did not show that prison officials were
deliberately indifferent or negligent in failing to prevent the attack; assault
by one prisoner on the other was unforeseeable when there was no prior trouble
between the two. Cupples v. State, 861 P.2d 1360 (Kan. App. 1993).
Prison officials were not liable for violent
assault on an inmate by his cellmate; prison employee had previously offered to
place inmate in protective custody, an offer which was refused; denial of
request for immediate transfer to another cell was not, therefore, indifference
to inmate's safety. Knight v. Gill, 999 F.2d 1020 (6th Cir. 1993).
Sheriff was not liable for a detainee's fatal
stabbing of another prisoner with scissors grabbed from a prisoner barbershop;
no connection was shown between alleged lack of prisoner classification scheme
or alleged inadequate training and prisoner's death. Baptiste v. Sheriff of
Bristol Co., 35 Mass. App. Ct. 119, 617 N.E.2d 641 (1993).
Prison officials could not be held liable for
Eighth Amendment violation based on the decision to transfer prisoner to
another institution where he was attacked by other inmates in retaliation for
previously having quit a gang; transfer was for security reasons and prison
officials did not have the required mental state of intending punishment or
deliberate indifference/criminal recklessness towards the likelihood of harm.
King v. Fairman, 997 F.2d 259 (7th Cir. 1993).
Prison officials were not negligent in failing to
protect prisoner from being set on fire by another inmate he had previously
fought with; prisoner asked to be transferred to another cell tier, but it was
not clear that he had ever explained why. Brewer v. State Through Dept. of
Corrections, 618 So.2d 991 (La. App. 1993).
Jail overcrowding, even with existing court order
to improve conditions, was insufficient, standing alone, to make county or jail
officials liable for assault of pretrial detainee by another prisoner in jail
day room. Best v. Essex Co., N.J. Hall of Records, 986 F.2d 54 (3rd Cir. 1993).
Prison officials were not deliberately
indifferent to risk of prisoner assault by requiring inmates in administrative
segregation to work on hoe squads in shoulder to shoulder "tightened
down" formation. Elliott v. Byers, 975 F.2d 1375 (8th Cir. 1992).
Prisoner could pursue federal civil rights suit
against prison officials over being assaulted by another inmate in prison
exercise yard despite verdict against him in a previous state law negligence
trial concerning the same incident. West v. Ruff, 961 F.2d 1064 (2nd Cir.
1992).
Prison officials had a duty, under Kansas state
law, to protect a prisoner against known threats of assault by a fellow inmate;
state could be liable for assault on prisoner in retaliation for previously
having come to the aid of a prisoner being forcibly sodomized. Washington v. State,
839 P.2d 555 (Kan. App. 1992).
Prisoner awarded $1 in compensatory and $10 in
punitive damages, as well as $7,500 in attorneys' fees against officer who
failed to protect him from assault by another prisoner after being told of
prior threats against him. Sanders v. Brewer, 972 F.2d 920 (8th Cir. 1992).
City and its officials were not liable for
assault on municipal arrestee in county jail by another prisoner; city did
nothing other than select county jail as a detention place for municipal arrestee,
which was insufficient to show that city policy caused the injury. Stinson v.
City of Elba, 601 So.2d 66 (Ala. 1992).
Prison officials and employees not liable for
inmate being stabbed to death by another prisoner; lawsuit did not demonstrate defendants'
"deliberate indifference" to deceased inmate's constitutional rights.
Gibson v. Foltz, 963 F.2d 851 (6th Cir. 1992).
Federal appeals court overturns $250 damage award
against lieutenant who placed protective custody inmate in a non- protective
custody cell, where he was stabbed by his new cellmate; neither lieutenant or
stabbed prisoner had any reason to believe such attack was likely, since new
cellmate did not previously know the plaintiff prisoner. Falls v. Nesbitt, 966
F.2d 375 (8th Cir. 1992).
Prisoner failed to show that county's policy of
housing probation violators with parole violators caused an inmate's attack on
him; classification system was not cruel and unusual punishment. James v.
Milwaukee Co., 956 F.2d 696 (7th Cir. 1992).
