14. Failure to protect.

U.S. Appeals Court

PRISONER ON PRISONER ASSAULT

Fisher v. Lovejov, 414 F.3d 659 (7th Cir. 2005). A pretrial detainee brought a pro se [section] 1983 Fourteenth Amendment action against a corrections officer, alleging that the officer failed to protect the detainee from assault by other inmates of the facility. The district court entered summary judgment for the officer and the detainee appealed. The appeals court affirmed. The court held that the fact that the officer witnessed the stabbing of the detainee by another inmate did not render the officer deliberately indifferent to a second assault on the detainee that was perpetrated minutes later by several inmates. The court noted that the officer entered the room where the stabbing had occurred and attempted to restore order, found and confiscated a knife near the spot where he had observed the stabbing, which permitted the inference that the first assailant was unarmed. The officer did not identify the inmates who mounted the second attack as participants in the first attack. The court held that the officer reasonably responded when he witnessed the stabbing of the detainee, precluding liability. At the time of the assaults, the officer had been assigned to "cross-watch" two separate housing units, one of which housed 48 inmates. He was required to walk back and forth between the two units' dayrooms. When the first assault began the victim ran toward the locked dayroom door and saw the officer outside. He pushed an intercom button near the door and summoned help. The officer immediately called for assistance but was not able to enter the dayroom until it was unlocked by a central

control post. By the time the door opened, approximately twenty officers were waiting to enter. (Cook County Department of Corrections)

U.S. District Court

PRISONER ON PRISONER ASSAULT

Little v. Shelby County, Term., 384 F.Supp.2d 1169 (W.D.Tenn. 2005). An inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against a county and sheriff, alleging that he had been raped in jail in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. The county stipulated to liability and an order of injunctive relief was issued. Later, the district court found the county in contempt, and the county sought to purge itself of the contempt finding. The court entered a purgation order. The court held that the county and sheriff complied with the Eighth Amendment and purged themselves of contempt through the adoption of a structured reform to correct conditions that included violence, rape and gang control among inmates. In reaching its conclusion, the court considered whether officials took ail reasonable steps within their power to comply with the order, which included whether...