Miller v. Shelby County, Tenn.

Citation93 F.Supp.2d 892
Decision Date29 February 2000
Docket NumberNo. 98-2383 ML/V.,98-2383 ML/V.
PartiesJacob Randall MILLER, Plaintiff, v. SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE, Robert Sprecher, individually and in his official capacity as Director of Shelby County Division of Corrections, and Jim Rout, individually and in his official capacity as Mayor of Shelby County, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee

Robert L. Hutton, Glankler Brown, PLLC, Memphis, TN, for Plaintiff.

Brian L. Kuhn, Ford & Harrison, Memphis, TN, M. Dell Stiner, Wharton & Wharton, Memphis, TN, for Defendants.

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OPINION

McCALLA, District Judge.

I. Background

Plaintiff Jacob Randall Miller brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to recover damages for physical injuries suffered after he was attacked by fellow inmates while incarcerated at the Shelby County Correctional Center ("SCCC"). Shelby County is the only remaining Defendant in this case. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's policies caused this harm and constituted deliberate indifference to inmate safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

For the reasons stated below the Court finds for the Plaintiff and ORDERS that Defendant pay Plaintiff Jacob Randall Miller damages in the amount of $40,000.1

II. Findings of Fact

The Shelby County Correctional Center ("SCCC") is located in Shelby County, Tennessee. SCCC is controlled and operated by Shelby County, a political subdivision of the State of Tennessee. Mr. Robert Sprecher was the Director of SCCC at all times relevant to this case. In this position, he was responsible for establishing policies and procedures with respect to classification of inmates, supervision of inmates, and inmate safety. The Criminal Justice Center ("CJC") is also located in Shelby County, Tennessee. The majority of inmates at SCCC have been sentenced and have begun serving their sentences while most CJC inmates at SCCC are pretrial detainees awaiting trial. For purposes of this litigation, the term "CJC inmates" refers to pretrial detainees housed at SCCC.

Shortly after arrival, SCCC classifies most inmates in accordance with a numeric system reflecting the inmate's security level, taking into consideration various factors such as the crime for which the inmate has been sentenced, future institutional adjustment, and disciplinary concerns. Gang affiliation is not necessarily considered when classifying an inmate. Inmates are given a number, 1 through 8, with 1's, 2's, and 3's considered low security, 4's, 5's, and 6's considered as medium security, and 7's and 8's maximum security. While incarcerated, an inmate's security level is reevaluated and changed when necessary to reflect the inmate's behavior and adaption to the institution.

In addition to the general population housed at SCCC, certain inmates are placed in protective custody or administrative segregation. Those inmates with disciplinary problems are separated from the general population and confined to administrative segregation based on a determination by SCCC officials. E Building D Dorm houses protective custody inmates, administrative segregation inmates as well as pretrial detainees.

A protective custody inmate is one who requests to be housed away from the general population because he is fearful of physical harm from other inmates. Protective custody inmates do not receive good time credit towards their sentences like those inmates who remain in the general population. Thus, being in protective custody actually lengthens time served. While in protective custody, an inmate remains in his cell for 23 hours each day. The inmate is permitted to leave his cell and be on the "rock" for one hour a day. The "rock" is the common area in the immediate vicinity of an inmate's cell, and includes the shower, telephone, and exercise facilities. During "rock time", the prisoner may be on the rock. Certain inmates are selected by SCCC officials to serve as "rock man", which means that the inmate may be outside his cell cleaning the rock, serving meals, or assisting SCCC officials with other activities in E Building D Dorm.

At trial, there was conflicting testimony as to whether SCCC practice prior to October 11, 1997 was to permit inmates of different classification to take rock time together. Mr. Sprecher testified that the official policy of SCCC was to allow up to four inmates to rock together at the same time, regardless of their classification. Officer Moten also testified that this was SCCC policy. Charles Fisher, the Assistant Director of the Tennessee Corrections Institute, also stated that the policy prior to October 11, 1997 was that an inmate of any classification could rock with any other inmate. Prior to October 11, 1997, it was the practice at SCCC that (1) inmates with different security classifications would often rock together; (2) CJC inmates would be on the rock at the same time as protective custody inmates; (3) rock men could be on the rock while other inmates were taking their rock time; (4) four inmates could be on the rock at the same time.2

On December 20, 1995, Plaintiff Jacob Randall Miller arrived at SCCC to begin serving a sentence for aggravated burglary. Based on threats and other comments from fellow gang-member inmates, Miller feared that he would suffer physical harm. He therefore requested that he be placed in protective custody. Miller conveyed this desire by filling out several protective custody requests in which he explicitly stated that he feared gang reprisals based on his "naming" gang members. Some of the protective custody requests stated that he had been threatened by gangs. On several occasions, Miller made the protective custody request and then declined protective custody after a hearing was held on his request. He was eventually placed in E Building D Dorm.

In the summer of 1996, Thomas Cummings, Rory Haywood, and Vericho Jackson were arrested and charged with the murder of Shelby County Deputy Jailer Dedrick Taylor. In May, pursuant to an order of Judge Axley, Haywood, Jackson, and Cummings arrived at SCCC as pretrial detainees. This gang-related killing resulted in substantial media coverage and many SCCC officials at the facility knew that Cummings, Haywood, and Johnson were members of the Traveling Vice Lords ("TVL") gang charged with the murder of Deputy Jailer Taylor. Neither Cummings, Haywood, nor Jackson were classified because they were pretrial detainees. It was the practice at SCCC not to classify pretrial detainees. Haywood, Cummings, and Jackson were housed in E Building D Dorm.

