Bozeman v. Orum
September 01, 2005
Some times the bad guys do lose, even in this world of qualified immunity. The case of Bozeman v. Orum, 2005 WL 2088362 (11th Cir., 2005) illustrates why.
Seventeen year old Mario Haggard died while in custody at the Montgomery County Detention Facility in Alabama, an apparent victim of the sort of "jailhouse justice" often hidden from public scrutiny. His estate sued his jailers, claiming unreasonable force and deliberate indifference to his medical needs.
This was not a Fourth Amendment claim. The Circuits struggle with what standard to apply to an incarcerated person who is victimized by jailers. A sentenced inmate can bring an Eighth Amendment claim contending cruel and unusual pubishment. In the Eleventh Circuit, a pretrial detainee, such as Mr. Haggard, must bring a due process claim. This later claim is governed by Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1033 (2d Cir. 1973). Was the guard's use of force "applied in [a] good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm?"
It has never been obvious to me why pretrial detainees, cloaked as they are in the presumption of innocence, are required to make out such a high standard when they are abused by guards. Assault a man on the street, who has, let's say, made bond, and a more liberal Fourth Amendment standard of objective reasonableness applies. Why do we throw those presumed innocent to the wolves?
In any case, Haggard went berzerk one night. He flooded his cell, refused to comply with officers trying to subdue him, spat toilet water at guards and sang out such prayers of despair as "Jesus I am coming to see you." After a tense standoff, guards moved in to take control.
Before the guards went in, one was overheard by a prisoner to threaten Haggard with an "ass" kicking. Haggard was told he'd be in for a "rude awakening" if guards had to enter the cell. Once the officers subdued him he was held face down while one guard pushed his face into a mattress. And, Haggard was overheard to have given up, to which a guard responded: "Oh, we don't think you've had enough." Haggard died of asphyxia.
The defendants moved for summary judgment, and when it was denied, filed an interlocutory appeal. They were brazen, or is it foolish?, enough to ask for qualified immunity.
The cirucit agreed that the facts here were sufficient to support an inference of malice or sadism. The court then held what should have been obvious by now: Malicious and sadistic use of force against prisoners is against clearly established law -- even in Alabama.
The court also concluded that when the guards dragged the apparently lifeless body of Haggard from his cell and waited 14 minutes to call for medical help they were deliberately indifferent to Haggard's serious medical needs. Again, not even a close call.
Read the case carefully to discern what careful discovery made possible the withstanding of summary judgment. Without the statements from prisoner witnesses, the case would undoubtedly have been dismissed as the officers would contend that they saw, heard and did no evil.