Prisoner stabbed by another inmate did not show
that corrections officers were aware of a threat to his safety and deliberately
ignored it. Haynes v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 760 F Supp. 124 (E.D.
Mich. 1991).
D.C. Appeals Court overturns $1 million jury
verdict in jail death case; verdict was excessive in amount even though there
was evidence the detainee had been a victim of gang rape and had been
repeatedly sprayed in the face with chemical compounds. Finkelstein v. District
of Columbia, 593 A.2d 591 (D.C. App. 1991).
Prison officials were entitled to qualified
immunity for failing to prevent assault on female inmate by her roommate;
defendants had no actual knowledge of a genuine risk of serious injury to the
prisoner. Marsh v. Arn, 937 F.2d 1056 (6th Cir. 1991).
Prison officials were not entitled to qualified
immunity from liability for death of inmate from assault by another prisoner
while confined in protective custody unit after notifying prison of threats.
Steffenhagen v. Armontrout, 749 F.Supp. 997 (W.D. Mo. 1990).
A single fight between plaintiff inmate and
another prisoner a day before he was stabbed was insufficient to put prison
officials on notice of their need to protect the inmate against future assault.
Andrews v. Siegel, 929 F.2d 1326 (8th Cir. 1991).
Four correctional officers liable to inmate for
compensatory and punitive damages based on "reckless disregard" of
conditions making it "highly foreseeable" that some prisoners would
be attacked by other inmates. Wright v. Jones, 907 F.2d 848 (8th Cir. 1990).
Warden who engaged in a "persistent
campaign" to cure problems in prison housing annexes was not liable for
inmate's stabbing by another inmate in the annex. Moore v. Winebrenner, 927
F.2d 1312 (4th Cir. 1991).
Warden took reasonable steps to prevent assault
on prisoner by another inmate; warden could not be held liable for guard's
negligence in leaving his post, thereby allowing attacking inmate access to
cell unit; $87, 740 award overturned. Bailey v. Wood, 909 F.2d 1197 (8th Cir.
1990).
State was liable to inmate for $240,000 for
negligent failure of correctional officers to prevent his stabbing by another
inmate; inmate's own contributory negligence resulted in reduction of initial
award of $400,000. White v. State, 563 N.Y.S.2d 239 (A.D. 1990).
Louisiana correctional officer could not be held
liable in federal court for state law claim of negligently failing to prevent
assault on prisoner by another inmate. Hughes v. Savell, 902 F.2d 376 (5th Cir.
1990).
Penology expert's testimony that in his opinion
an inmate's injuries were caused by municipality's negligent control of
contraband weapons in prison was insufficient to hold city liable for
negligence. District of Columbia v. Carmichael, 577 A.2d 312 (D.C. 1990).
Federal appeals court upholds award of $175,000
compensatory and $4,500 punitive damages against correctional officers for
failing to come to the aid of an inmate being stabbed to death by another
prisoner. Walker v. Norris, 917 F.2d 1449 (6th Cir. 1990).
Award of $954,000 to inmate who was paralyzed
after attack by unidentified prisoners upheld; D.C. was liable for negligence
and not entitled to present evidence of injured inmate's own alleged
contributory negligence. District of Columbia v. Sterling, 578 A.2d 1163 (D.C.
App. 1990).
Prison authorities not liable to inmate for
unprovoked attack by a fellow inmate, in the absence of evidence that the
attack was foreseeable. Padgett v. State, 558 N.Y.S.2d 433 (A.D. 1990).
Federal appeals court overturns $100,000 jury
award against city to widow of inmate killed by other prisoners; city could be
held liable under facts of the case, but jury instructions on civil rights
claims were incorrect. Berry v. City of Muskogee, 900 F.2d 1489 (10th Cir.
1990).
Former East St. Louis detainee who won $3.4
million lawsuit against city for beating by another prisoner receives the deed
to city hall. Debow v. East St. Louis, Co. Court, East St. Louis, Ill.,
reported in The New York Times, National Edition, p. 8 (September 28, 1990).
