CRS, Inc.
          
Home National Jail Work
and Industry Center 		Staffing Analysis Clearinghouse Publications About CRS
 
 
 
Court Case Summaries Pertaining to Staffing Requirements and Inmate Supervision
 
  This material was drawn from the Detention and Corrections Caselaw. Reprinted with permission of the catalog editors, Rod Miller and Don Walter.

CRS, Inc./Detention Reporter

[Jump to recent cases] 		 
     
  Ahrens v. Thomas  
 

Ahrens v. Thomas, 434 F.Supp. 873, 903. (W.D. Mo. 1977). The jail will be supervised by adequately trained officers on a 24-hour basis. There shall be sufficient officers on duty at all time to protect detainees against assaults and to permit entry into living areas on a 24-hour basis. Jail officials must provide 24-hour supervision by a matron when women inmates are detained in the jail.

  
     
  Alberti v. Klevenhagen  
  Alberti v. Klevenhagen, 606 F.Supp. 478 (S.D. Tex. 1985). The District Court has ordered the sheriff and other defendants to hire and train additional sergeants and deputies for guard duty on the jail’s housing floors to provide security in helping to prevent violent inmate attacks. The court ordered a total of 267 guards and 116 deputies, but left functions and assignment up to the jail administrators. The required staffing was designed to correct unsafe living conditions under the Eighth Amendment. (On appeal in 1986 the higher court upheld the district court’s order).  
     
  Alberti v. Sheriff of Harris County  
  Alberti v. Sheriff of Harris County, 406 F.Supp. 649, 669 (S.D. Tex. 1975). The number of jail officers must be increased when additional officers are required for the safekeeping of inmates and the security of the jail.  
     
  Bay County Jail Inmates v. Bay County Board of Commissioners  
 

Bay County Jail Inmates v. Bay County Board of Commissioners, 74-10056 (E.D. Mich.). The use of television surveillance is inadequate by itself. “The purpose of personal supervision is to see, to hear, to sense the moods of prisoners, to anticipate danger, to provide humanness instead of the cold eye of the T.V. camera, and to be able to react quickly and efficiently.”

  
     
  Clappier v. Flynn  
  Clappier v. Flynn, 605 F.2d 519 (16th Cir. 1979) (Laramie County Jail). Evidence indicating that the officers failed to patrol the cellblock more than once a day was sufficient for a jury to find that this commission was the cause of an attack on the plaintiff by other inmates and that the failure to supervise violated the plaintiff’s civil rights. The Court rejects the argument that the plaintiff’s failure to seek assistance is fatal to his cause of action.  
     
  Curtis v. Everette  
  Curtis v. Everette, 489 F.2d 516 (3rd Cir. 1973). Held that an allegation that prison officials failed to prevent plaintiff from being violently attacked by another prisoner stated a violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. A prisoner has a constitutional right to be secure in his person and may not be deprived of liberty without due process of law, Daniels v. Anderson, 237 N.W. 2d 397 (Neb. Sup. Ct. 1975). The court ruled that the use of audio/visual monitors by the jail is ineffective and is not an
adequate substitute for the physical presence of jail staff to assure inmate safety.		  
     
  Davis v. Zahradnick  
  Davis v. Zahradnick, 600 F.2d 458 (4th Cir. 1979). An allegation that the warden’s failure to properly supervise officer resulting in the staff failing to intervene when plaintiff was beaten by other inmates stated a claim upon which relief could be granted.  
     
  Doe v. Lally  
  Doe v. Lally, 457 F.Supp. 1339 (D. Md. 1979)(Md. Reception & Diagnostic C t r.) . An inmate is entitled to be reasonably free from homosexual attack and to protection to maintain that freedom. The presence of such attacks on a regular basis violates the Eighth Amendment. Failure to separate the inmates in the diagnostic center from the general population inmates which results in regular incidents of homosexual assault borders on gross negligence and removes any good faith defense from the defendants.  
     
  Doe v. Swinson  
  Doe v. Swinson, 20 Grim. L. Rptr. 2272 (E.D. Vir. 1976). Violation of minimum standards requiring a officer on duty on each jail floor at all times supports sheriff’s liability for injury or mistreatment of inmates.  
     
  Gates v. Collier  
  Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291, 1308 (5th Cir. 1974). Where the plaintiff is able to show that inmates are being subjected to physical assaults and abuses by other inmates, the court may order injunctive relief, including the hiring of additional guards and classification of prisoners.  
     
  Goldsby v. Carnes  
  Goldsby v. Carnes, 429 F.Supp. 370, 382 (W.D. Mo. 1977). Living units should be observed at least every 30 minutes, 24 hours a day, and cells in a tank should be visually checked four times while inmates are locked in at night.  
     
