Jody O'Neil Harrison v. Grantt Culliver
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6093
11th Cir.2014Background
- Inmate Jody O’Neil Harrison was attacked on Aug. 6, 2008 at W.C. Holman Correctional Facility when another inmate cut his throat with a box-cutter–type blade; Harrison sued prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference.
- No officer was posted in the specific back hallway where the assault occurred; monitoring relied on roving officers on the main hall and a live-feed camera that did not record and displayed multiple cameras in a loop.
- The knife was not recovered and the record does not establish how Pounders obtained it; some prior assaults in the facility involved weapons fashioned from razors or box cutters (33 weapon-involved assaults facility-wide from 2005–2008; 4 on the back hallway).
- Holman had a written Standard Operating Procedure (SOP 14-002) regulating the hobby craft shop: hobby cards required, searches on exiting, tools locked, biweekly unannounced searches, and an express prohibition on inmates purchasing box cutters/utility knives; evidence showed some SOP noncompliance but not widespread proof of notice to the warden.
- Magistrate judge ordered production of incident reports; Harrison sought additional discovery (invoices and dispensing/disposal policies for cutting instruments) which was partly denied; district court granted summary judgment for defendants and denied further discovery as moot; Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether back-hallway security posed an objectively substantial risk of serious harm | Harrison: lack of posted officer and limited camera monitoring made the back hallway a high-risk zone for inmate-on-inmate violence | Defendants: roving officers, a continuously monitored live camera, and administrative steps (relocation of high-traffic areas) provided reasonable security; few assaults on that hallway | Court: No substantial risk shown — limited, isolated assaults insufficient to show a prison "where violence and terror reign"; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether hobby-shop policies and enforcement created a substantial risk / supervisory liability | Harrison: insufficient oversight and enforcement allowed inmates to obtain/keep utility blades, creating a substantial risk and putting supervisors on notice | Defendants: written SOPs existed, tools were prohibited/controlled, some isolated noncompliance occurred but no evidence of a pervasive pattern or notice to supervisors | Court: No showing of a flagrant, persistent pattern or deliberate indifference by supervisors; even assuming tool came from hobby shop, evidence insufficient to defeat summary judgment |
| Whether denial/refusal to permit additional discovery (invoices, dispensing/disposal policies) was an abuse of discretion | Harrison: additional discovery was necessary to show pattern of noncompliance and supervisor notice | Defendants: core incident reports and policies had been produced; requested invoices were overbroad or post-dated the incident | Court: No abuse of discretion — Harrison had weapon-incident reports and failed to show how denied discovery caused substantial harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (prison official liability requires deliberate indifference to a known, substantial risk of serious harm)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (prison officials must take reasonable measures to guarantee inmate safety)
- Marsh v. Butler Cnty., Ala., 268 F.3d 1014 (11th Cir. en banc) (objective risk + subjective deliberate indifference framework)
- Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352 (11th Cir. 2003) (supervisory liability requires causal connection; respondeat superior not enough)
- Purcell ex rel. Estate of Morgan v. Toombs Cnty., Ga., 400 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2005) (isolated attacks may be insufficient for constitutional claim; pervasive violence required)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (policymaking liability does not permit micromanagement; need for clear municipal/supervisory fault)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity two-step analysis)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (qualified immunity framework)