×
You have 1 more free article available this month. Subscribe today.
PLRA Attorney Fee Cap Doesn't Apply After Release; Texas County Liable in Attack
The court of appeals for the Fifth circuit held that a Texas county was liable for failing to protect an arrestee from assault in its jail. The court also held that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) attorney fee cap did not apply to a case filed by someone who was not in government custody when the suit was filed.
Bobby Janes was imprisoned in the Bastrop county jail in Texas on traffic charges. While in a jail cell with felons, Janes was severely beaten by the other detainees. Janes sued the county and jail for failing to protect him from attack by other prisoners. At trial Janes proved the county had a policy of mixing prisoners with no propensity to violence with violent prisoners. Prisoners had to defend themselves or suffer abuse.
A jury found the sheriff of Bastrop county liable for failing to protect Janes. Janes was awarded an unspecified amount of damages and attorney fees, which were affirmed in appeal. [Editor's Note: A recent pattern in published Fifth circuit rulings is to avoid giving the dollar amount awarded in prison and jail litigation when it comes to damages and attorney fees. Since the court is constantly whining about its overcrowded docket perhaps it believes that publishing sizeable damage awards upheld on appeal would only encourage more prisoner litigation, rather than discourage official abuse.]
The appeals court held that Bastrop county was liable for the attack on Janes. "Janes only needed to prove that the policymaker knew there was a substantial risk of serious harm to the inmates under his policy or custom of housing all manner of inmates together. That policy created an unsafe jail and the substantial risk that inmates would be injured. Fights were the order of the jail, to which the sheriff was necessarily deliberately indifferent. That proof satisfies the legal requirement for county liability."
The court held that 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, which limits attorney fees in most prison and jail litigation, did not apply in this case because Janes was not a prisoner when the complaint was filed. See: Janes v. Hernandez, 215 F.3d 541 (5th Cir. 2000).
Bobby Janes was imprisoned in the Bastrop county jail in Texas on traffic charges. While in a jail cell with felons, Janes was severely beaten by the other detainees. Janes sued the county and jail for failing to protect him from attack by other prisoners. At trial Janes proved the county had a policy of mixing prisoners with no propensity to violence with violent prisoners. Prisoners had to defend themselves or suffer abuse.
A jury found the sheriff of Bastrop county liable for failing to protect Janes. Janes was awarded an unspecified amount of damages and attorney fees, which were affirmed in appeal. [Editor's Note: A recent pattern in published Fifth circuit rulings is to avoid giving the dollar amount awarded in prison and jail litigation when it comes to damages and attorney fees. Since the court is constantly whining about its overcrowded docket perhaps it believes that publishing sizeable damage awards upheld on appeal would only encourage more prisoner litigation, rather than discourage official abuse.]
The appeals court held that Bastrop county was liable for the attack on Janes. "Janes only needed to prove that the policymaker knew there was a substantial risk of serious harm to the inmates under his policy or custom of housing all manner of inmates together. That policy created an unsafe jail and the substantial risk that inmates would be injured. Fights were the order of the jail, to which the sheriff was necessarily deliberately indifferent. That proof satisfies the legal requirement for county liability."
The court held that 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, which limits attorney fees in most prison and jail litigation, did not apply in this case because Janes was not a prisoner when the complaint was filed. See: Janes v. Hernandez, 215 F.3d 541 (5th Cir. 2000).
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
Janes v. Hernandez
| Year | 2000 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 215 F.3d 541 (5th Cir. 2000) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Conclusion | Jury Verdict |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
Janes v. Hernandez, 215 F.3d 541, 215 F.3d 541 (5th Cir. 07/07/2000)
[1] U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
[2] Nos. 99-50092, & 99-50141
[3] 215 F.3d 541, 215 F.3d 541, 2000
[4] July 07, 2000
[5] BOBBY JOE JANES, III, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
V.
RICHARD HERNANDEZ, SHERIFF OF BASTROP COUNTY, TEXAS; ET AL., DEFENDANTS,
BASTROP COUNTY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
[6] Before Reavley, Smith and Emilio M. Garza, Circuit Judges.
[7] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reavley, Circuit Judge
[8] Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
[9] Bobby Joe Janes was injured by another inmate in the Bastrop County jail and has recovered judgment against the County on a jury verdict that found the unsafe condition of the jail to be due to the Sheriff's policy and deliberate indifference. The County complains on appeal of the lack of evidence that the County policymaker, the Sheriff, knew of the unsafe condition and also objects to the amount of the attorney fee award. We affirm.