  Hamilton v. Landrieu  
  Hamilton v. Landrieu, 351 F.Supp. 549, 551 (E.D. La. 1972). Prison officials shall promptly fill all vacancies in the security staff and, in addition, shall increase security personnel by 110 officers.  
     
  Hamilton v. Love  
  Hamilton v. Love, 328 F.Supp. 1182, 1196. (E.D. Ark. 1971). There shall be one staff member patrolling on each cell floor in the immediate area of every inmate on a 24-hour basis. Jail officials are ordered to hire non-inmate personnel to assure that, at a minimum, one staff member is assigned to each cell floor to patrol continually 24 hours a day. One female staff member must be on duty 24 hours a day to supervise female inmates.  
     
  Hamilton v. Love  
  Hamilton v. Love, 358 F.Supp. 338 (E.D. Ark. 1973). Jail officials are ordered to hire six additional correctional officers within one week to assure the safety of inmates and the security of the jail. Female prisoners being processed through the jail will always be accompanied by a matron.  
     
  Hamilton v. Schiro  
  Hamilton v. Schiro, 338 F.Supp. 1016, 1018 (E.D. La. 1970). Because supervision of inmates is totally inadequate to deter physical attacks on inmates and that the deteriorating iron work of the jail provides access to “deadly weapons” the court found a constitutional violation.  
     
  Harvey v. Clay County Sheriff’s Department  
  Harvey v. Clay County Sheriff’s Department, 473 F.Supp. 741 (W.D. Mo. 1979) Where the inmate informed the jail administration that a fight between his cellmate and himself was imminent and the jail administration failed to take action other than to admonish both of the cellmates that they would not tolerate fighting, the complaint alleging injuries resulting from a subsequent fight did not state a claim for violation of civil rights although it might state a claim for negligence.  
     
  Hedrick v. Grant  
  Hedrick v. Grant, Civil No. S-76-162 (E.D. Ca., Nov. 13, 1976). Prison officials ordered to hire six additional correctional officers within one week.  
     
  Heitman v. Gabriel  
  Heitman v. Gabriel, 524 F.Supp. 622 (1981). Inmates in the Buchanan County Jail, St. Joseph, Missouri, filed an action in the United States District Court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in response to alleged unconstitutional conditions of confinement. In ordering remedies in response to findings against the County, the court stated that costs cannot be permitted to stand in the way of eliminating conditions that have fallen below the eighth amendment and due process standards. The court stated that, “Such increases in staff as may be necessary to carry out this order shall be made without limitation imposed by State law. The Court retains jurisdiction for the period necessary to ensure compliance with this decree, to make any further findings and conclusions necessary following submission by the parties of proposed remedial measures, and to enter any further orders necessary to full relief.”  
     
  Holland v. Corelon  
  Holland v. Corelon, Civil No. 71-1440 (E.D. La.). The court orders jail authorities to hire additional staff and public authorities to pay for them to remedy constitutional violations.  
     
  Incarcerated Men of Allen County v. Fair  
  Incarcerated Men of Allen County v. Fair, Civil No. C-72-188. The use of electronic surveillance equipment by the jail, as a substitute for officers, is inadequate. Jail officials shall provide two officers on duty at all times.  
     
  Jackson v. Hendrick  
  Jackson v. Hendrick, 446 A.2d 226 (Penn. 1982). The court finds that the shortage of officers led to constitutional and statutory violations. J a i l officials shall fill and maintain sufficient staff positions to assure jail security and the protection of inmates.  
     
  Johnson v. Lark  
  Johnson v. Lark, 365 F.Supp. 289, 204. (E.D. Mo. 1973). Sufficient officer supervision will be maintained to correct promptly any situation that could result in injury or mistreatment of prisoners.  
     
  Joiner v. Praitt  
  Joiner v. Praitt, No. 475-166 (Ind.Super). Jail officials ordered to immediately provide jail staff on each floor of the jail to ensure 24-hour supervision.  
     
  Jones v. Wittenberg  
  Jones v. Wittenberg, 440 F.Supp. 60 (N.D. Ohio 1977). Defendants shall provide enough officers to keep at least two on each floor at all times, one of whom shall be on patrol in the cell blocks, even if personnel must be re-deployed from police activities. Until defendants provide continual surveillance of prisoners who need to be watched, they will be in contempt.  
     
  Lambert v. Skidmore  
  Lambert v. Skidmore, No. C 2 74-135 (S.D. Ohio, May 30, 1975). The jail population shall be supervised at all times by at least one qualified person whose primary duty shall consist of prisoner supervision.  
     
