×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Jailers Denied Qualified Immunity on Prisoner Assault
The U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, reversing an Arkansas U.S.
District Court, denied qualified immunity to jailers who knowingly celled
an arrestee with his known enemy, resulting in an assault on the arrestee.
Rod White was arrested and booked at the Hempstead County Detention
Facility in Arkansas on unspecified charges. During booking he informed
jailers Lloyd. Wood and Jeremy Brown that Stacy Trotter, also a prisoner at
the facility, was White's enemy. White had previously had problems with
Trotter's wife, and Trotter had sworn to kill White. The jailers
nonetheless placed White in the same pod with Trotter, who promptly
assaulted White.
White sued the facility, the jailers and other jail officials under 42
U.S.C. §1983. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas
granted defendants summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity, and
White appealed.
The Court of Appeals held that the law was well-settled that jailers have a
duty to protect prisoners from assault. Taking White's allegations as true,
it was clear that the jailers failed in that duty. Consequently, summary
judgment was inappropriate.
The District Court was reversed and the case remanded for further
proceedings. This was not a ruling on the merits, and the ruling was
unpublished. See: White v. Crane, 45 Fed.Appx. 552 (8th Cir. 2002).
District Court, denied qualified immunity to jailers who knowingly celled
an arrestee with his known enemy, resulting in an assault on the arrestee.
Rod White was arrested and booked at the Hempstead County Detention
Facility in Arkansas on unspecified charges. During booking he informed
jailers Lloyd. Wood and Jeremy Brown that Stacy Trotter, also a prisoner at
the facility, was White's enemy. White had previously had problems with
Trotter's wife, and Trotter had sworn to kill White. The jailers
nonetheless placed White in the same pod with Trotter, who promptly
assaulted White.
White sued the facility, the jailers and other jail officials under 42
U.S.C. §1983. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas
granted defendants summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity, and
White appealed.
The Court of Appeals held that the law was well-settled that jailers have a
duty to protect prisoners from assault. Taking White's allegations as true,
it was clear that the jailers failed in that duty. Consequently, summary
judgment was inappropriate.
The District Court was reversed and the case remanded for further
proceedings. This was not a ruling on the merits, and the ruling was
unpublished. See: White v. Crane, 45 Fed.Appx. 552 (8th Cir. 2002).
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
White v. Crane
| Year | 2002 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 45 Fed.Appx. 552 (8th Cir. 2002). |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
[U] White v. Crane, 45 Fed.Appx. 552 (8th Cir. 09/04/2002)
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
[2] No. 02-1365
[3] 45 Fed.Appx. 552, 2002.C08
[4] September 4, 2002
[5] ROD WHITE, APPELLANT,
v.
JERRY T. CRANE, SHERIFF, HEMPSTEAD COUNTY; JIM PARSONS, JAIL ADMINISTRATOR; DEFENDANTS, LLOYD WOODS, JAILER; JEREMY BROWN, JAILER, APPELLEES.
[6] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.
[7] Before Wollman, Fagg, and Morris Sheppard Arnold, Circuit Judges.
[8] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam
[9] [UNPUBLISHED]
[10] Submitted: August 29, 2002
[11] Rod White appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in his civil rights action. Having reviewed the district court's summary judgment determination de novo, see Hudson v. Norris, 227 F.3d 1047, 1050 (8th Cir. 2000), we reverse and remand.
[12] Mr. White, a former inmate at the Hempstead County Detention Facility, brought this action against, inter alia, jailers Lloyd Wood *fn1 and Jeremy Brown, alleging that in 2001 they failed to protect him from an attack by another inmate, Stacy Trotter. *fn2 Officers Wood and Brown moved for summary judgment, claiming qualified immunity. In a verified response, Mr. White declared that when he was booked he notified another officer and Brown that Trotter should be put on his enemy-alert list because of a problem Mr. White just had with Trotter's wife; Trotter thereafter threatened to kill Mr. White for what Mr. White had done to Trotter's wife; Mr. White told Wood that Trotter was his enemy and was going to try to get him; when Wood led Mr. White in handcuffs to Trotter's "pod," Mr. White asked Wood "at least" to handcuff Trotter before opening the door, but Wood refused; and when Wood opened the door, Trotter attacked Mr. White. Mr. White also declared that Brown (knowing Trotter was Mr. White's enemy) should not have let Wood "go back there by [himself]," but should have been present to help. The district court held that the jailers were entitled to qualified immunity. We disagree.
