14. Failure to protect.

U.S. Appeals Court PRISONER ON PRISONER ASSAULT

Cantu v. Jones, 293 F.3d 839 (5th Cir. 2002). A prison inmate who had been slashed with a razor by another inmate, brought a civil rights action to recover on a deliberate indifference theory from prison officials, who allegedly orchestrated the assault. A jury ruled in favor of the inmate and awarded $22,500 in compensatory damages; the prison officials appealed. The appeals court affirmed the district court verdict. The appeals court held that the question of whether officials manifested deliberate indifference to the inmate's safety when they allegedly left a door to another inmate's cell open and allowed him to escape and assault the first inmate, was a matter for the jury. The plaintiff inmate had previously complained about prison guards. The appeals court affirmed that the officials were not entitled to qualified immunity. (Connally Unit, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division)

U.S. Appeals Court OFFICER ON PRISONER ASSAULT SEXUAL ASSAULT

Ford v. County of Oakland, 35 Fed.Appx. 393 (6th Cir. 2002). A female county jail inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against a county for allegedly maintaining a custom or policy of ignoring sexual harassment and assault claims, and creating an atmosphere that facilitated her rape by a police deputy who was supervising her. The district court granted summary judgment as to the [section] 1988 municipal liability claim, and the appeals court affirmed. Although the deputy was not suspended from duty until after the sheriffs office had completed its investigation, the court noted that the county had a policy against sexual harassment, disciplined the deputy after the results of a state police report became available, and proffered evidence of three other cases in which officers were disciplined for sexual harassment and assault at the county jail. (Oakland County Jarl, Michigan)

U.S. District Court OFFICER ON PRISONER ASSAULT

Gallardo v. Dicarlo, 203 F.Supp.2d 1160 (C.D.Cal. 2002). A state prisoner brought a [section] 1983 action against a prison warden alleging Fifth Amendment and state law claims. The district court found that the prisoner stated an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against the warden and that the warden was not entitled to qualified immunity. The prisoner alleged that the warden encouraged the use of excessive force, and that he sustained physical injuries from officers' use of force on him that required a...