  Marion County Jail Inmates v. Broderick  
  Marion County Jail Inmates v. Broderick, No. IP 72-C-424 (S.D. Ind., June 9, 1975). Deputies will patrol and observe each cell block at least once an hour between 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. and at least every three hours the rest of the time.  
     
  Martinez v. Board of County Commissioners  
  Martinez v. Board of County Commissioners, No. 75-M-1260 (D. Cola.). There shall be 24-hour supervision of each floor of the jail by trained jail officers.  
     
  Miller v. Carson  
  Miller v. Carson, 401 F.Supp. 835, 897 (M.D. Fla. 1975). The court ordered that jail officials provide five supervisory corrections officers per floor from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. and four officers on the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift until a sophisticated classification system is implemented, at which time the number of officers may be reduced to three per floor.  
     
  Mitchell v. Untreiner  
  Mitchell v. Untreiner, 421 F.Supp. 886, 901 (N.D. Fla. 1976). The court ordered hiring and training of sufficient correctional officers for proper supervision.  
     
  Owens v. Haas  
  Owens v. Haas, 601 F.2d 1242 (2nd Cir. 1979)(Nassau County Jail, New York). The County would be liable for a beating resulting from a failure to train staff or a lack of supervision of staff if the degree of departure from the standard of training and supervision of staff generally was such as to constitute deliberate indifference or gross negligence. To cause the county to be liable for the beating, the plaintiff need not show a pattern or practice if the complaint is based on a failure to train or supervise.  
     
  Padgett v. Stein  
  Padgett v. Stein, 406 F.Supp. 287, 299 (M.D. Penn. 1975). Where state and minimum standards have been established, the defendants are ordered to comply with standards on staffing requirements.  
     
  Reckmond v. Baxley  
  Reckmond v. Baxley, 475 F.Supp. 1111 (E.D. Mich. 1979). A jury award of $130,000 for damage sustained in a homosexual rape resulting from inadequate supervision is sustained. The officer on the ward was aware of threats against the inmate who was already placed in protective custody because of threats.  
     
  Rhem v. .Malcolm  
  Rhem v. .Malcolm, 527 F.2d 1041 (2nd Cir. 1974). Where the lack of staff causes violations of inmates’ rights to be free from mistreatment and to be protected from harm, the court orders that staff be increased to assure 24-hour supervision.  
     
  Rodriguez v. Jiminez  
  Rodriguez v. Jiminez, 409 F.Supp. 582, 594 (D.P.R. 1976). Inadequacy of the numbers of guards provided, combined with lack of classification system and admission of mentally deranged persons or those with known dangerous propensities , is denial of Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.  
     
  Sandoval v. James  
  Sandoval v. James, No. C-72-2213 FRP (N.D. Calif.). The court finds that the county has a constitutional duty to employ a sufficient number of qualified staff to assure the safety of inmates on a 24-hour a day basis.  
     
  Smith v. Sullivan  
  Smith v. Sullivan, 553 F.2d 373, 380 (5th Cir. 1977). Appeals court upheld the district court’s order requiring that a jail officer visit each inmate- occupied area once an hour, that one non-inmate officer be present on each floor at all times, and that a communications system be established whereby any prisoner could call for help from a guard at any time and receive the same within a few minutes.  
     
  Streeter v. Hopper  
  Streeter v. Hopper, 618 F.2d 1178 (5th Cir. 1980). The state has an obligation to protect the safety of the inmates; where the courts have found a breach of this duty, they have wide discretion in formulating a remedy.  
     
  Tyler v. Percich  
  Tyler v. Percich, 74-40-C (2)(E.D. MO., Oct. 2, 1974). There shall be two officers continuously patrolling each housing floor of the city jail.  
     
  William v. Edwards  
  William v. Edwards, 547 F.2d 1206, 1213 (5th Cir. 1977). The appeals court recognized that institution officials must provide enough officers to “assure a constitutional level of inmate safety,” and approved an order requiring the presence of two officers in open dormitories at all times.  
     
 
More Recent Cases...
 
     
  Ashann-Ra v. Com. Of Virginia  
  Ashann-Ra v. Com. Of Virginia, 112 F.Supp.2d 559 (W.D.Va. 2000). A prisoner sued state officials alleging various constitutional violations. The court found that the correctional defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity when sued in their personal capacities for violation the male prisoner's privacy rights, because female officers could and did regularly view his genitals and other private areas of his body while he showered. The court held that there were fact issues as to whether the defendants reasonably believed that they were not violating one of the prisoner's clearly established rights. But the court found that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) barred the prisoner's claims of emotional distress and sexual dysfunction, allegedly caused by the corrections officials' actions, because such psychosomatic injuries did not qualify as a "physical injury" under the provisions of PLRA. (Red Onion State Prison, Virginia)  
     
