Liability.

27. Liability

U.S. District Court   Armstrong v. Metropolitan Government of
                      Nashville, 196 F.Supp.2d 673 (M.D.Tenn. 2002).
  CONSENT DECREE-     Inmates and pretrial detainees brought a class
  TERMINATION         action against a metropolitan government in 1987,
                      alleging that overcrowding in jails was
                      unsanitary and unsafe. The district court issued
                      an injunction and set population caps. The
                      district court granted the government's motion to
                      lift the injunction in 2002, finding that
                      conditions in new jails met the requirements of
                      the Eighth Amendment. The court found that the
                      new jails' environment, sanitation and fire
                      safety complied with the Eighth Amendment,
                      providing adequate levels of personal security
                      for inmates and staff. The court held that food
                      service was adequate and acceptable and that
                      there was adequate physical space available for
                      recreation. The court noted that two of the four
                      jails had achieved accreditation by the American
                      Correctional Association and the other two had
                      applied, and would also probably receive
                      accreditation. The court called the jail
                      administration at the time of the 1987 suit "a
                      brutal and corrupt regime" The court praised the
                      government's correctional experts who assisted
                      the county, and the plaintiffs' counsel "for the
                      enormous service she has performed for the class
                      of plaintiffs and the community." The court
                      complimented the Special Master for his "wise
                      guidance in overseeing the rehabilitation of the
                      Metropolitan Government's jail system."
                      (Metropolitan Government of Nashville, Tennessee)

U.S. District Court   Bultema v. U.S., 195 F.Supp.2d 1001 (N.D.Ohio
                      2002). A federal prisoner brought an action
  FEDERAL TORT        against the United States under the Federal Tort
  CLAIMS ACT          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. District Court   Ciaprazi v. County of Nassau, 195 F.Supp.2d 398
                      (E.D.N.Y. 2002). An inmate filed a [section] 1983
  COMPENSATORY        action alleging that county correction officers
  DAMAGES             used excessive force against him. After a jury
                      awarded nominal damages on one count, the inmate
  NOMINAL DAMAGES     applied for attorney fees and costs. The district
                      court held that the inmate was the "prevailing
  ATTORNEY FEES       party" but that the award of attorneys fees was
                      not warranted, where the inmate recovered only $1
                      in nominal damages against one officer, the jury
                      found in favor of the other officer, the case did
                      not involve a significant legal issue, and there
                      was no award of injunctive relief. (Nassau County
                      Correctional Center, New York)

U.S. Appeals Court    Floyd v. Ortiz, 300 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir. 2002).
                      An inmate filed a petition to enforce the terms
  CONSENT DECREE-     of a prior settlement agreement and to obtain
  CONTEMPT            contempt citations against a state director of
                      corrections. The district court denied the
                      petition and the inmate appealed. The appeals
                      court reversed, finding that the district court
                      abused its discretion by denying the inmate's
                      request for a rehearing. The appeals court noted
                      that the inmate, who benefited from the
                      settlement agreement, could invoke the district
                      court's continuing jurisdiction over the matter
                      even though he was not a party to the original
                      settlement agreement. The settlement addressed
                      procedures for handling income from the inmate
                      canteen program and interest on individual inmate
                      accounts. The inmates alleged that income from
                      the operation of the inmate canteen program was
                      being deposited in the state treasury and not
                      properly accounted for. (Colorado Department of
                      Corrections)

U.S. Appeals Court    Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732 (9th Cir. 2002).
                      A class of prisoner's at a women's state prison
  CONSENT DECREE-     who brought a [section] 1983 action against
  TERMINATION         prison officials moved to extend jurisdiction
                      over a consent decree for an additional period of
                      time, to have prison officials held in contempt,
                      and to compel discovery. The district court
                      denied the motions and granted the prison
                      officials' motion to terminate the consent
                      decree. The appeals court affirmed in part,
                      reversed in part, and remanded. The appeals court
                      found that dental care and mental health
                      conditions at the prison did not violate the
                      Eighth Amendment. The appeals court found that
                      officials' substantial compliance with the
                      consent decree judgment was an acceptable defense
                      to the prisoners' motion to hold the officials in
                      civil contempt for past violations of the decree.
                      The court remanded the case for reconsideration
                      of allegations that the officials failed to
                      comply with consent decree requirements regarding
                      medical care. (Washington Corrections Center for
                      Women)

U.S. Appeals Court    Morris v. Crawford County, 299 F.3d 919 (8th Cir.
                      2002). A county detention center detainee brought
  NEGLIGENT           [section] 1983 and state law battery claims
  RETENTION           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. Appeals Court    Troville v. Venz, 303 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2002).
                      A civilly committed detainee filed a [section]
  PLRA--Prison        1983 action challenging his conditions of
  Litigation          confinement. The district court dismissed the
  Reform Act          case for failure to state a claim and the
                      detainee appealed. The appeals court reversed and
                      remanded, finding that the civil detainee is not
                      a "prisoner" for purposes of the Prison
                      Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and therefore the
                      PLRA provision requiring full payment of the
                      filing fee on appeal did not apply. The appeals
                      court held that the district court should have
                      permitted the detainee to amend his complaint.
                      According to the court, the definition of
                      "prisoner" in the in forma pauperis statute
                      applies only to persons incarcerated as
                      punishment for a criminal conviction, and a civil
                      detainee is not a "prisoner." (South Bay Detainee
                      Unit, South Bay Correctional Facility, Florida)

U.S. Appeals Court    U.S. v. Lemons, 302 F.3d 769 (7th Cir. 2002). A
                      pretrial detainee held in a federal jail sued the
  FEDERAL TORT        United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act,
  CLAIMS ACT          seeking compensation for injuries he sustained
                      when he slipped and fell on a wet floor while
                      working in the jail kitchen. The district court
                      dismissed the action and the appeals court
                      affirmed. The appeals court held that the Inmate
                      Compensation Program applied to the detainee,
                      even though previous definitions had excluded
                      pretrial detainees. The court noted "We cannot
                      think of any reason why Congress would have
                      wanted two classes of prison workers
                      distinguished." (Metropolitan Correctional
                      Center, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Chicago)