Failure to protect.

14. Failure to Protect

U.S. Appeals Court    Blades v. Schuetzle, 302 F.3d 801 (8th Cir.
                      2002). A state prisoner brought a [section] 1983
  PRISONER ON         action against prison officials, alleging that
  PRISONER ASSAULT    they failed to protect him from a fellow inmate,
                      and that a correctional officer discriminated
                      against him because of his race. The district
                      court granted summary judgment in favor of the
                      officials and the appeals court affirmed. The
                      appeals court held that the officials' decision
                      to release the inmate into the general prison
                      population did not rise to the level of
                      deliberate indifference, nor did their failure to
                      notify the prisoner that another inmate had
                      threatened him. The court noted that the
                      prisoner's own statements to officials, that the
                      inmate posed no risk of harm to him, barred his
                      failure-to-protect claim. The appeals court found
                      that the alleged offensive statements made by a
                      correctional officer, ridiculing the color of the
                      prisoner's palms and telling the prisoner to
                      smile so that he could be seen in the dark, did
                      not rise to an actionable level under the
                      Fourteenth Amendment, although the statements
                      were "thoroughly offensive and utterly
                      reprehensible." (North Dakota Department of
                      Corrections and Rehabilitation)

U.S. District Court   Bultema v. U.S., 195 F.Supp.2d 1001 (N.D.Ohio
                      2002). A federal prisoner brought an action
  PROTECTION          against the United States under the Federal Tort
  FROM HARM           Claims Act (FTCA), claiming negligence after he
                      fell from an upper bunk bed and severely injured
                      his knee. The district court granted summary
                      judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that
                      the alleged negligence of the prison warden fell
                      within the discretionary function exception of
                      FTCA. The court found that the prisoner's
                      contributory negligence, by failing to tell his
                      unit officer that he was entitled to a bottom
                      bunk, was the proximate cause of his injuries.
                      Prison personnel had medically determined that
                      the prisoner was required to sleep on a bottom
                      bunk, but the warden decided to have the inmate
                      tell unit officers that the had a bottom bunk
                      pass, rather than requiring medical personnel to
                      inform the officers. The court found that the
                      warden's decision to refrain from using ladders
                      or guardrails on upper bunk beds in the prison
                      was within the discretionary function exception
                      of FTCA, even though the inmate stated that
                      prisoners frequently fall from upper bunk beds
                      and hurt themselves. The court noted that there
                      were valid safety and security concerns relating
                      to the use of ladders or guardrails with the bunk
                      beds, since the rails and ladders can be broken
                      and used as weapons or escape devices. (Federal
                      Correctional Institution, Elkton, Ohio)

U.S. Appeals Court    Calderon-Ortiz v. Laboy-Alvarado, 300 F.3d 60
                      (1st Cir. 2002). A former pretrial detainee
  PRISONER ON         brought a [section] 1983 action against
  PRISONER ASSAULT    officials, alleging failure to protect him from
                      other inmates. The district court dismissed the
                      action. The appeals court reversed and remanded,
                      finding that the detainee's complaint
                      sufficiently stated a claim. The detainee alleged
                      he had been forcibly sodomized by other inmates,
                      that officials were aware that inmates were being
                      housed without adequate regard to their custody
                      and security needs, and that staff did not
                      provide adequate supervision. (Bayamon Regional
                      Metropolitan Detention Center, Puerto Rico)

U.S. Appeals Court    Case v. Ahitow, 301 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2002). A
                      state prison inmate brought an action against
  PRISONER ON         corrections officials, alleging failure to
  PRISONER ASSAULT    protect him from another inmate, in violation of
                      the Eighth Amendment. The district court granted
                      summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The
                      appeals court reversed and remanded, finding that
                      an issue of fact existed as to whether the
                      behavior of corrections personnel was
                      intentionally or deliberately indifferent. The
                      court noted that the test is whether the officers
                      knew that the inmate faced a serious danger to
                      his safety and if they could have easily averted
                      the danger, yet failed to do so. The court noted
                      that the inmate was "unloved by the guards, both
                      because of frequent disciplinary problems and
                      because he had agreed to testify in a drug case
                      against a guard at a prison of which he had
                      formerly been an inmate." (Illinois River
                      Correctional Center)

