27. Liability.

U.S. District Court

SUPERVISORY LIABILITY

Collins v. Graham, 377 F.Supp.2d 241 (D.Me. 2005). An inmate brought a civil rights action against corrections officers and their supervisors alleging that the officers subjected him to sexual harassment. The district court held that the inmate failed to state a claim for sexual harassment with allegations that the officers made statements to him referring to sexual acts and tried to grab him in a sexual manner. According to the court, an attempted touching, with no accompanying allegation of pain or injury, cannot support an inmate's claim of constitutional injury. The court found that the inmate failed to state a claim for supervisory liability. The court also found that the inmate's allegation that an officer exposed his testicles to him did not meet the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain" standard necessary to support a [section] 1983 claim. The court noted that sexual abuse or harassment of an inmate by a correctional officer can never serve a legitimate penological purpose and may well result in severe physical and psychological harm, and that in some circumstances such abuse can constitute the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain that is forbidden by the Eighth Amendment. (Maine Correctional Center)

U.S. District Court

CONTEMPT

Little v. Shelby County, Tenn., 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 all reasonable steps within their power to comply with the order, which included whether they marshaled their own resources, asserted their highest authority, and demanded the results needed from subordinate persons and agencies in order to effectuate the course of action required by the order. The court praised the county, noting that it had adopted a focused, systemic and information-driven...