Department of Corrections liable for inmate's
killing of another prisoner; transfer of inmate with psychopathic propensity
for violent outbursts was grossly negligent. Jackson v. Dept. of Corrections,
390 S.E.2d 467 (S.C. App. 1989).
Unarmed corrections officer had no constitutional
duty to physically intervene in assault by one inmate on another. Arnold v.
Jones, 891 F.2d 1370 (8th Cir. 1989).
D.C. Appeals Court upholds $1 million award
against district to prisoner stabbed by another inmate. District of Columbia v.
Bethel, 567 A.2d 1331 (D.C. App. 1990).
Co. settles claim of arrestee, who suffered
broken neck in assault by a convicted inmate, for $5.6 million. Ryan v. Burlington
Co., U.S. District Court, New Jersey, reported in Newark, N.J. Star Ledger,
January 17, 1990.
Inmate could not sue prison officials for
negligently failing to provide adequate security against assault. Policano v.
Koehler, 715 F.Supp. 598 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).
Warden not responsible for assault on prisoner by
inmate; alleged inadequate staffing did not constitute deliberate indifference.
McGhee v. Foltz, 852 F.2d 876 (6th Cir. 1988).
Correctional officials, officers, not liable for
homosexual assault on inmate; no awareness of specific risk. Heine v. Receiving
Area Personnel, 711 F.Supp. 178 (D. Del. 1989).
Prisoner awarded punitive and nominal damages
against prison employees for beating by inmates. Taylor v. Green, 868 F.2d 162
(5th Cir. 1989).
Prison guards and officials were not liable for
incident in which one inmate threw coffee and milk on another prisoner. Lawler
v. Marshall, 687 F.Supp. 1176 (S.D. Ohio 1987).
Appeals court reverses summary judgment for
prison officials in case where inmate claimed they failed to prevent his rape
by other prisoners. Roland v. Johnson, 856 F.2d 764 (6th Cir. 1988).
Prison officials entitled to qualified immunity
from liability for inmate's murder by prisoner; conditions alleged were either
beyond their control or they took all possible remedial measures. Alvarex
Kerkado v. Otero de Ramos, 693 F. Sup. 1366 (D. Puerto Rico, 1988).
Prison guards did not violate inmate's rights by
failing to break up fight when guards were outnumbered. Williams v. Willits,
853 F.2d 586 (8th Cir. 1988).
Inmate awarded $10,000 for failure of prison to
protect him from sexual assault by other inmates. Vosburg v. Solem, 845 F.2d
763 (8th Cir. 1988).
Dept. of correction liable for $15,000 for officer's
negligence in failing to prevent sexual assault of inmate. Taylor v. N.C. Dept.
of Correction, 363 S.E.2d 868 (N.C. App. 1988).
Prison officials negligent in not preventing
inmate assault; inmate's conduct in turning away from assailant did not alter
liability. White v. State, 524 N.Y.S.2d 549 (A.D. 1988).
Pre-trial detainee awarded $3.4 million for
jail's failure to prevent his assault by another prisoner; failure to comply
with safety standards. DeBow v. City of East St. Louis, 510 N.E.2d 895 (Ill.
App. 1987).
Prison officials not entitled to qualified
immunity in suit filed by inmate rendered quadriplegic by cellmate; right to
protection from dangerous convicted prisoners was "clearly
established". Ryas v. Burlington Co., 674 F.Supp. 464 (D.N.J. 1987).
Inmate may sue on claim that prison official
failed to protect him from three sexual assaults despite failure to name those
who assaulted him in plea for protection. Richardson v. Penfold, 839 F.2d 392
(7th Cir. 1988).
Putting prisoner in cell with mentally unstable
inmate with access to cleaning fluids was, at most negligent; no civil rights
liability. Gardner v. Cato, 841 F.2d 105 (5th Cir. 1988).
Over $1 million awarded in death of prisoner;
guards failed to aid him after sodomy attack by four inmates. Finkelstein v.
District of Columbia, D.C. Superior Court, No. 486-86, Sept. 15, 1987, 31 ATLA
L. Rep. 79 (March 1988).
Prison officials liable for failure to establish
procedures to protect inmate from gang violence. Walsh v. Mellas, 837 F.2d 789
(7th Cir. 1988).
