Before the Court was the appeal of Everglades Correctional Institution (ECI) prisoner Miguel V. Rodriguez, who was stabbed in the back and chest by Latin Kings “enforcer” Arnold Cleveland. Rodriguez’s Eighth Amendment claim hinged upon the failure of Assistant Warden Raymond Kugler and Colonel Charles Johnson to act on his request to protect him from gang members.
While on Close Management (CM) at ECI in early 2001, Rodriguez learned that gang members at ECI wanted to kill him for renouncing his gang membership. Kugler and Johnson were already aware Rodriguez was on CM for assaulting another prisoner and for gang activity. Rodriguez was stabbed within hours of being released into general population on April 10, 2002.
The district court granted summary judgment to Kugler, holding that Rodriguez’s complaints did not contain “specific facts” to show Kugler had subjective knowledge of the risk of harm. The claim against Johnson proceeded to trial. After Rodriguez presented his case, the district court held that Johnson was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because he did not have final authority to release Rodriguez into the general prison population.
On appeal, Kugler and Johnson argued they were unaware of any “facts indicating a sufficiently substantial danger” to Rodriguez, and no causal connection existed because they did not have final authority to order his release from CM. The Eleventh Circuit rejected those arguments.
In the summary judgment proceeding, Rodriguez provided a declaration stating he had verbally informed Kugler on two separate occasions of the threat against his life by gang members, and had requested protection and a transfer to another prison. The appellate court held that such evidence, in conjunction with Kugler’s denial of Rodriguez’s allegations, created a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment.
Similarly, Rodriguez also spoke with Johnson several times about the threats. While Johnson promised he would “look into” it and “get with” classification about the matter, he did not inform anyone about Rodriguez’s safety concerns.
The Court found Johnson was aware of the threat of harm because Rodriguez advised him that (1) he was a former Latin King who had renounced his membership; (2) he was threatened with death by gang members for that renunciation; (3) ECI was heavily populated with Latin Kings; and (4) he needed protection to prevent an attempt on his life.
When addressing the causal connection, the Court found the same factors applied to both Kugler and Johnson. The Eleventh Circuit ruled that in the face of Rodriguez’s request for protection at a hearing on his release from CM, Kugler and Johnson recommended his release and told him he would be subject to disciplinary action if he refused to return to general population. Kugler and Johnson argued that because their action was only a recommendation to the State Classi-fication Office, they had no final authority to release Rodriguez from CM.
However, both Johnson and Kugler had the authority to set in motion procedures to immediately place Rodriguez in administrative confinement and initiate a protective management review, which could have resulted in a transfer to an-other facility if the threat of harm was substantiated.
Instead, neither Johnson nor Kugler took action to protect Rodriguez. Rather, the only action they took was to “rec-ommend that Rodriguez be returned to the compound –where he would have no protection at all from the Latin Kings who had threatened his life.” Therefore, the Eleventh Circuit found a “‘necessary causal link’ between Johnson’s actions and Rodriquez’s injury,” and vacated the district court’s judgment as a matter of law in favor of Johnson. See: Rodriguez v. Sec’y for the Dep’t of Corr., 508 F.3d 611 (11th Cir. 2007).
Following remand, the case went to a federal jury trial on April 8, 2008, and the jury found in favor of the defendants, Kugler and Johnson, on all claims. Rodriguez was represented by the Miami law firms of Akerman Senterfitt, Berger Singerman, and Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedmann, LLP.
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
Rodriguez v. Sec’y for the Dep’t of Corr.
|Cite||508 F.3d 611 (11th Cir. 2007).|
|Level||Court of Appeals|