  Williams v. Kelso  
  Williams v. Kelso, 201 F.3d 1060 (8th Cir. 2000). The executor of the estate of a jail inmate who committed suicide while in custody sued jail employees under § 1983. The district court dismissed state law claims against health care providers but denied summary judgment for the defendants on certain claims. The appeals court affirmed the grant of summary judgment and reversed the denial of summary judgment on the remaining claims. The appeals court found that even though a psychologist had instructed jailers to check the inmate's vital signs every four to six hours, their failure to follow this instruction over a period of about seven hours was a matter of negligence, at most, and did not show deliberate indifference. The appeals court also held that there was no requirement under the Eighth Amendment that the jailers provide immediate medical attention to a disoriented, confused, belligerent detainee who had been arrested on an alcohol related misdemeanor charge. The court held that jail supervisors were entitled to qualified immunity on the claim of deliberate indifference in failing to initially segregate the inmate from other inmates upon booking. According to the court, the jail officials gave the inmate his medication, placed him in the misdemeanor section of the jail, regularly observed him, had him examined by a psychologist and psychiatrist, and were in the process of transferring him to a treatment center when his suicide occurred, and the inmate had given no overt indication that he was a suicide risk. The court noted that the plaintiff's expert witness even offered the opinion that persons who exhibited the symptoms that the inmate presented do not generally harm themselves. (Faulkner County Detention Facility, Arkansas)  
     
  Craw v. Gray  
  Craw v. Gray, 159 F.Supp.2d 679 (N.D.Ohio 2001). An arrestee sued law enforcement officers under § 1983 asserting claims for use of excessive force. The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the officers, finding that the allegations did not support a claim for inadequate training of an officer and that past “use of force” incident reports did not support the claim for inadequate supervision of the officer. According to the court, the assertion that a particular officer may be unsatisfactorily trained does not alone “suffice to fasten § 1983 liability” on a municipality for failure to train. The court noted that none of the reports showed that the deputy acted improperly. The officer had brought the arrestee to a county jail and during the booking process an altercation between the arrestee and the officer resulted in a right hip fracture and dislocation for the arrestee. (Mercer County Jail, Ohio)  
     
  Miller v. McBride  
  Miller v. McBride, 259 F.Supp.2d 738 (N.D.Ind. 2001). A pro se state prisoner sued corrections officials under § 1983, challenging his transfer from protective custody following an altercation with a fellow inmate. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the officials, finding that the prisoner had no constitutional right to a hearing on his transfer from protective custody. (Pendleton Correctional Facility, Indiana)  
     
  Sanville v. McCaughtry  
  Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2001). The mother of a mentally ill inmate who committed suicide while incarcerated in a state prison brought an action against prison physicians, wardens and officers. The district court dismissed the case and the appeals court affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in part. The appeals court held that the allegations stated a claim that the officers were aware of a substantial risk of harm that the inmate would commit suicide and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the inmate’s suicide. According to the appeals court, the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 individual liability claims. The mother alleged that the inmate had recently lost nearly one-third of his body weight, had written letters to her contemplating his death, had written a last will and testament, had told officers that he planned to commit suicide, and had covered his cell openings with toilet paper so that it was difficult to see inside. The mother also alleged that the inmate was last seen alive by officers at 10:00 a.m. and that in the following five hours before his suicide was discovered his cell window was covered with toilet paper, there was no apparent attempt to determine if the inmate was stable. (Waupun Correctional Institution, Wisconsin)  
     
  Calderon-Ortiz v. Laboy-Alvarado  
  Calderon-Ortiz v. Laboy-Alvarado, 300 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2002). A former pretrial detainee brought a § 1983 action against officials, alleging failure to protect him from other inmates. The district court dismissed the action. The appeals court reversed and remanded, finding that the detainee's complaint sufficiently stated a claim. The detainee alleged he had been forcibly sodomized by other inmates, that officials were aware that inmates were being housed without adequate regard to their custody and security needs, and that staff did not provide adequate supervision. (Bayamon Regional Metropolitan Detention Center, Puerto Rico)  
     
  Drake v. Velasco  
  Drake v. Velasco, 207 F.Supp.2d 809 (N.D.Ill. 2002). An inmate sued county corrections officials and a food service company under § 1983, alleging failure to provide him with sanitary meals. The district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court held that the inmate's allegations supported Fourteenth Amendment claims and a claim of deliberate indifference under § 1983. The court found that the inmate sufficiently alleged sufficient injury. The inmate alleged that the food service company's preparation was so unsanitary as to pose both an immediate risk to the inmate's health, and that the food served hindered his recovery from his ulcer, cirrhosis of the liver, and Hepatitis B and C. The inmate alleged that unsanitary conditions included serving meals on trays that contained spoiled food from previous meals, and inadequate supervision of employees that resulted in improper handling, preparation and sterilization of equipment. (Cook County Jail, Illinois, and Aramark Food Services)  
     
