×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Georgia Prisoners Retain Right to Safety
The Georgia state supreme court ruled that prisoners retain a right to protection and safety from other prisoners. Marvin Yizar, a Georgia state prisoner, is a former Atlanta policeman serving a life sentence for murder. Yizar had previously arrested and prosecuted many of the prisoners with whom he now shares residency. As a result, he has been attacked several times while housed at the Valdosta Correctional Institution. Despite repeated requests to be housed in protective custody or be transferred to a federal prison Georgia prison officials refused to do so.
Yizar then filed a writ of mandamus in state court seeking a court order mandating his placement in protective custody. The trial court denied the writ holding that what Yizar requested was "a discretionary matter, not something he is entitled to as a matter of right." The court also denied Yizar's request to file in forma pauperis. The Georgia supreme court reversed and remanded.
The court noted that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy which will not issue to compel a public official to perform a discretionary act unless a gross abuse of that discretion has been shown by the petitioner. Examining Yizar's petition the court held that because he claimed to face a continuing threat of attack while in general population and that prison officials were well aware of the risk he faced and refused to protect him, Yizar's petition should be considered on its merits. The trial court erred in refusing to file it.
The court applied the U.S. supreme court's Farmer v. Brennan , 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994) ruling which held that a prison official is liable if he is aware of a threat to a prisoner's safety and "disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it." This is an important ruling by which Georgia state prisoners can enforce their federal rights in state court. The court held that there is no legal duty for prison officials to place a prisoner in protective custody upon his request and that prison officials must exercise their discretion in determining the appropriate measures to avoid harm to each prisoner. "But, while the decision to place an inmate in protective custody is clearly within the discretion of prison officials, Yizar's petition alleges a gross abuse of that discretion under the standard of Farmer v. Brennan ." The court also instructed the trial court, on remand, to consider Yizar's affidavit of indigency. See: Yizar v. Ault , 462 S.E.2d 141 (GA S.Ct. 1995).
Yizar then filed a writ of mandamus in state court seeking a court order mandating his placement in protective custody. The trial court denied the writ holding that what Yizar requested was "a discretionary matter, not something he is entitled to as a matter of right." The court also denied Yizar's request to file in forma pauperis. The Georgia supreme court reversed and remanded.
The court noted that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy which will not issue to compel a public official to perform a discretionary act unless a gross abuse of that discretion has been shown by the petitioner. Examining Yizar's petition the court held that because he claimed to face a continuing threat of attack while in general population and that prison officials were well aware of the risk he faced and refused to protect him, Yizar's petition should be considered on its merits. The trial court erred in refusing to file it.
The court applied the U.S. supreme court's Farmer v. Brennan , 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994) ruling which held that a prison official is liable if he is aware of a threat to a prisoner's safety and "disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it." This is an important ruling by which Georgia state prisoners can enforce their federal rights in state court. The court held that there is no legal duty for prison officials to place a prisoner in protective custody upon his request and that prison officials must exercise their discretion in determining the appropriate measures to avoid harm to each prisoner. "But, while the decision to place an inmate in protective custody is clearly within the discretion of prison officials, Yizar's petition alleges a gross abuse of that discretion under the standard of Farmer v. Brennan ." The court also instructed the trial court, on remand, to consider Yizar's affidavit of indigency. See: Yizar v. Ault , 462 S.E.2d 141 (GA S.Ct. 1995).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Yizar v. Ault
| Year | 1995 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 462 S.E.2d 141 (GA S.Ct. 1995) |
| Level | State Supreme Court |
462 S.E.2D 141
MARVIN YIZAR v. ALLEN AULT
S95A1249.
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA
265 Ga. 708; 462 S.E.2d 141; 1995 Ga. ; 95 Fulton County D. Rep. 3061
October 2, 1995, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] FULTON County Superior. Trial Judge: Hon. Frank M. Eldridge. Date of Judgment Appealed: 02-17-95. Notice of Appeal Date: 03-10-95. Lower Ct # :E35649.