Gang violence is not uncommon at SCCC. Nor is it uncommon for gang members to attack non-gang members in E Building D Dorm. In August 1996, the first of several disciplinary reports was filed against inmate Thomas Cummings. In September 1996, after another Code Blue involving Cummings, a report was filed noting that inmate Cummings had threatened to kill a fellow inmate and charging Cummings with several violations. Again, in May, 1997, a disciplinary report was filed detailing the disciplinary problems of inmate Cummings and noting that Cummings had threatened to kill a fellow inmate. Based on these reports, SCCC officials knew or should have known that Thomas Cummings was a potential threat to other inmates. The same is true of Haywood. On several occasions, Haywood was cited for fighting with other inmates and threatening to kill other inmates. For example, Haywood was cited for striking other inmates with cans of shaving cream in a sock. The disciplinary reports of Cummings and Haywood show not only that these two individuals had attacked and threatened other inmates, but that SCCC officials were aware of this information. Finally, Mr. Miller's mother Reva Faye Wyatt, testified that she repeatedly called several SCCC officials to inform them that Mr. Miller was having problems with gang members. While Mr. Sprecher did not recall whether he spoke with Ms. Wyatt, at least some SCCC officials had conversations with Ms. Wyatt in which she expressed concern about gang violence and Mr. Miller.

On October 11, 1997, Cummings and Haywood attacked Miller while he was on the rock making a phone call. Miller was hit in the back of the head and knocked down. Officer Whitley witnessed the attack and called for a "Code Blue" indicating an inmate on inmate attack. At the time of the attack, Miller was wearing leg irons and Haywood and Cummings were not. After the attack, Miller was transported to the Regional Medical Center at Memphis where he was treated for injury to his right shoulder. As a result of the attack, Miller received a scalp puncture wound and was diagnosed with subluxation of the right shoulder.

Both sides offered testimony as to how it came to be that Haywood and Cummings were on the rock at the same time as Miller. The debate focused on whether Cummings and Haywood were permitted to be on the rock with Miller or whether they somehow escaped from their cells to be on the rock without permission from SCCC officials. Plaintiff offered proof that these men were frequently on the rock and that they did not escape from their cells. The Defendant argues that Cummings and Haywood were either able to jam the doors open by sticking something in the door or that the cell doors were not functioning properly at the time of the attack.

The Court finds that Cummings and Haywood had permission to be on the rock at the time of the attack and did not gain access to the rock by escaping from their cells by jamming their doors. There was ample testimony that these particular inmates were frequently on the rock for periods far in excess of the mandatory one hour per day. Furthermore, Defendant offered no credible proof that they broke out of their cells by jamming the doors. Defendants attempted to prove this point by introducing into evidence log books showing inmate rock time at the time of the attack. Specifically, entries for October 11, 1997...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Peart v. Seneca Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • 18 Agosto 2011
    ...that prison officials disregarded a readily available alternative bolsters a finding of deliberate indifference. Miller v. Shelby, 93 F.Supp.2d 892, 900 (W.D.Tenn.2000) (allowing inmates of different classifications to take recreation together constituted deliberate indifference); Jensen v.......
  • Stanton v. Joyner, Case No. 3:19-cv-00270
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • 6 Febrero 2020
    ...Tennessee applied the Sixth Circuit's failure-to-segregate standard and found Eighth Amendment violations in a case similar to Stanton's. In Miller v. Shelby County, protective-custody inmate Jacob Randall Miller was attacked during recreation time at the Shelby County Correctional Center (......
  • Stanton v. Joyner
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • 4 Marzo 2020
    ...a violation of a constitutionally protected right." Defendants also argue that theMagistrate Judge's reliance on Miller v. Shelby County, 93 F. Supp. 2d 892 (W.D. Tenn. 2000), is misplaced. While Defendants are correct that Miller is not controlling authority, their argument fails in that i......
6 books & journal articles
  • U.S. District Court: PRISONER ON PRISONER ASSAULT.
    • United States
    • Corrections Caselaw Quarterly No. 2000, February 2000
    • 1 Agosto 2000
    ...v. Shelby County 93 F.Supp.2d 892 (W.D.Tenn. 2000). A county jail inmate brought a [sections] 1983 action against a county alleging injuries suffered in an attack by fellow inmates were the result of the jail's practice of permitting inmates of different security levels to take recreation t......
  • U.S. District Court: GANGS SEPARATION.
    • United States
    • Corrections Caselaw Quarterly No. 2000, February 2000
    • 1 Agosto 2000
    ...v. Shelby County, 93 F.Supp.2d 892 (W.D.Tenn. 2000). A county jail inmate brought a [sections] 1983 action against a county alleging injuries suffered in an attack by fellow inmates were the result of the jail's practice of permitting inmates of different security levels to take recreation ......
  • U.S. District Court: SEGREGATION.
    • United States
    • Corrections Caselaw Quarterly No. 2000, February 2000
    • 1 Agosto 2000
    ...v. Shelby County. 93 F.Supp.2d 892 (W.D.Tenn. 2000). A county jail inmate brought a [sections] 1983 action against a county alleging injuries suffered in an attack by fellow inmates were the result of the jail's practice of permitting inmates of different security levels to take recreation ......
  • U.S. District Court: PROTECTIVE CUSTODY EXERCISE.
    • United States
    • Corrections Caselaw Quarterly No. 2000, February 2000
    • 1 Agosto 2000
    ...v. Shelby County. 93 F.Supp.2d 892 (W.D.Tenn. 2000). A county jail inmate brought a [sections] 1983 action against a county alleging injuries suffered in an attack by fellow inmates were the result of the jail's practice of permitting inmates of different security levels to take recreation ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT