McCaskill v. Thomas (Ex parte Ala. Dep't of Corr.)
Decision Date | 26 February 2016 |
Docket Number | 1141424. |
Parties | Ex parte ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al. (In re Veronica McCaskill, as administrator of the Estate of Tyus Elliott, deceased v. Kim Thomas et al.). |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Luther Strange, atty. gen., and Andrew Brasher, deputy atty. gen., and Anne Adams Hill, gen. counsel, and Bart Harmon, asst. atty. gen., Alabama Department of Corrections, for petitioners.
Joe M. Reed of Joe M. Reed & Associates, LLC, Montgomery, for respondent.
BOLIN
, Justice.
The Alabama Department of Corrections (“the DOC”);1 Cheryl Price, former warden of Bibb Correctional Facility (“the facility”); Dwayne Estes, former assistant warden of the facility; and Captain John Hutton, a correctional officer at the facility (the individual defendants are hereinafter collectively referred to as “the prison defendants”), petition this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Montgomery Circuit Court to vacate its order denying their motion for a summary judgment and to enter a new order granting the motion on the ground that they are entitled to immunity. We grant the petition and issue the writ.
On May 25, 2010, Tyus Elliott, an inmate at the facility, died from a stab wound
inflicted by Dexter Fields—another inmate at the facility.2 The stabbing incident occurred in the “D” dormitory, an open-bed bay area within the facility that houses approximately 106 inmates. The facts concerning the incident relied on by the parties come primarily from the deposition testimony of Fields, Cpt. Hutton, and Price. Fields testified that on May 25, 2010, at approximately 3:30 a.m., he was in a classroom in the back of the “D” dormitory where he was downloading some videos onto a contraband cellular telephone (“cell phone”);3 Fields actually possessed three or four contraband cell phones. While Fields was downloading the videos onto the cell phone, Elliott entered the room and began talking to Fields, asking him for a cigarette and/or a cigarette lighter. While Elliott distracted Fields, another inmate, Kevin Maull, entered the room and took Fields's cell phone from a window ledge where Fields had laid it. Fields moved toward Maull in an attempt to retrieve the cell phone. However, Fields retreated when Maull “brandished” a knife. Maull backed out of the classroom, accompanied by three or four inmates. Fields testified that he did not suspect that Elliott had played a role in Maull's taking the cell phone. At approximately 6:00 a.m., Fields was summoned to the shift office where he was questioned by a correctional officer, Officer Bryan, regarding “the phone situation and everything.” Fields denied having had a cell phone. Officer Bryan allowed Fields to return to the “D” dormitory, after which numerous correctional officers searched the dormitory—turning up several contraband items. After the search, Fields was summoned to meet with Cpt. Hutton. During Fields's meeting with Cpt. Hutton, Maull was escorted into the room. Cpt. Hutton told Fields that “this [is] the guy right here that upped the knife on you and took the phone.” Cpt. Hutton gave Fields and Maull a “living agreement” to sign, which indicated that the two could live peacefully together in the same dormitory without fighting. According to Fields, Maull did not go back to the “D” dormitory right then; Fields did not know exactly where Maull went or where he had been taken. Fields remained with Cpt. Hutton for approximately six or seven hours. During that time, a discussion ensued between Cpt. Hutton and Ms. McCall, the person responsible for bed assignments at the facility. McCall told Cpt. Hutton that she had made arrangements for Fields to be moved to another dormitory within the facility; McCall thought it would be best for Fields's own protection. However, Cpt. Hutton told Fields he could return to the “D” dormitory. When McCall asked Cpt. Hutton why he was going to send Fields back to the “D” dormitory, Cpt. Hutton replied that he “didn't give a damn if they killed each other.” Fields did not know to whom Cpt. Hutton was referring. Elliott's name was never brought up during the meeting between Cpt. Hutton, Fields, and Maull, and it never registered with Fields, during the meeting, that Elliott had been involved in the scheme to take his cell phone. On the way back to the “D” dormitory, Fields retrieved an “inmate-made” knife he had hidden in the yard of the facility. Fields retrieved the knife for his own protection because of the incident that had occurred earlier in the day between him and Maull. When Fields returned to the “D” dormitory, he discovered that his other cell phones were missing; he was informed by another inmate that Elliott had taken them. Fields saw Elliott standing against the wall “brandishing” a knife and acting “strange.” Fields approached Elliott to confront him, at which time Elliott hit Fields in the mouth, prompting Fields to spontaneously stab Elliott in the chest area. Fields did not put “two and two together”—that Elliott had been involved in the first cell-phone incident—until he returned to the “D” dormitory and learned that Elliott had taken the other cell phones. Fields specifically testified in response to questioning by counsel for the prison defendants:
Cpt. Hutton testified in his deposition that when he arrived at the facility on the morning of May 25, 2010, he was informed by a correctional officer that there had been an incident on the night shift involving a cell phone that had been taken from Fields. Cpt. Hutton summoned Fields for questioning, but Fields was reluctant to talk and offered no information regarding the incident. Cpt. Hutton was subsequently informed by the same correctional officer that a superintendent had identified Maull as the person who had taken Fields's cell phone. Accordingly, Cpt. Hutton had Maull summoned for questioning as well. Cpt. Hutton asked Fields if Maull was the inmate who had taken his cell phone, to which Fields replied “yes.” Maull, on the other hand, denied that anything had happened. After Cpt. Hutton completed his investigation, Maull was detained in inmate-control services and then later confined to administrative segregation; Cpt. Hutton confined Maull for the purpose of separating him from Fields and because Maull had stolen something from Fields. Cpt. Hutton also wanted to make sure there was a cooling-down period and no payback against Maull by Fields. However, Cpt. Hutton did not consider Maull and Fields to be “enemies” per se because they had signed a “living agreement,” stating they had no problem living in the same dormitory. Cpt. Hutton then asked Fields if he felt threatened going back into the general prison population, to which Fields replied “no.” The superintendent who relayed the information to the correctional officer concerning the cell-phone incident never reported that a knife was involved in the conflict between Fields and Maull; Cpt. Hutton did not inquire of Fields or Maull if a knife had been involved.
On May 24, 2012, Veronica McCaskill, as administratrix of Elliott's estate, sued the DOC and the prison defendants asserting various claims of negligence and wantonness; the gravamen of the complaint is that the DOC and the prison defendants failed to confine Fields, the victim of the cell-phone incident, to administrative segregation so as to prevent Elliott's...
To continue reading
Request your trial