  Estate of Hampton v. Androscoggin County  
  Estate of Hampton v. Androscoggin County, 245 F.Supp.2d 150 (D.Me. 2002). The estate of a county jail inmate filed a state court action against a county and county officials. The case was removed to federal court, where the defendants moved for summary judgment. The federal district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that the county was not liable under § 1983 and that the sheriff was immune from liability under a state court claims act. According to the court, even if the inmate's death was attributable to a jail officer's refusal to summon emergency medical personnel upon the inmate's request, and there was evidence of another incident in which officers denied another inmate his medication, there was no evidence that either incident involved so many jail staff as to reflect a widespread practice. The inmate had been brought to the jail in the afternoon, and he told an admitting officer that he did not suffer from any disability, did not require any form of assistance, and was not taking any medication at the time. He was assigned to a maximum security cell block where he was checked by staff every fifteen minutes. The following day he did not indicate to jail staff that he was in need of medical attention when they checked on him every fifteen minutes. During a cell check an officer found him lying on his back and he was unresponsive. A physician's assistant who was working in the jail at the time responded to a "code blue" and found jail staff administering mouth-to-mouth ventilation to the inmate. Paramedics arrived at the jail and continued efforts at resuscitation and he was transferred to a local hospital, where he was pronounced dead approximately an hour after he had initially been found unconscious in his cell. (Androscoggin County Jail, Maine)  
     
  Foster v. Fulton County, Georgia  
  Foster v. Fulton County, Georgia, 223 F.Supp.2d 1292 (N.D.Ga. 2002). Inmates at a county jail, who had tested positive for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), brought an action complaining of their conditions of confinement and inadequate medical care. The parties entered into a settlement agreement. Two years later the district court responded to a report that described ten areas in which the county had failed to comply with the terms of the settlement. The court held that continued overcrowding at the jail deprived the HIV-positive inmates of their constitutional right to minimal civilized measures of life's necessities. The court ordered the county to institute additional measures to reduce crowding, including: providing counsel within 72 hours of arrest to all persons accused of minor offenses who could not make bail; expanding the authority of Pretrial Services to include supervision of persons arrested for misdemeanor offenses; eliminating any unreasonable factors used to exclude persons charged with felonies from pretrial release; ensuring persons charged with misdemeanors were offered a reasonable bond; and imposing additional restrictions on the length of time a person could remain in jail without accusation or indictment, or accused or indicted but untried. The court found the county had violated the settlement agreement by failing to refer HIV-positive inmates to outside specialists in a timely manner when the jail's own staff lacked the resources to provide timely care. The court noted that even though the county had eliminated its financial review procedures, other bureaucratic problems remained and resulted in delays of three weeks to six months. The court held that the county failed to employ sufficient numbers of trained correctional staff to meet the health needs of HIV-positive inmates. The court ordered the county to immediately develop and implement a plan to increase security staffing at the jail to the level necessary to provide timely access to medical care for the current population of inmates. (Fulton County Jail, Georgia)  
     
  Hill v. McKinley  
  Hill v. McKinley, 311 F.3d 899 (8th Cir. 2002). A prisoner brought § 1983 action alleging jail officers and a sheriff violated her Fourth Amendment right to privacy, and her privacy rights under state law. The prisoner had been marched down a hallway naked, escorted by staff members of the opposite sex, and was then strapped face down to a restrainer board in a spread-eagle position. The district court denied the defendants' request for judgment as a matter of law, refused to reduce damages, and granted attorney fees to the prisoner. The appeals court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions. The appeals court held that the use of male officers in an otherwise justified transfer of an unruly and naked female prisoner did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court held that the prisoner's Fourth Amendment rights were violated when she was allowed to remain completely exposed to male officers on a restrainer board for a substantial period of time after the threat to security and safety had passed. But the court found that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate clearly established law, noting that prisoners were entitled to very narrow zones of privacy. The court found that evidence supported the verdict for the prisoner on her state law privacy claim and the $2,500 compensatory damage award for invasion of privacy. (Story County Jail, Iowa)  
     
