Immunity.

U.S. Appeals Court FTCA-Federal Tort Claims Act 

BIVENS CLAIMS

Alfrey v. U.S., 276 F.3d 557 (9th Cir. 2002). The personal representative of a federal prisoner who was killed by his cellmate brought Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and Bivens actions against the government and corrections officials. The district court dismissed the Bivens claim and granted summary judgment for the defendants based on the discretionary-function exception to FTCA. The appeals court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The appeals court held that Led to state a Bivens claim and that the discretionary-function exception barred an FTCA claim based on the officers' response to the report of the cellmate's threat. But the appeals court found that federal correctional officers had a non-discretionary duty to perform a "Central Inmate Monitoring" evaluation of the prisoner, who was to be held at a federal facility pending trial on a federal charge, before assigning the inmate to share a cell with a federal prisoner, precluding summary judgment on the FTCA claim. (Sheridan Federal Corre ctional Facility, Oregon)

U.S. Appeals Court SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

Marsh v. Butler County,Ala. 268 F.3d 1014 (11th Cir. 2001). Former county jail inmates brought a [section] 1983 action against a county and sheriff to recover for injuries they sustained when they were beaten by other prisoners. The district court dismissed the action and the inmates appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case. The appeals court held that allegations that the county failed to maintain the jail constituted deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm to the inmates, sufficient to survive the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court found that the sheriff did not have a qualified immunity defense available to her because preexisting case law established at the time that the conditions of confinement alleged by the plaintiffs did pose a risk of harm to the inmates. The court held that allegations that the county received many reports of the jail's deteriorated conditions but took no remedial measures were sufficient to allege deliberate indifference to the substantial risk of serious harm faced by inmates in the jail. According to the court, allegations that jail conditions such as a lack of locks on cell doors resulted in the plaintiffs being assaulted by their fellow prisoners, stated a claim for an Eighth Amendment violation. The court found that the inmates also stated Eighth Amendment violations by alleging that there was no segregation of nonviolent inmates from violent inmates, pretrial detainees from convicted criminals, juveniles from adults, and inmates with mental disorders from those without. Claims were also stated by allegations that the jail was sometimes overcrowded and understaffed, that inmates could make weapons from materials torn from the jail's dilapidated structure, that cells were not visually inspected, that no lock down of prisoners in their cells occurred, and that inmates were not disciplined when they attempted to escape, threatened jailers, destroyed property, or assaulted other inmates. (Butler County Jail, Ala bama)