Appeals court reverses dismissal of lawsuit
against sheriff and county for failure to prevent assault on pre-trial
detainee. Anderson v. Gutschenritter, 836 F.2d 346 (7th Cir. 1988).
Prison officials not negligent in returning
prisoner with prior violent tendencies to general population after his
psychiatric treatment. Hann v. State, 521 N.Y.S.2d 973 (Ct. Cl. 1987).
State of Florida has not waived eleventh
amendment and state common law immunity; not liable for prisoner's assault on
inmate. Spooner v. Department of Corrections, 514 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 1987).
City to sell bonds to pay $3.4 million to former
prisoner beaten by cellmate at jail. Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, page 4,
November 16, 1987.
Prisoner awarded $75,000 damages and $85,000
attorney's fee for injuries suffered in prison fight. Morgan v. District of
Columbia, 824 F.2d 1049 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
Prison did not violate rights of inmate suspected
of murdering other prisoner when carcinogenic substance used to test for blood.
Real v. Hogan, 828 F.2d 58 (1st Cir. 1987).
Proper to use polygraph test results to show that
inmate assaulted other prisoner. Wiggett v. Oregon State Penitentiary, 85 Or.
App. 635, 738 P.2d 580 (1987).
Improper for court to issue
"argumentative" jury instruction concerning the difficulties of
providing prison security. Haith v. District of Columbia, 526 A.2d 17 (D.C.
App. 1987).
Misbehavior reports insufficient to put
defendants on notice of violent tendencies. Dizak v. State, 508 N.Y.S.2d 290
(A.D. 3 Dept. 1986).
State not negligent in permitting inmates to wear
bulky clothing. Casella v. State, 503 N.Y.S.2d 588 (A.D. 2 Dept. 1986).
Court rejects claim that inmate saved government
money by killing fellow inmate. U.S. v. House, 808 F.2d 508 (7th Cir. 1986).
Guards not required to stay on range after cell
doors are open for dinner; no liability for inmate attack. Baker v. State Dept.
of Rehabilitation, 502 N.E.2d 261 (Ohio App. 1986).
Civil death statute again found unconstitutional.
McCuiston v. Wanicka, 483 So.2d 489 (Fla. App. 1986).
No liability for racial tension. McGriff v.
Coughlin, 640 F.Supp. 877 (S.D. N.Y. 1986).
Florida Supreme Court asked to decide whether
waiver of immunity statute applies in civil suits in both state and federal
court. Spooner v. Dept. of Corrections, 488 So.2d 897 (Fla. App. 1986).
Inmate alleges sergeant ordered him to a job
site, despite warnings that he'd be attacked at the site. Berg v. Kincheloe,
794 F.2d 457 (9th Cir. 1986).
Case dismissed in light of U.S. Supreme Court
decision; failure to protect inmate following anonymous threats not eighth
amendment violation. Lewis v. O'Leary, 631 F.Supp. 60 (N.D. Ill. 1986).
Chief of security and guard liable for inmate
assault. Thomas v. Booker, 784 F.2d 299 (8th Cir. 1986).
Supreme Court says inmate may be without a remedy
for attack by fellow inmates, even though prison administration was warned of
danger. Even if there is no remedy under state law, the inmate may not sue for
lack of due care as a civil rights action. Davidson v. Cannon, 54 U.S. Law Week
4095 (1/21/85).
Inmate needs to amend complaint seeking to hold
various officials liable for attacks. Sittig v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections,
617 F.Supp. 1043 (D.C. Ill. 1985).
Co. prison board, commissioners, and warden
immune. Damron v. Smith, 616 F.Supp. 424 (D.C. Pa. 1985).
Inmate claims correctional officer knew of death
threats. Ayers v. Coughlin, 780 F.2d 205 (2nd Cir. 1985).
Pretrial detainee gets new trial in `failure to
protect' suit. Love v. Sheffield, 777 F.2d 1453 (11th Cir. 1985).
Guards could be liable for not enforcing tool
policy, resulting in injury. Goka v. Bobbitt, 625 F.Supp. 319 (N.D. Ill. 1985).
