Federal Appeals Court revives attacked Central Prison inmate’s lawsuit

A Central Prison inmate can move forward with his federal lawsuit against three prison guards after a ruling Tuesday from the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals. The inmate argues that the guards violated his rights when they failed to protect him from an attack.

US District Judge James Dever dismissed the lawsuit. But a split 2-1 appellate panel agreed the case could proceed.

“Brandon Case was incarcerated in the general population at Central Prison in North Carolina when he was brutally attacked by a ‘safekeeper’ — a designation given by the state prison system to certain individuals, including unusually violent pre-trial detainees,” Judge Nicole Berner wrote for the 4th Circuit majority. “The safekeeper was able to assault Case because prison correctional officers failed to take reasonable action to protect him from the known and substantial risk safekeepers pose to those in the general population — the very reason they are separated in the first place.”

Case accused correctional officers Brandon Beasley, Eric Urieta, and Kenny Custodio of “deliberate indifference” and violating his “right to humane conditions of confinement.”

“We conclude that genuine disputes of material fact remain on both the issue of the correctional officers’ liability and whether qualified immunity is appropriate,” Berner wrote. “Accordingly, we vacate the ruling of the district court and remand for further proceedings.”

A fellow inmate “violently attacked” Case, “striking him repeatedly in his face,” when he encountered a group of safekeepers. Case and the safekeepers were able to interact because the guards had not shut doors designed to separate the safekeepers from the general population, Berner explained.

“Case suffered serious injuries, including multiple fractured facial bones,” the judge wrote. “He underwent emergency surgery that included the insertion of metal implants secured by screws in his face. He is expected to suffer from chronic pain for the rest of his life as a result of the attack.”

Three days after the attack, the guards’ supervisor sent a memorandum warning that staff had become “complacent” about keeping safekeepers separated from the general population.

“The district court concluded that, based on the undisputed facts, Case could not succeed on the merits of his Eighth Amendment claims,” Berner wrote. “It also ruled in the alternative that, even if Case had succeeded in demonstrating material facts in genuine dispute with respect to his claims of cruel and unusual punishment, the Officers were each entitled to qualified immunity.”

The 4th Circuit majority disagreed. “There is ample evidence in the record from which a reasonable jury could find that Officers Beasley, Urieta, and Custodio were subjectively aware of the significant risk of serious harm resulting from safekeepers coming into contact with individuals incarcerated in the general population, including Case,” Berner wrote.

“Evidence in the record also supports an inference that, at the time of the attack, the Officers understood the safekeepers were likely to encounter individuals in the general population,” she added.

A jury “could reasonably conclude that each Officer could have abated the risk of safekeepers and the general population coming into contact with one another, yet failed to do so,” Berner wrote. “The Officers were required to keep the doors closed and locked, and to open them only after determining that it was safe. The risk would have been abated had they done so.”

“Moreover, once the Officers were put on notice that the safekeepers were returning to Unit 2, they could have simply pushed a button to close the sallyport doors. They quite literally only needed to lift a finger,” she added.

Case’s right was “clearly established,” helping defeat the officers’ argument that they were protected by qualified immunity, Berner wrote. She cited the 2016 4th Circuit precedent Cox v. Quinn.

Judge Toby Heytens joined Berner’s opinion. Both were appointed by former President Joe Biden. Judge Marvin Quattlebaum, a Trump administration appointee, dissented.

Case “has not shown a clearly established right that the challenged conduct violates,” Quattlebaum wrote.

“While the majority does not overtly say what clearly established right defendants violated, it reasons that this case is factually similar to Cox and points out that we found the defendants violated a clearly established right in that case to be free from violence from other prisoners. I am not convinced,” the dissent added.

“The error in both Case’s and the majority’s reasoning is that they read the right at issue too broadly,” Quattlebaum explained. “First, under both Supreme Court precedent and our own precedent, the right to be free from violence from other prisoners is too general to be clearly established.”

“[R]ead in its entirety, Cox recognizes, consistent with Supreme Court precedent, that a more specific right is needed to be clearly established than the generalized right to be protected from harm by a fellow prisoner,” the dissent explained.

“But rather than heeding the Supreme Court’s and our admonitions against defining the right at too high a level of generality, Case doubles down,” Quattlebaum wrote. “He argues Cox tells us it is clearly established that jail officials must protect prisoners from injury from other inmates. And he says we must apply that right here.”

Case failed to apply a more recent precedent case, King v. Riley in 2023, according to the dissent. “In a sense, I admire Case’s boldness,” Quattlebaum wrote. “He correctly recognizes that King dooms his case. His only option is to urge us to disregard it. But we can’t do that. As already explained, King does not contradict our precedent. And more importantly, it follows Supreme Court decisions.”

“King is relevant because of the legal principle it recognizes — that the right to be free from violence at the hand of other inmates is too broad to be clearly established under the Eighth Amendment,” the dissent argued. “And neither Case nor the majority offer any version of the right at issue other than the overly generalized right we rejected in King.”

“If our slate were clean, we could have an interesting debate on how broadly to define the right. But our slate isn’t clean. The Supreme Court has told us we must define rights narrowly,” Quattlebaum wrote.

“Federal Appeals Court revives attacked Central Prison inmate’s lawsuit” was originally published on www.carolinajournal.com.