Janes v. Hernandez, s. 99-50092
| Decision Date | 07 July 2000 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 99-50092,s. 99-50092 |
| Citation | 215 F.3d 541 |
| Parties | (5th Cir. 2000) BOBBY JOE JANES, III, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICHARD HERNANDEZ, Sheriff of Bastrop County, Texas; ET AL., Defendants, BASTROP COUNTY, Defendant-Appellant. & 99-50141 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
Before REAVLEY, SMITH and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
Bobby Joe Janes was injured by another inmate in the Bastrop County jail and has recovered judgment against the County on a jury verdict that found the unsafe condition of the jail to be due to the Sheriff's policy and deliberate indifference. The County complains on appeal of the lack of evidence that the County policymaker, the Sheriff, knew of the unsafe condition and also objects to the amount of the attorney fee award. We affirm.
Janes was arrested because of traffic offenses and was confined with more than eight other inmates, some of them felons who had histories of violence. Janes was threatened with death, awakened in his bunk as he was being bound, kicked in the head and had his face injured when smashed into the wall. Despite the continuous fighting and abuses within the large cell, and the admitted fact that the jail officers expected the prisoners to fight and abuse one another during the duty shifts, the Sheriff maintained a policy of confining together inmates of no propensity for violence with dangerous people. Whatever their history, no one was denied access to helpless inmates until the former demonstrated violent behavior in the jail. His conduct outside of the jail did not matter. The policy was to leave the inmate to self-defense unless an officer on an hourly round learned of abuse and obtained a superior's consent to do more to protect the inmate.
Bastrop County argues that it was not proved that the policymaker knew the prisoners who injured Janes were a risk of harm to him. That is not necessary. Janes only needed to prove that the policymaker knew there was a substantial risk of serious harm to the inmates under his policy or custom of housing all manner of inmates together. That policy created an unsafe jail and the substantial risk that inmates would be injured. Fights were the order of the jail, to which the Sheriff was necessarily deliberately indifferent. That proof satisfies the legal requirement for county liability. Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss.1...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Almond v. Tarver
...to § 1983 suits brought by those who are imprisoned, incarcerated, or detained at the time their action is filed. See Janes v. Hernandez, 215 F.3d 541, 543 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1113, 121 S.Ct. 858, 148 L.Ed.2d 772 (2001); accord Norton v. City of Marietta, 432 F.3d 1145, ......
-
Smith v. Franklin County
...incarcerated, or detained, not a former prisoner. See Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 314 (3rd Cir.2001); Janes v. Hernandez, 215 F.3d 541, 543 (5th Cir.2000); Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir.2000); Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d 970, 981 (11th Cir.2000); Greig v. Goord, 169......
-
Zimmerman v. Schaeffer
...Id.; see also Greig v. Goord, 169 F.3d 165, 167 (2d Cir.1999); Kerr v. Puckett, 138 F.3d 321, 323 (7th Cir.1998); Janes v. Hernandez, 215 F.3d 541, 543 (5th Cir. 2000); Doe v. Washington Cty., 150 F.3d 920, 924 (8th Cir.1998). However, the PLRA exhaustion requirements apply if a prisoner is......
-
Shanklin v. Chamblin
...Bivens suits brought by those who are imprisoned, incarcerated, or detained at the time their action is filed. See Janes v. Hernandez, 215 F.3d 541, 543 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1113, 121 S. Ct. 858 (2001); accord Norton v. City of Marietta, 432 F.3d 1145, 1150-51 (10th Cir. ......
-
Prisoners' Rights
...173 (4th Cir. 1999) (attorney’s fees cap does not apply to legal services performed prior to Act’s effective date); Janes v. Hernandez, 215 F.3d 541, 543 (5th Cir. 2000) (attorney’s fees cap did not apply to plaintiff’s claim for unsafe jail conditions because plaintiff filed suit when no ......
-
U.S. Appeals Court: PLRA-Prison Litigation Reform Act.
...v. Hernandez, 215 F.3d 541 (5th Cir. 2000). A traffic offender sued a county to recover for alleged violation of his civil rights based upon a sheriffs policy of confining all manner of arrestees, including those with prior felony records, in one large cell. The district court entered judgm......
-
U.S. Appeals Court: SEPARATION.
...v. Hernandez, 215 F.3d 541 (5th Cir. 2000). A traffic offender sued a county to recover for alleged violation of his civil rights based upon a sheriff's policy of confining all manner of arrestees, including those with prior felony records, in one large cell. The district court entered judg......
-
U.S. Appeals Court: PRETRIAL DETENTION SEPARATION.
...v. Hernandez. 215 F.3d 541 (5th Cir. 2000). A traffic offender sued a county to recover for alleged violation of his civil rights based upon a sheriffs policy of confining all manner of arrestees, including those with prior felony records, in one large cell. The district court entered judgm......