Issues Arising in Institutional Litigation, part 8 of 8: Safety

Safety

Inmates have a right to personal safety under Youngberg v. Romeo, Jackson v. Fort Stanton State Hospital & Training School, Smith v. Wade, Farmer v. Brennan, Ramos v. Lamm, and Harris v. Maynard. A growing body of case law explores the limits of the constitutional right to safety and the liability of institutional officials for the failure to protect vulnerable inmates (see Young v. Quinlan, Redman v. County of San Diego, LaMarca v. Turner, Miller v. Glanz, Luciano v. Galindo, Sampley v. Ruettgers, and Hill v. Shelander).

In Hudson v. McMillan, the U.S. Supreme Court held that minor injuries suffered by a handcuffed, shackled inmate beaten by three Louisiana prison guards constituted a violation of the eighth amendment. The supervisor on duty had watched the beating and told the guards “not to have too much fun.” The Court held that in measuring the objective component of a violation of the eighth amendment, courts should be guided by contemporary standards of decency (Wilson v. Seiter) and, when officials act sadistically, those standards are always violated whether significant injury is evident or not (see Felix v. McCarthy on denying qualified immunity to prison guards in connection with an unprovoked attack on an inmate, even though the injury to the inmate was slight, and Valencia v. Wiggins on denying qualified immunity to a jailer who bashed an inmate’s head against cell bars and used a choke hold that rendered the inmate unconscious).


It is difficult to say when violence reaches constitutional proportions. A California court ruled in Inmates of Riverside County Jail v. Clark that violence had reached an unacceptable level when there was a one in three chance that an inmate would become a victim of violence. In LaMarca v. Turner, the court examined reports showing that the prison superintendent was aware of the level of violence and the conditions contributing to it without acting to remedy the situation.


There has been less litigation over safety issues in juvenile facilities, but the same principles apply; facilities must protect children from violence and sexual assault by other children (see Guidry v. Rapides Parish School Board and C.J.W. by and through L.W. v. State). In monitoring safety issues in juvenile institutions, it is crucial to examine reports of violence or potential violence from individuals, the number and characteristics of violent incidents, and the level of fear in the institution. Another safety issue that, fortunately, arises less frequently is staff brutality. There are few cases on this issue, but further research on the use of excessive force would be valuable.