Benton v. Walker Cnty., Case No.: 6:17-cv-00384-JHE

TERRY BENTON, Plaintiff, v. WALKER COUNTY, ALABAMA, et al., Defendants.

Case No.: 6:17-cv-00384-JHE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA JASPER DIVISION

March 24, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER¹

Plaintiff Terry Benton brings this action for violation of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 3-3). After the undersigned ruled on a motion for partial dismissal, the following claims remain: (1) a § 1983 Failure to Protect Claim against Officer Nicholas Harbin in his individual capacity; (2) § 1983 Failure to Protect Claim Against Sheriff Underwood in his individual capacity; (3) § 1983 Failure to Provide Adequate Medical Care Claim against Sheriff Underwood in his individual capacity; (4) § 1983 Failure to Fund Claim against Walker County; and (5) a state law claim for negligence, wantonness and/or recklessness against Officer Harbin. (Doc. 15). Discovery has closed (doc. 47), and the parties have filed multiple motions for summary judgment (docs. 53, 55, 58, 61). Those motions have been fully briefed and are ripe for review.

For the reasons explained below, Defendant Sheriff Underwood's motion for summary judgment (doc. 53) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; Defendant Nicholas Harbin's motion for summary judgment (doc. 55) is DENIED; Defendant Walker County'smotion for summary judgment (doc. 58) is GRANTED; and Plaintiff Benton's motion for summary judgment (doc. 61) is DENIED.

I. Standard of Review

Under Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is proper "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Rule 56 "mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The moving party bears the initial burden of proving the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Id. at 323. The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party, who is required to "go beyond the pleadings" to establish there is a "genuine issue for trial." Id. at 324. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). A dispute about a material fact is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

The Court must construe the evidence and all reasonable inferences arising from it in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157, (1970); see also Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255 (all justifiable inferences must be drawn in the non-moving party's favor). Any factual disputes will be resolved in Plaintiff's favor when sufficient competent evidence supports Plaintiff's version of the disputed facts. See Pace v. Capobianco, 283 F.3d 1275, 1276-78 (11th Cir. 2002) (a court is not required to resolve disputes in the non-moving party's favor when that party's version of the events is supported by insufficient evidence). However, "mere conclusions and unsupported factual allegations are legally insufficient to defeata summary judgment motion." Ellis v. England, 432 F.3d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (citing Bald Mtn. Park, Ltd. v. Oliver, 836 F.2d 1560, 1563 (11th Cir. 1989)). Moreover, "[a] mere 'scintilla' of evidence supporting the opposing party's position will not suffice; there must be enough of a showing that the jury could reasonably find for that party." Walker v. Darby, 911 F.2d 1573, 1577 (11th Cir. 1990) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252).

The applicable Rule 56 standard is not affected by the filing of cross-motions for summary judgment. See Gerling Global Reinsurance Corp. of Am. v. Gallagher, 267 F.3d 1228, 1233 (11th Cir. 2001). Indeed, the Eleventh Circuit has explained that "[c]ross-motions for summary judgment will not, in themselves, warrant the court in granting summary judgment unless one of the parties is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on facts that are not genuinely disputed." United States v. Oakley, 744 F.2d 1553, 1555 (11th Cir.1984) (citation omitted).

II. Summary Judgment Facts

Plaintiff Terry Benton ("Benton") was arrested on July 16, 2015, for failure to register as a sex offender, booked into the Walker County Jail, and assigned to the "B-Dorm." (Doc. 64-1 at 50-56). B-Dorm is a general population dorm that houses pretrial and convicted sex offenders. (Doc. 64-1 at 33 (122:3-8); doc. 62-2 at 23-24 (85:9-86:18); doc. 62-3 at 28 (103:17-105:21)). The individual cells in B-Dorm do not lock, and inmates can move freely throughout the dorm. (Id.). Upon arrival, Benton was not assigned a cell, but slept on a mat on the floor in the day room for two weeks until he was "invited" to share a cell. (Doc. 64-1 at 5 (10:19-13:6)).

A. Conditions at Walker County Jail

Benton testifies that inmates in the jail were known to fashion "homemade" weapons by chipping away at the concrete walls and that he observed fights in the jail that resulted in serious injury. (Doc. 64-1 at 7-8, 32 (21:25-22:21, 120:10-19)). Although Sheriff Underwood was awarethat inmates fought routinely, there was no procedure for keeping track of the number of inmate fights or their severity. (Doc. 62-2 at 17-18 (59:7-63:10)). Sheriff Underwood was unaware of whether jail staff disciplined inmates for fighting. (Id. at 30 (112:12-113:16)).

