Mayoral, Joel v. Sheahan, Michael F.

EASTERBROOK, Before RIPPLE, and EVANS, Judges. Circuit EVANS, T. TERENCE Circuit Judge. Mayoral While Joel a pretrial de- tainee at jail, the Cook County he was attacked other complaint inmates. His § this U.S.C. 1983 action says the attack rendered him paralyzed and disfig- ured. alleges suit that certain correctional officers were in- deliberately different to his welfare and that Cook County Sheriff Michael F. Sheahan and Captain David Theisen implement failed to policy which would consider gang affilia- housing tion jail. of inmates at the judge granted The district summary judg- ment for the defendants Mayoral ap- peals. facts, We take the in this fact- case, intensive light most favorable to Mayoral at this stage of the case. Mayoral, a former member of the Latin Kings gang, street was arrested for the murder of a member of the Latin Disci- ples, gang. rival At midnight on Novem- and disconnect- shoulder over his reached Cook was taken ber attempt, a third the call. On receiving ed he told where County jail, for a few member, his sister speak with managed to been that he had officer him to told other inmates rival before involved minutes charged crime life, phone. a Folks’ his it was member, up for because he feared hang that gang custody. protective he needed and that tier that the noticed Mayoral also But information. the officer recorded The “hooch,” prison alcohol. type a reeked of in a longer no he was Mayoral said when orange drinking an inmates observed He annoyed and became officer the gang, hooch. to be he believed substance on information over scratched by Hooch, widely produced apparently, form. jail and is County Cook in the inmates I of the to Division Mayoral was taken at shakedowns confiscated frequently division, he where security jail, a maximum the jail. He uniform. then prison his received in- observed had also Officer Jackson he returned court, when and went and orange substance drinking mates officer told an again he p.m. around very loud.” “being they were noted custody. He was protective he needed to be appeared that the inmates noted She however, section taken, general to a Sgt. William Ja- notified She intoxicated. he Tier B-3 where I known Division and locked the scene nak, arrived on who Jackson. by in Officer Sharon checked was An in their cells. of the inmates most protec- needed her he to tell Mayoral tried a O’Kelly and few named Jamie busy and tion, was rushed she she said but told up. locked Janak to be refused others day room. tier’s him into his not control he could O’Kelly that if fact, she should was, than busier She have to remain would the inmates guys, “cross-watching” was She have been. his and left the area told up. Janak locked that because tiers —which means drunk seemed supervisor that watching two was she was short-staffed from hooch.' a correc- working as had been tiers. She 5:30 to the tier at about returned at the time year or so for a tional officer he would O’Kelly that and told inmate tes- incident, deposition was and there O’Kelly prom- if the inmates release sufficient did not have timony that she O’Kelly which guys,” “his to control ise cross-watching two tiers. to be experience log- in her Jackson noted to do. agreed summoning Also, means of radio —a her from released the inmates were book had not and working not help fast —was Sgt. Janak.” “per cells their days. for several working been from his turn, permission says he received tier, Mayoral he As soon as entered poli- Jail the lockdown. to end supervisors an inmate asked was approached tier before search of require cies a Mayoral Eventually, affiliation. gang his lockdown, but a from releasing inmates King. Latin a fonner that he was admitted time no search conducted. this theirs was saying that gathered, Inmates served, Mayoral soon Dinner was not they could have deck “Folks” While he his sister. tried to call again there. When “People” aof member hour after less than an phone, on the call to telephone to make tried Mayo- ended, out. fight broke lockdown him sister, up came an inmate his cell, O’Kelly and but to reach ral tried tele- that particular could use said O’Kelly into corner. him backed others He phone. it was a Folks’ because phone (a weapon shank him with an inmate stabbed phone; use the other tried to prison lingo) and others hit him on the curring as often as once or twice a week in head with mop wringer. Someone also Division I. Not surprisingly, “Folks” do threw Mayoral, a television at him hitting not like “People,” such as Mayoral, who in the head. beating The lasted around 15 kill “Folks.” Despite what seems Ultimately, Mayoral minutes. was lying general knowledge of gangs jail, in the unconscious on floor. It was later Officer Jackson testified at her deposition determined that he had been stabbed that she did not know anything about gang around 16 times. inmates, affiliations of that she would not Jackson stated that inmates fight- know a gang sign or gang if colors she saw ing 6:20. She claims to have immediate- them. She claimed not to be of any aware ly called Janak from a telephone, but Ja- gang-related jail, violence at the and she nak denies that spoke he with her at said that no inmate ever asked her for time. At her deposition, Jackson seemed protection because he was a member of a to have forgotten all about the events of gang: November and had to be reminded that Q Are you familiar with what inmates an place incident took on her tier on that belong to gangs? what reminded, date. Once she said loud A No. noise and profanity are inspired what her Q to call Do Sgt. you ever any who in see turn called an inmates flash- “all hand, ing available.” On gang signs? the other says he heard about the riot when he A No. I don’t—I don’t—No. heard “all an available” call at 6:45. He Q you Would gang know a sign you if does not know who made the call. Captain saw one? Theisen thought it was Officer Leonardo A No. Brown. But Brown said that the first he Q you Would gang know you knew of if the riot colors was when he heard the saw “all them? available” call at 6:45 when he was picking up dinner trays on another tier. A No.