Liability could result for "state of
war" at prison allegedly resulting in inmate's murder. Quinones v.
Nettleship, 773 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1985).
Jury awards $3.5 million for pre-trial detainee's
beating at jail with no monitoring devices. DeBow v. City of East St. Louis,
Ill., St. Clair Co. Circuit Court, No. 84-L-405, 5/17/85.
Lack of funds for detective locks not grounds for
liability; absence of functioning monitoring system not grounds for liability
either. Taylor v. Buff, 218 Cal.Rptr. 249 (Cal.App. 1985). Attack continues in
cell while guard witnesses it with no cell key; liability results not from a
failure to protect but a failure to provide medical treatment. Lewis v. Cooper,
771 F.2d 334 (7th Cir. 1985).
Inmate claims attacks were result of sergeants
giving inmates cell keys. Riley v. Jeffes, 777 F.2d 143 (3rd Cir. 1985).
Failure to complete investigation of note telling
of fear for safety not grounds for liability. Davidson v. O'Lone, 752 F.2d 817
(3rd Cir. 1984).
Judge immune for sending juveniles to adult
facility after being inspired by television movie. Doe v. McFaul, 599 F.Supp.
1421 (D. Ohio 1984).
City dismissed from suit, Captain and individuals
are not dismissed. Gibralter v. City of New York, 612 F.Supp. 125 (D.C. N.Y.
1985).
Jury finds against jail captain for failure to
protect. Gravitt v. Graves, 609 F.Supp. 925 (D.C. Ga. 1985).
It may be too late to add guard as a defendant,
who prisoner claims watches stabbing and did nothing. Serrano v. Torres, 764
F.2d 47 (1st Cir. 1985).
Booking officer correctly followed procedures in
denying immediate medical care; other defendants could be liable for placing
violent inmate in plaintiff's tier. Gibson v. Babcox, 601 F.Supp. 1156 (N.D.
Ill. 1984).
Employee could be liable for failing to take
action after inmate expressed fear of assault. Porm v. White, 762 F.2d 635 (8th
Cir. 1985).
Leaving doors open in keep lock during feeding
could result in liability for attack; eve of transfer may create special duty
to protect. Sebastiano v. State, 491 N.Y.S.2d 499 (A.D. 3 Dept. 1985).
Superintendent, Unit Manager and Disciplinary
Board Members sued for beating after inmate was transferred, despite fears
against it. Bannister v. Ponte, 609 F.Supp. 920 (D.C. Mass. 1985).
Jail negligent in care of medical unit allowing
psychotic inmates to mix with other inmates; expert testimony not needed.
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 603 F.Supp. 254 (D. D.C. 1985).
Co. settles suit but admits no negligence in
prisoner rape. The Chattanooga Times, 1/17/85.
Inmate's juvenile record showing violence before
shooting relevant to issue of damages. District of Columbia v. Cooper, 483 A.2d
317 (D.C. App. 1984).
Using Indiana tort claims act does not toll
limitations period. Walker v. Memering, 471 N.E.2d 1202 (Ind. App. 1984).
Offense report about inmate's alleged assault on
fellow inmate is public record. Carlson v. Pima Co., 687 P.2d 1242 (Ariz.
1984).
Co. not liable for sheriff's actions; but sheriff
and subordinate could be liable if negligent supervision resulted in inmate
attack. Kemp v. Waldron, 479 N.Y.S.2d 440 Schenectady Co. 1984).
Commissioner of state facilities ordered to
establish protective custody units throughout the state for protection against
assaults. Bishop v. McCoy, 323 S.E.2d 140 (W. Va. 1984).
Seeing inmates flee from assaulted inmate not
grounds to find them guilty. Hill v. Super., Mass. Corr. Inst., Walpole, 466
N.E.2d 818 (Mass. 1984).
Prisoner's petition dismissed for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies. McCloud v. Coughlin, 476 N.Y.S.2d 630 (App.
1984).
Guards' response to riot was proper; no liability
for inmate injuries. Hopkins v. Britten, 742 F.2d 1308 (11th Cir. 1984).