[10] COUNTY LIABILITY
[11] Janes was arrested because of traffic offenses and was confined with more than eight other inmates, some of them felons who had histories of violence. Janes was threatened with death, awakened in his bunk as he was being bound, kicked in the head and had his face injured when smashed into the wall. Despite the continuous fighting and abuses within the large cell, and the admitted fact that the jail officers expected the prisoners to fight and abuse one another during the duty shifts, the Sheriff maintained a policy of confining together inmates of no propensity for violence with dangerous people. Whatever their history, no one was denied access to helpless inmates until the former demonstrated violent behavior in the jail. His conduct outside of the jail did not matter. The policy was to leave the inmate to self-defense unless an officer on an hourly round learned of abuse and obtained a superior's consent to do more to protect the inmate.
[12] Bastrop County argues that it was not proved that the policymaker knew the prisoners who injured Janes were a risk of harm to him. That is not necessary. Janes only needed to prove that the policymaker knew there was a substantial risk of serious harm to the inmates under his policy or custom of housing all manner of inmates together. That policy created an unsafe jail and the substantial risk that inmates would be injured. Fights were the order of the jail, to which the Sheriff was necessarily deliberately indifferent. That proof satisfies the legal requirement for county liability. Hare v. City of Corinth, Ms.*fn1
[13] ATTORNEY FEE
[14] The County argues that the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e limited the attorney fee to less than the district court awarded. We agree with the Eighth and Seventh Circuits which have held that this Act applies to only those suits filed by prisoners. Doe v. Washington County;*fn2 Kerr v. Puckett.*fn3 Because Janes was not a prisoner when this complaint was filed, the fee limits of the Act did not apply.
[15] AFFIRMED.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion Footnotes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[16] *fn1 . 74 F.3d 633, 650 (5th Cir. 1996).
[17] *fn2 . 150 F.3d 920, 924 (8th Cir. 1998).
[18] *fn3 . 138 F.3d 321, 322-23 (7th Cir. 1998).
[1] U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
[2] Nos. 99-50092, & 99-50141
[3] 215 F.3d 541, 215 F.3d 541, 2000
[4] July 07, 2000
[5] BOBBY JOE JANES, III, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
V.
RICHARD HERNANDEZ, SHERIFF OF BASTROP COUNTY, TEXAS; ET AL., DEFENDANTS,
BASTROP COUNTY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
[6] Before Reavley, Smith and Emilio M. Garza, Circuit Judges.
[7] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reavley, Circuit Judge
[8] Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
[9] Bobby Joe Janes was injured by another inmate in the Bastrop County jail and has recovered judgment against the County on a jury verdict that found the unsafe condition of the jail to be due to the Sheriff's policy and deliberate indifference. The County complains on appeal of the lack of evidence that the County policymaker, the Sheriff, knew of the unsafe condition and also objects to the amount of the attorney fee award. We affirm.
[10] COUNTY LIABILITY
[11] Janes was arrested because of traffic offenses and was confined with more than eight other inmates, some of them felons who had histories of violence. Janes was threatened with death, awakened in his bunk as he was being bound, kicked in the head and had his face injured when smashed into the wall. Despite the continuous fighting and abuses within the large cell, and the admitted fact that the jail officers expected the prisoners to fight and abuse one another during the duty shifts, the Sheriff maintained a policy of confining together inmates of no propensity for violence with dangerous people. Whatever their history, no one was denied access to helpless inmates until the former demonstrated violent behavior in the jail. His conduct outside of the jail did not matter. The policy was to leave the inmate to self-defense unless an officer on an hourly round learned of abuse and obtained a superior's consent to do more to protect the inmate.
[12] Bastrop County argues that it was not proved that the policymaker knew the prisoners who injured Janes were a risk of harm to him. That is not necessary. Janes only needed to prove that the policymaker knew there was a substantial risk of serious harm to the inmates under his policy or custom of housing all manner of inmates together. That policy created an unsafe jail and the substantial risk that inmates would be injured. Fights were the order of the jail, to which the Sheriff was necessarily deliberately indifferent. That proof satisfies the legal requirement for county liability. Hare v. City of Corinth, Ms.*fn1
[13] ATTORNEY FEE
[14] The County argues that the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e limited the attorney fee to less than the district court awarded. We agree with the Eighth and Seventh Circuits which have held that this Act applies to only those suits filed by prisoners. Doe v. Washington County;*fn2 Kerr v. Puckett.*fn3 Because Janes was not a prisoner when this complaint was filed, the fee limits of the Act did not apply.
[15] AFFIRMED.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion Footnotes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[16] *fn1 . 74 F.3d 633, 650 (5th Cir. 1996).
[17] *fn2 . 150 F.3d 920, 924 (8th Cir. 1998).
[18] *fn3 . 138 F.3d 321, 322-23 (7th Cir. 1998).