Texas Supreme Court Holds TDCJ Immune in Suit Alleging Sexual Assault of Prisoners
Texas Supreme Court Holds TDCJ Immune in Suit Alleging Sexual Assault of Prisoners
On October 26, 2102, the Texas Supreme Court held that the Texas Department of Criminal Justice – Community Justice Assistance Division (TDCJ) – was immune from a lawsuit alleging female prisoners were sexually harassed and assaulted by two guards at the Nueces County Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (SATF).
Luzelma Campos, Betty Jo Gonzalez and Misty Valero (plaintiffs) were prisoners at the SATF when guards Anthony Allen and Cordell Hayes allegedly sexually harassed and assaulted them. To accomplish this, Allen and Hayes allegedly used a laundry cart to block access to a laundry room or storage room. These both confined the women and allowed the guards private, unmonitored access to them.
Plaintiffs filed suit in state court raising both federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state torts. They alleged that immunity was waived because of the exception to government immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.021(2), when the injury is the result of the use of tangible property that belongs to the state. TDCJ was included in the suit along with the local Community Supervision and Corrections Department (CSCD) which runs the SATF because it provides technical and administrative assistance to the SATF, including guard training and certification. CSCD and TDCJ filed a joint plea to the jurisdiction based on governmental immunity. The § 1983 claims were dismissed based on governmental immunity. Those dismissals were upheld on appeal.
After remand from the court of appeals, TDCJ and CSCD again filed a joint plea to the jurisdiction which was denied. They then filed an interlocutory appeal. The court of appeals dismissed all claims against CSCD, allowing claims for negligent hiring, training and supervision of employees and negligent implementation of policy to remain against TDCJ. TDCJ appealed.
The Texas Supreme Court held that immunity was not waived for intentional conduct such as sexual assaults. Furthermore, the use of the rooms and laundry cart did not constitute an exception because they were only used to facilitate the intentional conduct. No use of tangible property was alleged in the failure to properly train, hire and supervise claims, so immunity was not waived for them or for failing to discipline prior inappropriate conduct by other employees. Also, TDCJ was not liable because it provided tangible property used by guards unless the property was inherently unsafe, which was not the case in this suit. Finally, allegations that security cameras were improperly placed did not overcome immunity because placement of the cameras was not the same as using the cameras. Therefore, the judgment of the court of appeals was reversed and the claims against TDCJ dismissed. See: Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice-Community Assistance Div. v. Campos, 384 S.W.3d 810 (Tex. 2012).
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
Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice-Community Assistance Div. v. Campos
| Year | 2012 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 384 S.W.3d 810 (Tex. 2012) |
| Level | State Supreme Court |
| Conclusion | Bench Verdict |