Barefield v. Dunn

• Docket Number: 2:20-CV-917-WKW [WO]
• Decision Date: 22 August 2023
• Parties: JACOB BAREFIELD, Plaintiff, v. JEFFERSON S. DUNN, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama

1

JACOB BAREFIELD, Plaintiff, v. JEFFERSON S. DUNN, et al., Defendants.

No. 2:20-CV-917-WKW [WO]

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division

August 22, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

W KEITH WATKINS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

This case arises from the daylight abduction and knifepoint rape of Jacob Barefield while he was held hostage by another inmate in an overcrowded, unsupervised dormitory room at an Alabama state prison. If true, the allegations in this case tell a horrific story about excessively dangerous conditions in another Alabama state prison-and the failures of authorities to fix them.^[1] In 2003 Congress passed the “Prison Rape Elimination Act” (PREA). The PREA reiterates what the Constitution mandates Officials who “do not take basic steps to abate prison rape” may violate the “Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment.” 34 U.S.C. § 30301. Barefield alleges that he was brutally raped because Alabama officials did not take such basic steps to alleviate an excessive risk of inmate-on-inmate violence at Ventress Correctional Facility (Ventress).

On the morning of November 11, 2018, Plaintiff Jacob Barefield, an inmate at Ventress, was abducted at knifepoint from the prison canteen by a fellow inmate who was known to be violent. Barefield's captor forced him to walk through the prison yard, past many buildings, and into a high-risk inmate dormitory that Barefield-a non-violent inmate-was not authorized to enter. The dormitory door was supposed to be locked, but it was not. A guard was supposed to check Barefield's identification and prohibit Barefield from entering, but he did not. Consequently, Barefield was easily forced by knifepoint into the dormitory- which was a large, open room with many rows of bunkbeds for over one hundred high-risk inmates. There, Barefield was orally and anally raped at knifepoint in a makeshift tent made from sheets hanging off the top of one of the bunkbeds. After the rape, Barefield was held hostage by the rapist and his gangmate for over five hours. During this time, the rapist told Barefield he would be killed if he told anybody what happened. The rapist also told Barefield to “get used to” being raped. For hours, no guards were on patrol or monitoring the hundred-inmate dormitory.

When Barefield was finally let go he went straight to a prison guard in the yard and reported the rape and abduction. The guard ignored Barefield's report and told Barefield to go back to his assigned dormitory. That evening, Barefield contacted a friend outside of the prison and told her that he had been raped. His friend immediately filed a report of the rape.

But for weeks thereafter nobody at Ventress filed a proper report in accordance with the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). Rather, Barefield's rapist was moved to a cell in Barefield's dormitory, which allowed the rapist to verbally harass and threaten Barefield. When Barefield was eventually given medical treatment and tested for sexually transmitted infections, he tested positive for Hepatitis C. Two months after the rape, one of the prisons guards told Barefield, “the next time those black boys sexually assault or sexually harass you, don't come running my way or ask me for help.” She laughed as she said it. Thereafter, Barefield filed this lawsuit alleging violations of the United States Constitution and Alabama law.

In his Amended Complaint, (Doc. # 74), Barefield asserts, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to excessive risk of inmate-on-inmate violence and failure-to-protect claims against all Defendants based on the injuries he sustained during and following the rape on November 11, 2018. (Doc. # 74 at 70-117.) Barefield also asserts an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious-medical-needs claim against most of the Defendants. (Doc. # 74 at 117-42). Finally, he alleges two Alabama-law counts for intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy against several of the Ventress Defendants. (Doc. # 74 at 143-47.)

Defendants have moved to dismiss Barefield's Amended Complaint. (Docs. # 88, 90.) Defendants' attack the sufficiency of all Barefield's claims, and Defendants argue that they are entitled to immunity under several doctrines, including sovereign and qualified immunity. Barefield filed a consolidated response (Doc. # 95), and Defendants replied (Docs. # 102, 103, 105).

For the reasons explained below, Defendants' motions to dismiss will be granted in part and denied in part:

1. Count I's Eighth Amendment Excessive Risk of Inmate-on-Inmate Violence Claims will be dismissed as to all Defendants except Dunn, Culliver, Stamper, Naglich, Abbott, Mercado, Brand, Hill, Vincent, Strickland, and Myers.

2. Count I's Eighth Amendment Failure-to-Protect Claims will be dismissed as to all Defendants.

3. Count II's Eighth Amendment Deliberate Indifference to Serious-Medical-Needs Claims will be dismissed as to all Defendants except Strickland, Lewis, Gordon, Peters, and Haggins.

4. Count III's Outrage Claim will proceed against Strickland, Haggins, Glenn, and Lewis.

5. Count IV's Civil Conspiracy claim will proceed against Byrd, Glenn, Gordon, Haggins, Lewis, Myers, Peters, Rumph, and Strickland.

6. All fictitious defendants will be dismissed.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ............................................................................................. 8

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW .................................................................................................... 8

III. THE CLAIMS AND PARTIES .............................................................................................. 9

IV. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................. 12

A. The Abduction and Rape ................................................................................................ 12

1. November 11, 2018 ..................................................................................................... 12

2. Aftermath & Investigation .......................................................................................... 17

B. Conditions at Ventress ................................................................................................... 21

C. Defendants' Knowledge and Authority Over Ventress's Conditions ............................ 27

V. DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................... 33

A. Defendants are Not Entitled to Eleventh Amendment Immunity .................................. 33

B. Qualified Immunity Framework..................................................................................... 38

C. Excessive Risk of Inmate Violence and Failure-to-Protect Frameworks ...................... 40

1. Two Distinct Theories and Terminology .................................................................... 40

2. Excessive-Inmate-Violence Claims for Personal Liability are Governed by Individualized Deliberate Indifference and Supervisory Liability Causation ...................... 43

D. Eighth Amendment Excessive Risk of Inmate Violence Claims ................................... 47

1. Constitutional Violation ............................................................................................. 50

a. Substantial Risk of Serious Harm ............................................................................... 50

b. Deliberate Indifference ............................................................................................... 63

c. Causation .................................................................................................................... 84

2. Clearly Established Law ........................................................................................... 103

a. Dunn, Culliver, Stamper, Naglich, Abbott, Mercado, Brand, Hill, Vincent, Strickland,

and Myers........................................................................................................................ 103

b. Governor Ivey ........................................................................................................... 113

3. Summary of Excessive-Inmate-Violence Analysis .................................................... 115

E. Failure to Protect from Specific Risk Posed By Lowe................................................. 119

1. ADOC Defendants .................................................................................................... 120

2. Ventress Defendants ................................................................................................. 121

F. Eighth Amendment Deliberate Indifference to a Serious Medical Need ..................... 127

1. Constitutional Violation ........................................................................................... 128

2. Clearly Established Law ........................................................................................... 135

3. Supervisory Liability as to ADOC Officials ............................................................. 138

G. State-Law Claims ......................................................................................................... 142

1. State-Agent Immunity ............................................................................................... 143

2. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (i.e., Outrage) ..................................... 145

3. Civil Conspiracy Against Ventress Defendants ........................................................ 148

H. Fictitious ...