More than $500,000 awarded to man sexually
assaulted in drunk tank. Lickliter v. Riverside Co., Indio Superior Court,
Indio Daily News, Cal., 11/10/84.
Prison official's offering of cigarettes for
inmate's death results in $25,000 judgment; attorney's fees to be paid by state
even though judgment was in official's individual capacity. Glover v. Alabama
Dept. of Corrections, 734 F.2d 691 (11th Cir. 1984).
Inmate convicted of stabbing fellow inmate not
denied due process while in administrative segregation. Shoulders v. State, 462
N.E.2d 1034 (Ind. 1984).
Security standards applied by court for
determining liability for assaults in cells; guard who merely escorted
prisoners to cells, but did not assign them not liable. Walsh v. Brewer, 733
F.2d 473 (7th Cir. 1984).
Desk clerk liable for not transferring mentally
ill inmate subsequently beaten to death by cellmate. Estate of Davis v. Hazen,
582 F.Supp. 938 (C.D. Ill. 1984).
No liability for inmate's assault when guard left
post. Bennett v. Duckworth, 578 F.Supp. 1380 (N.D. Ind. 1984).
No liability for inmate stabbing. Miller v.
Solem, 723 F.2d 1020 (11th Cir. 1984).
Statute of limitation barred suit for inmate
stabbing. Foster v. Armontrout, 729 F.2d 583 (8th Cir. 1984).
Underfunding for protection makes county
commissioners liable for inmate's beating by fellow inmate. Saunders v. Chatham
Co., 728 F.2d 1367 (11th Cir. 1984).
Overcrowded conditions and insufficient number of
guards not grounds for recovery for inmate's death. Enriquez v. Nettleship, 580
F.Supp. 1270 (D.P.R. 1984).
Officials can place inmate in protective custody
without his approval. Algood v. Morris, 724 F.2d 1098 (4th Cir. 1984).
Guard liable for failing to protect inmate, who
was assisting authorities. Blizzard v. Quillen, 579 F.Supp. 1446 (D. Del.
1984).
Warden and guard could be liable for inmate
allegedly being subjected to inmate retaliation. Harmon v. Berry, 728 F.2d 1407
(11th Cir. 1984).
Compensatory and punitive damages assessed
against guard for "deliberate or reckless indifference" in placing
young inmate in cell and he is subsequently sexually assaulted. Smith v. Wade,
U.S. 103 S.Ct. 1625 (1983).
No liability for assault despite that guards
could have been better trained and the area was poorly designed allowing hiding
places. Webster v. Foltz, 582 F. supp. 28 (W.D. Mich. 1983).
No liability for alleged threats to inmate made
by other inmates over his informant activities. Johnson v. Carlson, 574 F.Supp.
827 (N.D. Tex. 1983).
Sheriff not liable for distributing flammable
deodorant ultimately used to burn inmate; officials had no reason to suspect
harm to inmate. Moore v. Foti, 440 So.2d 530 (La. App. 1983).
No liability to sheriff for inmate's attack by
another inmate. Kelley v. Crunk, 713 F.2d 426 (8th Cir. 1983).
Procedures used to protect inmate who was
threatened by another inmate were sloppy, minimal, and ineffective. Holmes v.
Ward, 566 F.Supp. 863 (E.D. N.Y. 1983).
No liability for inmate's assault on another
inmate. Massey v. Smith, 555 F.Supp. 743 (N.D. Ind. 1983).
No liability regarding inmates assault on another
inmate. Walden v. State, 430 so. 2d 1224 (La. App. 1983).
No liability to prison officials for injuries to
inmate attacked by other inmates. Risner v. Duckworth, 562 F.Supp. 378 (N.D.
Ind. 1983).
$380,000 liability award against sheriff for the
negligence and indifference of deputy jailer. Two pretrial detainees severely
assaulted and sexually abused by other inmates; punitive damages in excess of
$300,000. Stokes v. Delcambre, 710 F.2d 1120 (5th Cir. 1983).