U.S. Appeals Court    Iwanski v. Ray, 44 Fed.Appx. 370 (10th Cir.
                      2002). The estate of a state inmate brought a
  PRISONER ON         [section] 1983 action alleging prison officials
  PRISONER ASSAULT    violated the inmate's Eighth Amendment rights by
                      failing to protect him from a fellow prisoner.
                      The district court entered judgment in favor of
                      the officials on a jury verdict. The appeals
                      court affirmed, finding that there was sufficient
                      evidence to support the jury's verdict. The
                      inmate was attacked by an intoxicated prisoner
                      who was armed with a steel bunk bed stacking
                      post. The jury determined that prison officials
                      did not violate the inmate's Eighth Amendment
                      rights by failing to protect him, even though the
                      prisoner had a history of assaultive behavior and
                      alcohol abuse, and had engaged in two previous
                      fights on the day of his attack on the inmate.
                      The court noted that the prisoner had not been
                      disciplined for any violent conduct while
                      incarcerated, prison employees had not observed
                      the pre-assault fights, bed posts had not
                      previously been used as weapons, and correctional
                      officers regularly patrolled the building in the
                      minimum security facility where the assault took
                      place. (Northeast Oklahoma Correctional Center)

U.S. District Court   Kemner v. Hemphill, 199 F.Supp.2d 1264 (N.D.Fla.
                      2002). A state prisoner filed a [section] 1983
  PRISONER ON         action alleging that prison officials failed to
  PRISONER ASSAULT    protect him from sexual assault by another
                      inmate. The district court held that the inmate
  SEXUAL ASSAULT      suffered physical injury sufficient to satisfy
                      the Prison Litigation Reform Act's (PLRA)
  PLRA--Prison        physical injury requirement. The prisoner was
  Litigation          forced to perform oral sex on a fellow inmate,
  Reform Act          was sexually assaulted for two hours, and
                      suffered cuts, bruises and abrasions. The
                      prisoner was so physically ill that he vomited
                      and he was in shock for hours afterwards. The
                      prisoner asserted that he suffered "mental
                      anguish, fright and shock, embarrassment,
                      humiliation and mortification, in addition to
                      psychological injuries that are permanent." The
                      prisoner contended that being "forced to perform
                      oral sex upon another [male] inmate" is
                      "analogous to body cavity searches performed upon
                      inmates by prison officials." The court concluded
                      "surely Congress intended the concept of
                      'physical injury' in [section] 1997e(e) to cover
                      such a repugnant use of physical force." The
                      prisoner alleged that he notified prison
                      officials that he was being harassed and
                      threatened by inmates in his dormitory but that
                      they refused to move him from his cell. The court
                      denied the defendant's motion for partial
                      judgment on the pleadings. (Florida)

U.S. Appeals Court    Lawrence v. Bowersox, 297 F.3d 727 (8th Cir.
                      2002). Prisoners brought an action against prison
  PROTECTION          officers alleging violation of their Eighth
  FROM HARM           Amendment rights. The district court granted
                      judgment in favor of the prisoners and the
                      appeals court affirmed in part and remanded in
                      part. The appeals court held that evidence was
                      sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that
                      the inmates were incarcerated under conditions
                      that posed an objectively substantial risk of
                      harm, and that an unnecessary pepper spray shower
                      violated the inmates' Eighth Amendment rights
                      because a supervisor orchestrated it even though
                      the inmates were confined and had not disobeyed
                      orders. The appeals court found that it was not
                      an abuse of discretion for the district court to
                      require prison officials to pay discovery
                      sanctions where the inmates were "given the
                      runaround" and were forced to take depositions
                      and file motions that would have been unnecessary
                      if the officials had complied with the district
                      court's discovery order. The district court jury
                      awarded $10,003 against an officer and the
                      district court awarded discovery sanctions in the
                      amount of $8,712. (Potosi Correctional Center,
                      Missouri)