  Oliver v. Scott  
  Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736 (5th Cir. 2002). A male prisoner brought a civil rights suit against a prison warden, correctional officers, and private contractors who operated a state jail facility, alleging constitutional violations arising from cross-gender surveillance and strip searches, and the absence of partitions in male shower areas. The district court dismissed a portion of the complaint for failure to state a claim and entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants for the remaining issues. The prisoner appealed and the appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that any minimal right to bodily privacy possessed by the male prisoner did not preclude cross-gender surveillance and that such surveillance, in the absence of partitions in the male shower area, did not violate the prisoner’s equal protection rights. The court noted that fundamental implied rights-—marriage, family procreation, and the right of bodily integrity—-do not include a right of prisoners to avoid surveillance by members of the opposite sex. According to the court, the existence of privacy partitions in female inmates’ showers and the absence of male guard surveillance of female inmates did not violate the equal protection rights of the male prisoner because male prisoners were not similarly situated to female prisoners due to their conviction for more violent crimes, larger numbers, and higher incidence of violent gang activity and sexual predation. The court found that the prisoner’s complaint did not identify a specific unconstitutional policy that correctional officers allegedly violated by engaging in cross-gender strip searches and monitoring of prisoners. (Dawson State Jail Facility, Texas)  
     
  Rapier v. Kankakee County  
  Rapier v. Kankakee County, Ill., 203 F.Supp.2d 978 (C.D.Ill. 2002). The wife of a detainee who committed suicide while in jail filed a § 1983 suit individually, and as the special administrator of the detainee's estate. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that the county was not liable for alleged deliberate indifference toward the prevention of suicide by detainees. The court found that the county's policy of placing potentially suicidal detainees in a special needs cell, along with its policy to require checks of these inmates every 15 minutes, was an effective way to prevent suicides. The court also found that the county's failure to adequately deal with the problem of understaffing at the jail was not the cause of the detainee's suicide, because an officer saw or spoke to the detainee 15 to 20 minutes prior to the time he was found hanging in his cell. The sheriff has stated that seven staff members were working at the jail at the time of the suicide, the jail's census was lower than usual at the time, and that he did not think that having additional staff would have made a tremendous difference. (Kankakee Co. Detention Ctr., Illinois)  
     
  Riley v. Olk-Long  
  Riley v. Olk-Long, 282 F.3d 592 (8th Cir. 2002). A female inmate brought a § 1983 action against prison officials arising from a sexual assault by a prison guard. A jury found in the inmate’s favor and the officials moved for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial. The district court denied the motions and the appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that the issue of whether a warden and a director of security were deliberately indifferent to the substantial risk of harm that the guard presented to female inmates was a matter for the jury. The guard had asked the inmate whether she was having a sexual relationship with her roommate at the facility and if so, if he could watch. The guard later attempted to reach under the inmate’s nightshirt but she backed away. The guard continued to harass the inmate and at one point grabbed her from behind and rubbed up against her while grabbing her breasts. The inmate did not report these incidents to prison officials because she doubted she would be believed and feared the resulting discipline. Later, the guard entered the inmate’s cell and forcibly had intercourse with her. Fearing she would become pregnant she began performing oral sex on him. Another inmate witnessed the sexual encounter and reported it to prison officials. The officials investigated and subsequently allowed the guard to resign. He was later charged with, and pleaded guilty to, sexual misconduct with an inmate. The district court jury found in favor of the inmate, awarding her compensatory damages of $15,000 and a total of $30,000 in punitive damages. (Iowa Corr’l Inst. for Women)  
     
  Smith v. Board of County Commissioners of County of Lyon  
  Smith v. Board of County Com'rs. of County of Lyon, 216 F.Supp.2d 1209 (D.Kan. 2002). A prisoner brought state tort and federal Eighth Amendment claims against county officials arising out of a serious spinal chord injury he allegedly suffered in a fall, and for which he did not receive requested medical attention. The defendants moved for summary judgment and the district court granted the motions in part, and denied in part. The district court found no Eighth Amendment violation from the failure of jail staff to provide clean bedding and clothing to the inmate who suffered from incontinence, on four or five occasions. The court concluded that the inmate's complaint that officials failed to supervise jail staff to ensure compliance with procedures was "far too generic" to support an Eighth Amendment claim, and that he failed to show systemic and gross deficiencies in training jail personnel. The inmate was a trustee in the jail and alleged that he fell while working in the kitchen and sustained injuries. An officer noticed the inmate limping about a week after the alleged fall and immediately took the inmate to the jail medical room for evaluation. The inmate also alleged that the jail failed to follow certain national standards, but according to the court, failed to show that the jail had any duty to follow those national standards. The officials asserted that the minimum legal standards for the operation of county jails are established in state law, rather than by national standards. (Lyon County Jail, Kansas)  
     
  U.S. v. Reyes  
  U.S. v. Reyes, 283 F.3d 446 (2nd Cir. 2002). A federal offender who was serving a term of supervised release appealed denial of his motion to suppress evidence that was identified during a home visit by probation officers. The appeals court held that the offender had a severely diminished expectation of privacy, making it reasonable and lawful for probation officers to walk on to his driveway during a required home visit and to observe what they may see in plain view. The court noted that terms of the offender’s supervised release mandated home visits “at any time.” (U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York)  
     
