Failure-to-protect claim over prison assault revived

Listen to this article

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that genuine disputes of material fact barred summary judgment for prison officers accused of failing to protect the plaintiff from a violent assault by another inmate at Central Prison in North Carolina.

The plaintiff, a general-population inmate, was attacked while being taken upstairs for a haircut. The assailant was a “safekeeper,” a pretrial detainee housed separately because of a history of violence or other security concerns. According to the record, the defendant officers left sallyport doors open for convenience and failed to secure them even after learning that safekeepers were returning from recreation. The plaintiff suffered serious facial fractures, underwent surgery and is expected to experience chronic pain.

The 4th Circuit said that record evidence, viewed in the plaintiff’s favor, could support a finding of deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment. The court noted that the defendants knew of prison policies requiring separation of safekeepers from the general population and had been repeatedly reminded by a supervisor to keep the doors closed. A jury, the court said, could find that the defendants appreciated the danger and failed to take simple preventive measures, including closing the doors, to avoid foreseeable contact between the two groups. That was enough to create a triable issue on whether the defendants disregarded a substantial risk of inmate-on-inmate violence.

The court also said qualified immunity could not be resolved at the summary judgment stage because the right of prisoners to be protected from known, substantial risks of violence was clearly established. In addition, the court vacated an order granting one defendant extra time to respond to the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, holding that the U.S. District Court failed to apply the required excusable-neglect standard under Rule 6(b). The case was remanded for further proceedings.

The 26 page opinion is Case v. Beasley, Lawyers Weekly No. 001-054-26.