When B-3, Theisen arrived at Tier one Q Are you any aware gang-related inmate, presumably Mayoral, already jail? violence at the unconscious on floor. Officers who A Hearsay. responded to the call described what they Q you ever Have gang- observed any saw they when arrived at B Tier as a related violence? “gang riot” involving inmates, numerous some of whom were intoxicated. Contrary A No. period time involved here before She acknowledged that she had heard the arrived,

help it ordinarily takes only names of gangs on television: around minutes additional for officers to Q You don’t know the any names of respond to an “all available” call. gangs? Captain Theisen estimates that over 80 A I’ve heard them like on TV. percent of inmates in I in Division members, gang Captain Theisen with about 60 testified that it would percent be likely these affiliated that within Disciples, with the time that Mayoral Lords, Vice or the Latin had been Kings. into The booked until the gangs assault, are divided into two orga- umbrella other inmates would be able to nizations known as “People” gain knowledge “Folks.” of the nature of the crime Gang-related common, fairly violence is oc- with which he was charged. ability prisoner’s pro- Department virtually of Cor- all of County

The Cook (CCDOC) policies regard- himself, imposes on has no the Constitution rections tect members, rival even ing separating gang those in duty protect their officials for which in cases where the crime prisoners. charge from harm from other of a inmate incarcerated is murder (7th is Peters, Langston 100 F.3d 1235 v. rival Lieutenant Isaac gang member. Cir.1996). custody protective Chatman testified that against which The standard automatically offered is is the deliberate indif conduct measured member: “He’s killed rival has set out Farmer ference standard did he did.” When the one that whatever Brennan, 1970, 128 511 U.S. put thought asked whether (1994). A cannot es plaintiff L.Ed.2d 811 said, risk, the one him Chatman “He’s Eighth or Four tablish violation of the with the crime.” charged who is showing that the teenth Amendment in the Mayoral’s case was resolved neither must a negligent, officials were but Ac summary judgment. district court on that the acted with plaintiff show officials our is de novo. Sum cordingly, review Rather, causing harm. purpose him mary may granted only when judgment found liable prison a official cannot be genuine there issues of material are no Eighth ... un- under the Amendment judg to fact and the movant is entitled disregards less the official knows of and 56. ment a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. as risk to inmate or excessive health the and We construe facts inferences safety; official both be aware the must light nonmoving party. the favorable to the of facts which inference could from the Inc., Lobby, 477 U.S. Liberty

Anderson v. drawn a substantial risk seri- of (1986). 242, 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 106 S.Ct. exists, ous harm and he must draw also whether, the The based on issue here the inference. and the facts in the record inferences at 837. A must show both plaintiff Id. facts, drawn from those Jack which can be objective danger de- risk of and the son, Janak, Theisen, a matter of and knowledge fendants had actual of the risk. law, deliberately to indifferent Henderson, facts at 844-45. The are “sub- safety and that the health and ject to in the usual demonstration result lack of a was likewise not the policy Farmer, 842, ways_” 114 S.Ct. safety. of deliberate indifference to inmate as to whether 1970. The determination pretrial is a detainee Eighth there was an Amendment violation arises the whose claim under Fourteenth properly can rest on inferences drawn Due rather Amendment’s Process Clause the in the from facts record: Eighth Amend directly than under the the prison requi- official had Whether ment, Cooley, but as we said Weiss v. knowledge site substantial risk is (7th Cir.2000), there is “lit 230 F.3d 1027 subject to question of fact demonstration two practical tle difference between the ways, including in the usual inference County standards.” See v. Green Tesch ... from circumstantial evidence (7th Cir.1998); Lake, 157 F.3d at 473-74 may factfinder prison conclude (7th Sheahan, 196 839 Henderson F.3d of a risk from knew substantial 1244, Cir.1999), denied, U.S. cert. very the fact the risk obvious. (2000). 2691, 147 The S.Ct. L.Ed.2d Furthermore, plaintiff presents if a evi- Eighth against protects Amendment showing that substantial risk punish dence infliction of “cruel and unusual away per- longstanding ment.” Because officials have taken inmate attacks by vasive or noted prison housing officials units ascertain gang-related ac- past, and a defendant exposed has been tivities could violate the Eighth Amend- risk, regarding information then the ment. person Walsh was a known to be could permit evidence be sufficient to targeted by a gang. He had asked for fact trier of to find that the official in fact protective custody; then he deliberately knowledge. had actual necessary It is not committed an prison infraction of rules that the official desire the harm to befall placed order to be cells, in disciplinary an inmate. apparently thinking those were safer than