West Virginia Federal Court orders trial in
inmate's suit against correction officers for failure to prevent his stabbing
by another inmate. Vance v. Bordenkircher, 533 F.Supp. 429 (N.D. W. Va. 1982).
No liability to government for inmate's throwing
flammable liquid on fellow inmate. Spann v. State, Dept. of Corrections, 421
So.2d 1090 (Fla. App. 1982).
Prisoner placed in administrative segregation and
sentenced to 25 years punishment for stabbing fellow inmate 21 times. State v.
Brown, 643 S.W.2d 68 (Mo. App. 1982).
Rhode Island Supreme Court states that prison
employees can be held liable for death of inmate if they had reason to know of
aggressor's dangerous propensities; finds that state can be held liable under
respondeat superior. Saunders v. State, 446 A.2d 748 (R.I. 1982).
New York court upholds verdict against state in
negligence action brought by deceased inmate's family. Hertas v. State, 444
N.Y.S.2d 307 (App. Div. 1981). New Mexico court rules that failure of inmate to
call for help while he was being assaulted was not contributory negligence;
liability of city affirmed. Doe v. City of Albuquerque, 631 P.2d 728 (N.M. App.
1981).
Inmate's action against assistant warden and
shift supervisor dismissed; respondeat superior held not to apply to Section
1983 actions. Pearl v. Dobbs, 649 F.2d 608 (8th Cir. 1981).
Georgia Court of Appeals rules that officials'
failure to shield accusers from disciplined prisoner is not actionable. Gray v.
Linahan, 276 S.E.2d 894 (Ga. App. 1981).
Federal court rules prisoner's allegation of
sexual assault does not provide basis for civil rights action. Ressler v.
Scheipe, 505 F.Supp. 155 (E.D. Pa. 1981).
Inmate beaten for three successive nights by
fellow inmate receives $189,900 judgment; appeal court reopens case to increase
verdict amount. Methola v. Co. of Eddy, 629 P.2d 350 (N.M. App. 1981).
Sheriff could be liable for failing to protect
black inmate from repeated attacks by Mexican-American inmates after his
testimony in a stabbing incident. Wright v. El Paso Co. Jail, 642 F.2d 134 (5th
Cir. 1981).
Federal court dismisses civil rights suit by
arrestees who sustained personal injuries during his pretrial detention.
Campbell v. Bergeron, 629 F.2d 407 (5th Cir. 1980).
Officials not liable for assault against one
inmate by another. Knight v. People of State of Colorado, 496 F.Supp. 779 (D.
Colo. 1980).
Prison classification officer may be sued for
murder of "snitch" he transferred to a maximum security facility.
Gullatee v. Potts, 630 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1980).
Prisoner who alleged negligence on the part of
prison guards may be entitled to relief if he can show purposeful acts or
deliberate indifference to his safety by correction officers. Holmes v. Goldin,
615 F.2d 83 (2nd Cir. 1980).
Fourth Circuit orders prison officials to devise
a procedure to provide inmates with reasonable protection from aggressive
sexual assaults. Withers v. Levine, 615 F.2d 158 (4th Cir. 1980).
Connecticut officials not liable for segregating
inmate they feared would be harmed by others; proof of good faith overcomes
possible unconstitutionality of actions. Raffone v. Robinson, 607 F.2d 1058 (2d
Cir. 1979).
Single instance of guard misconduct (inmate
assault) may be sufficient to impose liability for not properly training
personnel. Owens v. Hass, 601 F.2d 1242 (2d Cir. 1979).
For earlier discussions see: West v. Rowe, 448
F.Supp. 58 (N.D. Ill. 1978); Hampton v. State of LA, 361 So.2d 257 (La. App.
1978); Barnard v. State, 265 N.W.2d 620 (La. 1978); Jones v. United States, 534
F.2d 53 (5th Cir. 1976); Bourgeois v. United States, 375 F.Supp. 133 (N.D. Tex.
1974); Schyska v. Shifflet, 364 F.Supp. 116 (N.D. Ill. 1973); Parker v. State,
282 So.2d 483 (La. Sup. 1973); Breedon v. Jackson, 457 F.2d 578 (4th Cir.
1972).