  Cagle v. Sutherland  
  Cagle v. Sutherland, 334 F.3d 980 (11th Cir. 2003). The personal representative of the estate of a pretrial detainee who hung himself in his cell brought a § 1983 action, alleging that officials failed to prevent his suicide. The district court denied summary judgment in favor of the defendants and they appealed. The appeals court vacated and remanded. The appeals court held that the county's violation of a consent decree that arose out of a voluntary settlement of a prior jail conditions lawsuit, did not establish a violation of the pretrial detainee's constitutional rights actionable under § 1983. The consent decree required the county to provide a second nighttime jailer to staff the jail during the hours that the detainee committed suicide, but the court noted that the prior lawsuit was not concerned with the risk of prisoner suicides. According to the court, the county's failure to fund the second jailer did not rise to the level of deliberate indifference to the strong likelihood that a suicide would result. The court also found no deliberate indifference on the part of the jailer who waited for one hour and forty-six minutes after his last cell check, even though the detainee had expressly threatened suicide. The court noted that the jailer was aware that the detainee's belt, shoelaces and the contents of his pockets had been confiscated, the cell had been stripped of implements that might assist suicide, and the jailer regularly observed the detainee through a closed circuit monitor that viewed the majority of the cell. The detainee was able to commit suicide by tearing the elastic band from his underwear, tying it around his neck, and hanging himself from the top bunk. (Winston County Jail, Alabama)  
     
  Cavalieri v. Shepard  
  Cavalieri v. Shepard, 321 F.3d 616 (7th Cir. 2003). The mother of a pretrial detainee who attempted suicide brought a § 1983 action against a police officer, alleging deliberate indifference to the detainee's risk of attempting suicide. The district court denied summary judgment for the officer and the officer appealed. The appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that summary judgment was precluded by an issue of fact as to whether the officer was aware that the detainee was on the verge of trying to commit suicide and whether the officer was deliberately indifferent to the detainee's safety. The court noted that the detainee's right to be free from deliberate indifference to the risk that he would attempt suicide was clearly established. The detainee was transferred to a county facility after a brief period of detention in a city jail. When he was admitted to the county facility he was not placed on suicide watch, but he did ask to speak to a mental health advisor. He was assigned to a holding cell that contained a telephone with a strong metal cord. When the police officer called the county facility to complain about calls from the inmate, county employees found the detainee unconscious, hanging from the wire telephone cord. The detainee remained in a vegetative state after his unsuccessful suicide attempt. (Champaign County Correctional Facility, Illinois)  
     
  Cottone v. Jenne  
  Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352 (11th Cir. 2003). The personal representative of the estate of a pretrial detainee who was killed by a mentally-ill co-inmate, brought a § 1983 action. The district court denied qualified immunity for the defendants and they appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The appeals court held that officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because they failed to monitor a known violent inmate that was housed in a unit for mentally ill inmates. The court held that supervisory officials were entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 liability for their failure to train and supervise officers on duty at the time of the murder, absent an allegation of a constitutional violation on their part. (North Broward Detention Center, Florida)  
     
  Gaines v. Choctaw County Comissioner  
  Gaines v. Choctaw County Com'n., 242 F.Supp.2d 1153 (S.D.Ala. 2003). Administrators of a deceased inmate's estate asserted state and federal law claims against a sheriff and county, alleging that the inmate's death resulted from the denial of medical treatment while the inmate was a pretrial detainee in a county jail. The district court held that the county could not be held liable for any alleged lack of training or supervision of the sheriff, or sheriff's employees. The court found that allegations failed to support a claim against the county based on its statutory duty to maintain a jail, but that the allegations supported a claim against the county for an alleged breach of duty to fund medical care, where the alleged failure to provide adequate funding to meet the medical needs of inmates supported a claim for deliberate indifference under § 1983. The court held that the alleged conduct of the county in failing to equip the jail with audiovisual equipment to monitor inmates failed to support a claim against the county, absent an allegation that the failure caused, or in any way contributed to, the inmate's death. (Choctaw County Jail, Alabama)  
     
  Govan v. Campbell  
  Govan v. Campbell, 289 F.Supp.2d 289 (N.D.N.Y. 2003). An inmate filed a pro se action alleging that county officials violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court held that the inmate's alleged conditions, consisting of unclean shower stalls with rust bubbles, cockroaches that crawled into his orifices while he slept, wild birds that were flying free through the facility, and an unsafe condition that resulted from the on-duty officer's inability to see directly into his cell at all times, did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. The inmate also alleged that a correctional officer was sleeping while he was supposed to be supervising recreation in a gym. The court noted that the inmate did not assert how he was actually harmed by the conditions. (Albany County Correctional Facility, New York)  
     