Farmer specific protective also tells us how custody. That seemed to be a knowledge of the risk must be. The good plan until prison placed a mem- official cannot escape liability by showing ber of in the cell with him. That that he did not know that a plaintiff was us, situation differs from the one before especially likely to by be assaulted and we decline to extend Walsh specific prisoner eventually committed present situation. the assault. It does not matter whether The number of gang members the risk comes from multiple sources or by housed high rep CCDOC source, from one and it does not matter resentation of certain gangs place prisoner whether the is at risk for reasons an unmanageable prison burden on admin personal to him or all prison because istrators were they required separate face the risk. Referring to Hutto v. ers gangs. Would the be re 678,

Finney, 437 U.S. 681-82 n. quired to have a tier for Gangster Disci (1978), 57 L.Ed.2d 522 the Court said ples, a tier for Kings, Latin etc.? We that if rape were so common that “some argument were told at that there is cur potential victims dared not sleep in [but] rently a pending lawsuit to prevent that ... stead would leave their beds and sort of a housing pattern on the basis that spend night the clinging to the bars near would, effect, it in become a separa racial station,” guards’ est the obviously it would tion of inmates. Whether pres that case be irrelevant to liability that the officials not, ently exists or were the CCDOC to guess could not precisely beforehand Farmer, separate affiliation, 843-44, by gang would attack whom. and at race, 114 Hutto at 681-82, S.Ct. quoting effectively by thus it only 98 would be a Gross, S.Ct. 2565. See Haley also v. matter 86 of time before a lawsuit would be (7th Cir.1996); Mifflin, Pavlick v. F.3d 630 Plus, filed. it unmanageable would be an (7th Cir.1996). 90 F.3d 205 practical manage jail burden to the popu lation. What happen if there were Mayoral’s against claims Sheriff Sheah- many too Disciples for a tier and few too Captain and Theisen are that in them Latin Kings. It is a situation such as this capacities they showed deliberate one which causes us recognize again to by indifference the their failure to a implement Wolfish, in Bell policy wisdom set out which took into gang-relat- account U.S. 520, 547, ed risks to safety deciding when L.Ed.2d (1979): where to house jail. inmates within the

Mayoral grounds argument on our de- problems that day-to- [T]he arise in the Mellas, cision in Walsh v. 837 F.2d 789 day operation of facility a corrections (7th Cir.1988). are not susceptible easy of solutions.

In Walsh we held that Prison the failure of administrators therefore should at officials Stateville Correctional Center be accorded wide-ranging deference in to screen inmates being assigned special to adoption the policies and execution of activity jail. judgment pervasive in their are Given practices