[13] Mr. White's allegations in his summary judgment response, taken as true, established a constitutional violation. See Hope v. Pelzer, 122 S. Ct. 2508, 2513 (2002) ("The threshold inquiry a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether plaintiff's allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation."). "Despite their participation in this constitutionally impermissible conduct, [defendants] may nevertheless be shielded from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate 'clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" Id. at 2515 (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). Mr. White's right to be free from the attack was, however, well settled by 2001. See Prater v. Dahm, 89 F.3d 538, 541 (8th Cir. 1996) (it is well settled that Eighth Amendment imposes duty on prison officials to protect prisoners from violence at hands of other prisoners); Erickson v. Holloway, 77 F.3d 1078, 1080-81 (8th Cir. 1996) (jail guard who was informed of inmate's report of threat from prisoner but who allegedly failed to disable cell block control panel when he left his post or to investigate prisoner's sudden movement toward area in which inmate was located was not entitled to qualified-immunity protection). Under the facts alleged, we conclude it was not objectively legally reasonable for the jailers to believe that their conduct did not violate Mr. White's clearly established Eighth Amendment right. See Curry v. Crist, 226 F.3d 974, 977 (8th Cir. 2000) (critical inquiry for qualified-immunity purposes is whether it was objectively legally reasonable for prison official to believe his conduct did not violate inmate's clearly established right).
[14] We hold, as to the failure-to-protect claim, that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of officers Wood and Brown on the basis of qualified immunity. Accordingly, we reverse and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion Footnotes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[15] *fn1 The record seems to indicate that this jailer's name is "Wood," not "Woods."
[16] *fn2 Mr. White also asserted a medical deliberate-indifference claim, but he has abandoned it by not raising it in his appellate brief. See Etheridge v. United States, 241 F.3d 619, 622 (8th Cir. 2001).
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
[2] No. 02-1365
[3] 45 Fed.Appx. 552, 2002.C08
[4] September 4, 2002
[5] ROD WHITE, APPELLANT,
v.
JERRY T. CRANE, SHERIFF, HEMPSTEAD COUNTY; JIM PARSONS, JAIL ADMINISTRATOR; DEFENDANTS, LLOYD WOODS, JAILER; JEREMY BROWN, JAILER, APPELLEES.
[6] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.
[7] Before Wollman, Fagg, and Morris Sheppard Arnold, Circuit Judges.
[8] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam
[9] [UNPUBLISHED]
[10] Submitted: August 29, 2002
[11] Rod White appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in his civil rights action. Having reviewed the district court's summary judgment determination de novo, see Hudson v. Norris, 227 F.3d 1047, 1050 (8th Cir. 2000), we reverse and remand.
[12] Mr. White, a former inmate at the Hempstead County Detention Facility, brought this action against, inter alia, jailers Lloyd Wood *fn1 and Jeremy Brown, alleging that in 2001 they failed to protect him from an attack by another inmate, Stacy Trotter. *fn2 Officers Wood and Brown moved for summary judgment, claiming qualified immunity. In a verified response, Mr. White declared that when he was booked he notified another officer and Brown that Trotter should be put on his enemy-alert list because of a problem Mr. White just had with Trotter's wife; Trotter thereafter threatened to kill Mr. White for what Mr. White had done to Trotter's wife; Mr. White told Wood that Trotter was his enemy and was going to try to get him; when Wood led Mr. White in handcuffs to Trotter's "pod," Mr. White asked Wood "at least" to handcuff Trotter before opening the door, but Wood refused; and when Wood opened the door, Trotter attacked Mr. White. Mr. White also declared that Brown (knowing Trotter was Mr. White's enemy) should not have let Wood "go back there by [himself]," but should have been present to help. The district court held that the jailers were entitled to qualified immunity. We disagree.
[13] Mr. White's allegations in his summary judgment response, taken as true, established a constitutional violation. See Hope v. Pelzer, 122 S. Ct. 2508, 2513 (2002) ("The threshold inquiry a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether plaintiff's allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation."). "Despite their participation in this constitutionally impermissible conduct, [defendants] may nevertheless be shielded from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate 'clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" Id. at 2515 (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). Mr. White's right to be free from the attack was, however, well settled by 2001. See Prater v. Dahm, 89 F.3d 538, 541 (8th Cir. 1996) (it is well settled that Eighth Amendment imposes duty on prison officials to protect prisoners from violence at hands of other prisoners); Erickson v. Holloway, 77 F.3d 1078, 1080-81 (8th Cir. 1996) (jail guard who was informed of inmate's report of threat from prisoner but who allegedly failed to disable cell block control panel when he left his post or to investigate prisoner's sudden movement toward area in which inmate was located was not entitled to qualified-immunity protection). Under the facts alleged, we conclude it was not objectively legally reasonable for the jailers to believe that their conduct did not violate Mr. White's clearly established Eighth Amendment right. See Curry v. Crist, 226 F.3d 974, 977 (8th Cir. 2000) (critical inquiry for qualified-immunity purposes is whether it was objectively legally reasonable for prison official to believe his conduct did not violate inmate's clearly established right).
[14] We hold, as to the failure-to-protect claim, that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of officers Wood and Brown on the basis of qualified immunity. Accordingly, we reverse and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion Footnotes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[15] *fn1 The record seems to indicate that this jailer's name is "Wood," not "Woods."
[16] *fn2 Mr. White also asserted a medical deliberate-indifference claim, but he has abandoned it by not raising it in his appellate brief. See Etheridge v. United States, 241 F.3d 619, 622 (8th Cir. 2001).