U.S. Appeals Court    Morris v. Crawford County, 299 F.3d 919 (8th Cir.
                      2002). A county detention center detainee brought
  OFFICER ON          [section] 1983 and state law battery claims
  PRISONER ASSAULT    against a sheriff, county, and deputies. The
                      district court granted summary judgment for the
                      defendants, in part, and the remaining claims
                      were voluntarily dismissed. The appeals court
                      affirmed, finding that there was not a strong
                      causal connection between a deputy sheriff's
                      background and the specific constitutional
                      violation alleged by the detainee. The detainee
                      had been arrested and charged with driving while
                      intoxicated and disorderly conduct. After
                      arriving at a county detention center, he refused
                      to take a breathalyzer test and began to yell and
                      bang on his cell door. Four deputies responded,
                      and according to the detainee, they repeatedly
                      assaulted him as they dragged him to another
                      cell. One deputy allegedly used excessive force
                      on the detainee by utilizing a "knee drop" on
                      him, which severed the detainee's intestine. The
                      court noted that the only violent act in the
                      deputy's record was an incident in which he
                      slapped an inmate, although ex parte protective
                      orders were obtained against the deputy by both
                      his ex-wife and girlfriend. The appeals court
                      held that the sheriff and the county were not
                      liable under [section] 1983 on the theory of
                      deliberate indifference in hiring the deputy.
                      (Crawford County Detention Center, Arkansas)

U.S. District Court   Pelletier v. Magnusson, 195 F.Supp.2d 214 (D.Me.
                      2002). A personal representative for the estate
  PRISONER SUICIDE    of an inmate filed a [section] 1983 action,
                      alleging that state employees violated the Eighth
                      Amendment by failing to prevent the inmate from
                      committing suicide. The appeals court denied the
                      defendants' motion for summary judgment, in part.
                      The court found that summary judgment was
                      precluded by a genuine issue of material fact as
                      to whether correctional officers were aware of
                      clinical meeting notes that indicated that the
                      inmate was very anxious and was hearing voices,
                      and whether they were aware through logs and
                      verbal communication with officers, that the
                      inmate had earlier instances of decompensation.
                      The court also found that summary judgment was
                      precluded because of the spoilation of missing or
                      tampered documents relating to the inmate's
                      medical treatment, and whether a clinical social
                      worker refused to act on a medical recommendation
                      that the inmate required a psychiatric
                      evaluation. (Maine State Prison)

U.S. Appeals Court    Sperle v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 297
                      F.3d 483 (6th Cir. 2002). The husband of a woman
  PRISONER ON         who was murdered while working in a prison sued
  OFFICER ASSAULT     officials for failing to prevent her murder and
                      for allowing a sexually hostile work environment
                      to exist at the prison. The district court
                      granted summary judgment for the defendants and
                      the appeals court affirmed. The appeals court
                      held that the prison officials did not act with
                      deliberate indifference, that the husband failed
                      to establish a fact issue in his wife's sexual
                      harassment claim, and that the husband failed to
                      prove that the prison, through any direct act,
                      specifically intended to injure his wife. A
                      prisoner murdered the plaintiff's wife when she
                      was working at her job in the prison store. The
                      court noted that even if prison officials could
                      have made working conditions safer for the wife
                      by providing personal protection devices to
                      employees, adding extra security officers, or
                      insuring greater supervision of the prisoner,
                      they did not act in a manner that shocked the
                      conscience of the court or that indicated any
                      intent to injure her. (Huron Valley Men's
                      Facility, Michigan)

U.S. Appeals Court    White v. Crane, 45 Fed.Appx. 552 (8th Cir. 2002).
                      A county jail inmate brought a civil rights
  PRISONER ON         action against a sheriff, jail administrators,
  PRISONER ASSAULT    and jail officers, seeking compensation for
                      injuries incurred when he was placed in a cell
                      with another inmate who assaulted him. The
                      appeals court granted summary judgment in favor
                      of the jail officers, but the appeals court
                      reversed and remanded, finding that the officers
                      could not reasonably believe they were not
                      violating the inmate's right to be free from
                      attack. Upon admission to the jail, the plaintiff
                      inmate had notified an officer that the other
                      inmate should be put on his enemy-alert list
                      because of a problem he had just had with his
                      wife. When officers placed plaintiff inmate in
                      the same housing unit with the other inmate, the
                      plaintiff had asked them to at least handcuff the
                      other inmate before opening the door and the
                      officers refused. When the door was opened the
                      attack immediately occurred. (Hempstead County
                      Detention Facility, Arkansas)