  Gray v. Tunica County, Mississippi  
  Gray v. Tunica County, Mississippi, 279 F.Supp.2d 789 (N.D.Miss. 2003). The estate of a jail inmate and his relatives brought a suit against a county and a jailer, alleging federal civil rights claims and state law claims. The inmate had committed suicide in a jail holding cell. The district court granted summary judgment, in part, for the defendants. The court held that the county had no civil rights liability for jail conditions or policies related to the suicide of the pretrial detainee who was placed in a new "lunacy" cell under a suicide watch. The detainee apparently managed to strangle himself with a ripped-off piece of his jail jumpsuit. The court found that the holding cell was new and safe and that the method of suicide was unforeseeable. The court noted that it was doubtful that the detainee could have been helped, even if a jailer had entered the cell immediately upon noticing that the detainee had removed his jumpsuit and was lying nude in a peculiar position. According to the court, the jail policies involving intermittent checks were reasonably related to the legitimate purpose of protecting inmates from harm. The jailer had decided to finish feeding other inmates before he returned to check on the welfare of the detainee in the holding cell. The detainee had been checked about an hour after being placed in the new holding cell, and the jailer returned 30 minutes later to discover the detainee unconscious in the cell. (Tunica County Jail, Mississippi)  
     
  Robinson v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons  
  Robinson v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 244 F.Supp.2d 57 (N.D.N.Y. 2003). The mother of a federal prisoner who died after he was stabbed by another inmate, brought § 1983 and Federal Tort Claims Act actions against prison officials. The district court held that prison officials were not deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of the inmate, and that the officials were not negligent under state law. The mother had alleged inadequate supervision and staffing practices, citing an instance in which one corrections officer supervised 219 inmates who had violent proclivities during a facility-wide move. The court noted that the mother did not offer any expert testimony or other evidence to establish that the officials were aware of an excessive risk to the inmate's safety, or to establish a breach of the officials' duty of care. (Raybrook Federal Correctional Facility, New York)  
     
  Shaw v. Coosa County Commissioner  
  Shaw v. Coosa County Com’n., 330 F.Supp.2d 1285 (M.D.Ala. 2004). The daughter and the administratrix of an estate brought a civil rights action against a county, sheriff and other persons after her father died while in jail. The district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, in part. The court held that the plaintiff stated a claim against the county for an alleged breach of duty to provide adequate funding for medical treatment of, and medicines for, the inmate. The father had died while he was serving a 90 day sentenced for domestic violence, and allegedly was not screened for a determination of proper medical care. (Coosa County Jail, Alabama)  
     
  Stiltner v. Crouse  
  Stiltner v. Crouse, 327 F.Supp.2d 667 (W.D.Va. 2004). The father of a pretrial detainee who committed suicide in jail brought a § 1983 action against jailers. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the jailers. The court held that the jailers were not deliberately indifferent to the substantial risk of harm to the detainee, and that they were not negligent in their handling of the detainee. The 39-year-old detainee had been arrested for suspicion of operating a vehicle under the influence of drugs and was waiting for her bond to be posted at a county jail. She was placed in a holding cell. Several hours later jailers discovered that she was unconscious. After attempts to resuscitate her were unsuccessful she was transported to a local hospital where she was pronounced dead. An autopsy showed that her death was caused by either self-hanging or strangulation by another person. According to the court, the detainee did not request medical aid from the jail nurse who saw her initially, and there was no indication to jailers that she might be a danger to herself. (Buchanan County Jail, Virginia)  
     
  Turney v. Waterbury  
  Turney v. Waterbury, 375 F.3d 756 (8th Cir. 2004). A mother brought a civil rights action to recover damages related to the in-custody suicide of her son. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and the mother appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part, and reversed in part and remanded. The appeals court held that the sheriff was not entitled to qualified immunity, where the sheriff knew of, but did not investigate, the arrestee's earlier suicide attempt at a jail from which he was transferred, did not permit a jailer to complete the arrestee's intake form, placed the arrestee in a cell alone with a bed sheet and exposed ceiling bars, and ordered the jailer not to enter the arrestee's cell without backup and yet left the jailer as the only staff member on duty at the jail. Before the arrestee was transferred to the jail in which he committed suicide, he had told jail staff that "he was going to hang it up" and shortly thereafter he was found in his cell with a bed sheet tied around his neck. During his processing into the next jail he told staff he did not want to return to prison, and that he would die and take someone with him if he received more than a 15 year sentence. The court found that training provided to county officials was not inadequate, where the county provided manuals that informed police officers how to recognize and respond to suicide risks. (Bennett County Jail, South Dakota)