Speaking of Lawsuits. . .

There is a case coming up this month in Federal Court involving a man who was beaten by as many as 4 inmates while being at the Faulkner County Detention Center for less than an hour. Scott A. Crow filed a lawsuit back in June 2002 alleging violations of the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Crow's jaw was broken in 3 places that required surgery and metal plates to put it back together.

In an appeal from the United States District Court of Appeals for the Eastern District of Arkansas, No. 03-3859, the district court denied a summary judgment motion for qualified immunity made by defendants Marty Montgomery, Kyle Kelly, and Gene Stephens. The district court found genuine issues of material fact existed and said the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on their qualified immunity defense. The US District Court of Appeals reversed the decision and gave the defendants immunity from individual liability; however the lawsuit proceeds against the County. If we look back at the court’s ruling we see something interesting,

The Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of "cruel and unusual
punishments." U.S. Const. amend. VIII. The Supreme Court has held that the Eighth Amendment requires prison officials to take "reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates [and] . . . to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-33 (1994) (quotations omitted). In order to establish a constitutional violation, Crow must show: (1) that his incarceration in cell 305 posed a substantial risk of serious harm (objective component), and (2) the FCDC officials actually knew of but disregarded, or were deliberately indifferent to, Crow's health or safety (subjective component). Pagels v.
Morrison, 335 F.3d 736, 740 (8th Cir. 2003); Jackson v. Everett, 140 F.3d 1149, 1151 (8th Cir. 1998).

For purposes of this appeal we assume that Crow's incarceration in cell 305
posed a substantial risk of serious harm to Crow and that the FCDC officials were aware of the risk. However, we reverse the district court's denial of qualified immunity because, as a matter of law, the facts alleged by Crow do not establish that the FCDC officials disregarded any known risk alleged by Crow.

[Emphasis added]

The facts do not establish that the sheriff's office disregarded any know risk? Let's look a the facts for a moment. First Crow turned himself in for allegedly violating his parole, that had already ended, and was scheduled to see the judge the next morning. In the briefs for this appeal jailers admit to putting Crow in a cell with long term violent offenders when he should have been housed elsewhere. This in itself would constitutes a disregard to Crow's safety but that's not the end of the story. In this cell was a prisoner who had just come off a stay in isolation for breaking the jaw of another inmate just weeks before. This would seem to raise the level of possible harm that could befall not only Crow but all the other inmates that were in that cell. The simple fact that the jail administrators were aware of the dangers and did nothing to alleviate them shows their indifference. That leaves of was this indifference deliberate?

In other lawsuits the courts have acknowledge that fact that a new jail was planned and sided with the County but how does simply planning for a new jail protect the inmates currently incarcerated? The fact is that it doesn't and continuing to house prisoners in what they themselves call unsafe condition constitutes a deliberate act. Take a look at some of the comments made in the press in 1999 about jail overcrowding and the safety of inmates.

Sheriff Marty Montgomery said the stress of being incarcerated in the first place is intensified by the overcrowding.

"Anytime you have 23 people in a 12-man cell ... it just exacerbates an already bad situation," he said.

Kelly and Montgomery both said the increased number of fights also leads to increased medical costs for the jail.

"When you have fights, you often have injuries," Montgomery said. "Anything can happen ... people could get injured or, God forbid, there could be a death."

Prisoner's medical costs, which are paid by the county, are also increased because germs spread easily within large groups of people sharing one area.

The increased number of fights and the increased need for medical attention combine with many other factors to place a large amount of stress on the understaffed jail administrators, according to Montgomery.

"We have to be careful and watch for burnout closely because these individuals are under a great deal of stress ... controlling this many inmates," he said.

And let's not forget Sheriff Montgomery's infamous "...we are out of options. The only alternative we would have would be a reduction of services," statement to the press also in 1999. Could this reduction in services have been at the jail?

That's hard to say for sure but one thing that is a surety is this case is costing us taxpayers money for the Sheriff's and the County's defense and possible damages should Crow win his suit. Another black eye for our spectacular sheriff's department and another blemish on Sheriff Montgomery's illustrious career...