DISPOSITION:
Judgment reversed and remanded.
COUNSEL:
For MARVIN YIZAR: PRO SE Appellant: Marvin Yizar, Valdosta, GA.
For ALLEN AULT: Allen Ault, Atlanta, GA, Hon. Michael J. Bowers, A. G., Department of Law, Atlanta, GA. Daryl A. Robinson, A.A.G., Department of Law, Atlanta, GA. Neal B. Childers, A.A.G., Atlanta, GA.
JUDGES: THOMPSON, Justice. All the Justices concur.
OPINIONBY: THOMPSON
OPINION:
[*708] [**141] THOMPSON, Justice.
Marvin Yizar is currently incarcerated in the general population of the Valdosta Correctional Institution where he is serving a life sentence for murder. n1 He filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus and affidavit of indigency, in which he alleged that he had served in law enforcement in the metro Atlanta area for twenty years and that he has been attacked several times in that facility because he has arrested and prosecuted many of the inmates with whom he is housed. He sought the writ to compel Allen Ault, Commissioner of the Department Corrections, to transfer him to protective custody at the Wayne Correctional Institution or to return him to the federal prison [***2] in Jesup, Georgia, where he was formerly housed without incident.
n1 See Yizar v. State, 262 Ga. 33 (413 S.E.2d 448) (1992) (affirming conviction, and remanding for consideration of claim of ineffective assistance of counsel); Yizar v. State, 263 Ga. 312 (431 S.E.2d 114) (1993) (affirming following remand).
The trial court denied filing the petition under O.C.G.A. § 9-15-2 (d), based on its conclusion that "what petitioner requests is a discretionary matter, not something he is [**142] entitled to as a matter of right." The request to file in forma pauperis was also denied.
1. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy which will not issue to compel a public officer to perform a discretionary act, unless a gross abuse of that discretion has been shown. O.C.G.A. § 9-6-21 (a); Chisholm v. Cofer, 264 Ga. 512 (448 S.E.2d 369) (1994).
The court may deny the filing of a civil action under O.C.G.A. § 9-15-2 (d), only if the pleading shows on its face such a complete absence of any justiciable issue of law or fact that the court [***3] could not reasonably grant any relief against any party named therein. Yizar's petition alleges that he continues to face a substantial risk of harm in the general population of the facility where he is presently housed. He further alleges that prison officials are aware of this condition and that his efforts to obtain administrative relief have been futile.
The Eighth Amendment prohibits deliberate indifference by prison officials to inmate safety if the official knows that an inmate faces "a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (114 S. Ct. 1970, 1984, 128 L. Ed. 2d 811) (1994).
[A] prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be [*709] drawn that a substantial risk of harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.
Id. 114 S. Ct. at 1979.
We agree with respondent that there is no legal duty to place a prisoner in protective [***4] custody upon his request, and that prison officials must, in the exercise of discretion and judgment, determine the appropriate measures to avoid harm to each inmate. But, while the decision to place an inmate in protective custody is clearly within the discretion of prison officials, Yizar's petition alleges a gross abuse of that discretion under the standard of Farmer v. Brennan. As the pleading is not completely devoid of any justiciable issue of law or fact, it was error to deny its filing. Accordingly, the petition should be examined for consideration of the merits of Yizar's claim.
2. The untraversed affidavit of indigency in support of the request to proceed in forma pauperis showed on its face a complete absence of funds or income from any source, thus evidencing Yizar's inability to pay costs associated with the litigation. Because the court concluded that the mandamus petition failed to state a cause of action, it summarily denied the request to proceed in forma pauperis. Upon remand, the merits of the request should also be considered.
Judgment reversed and remanded. All the Justices concur.
MARVIN YIZAR v. ALLEN AULT
S95A1249.
