×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Arkansas Guards Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity for Rape of Female Prisoner
Erma Trammell, an Arkansas state prisoner, was raped at the Tucker Women's
Unit by a guard named Lee Davis. Trammell sued Davis and a host of prison
officials in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming
deliberate indifference to her safety in violation of the 8th Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution. The district court refused to grant qualified
immunity to the defendants because they admitted knowing about
inappropriate sexual behavior but not doing anything to stop it. They then
appealed.
On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit agreed that since
the defendants knew about ongoing inappropriate sexual behavior by guards
and did nothing to stop it, they weren't entitled to qualified immunity.
Thus, the district court was affirmed. See: Trammell v. Davis, 208 F.3d
218 (8th Cir. 2000).
Unit by a guard named Lee Davis. Trammell sued Davis and a host of prison
officials in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming
deliberate indifference to her safety in violation of the 8th Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution. The district court refused to grant qualified
immunity to the defendants because they admitted knowing about
inappropriate sexual behavior but not doing anything to stop it. They then
appealed.
On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit agreed that since
the defendants knew about ongoing inappropriate sexual behavior by guards
and did nothing to stop it, they weren't entitled to qualified immunity.
Thus, the district court was affirmed. See: Trammell v. Davis, 208 F.3d
218 (8th Cir. 2000).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Trammell v. Davis
| Year | 2000 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 208 F.3d 218 (8th Cir. 2000) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
[U] Mittendorf v. Braun, 208 F.3d 218 (8th Cir. 03/27/2000)
[1] U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
[2] No. 99-3979
[3] 208 F.3d 218, 2000
[4] March 27, 2000
[5] FORREST MITTENDORF, APPELLANT,
V.
TIM BRAUN, J.D.; STATE OF MISSOURI; PAUL KAISER, J.D.; LISA HEWITT, J.D.; GRACE NICHOLS, J.D., APPELLEES.
[6] Before McMILLIAN, Hansen, and Morris Sheppard Arnold, Circuit Judges.
[7] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam.
[8] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
[9] [UNPUBLISHED]
[10] Submitted: March 6, 2000
[11] Missouri inmate Forrest Mittendorf appeals from the district court's *fn1 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the State of Missouri, three prosecuting attorneys, and a state judge. Having carefully reviewed the record, see Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam), we conclude dismissal was proper because the State is not a "person" for purposes of section 1983, and all defendants are immune from this suit, see Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273 (1993) (prosecutorial immunity); Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64 (1989) (state is not "person" under § 1983); Duty v. City of Springdale, Ark., 42 F.3d 460, 462 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (judicial immunity); Williams v. Missouri, 973 F.2d 599, 600 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (state's sovereign immunity). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).
[12] A true copy.
[13] Attest:
[14] CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion Footnotes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[15] *fn1 The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
[1] U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
[2] No. 99-3979
[3] 208 F.3d 218, 2000
[4] March 27, 2000
[5] FORREST MITTENDORF, APPELLANT,
V.
TIM BRAUN, J.D.; STATE OF MISSOURI; PAUL KAISER, J.D.; LISA HEWITT, J.D.; GRACE NICHOLS, J.D., APPELLEES.
[6] Before McMILLIAN, Hansen, and Morris Sheppard Arnold, Circuit Judges.
[7] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam.
[8] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
[9] [UNPUBLISHED]
[10] Submitted: March 6, 2000
[11] Missouri inmate Forrest Mittendorf appeals from the district court's *fn1 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the State of Missouri, three prosecuting attorneys, and a state judge. Having carefully reviewed the record, see Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam), we conclude dismissal was proper because the State is not a "person" for purposes of section 1983, and all defendants are immune from this suit, see Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273 (1993) (prosecutorial immunity); Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64 (1989) (state is not "person" under § 1983); Duty v. City of Springdale, Ark., 42 F.3d 460, 462 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (judicial immunity); Williams v. Missouri, 973 F.2d 599, 600 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (state's sovereign immunity). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).
[12] A true copy.
[13] Attest:
[14] CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion Footnotes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[15] *fn1 The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.