Prior to Sheriff Underwood taking office, in 1995,² Walker County entered into a federal consent decree, requiring the jail to meet certain minimal operational standards. (Doc. 62-3 at 7, 9 (21:1-5, 26:10-28:14)); see Terrell v. Herring, CV 93-B-2690-J. Finding compliance, the Court terminated the Consent Order in 2006. See Terrell v. Herring, CV 93-B-2690-J at doc. 83.

Under the Consent Decree, to be minimally staffed, there was supposed to be at least fourteen officers assigned to each shift to ensure the safe operation of the jail. (Doc. 62-3 at 13-14 (44:2-15, 46:12-48:21)). During the relevant time period, it was the Sheriff's practice to have five to seven officers on shift. (Id.). When there were five officers on duty, three officers were locked in stationary positions - central control, pod control, and booking, leaving only one officer to attend to the mail dorms and one officer for the female dorms. (Id.).

Sheriff Underwood testified that he has never been able to fully staff the jail and that inadequate staffing compromises the ability of the officers to respond to problems and effectively monitor inmates, which could create a dangerous environment where fights are more likely to occur. (Doc. 62-2 at 16-17 (56:24-59:6)). Sheriff Underwood further testified that he cannot hire more staff because the Walker County Commission would not approve his requests to do so. (Id. at 20-21 (73:5-74:17)).

In 2014, following reports that inmates had escaped, by going to the post-office across the street to pick up contraband and returning without detection, the Jail Administrator TrentMcCluskey gave an interview to a news reporter and stated that the jail was ill-equipped with inferior door locks; the perimeter fence was held together with clothes hangers and had requested thirty-three additional security cameras and more lighting. (Doc. 62-3 at 11-12 (35:17-38:21)). McCluskey informed Sheriff Underwood and the County Commission that the video surveillance system was "very inadequate" and needed to be upgraded with at least thirty-three additional cameras to ensure the safety of inmates and the correctional officers. (Id. at 22-24 (80:1-86:1)). McCluskey also testified that if an inmate assault occurred in one of these thirty-three blind spots, the guards would not learn about it until afterwards. (Id.).

On August 5, 2015, Sheriff Underwood sent the County Commission a letter explaining the jail was in need of repair and requesting an additional $735,000.00 to make repairs and improvements to the jail, based on a recommendation from an outside consulting company. (Doc. 62-2 at 7 (19:19-20:1); doc. 63-6 at 2-20). Sheriff Underwood did not receive a response from the County Commission, who, instead, cut his budget four out of five consecutive years by four to five percent each year. (Doc. 62-2 at 15 (51:6-52:10)).

The capacity at Walker County Jail is 278 inmates. (Doc. 62-2 at 16 (54:15-55:8)). On August 17, 2015, the jail was near capacity with 273 inmates. (Doc. 63-3 at 2).

B. Harbin's Employment

Former Sheriff Tirey hired Nicholas Harbin as a correctional officer in 2006. (Doc. 63-1 at 5 (11:7-19)). Prior to working at Walker County Jail, Harbin had no experience as a correctional officer and received two weeks training at Jail School in Selma, Alabama. (Id.). Harbin does not establish policy or procedure for the jail. (Id. at 6 (16:19-24)). Sheriff Underwood was the chief policy maker for the jail; he was responsible for making sure the jail had written policies and procedures, that the jail staff was trained, and that the policies and procedures were being followedand enforced. (Doc. 62-2 at 8-9 (23:9-26:2)).

C. The August 17, 2015 Lunch Tray Incident and Punishment

On August 17, 2015, Harbin was working the day shift as a "rover." (Doc. 63-1 at 11-12 (37:22-38:25)). Harbin's duties that day included feeding the inmates. (Id.). Harbin began feeding inmates lunch at 10:28 AM. (Doc. 63-1 at 31). Harbin obtained a head count, and Benton got in line to receive his tray of food. (Doc. 64-1 at 8 (23:4-24:13)). Benton placed his food tray under the table, got back in the food line, and got a second tray of food from the jail trustee helping Harbin. (Id.). Although the practice is one food tray per inmate, there is no official rule as to how many food trays an inmate can have. (Doc. 63-2 at 18 (66:15-67:19)). And, it was common...