Janes v. Hernandez ( 2000 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
Nos. 99-50092
& 99-50141
_____________________
BOBBY JOE JANES, III,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RICHARD HERNANDEZ, Sheriff of
Bastrop County, Texas; ET AL.,
Defendants,
BASTROP COUNTY,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court for
the Western District of Texas
_______________________________________________________
July 7, 2000
Before REAVLEY, SMITH and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
REAVLEY, Circuit Judge:
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.
COUNTY LIABILITY
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.
2
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.1
ATTORNEY FEE
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;2 Kerr v. Puckett.3 Because Janes
was not a prisoner when this complaint was filed, the fee limits of the Act did not
apply.
AFFIRMED.
1
74 F.3d 633, 650 (5th Cir. 1996).
2
150 F.3d 920, 924 (8th Cir. 1998).
3
138 F.3d 321, 322-23 (7th Cir. 1998).
3