and that jury justified internal and of could be preserve presence gangs, needed to order to maintain discipline finding testimony and institutional hers like incredible security. deliberately ignorant. The Farmer and designed give standard is not to officials Jackson, Ser- against The claims Officer zone refuge” the motivation to “take their Captain Theisen in geant knowledge. actual however, ignorance between present capacities, individual Jackson, assuming again that that somewhat different situation. Given correct, separate gangs, not is seen given does view of the facts could be happen or gang-related problems once responsible trying trier fact to of week, it of twice was clear as matter zone. inhabit that law that these officers were deliberate- addition, In at her de- Jackson testified to a risk ly indifferent known substantial riot in was position that the which harm, they were entitled to so injured says out at She she broke 6:20. summary judgment in favor? their notified at that time. denied Janak When we combine the Farmer her and telephone was on with for granting standard with standard about claims not to have heard the riot summary judgment, we conclude until he heard an “all available” call at favorably the inferences are drawn when least, At very discrepan- 6:45. these im Mayoral, judgment was summary to questions cies raise about whether there Janak. properly granted Jackson and delay summoning help. was a Theisen, Captain As there insufficient part, Sgt. For his Janak knew he ei evidence to raise inference that He some inmates were drunk. suffi knowledge had ther risk or ciently on aware of trouble the tier He was deliberately indifferent to risk. authority obtain to lock down inmates. properly dismissed. O’Kelly most of inmates. Or least Janak, Mayoral As to Jackson and and others refused to be locked down. preclude has raised issues fact which That some inmates were drunk and suffi judg quick summary end to the case on ciently powerful to to obey refuse Janak’s ment. That there was a situation which more order raises than inference of harm inmates posed significant risk to significant there was a risk of harm on this clear to two officers. Furthermore, tier. before Janak released deposition that notified testified at his O’Kelly the inmates he told inmate to con custody protective Jackson that he needed (again, assuming “his guys.” trol In and she him off. the after brushed case) truth of view of the noon, noted Jackson that the inmates deliberately to have his seems abdicated rowdy and seemed to be intoxicated. She put in responsibility and the fate of the orange noticed sub drinking them in hands of mates another inmate. We to no enough stance. She was concerned say hope practice; is not common to Janak, Sgt. of the tify who locked most least, it seems unwise could they inmates in their cells. were let When as a of sign seen deliberate indifference cells, they of their continued to be out happens. O’Kelly It is what obvious that loud. One could draw an inference keeping peace; not interested in significant aware risk to Jackson was claimed, he, it is was the one who stabbed B-3, spe inmates in Tier and to Mayoral Perhaps controlling the Mayoral. he was cifically. testimony Add to at her this her It troops, peaceful but not for deposition gang purposes. that she was not aware of impossible is say as matter of law that kept completely separate. The plaintiff one who leaves such a volatile situation simply contends that gang ought affiliation under the control of an inmate is not delib- to be screening factor at the divisional erately indifferent to inmate health level so that it is a factor in placement. safety. It question jury for a record, On this trier of fact certainly decide. could conclude the Sheriff took no

Accordingly, judgment is Affirmed adequate measures to protect In PaRt and Reversed In Part. The claims from gang jail. violence in the Given the against Jackson and Janak are Remanded extent of gang control facility, of this to the district court for further proceed- trier of fact certainly could determine that ings. even highest those at the level of responsi- bility only could have remained unaware of RIPPLE, Judge, concurring Circuit deplorable such a jail state of security by part and dissenting part. conscious avoidance of the knowledge or I agree that grant summary judg- by reckless indifference. Sergeant ment to Janak and Officer Jack- son in their individual capacities must be

reversed. view, my

In claim against Captain

Theisen his capacity individual ought to summary

survive judgment. Captain

Theisen was the shift commander. During watch, his officers, one his subordinate Reg GARRATT, Plaintiff-Appellant, G. Sergeant go, had to with his hat hand, to an leader and plead for the end of a episode by violent KNOWLES, Nancy James E. Knowles, drunken Captain inmates. Theisen had Knowles, Charles L. Katherine operational situation, responsibility for the Strasburg, Margaret Knowles prison but the had gangs operational con- Schink, E. Keyes, Knowles Lawrence Management trol. was not managing; it Euguene Goodson, R. Defrees & Fisk had responsibilities its surrendered Hupp, Defendants-Appel W. John inmates. circumstances, Under these lees. jury could determine that the shift com- No. 00-2835. mander could have remained unaware of deplorable only by state of security Appeals, United States Court of conscious avoidance1 of the knowledge or Seventh Circuit. by reckless indifference. 23, Argued Feb. 2001. The claim against Sheriff Sheahan also must survive summary judgment. I can- 28, Decided March 2001. join my colleagues’ characterization of this claim seeking impose rigid,

constitutionally imposed duty on the Sher-

iff to structure living arrangements so that

inmates of different affiliations are Brennan, 825, Inc., 508, (7th

1. See Fanner v. 1999); 511 U.S. 843 n. F.3d 511 Cir. West 1970, (1994); L.Ed.2d (7th Cir.1997). Wayrnire, 114 F.3d Illinois, Higgins v. Correctional Med. Servs. of

Case Details

Case Name: Mayoral, Joel v. Sheahan, Michael F.

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Date Published: Mar 27, 2001

Citation: 245 F.3d 934

Docket Number: 00-1034

Court Abbreviation: 7th Cir.