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA
265 Ga. 708; 462 S.E.2d 141; 1995 Ga. ; 95 Fulton County D. Rep. 3061
October 2, 1995, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] FULTON County Superior. Trial Judge: Hon. Frank M. Eldridge. Date of Judgment Appealed: 02-17-95. Notice of Appeal Date: 03-10-95. Lower Ct # :E35649.
DISPOSITION:
Judgment reversed and remanded.
COUNSEL:
For MARVIN YIZAR: PRO SE Appellant: Marvin Yizar, Valdosta, GA.
For ALLEN AULT: Allen Ault, Atlanta, GA, Hon. Michael J. Bowers, A. G., Department of Law, Atlanta, GA. Daryl A. Robinson, A.A.G., Department of Law, Atlanta, GA. Neal B. Childers, A.A.G., Atlanta, GA.
JUDGES: THOMPSON, Justice. All the Justices concur.
OPINIONBY: THOMPSON
OPINION:
[*708] [**141] THOMPSON, Justice.
Marvin Yizar is currently incarcerated in the general population of the Valdosta Correctional Institution where he is serving a life sentence for murder. n1 He filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus and affidavit of indigency, in which he alleged that he had served in law enforcement in the metro Atlanta area for twenty years and that he has been attacked several times in that facility because he has arrested and prosecuted many of the inmates with whom he is housed. He sought the writ to compel Allen Ault, Commissioner of the Department Corrections, to transfer him to protective custody at the Wayne Correctional Institution or to return him to the federal prison [***2] in Jesup, Georgia, where he was formerly housed without incident.
n1 See Yizar v. State, 262 Ga. 33 (413 S.E.2d 448) (1992) (affirming conviction, and remanding for consideration of claim of ineffective assistance of counsel); Yizar v. State, 263 Ga. 312 (431 S.E.2d 114) (1993) (affirming following remand).
The trial court denied filing the petition under O.C.G.A. § 9-15-2 (d), based on its conclusion that "what petitioner requests is a discretionary matter, not something he is [**142] entitled to as a matter of right." The request to file in forma pauperis was also denied.
1. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy which will not issue to compel a public officer to perform a discretionary act, unless a gross abuse of that discretion has been shown. O.C.G.A. § 9-6-21 (a); Chisholm v. Cofer, 264 Ga. 512 (448 S.E.2d 369) (1994).
The court may deny the filing of a civil action under O.C.G.A. § 9-15-2 (d), only if the pleading shows on its face such a complete absence of any justiciable issue of law or fact that the court [***3] could not reasonably grant any relief against any party named therein. Yizar's petition alleges that he continues to face a substantial risk of harm in the general population of the facility where he is presently housed. He further alleges that prison officials are aware of this condition and that his efforts to obtain administrative relief have been futile.
The Eighth Amendment prohibits deliberate indifference by prison officials to inmate safety if the official knows that an inmate faces "a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (114 S. Ct. 1970, 1984, 128 L. Ed. 2d 811) (1994).
[A] prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be [*709] drawn that a substantial risk of harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.
Id. 114 S. Ct. at 1979.
We agree with respondent that there is no legal duty to place a prisoner in protective [***4] custody upon his request, and that prison officials must, in the exercise of discretion and judgment, determine the appropriate measures to avoid harm to each inmate. But, while the decision to place an inmate in protective custody is clearly within the discretion of prison officials, Yizar's petition alleges a gross abuse of that discretion under the standard of Farmer v. Brennan. As the pleading is not completely devoid of any justiciable issue of law or fact, it was error to deny its filing. Accordingly, the petition should be examined for consideration of the merits of Yizar's claim.
2. The untraversed affidavit of indigency in support of the request to proceed in forma pauperis showed on its face a complete absence of funds or income from any source, thus evidencing Yizar's inability to pay costs associated with the litigation. Because the court concluded that the mandamus petition failed to state a cause of action, it summarily denied the request to proceed in forma pauperis. Upon remand, the merits of the request should also be considered.
Judgment reversed and remanded. All the Justices concur.